Opposite Ends of the Same Stick? Multi-Method Test of the Dimensionality of Individualism and Collectivism

By V. Taras, Riikka M. Sarala, P. Muchinsky, Markus Kemmelmeier, Theodore M. Singelis, A. Avsec, Heather M. Coon, D. Dinnel, W. Gardner, S. Grace and 14 more. 2014

122 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/dd0d248b3e14a855268bcfbc8b37e5fb8a131322

How researchers see this paper

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

In Applied Psychology

1. Gita Taasoobshirazi

In Social Psychology

1. Jennifer Lewis Priestley
2. André van Hoorn
3. Gita Taasoobshirazi
4. K. Fatehi

In Sociology and Political Science

1. Jennifer Lewis Priestley
2. André van Hoorn
3. Gita Taasoobshirazi
4. K. Fatehi

Citations in the corpus

• The expanded view of individualism and collectivism: One, two, or four dimensions? (2020, background): “As proposed by Hofstede (1980) [in his national dimensions studies], individualism was considered the opposite of collectivism, meaning that the two were at the ends of the same continuum (Oyserman et al., 2002; Taras et al., 2013), implying uni-dimensionality.”
• Individualist–Collectivist Culture and Trust Radius (2015, methodology): “Given the strength of this correlation, it seems that both these indicators measure individualism– collectivism on a single continuum, as a low individualism score implies a high score on collectivism and vice versa (cf. Taras et al., 2014).”