Application and Validation of Heterogram Analysis on Individualism-Collectivism Data across Three Countries

The prevalent method to analyze data from several groups of individuals is to define some ad hoc boundaries of individuals—for example geographic, ethnic or gender boundaries and then compare statistical means and deviations between groups. This method assumes homogeneity within each ad hoc group and treats differences among individuals in each group as subgroup variations. Instead of imposing ad-hoc boundaries, we used a new method "heterogram analysis" (Maruyama, 1999) that looks for response datagenerated grouping of individuals and the meaningfulness of each emerging group. This approach was applied to individual-level individualism-collectivism data from three countries. The results showed five individual types that cut across traditional geographic, ethnic and gender boundaries. These types were validated by two other measures. Implications of findings are discussed.

[1]  Yuzhen Ye.  Clustering Algorithms , 2021, Wireless RF Energy Transfer in the Massive IoT Era.

[2]  A. Hwang,et al.  The Relationship Between Individualism-Collectivism, Face, And Feedback And Learning Processes In Hong Kong, Singapore, And The United States , 2003 .

[3]  Maxim Voronov,et al.  The Myth of Individualism-Collectivism: A Critical Review , 2002, The Journal of social psychology.

[4]  R. Bhagat.  Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations , 2002 .

[5]  Simon S. K. Lam,et al.  Relationship between organizational justice and employee work outcomes: a cross‐national study , 2002 .

[6]  John J. Sosik,et al.  Work-Group Characteristics and Performance in Collectivistic and Individualistic Cultures , 2002, The Journal of social psychology.

[7]  Gene H. Lerner.  Finding "Face" in the Preference Structures of Talk-in-Interaction , 1996 .

[8]  M. Gelfand,et al.  Horizontal and Vertical Dimensions of Individualism and Collectivism: A Theoretical and Measurement Refinement , 1995 .

[9]  J. Wagner.  Studies of Individualism-Collectivism: Effects on Cooperation in Groups , 1995 .

[10]  T. Holtgraves,et al.  Interpersonal underpinnings of request strategies: general principles and differences due to culture and gender. , 1992, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[11]  H. Triandis,et al.  Individualism and Collectivism: Cross-cultural Perspectives on Self-ingroup Relationships We Wish to Thank Our Research Collaborators for Stimulating Ideas, Data, and Moral Support in Carrying out a Complex Set of Studies. They , 2022 .

[12]  J. Wagner,et al.  Individualism-Collectivism: Concept and Measure , 1986 .

[13]  Magoroh Maruyama.  Mindscapes: How to understand specific situations in multicultural management , 1985 .

[14]  G. Hofstede,et al.  Culture′s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values , 1980 .

[15]  Magoroh Maruyama.  Mindscapes and Science Theories , 2006 .

[16]  Heather M. Coon,et al.  Rethinking individualism and collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. , 2002, Psychological bulletin.

[17]  Magoroh Maruyama.  Heterogram analysis: Where the assumption of normal distribution is illogical , 1999 .

[18]  H. Eysenck.  Individualism and collectivism , 1996 .

[19]  Michael Harris Bond,et al.  The handbook of Chinese psychology. , 1996 .

[20]  M. Maruyama.  Individual epistemological heterogeneity across cultures and its use in organizations , 1995 .

[21]  Penelope Brown,et al.  Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage , 1989 .

[22]  T. L. Schwartz.  The Logic of Collective Action , 1986 .

[23]  E. Goffman.  Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-To-Face Behavior , 1967 .