Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Achievement Values

By Michelle R. Nelson, S. Shavitt. 2002

176 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Communication, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/58369c5b9e7d846abfa48b829b70cdccb6772ea7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Communication

1. Jennifer Lewis Priestley
2. Fuan Li
3. Hean Tat Keh
4. Lerzan Aksoy
5. Gita Taasoobshirazi
6. K. Fatehi

In Social Psychology

1. Ayşegül Özsomer
2. Jennifer Lewis Priestley
3. T. Hascher
4. Carlos J. Torelli
5. Fuan Li
6. Hean Tat Keh
7. Lerzan Aksoy
8. I. van der Veen

In Sociology and Political Science

1. Ayşegül Özsomer
2. S. Carvalho
3. Jennifer Lewis Priestley
4. T. Hascher
5. Carlos J. Torelli
6. Fuan Li
7. Hean Tat Keh
8. Lerzan Aksoy

Citations in the corpus

• Brand Concepts as Representations of Human Values: Do Cultural Congruity and Compatibility between values Matter? (2012, background): “In addition, high-HI people are particularly concerned with self-reliance but do not place importance on displays of success (Nelson and Shavitt 2002).”
• Relations between adolescents’ self-evaluations, time perspectives, motivation for school and their achievement in different countries and at different ages (2005, background): “The relative importance of more social and affective aspects compared to more cognitive aspects, however, might not be the same in different school cultures and different societies, as value preferences differ between cultures (Hofstede, 2001) – and this applies especially to achievement values (McC”
• The expanded view of individualism and collectivism: One, two, or four dimensions? (2020, methodology): “Some, for example, used the scale for comparing various psychological and social constructs among the United States people and other countries (e.g. Chiou, 2001; Cukur et al., 2004; Gouveia et al., 2003; Karramaju et al., 2008; Komarraju and Cokley, 2008; Nelson and Shavitt, 2002).”
• Application of the scenario questionnaire of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism to the assessment of cultural distance and cultural fit (2005, unknown): “The most intensively studied orientations have been HC, HI, VC, and VI (Chiou, 2001; Nelson & Shavitt, 2002; Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, & Gelfand, 1995; Strunk & Chang, 1999).”
• Dimensionality of individualism–collectivism and measurement equivalence of Triandis and Gelfand’s scale (2007, methodology): “First, the work by Triandis and his colleagues has been well received and there is an increasing use of this measurement scale in the literature (Chirkov, Lynch, & Niwa, 2005; Kemmelmeier et al., 2003; Nelson & Shavitt, 2002; Ng & Van Dyne, 2001; Park, Rehg, & Lee, 2005; Tjosvold, Law, & Sun, 2003”