Please direct your browsers to

http://jhenner.wordpress.com/


The new site should work better with deafread.com. I also like the ability to categorize my articles according to topic. That makes it easier for me to quickly retrieve and process them when needed.

Thanks for understanding and don't forget to update your bookmarks!

Pancultural self-enhancement reloaded: A meta-analytic reply to Heine (2005)


It is a funny coincidence that so soon after I read an article arguing that dividing cultures according to individualist and collectivist constructs is futile and that geographic swaths cannot be classified according to arbitrary means, I read another article which attempts to do exactly that. Both articles make strong arguments in favor of their theory. I must admit that I am biased towards the former and I don’t really believe in attempts to generalize cultures as either individualist or collectivist, but instead, as vibrant, fluid social creations that react to the needs of each person in them.

Sedikides, Gaertiner, & Vevea (2005) respond to claims that self-actualization is a western phenomenon with the assertion that researchers who believe such things do not understand that individualist and collectivist cultures actualize differently. Using western individualist standards of actualization with members of collectivist cultures will show that collectivist cultures cannot actualize in the same way as individualist cultures; however, it does not show that members of collectivist cultures cannot actualize (Sedikides, Gaertiner, & Vevea, 2005).

All cultures can actualize (Sedikides, Gaertiner, & Vevea, 2005). The critical difference is that members of individualist cultures actualize through self determination while members of collectivist cultures actualize through the collective (Sedikides, Gaertiner, & Vevea, 2005). In order to show that cultures actualize differently depending on their culture construct, Sedikides, Gaertiner, & Vevea (2005) did a literature review and then performed a meta-analysis on them to provide empirical evidence that all cultures actualize and do so differently. My concern is that cultural variations cannot be measured accurately. Fiske (2002) demonstrated that cultural and linguistic difficulties make establishing good measurements a near impossible task. While Sedikides, Gaertiner, & Vevea (2005) use these measurements well to make clear their point that all cultures can actualize, that the data is possibly faulty makes Sedikides, Gaertiner, & Vevea’s point rather moot.

Aside from the generalizations in the article regarding western/individualist and eastern/collectivist tendencies, Sedikides, Gaertiner, & Vevea (2005) do well to point out that all cultures actualize and do so differently. Americans do not actualize in the same way as the Swedish, even though both are considered individualist cultures. In order to determine how a culture actualizes, it’s important to find what each culture values.

For the sake of this discussion, let’s assume that Deaf culture is collectivist. If we use the Fiske (2002) model, we can claim that Deaf culture is neither collectivist or individualist, but composed of a collective of people, each with different goals, but bound together by a common force. If we use the Triandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990) model, then Deaf culture is collectivist with idiocentric tendencies influenced by upbringing and affluence. Sedikides, Gaertiner, & Vevea (2005) would point out that generally accepted research claims that Deaf culture is truly collectivist. If Deaf culture is truly collectivist, then Deaf individuals seeking to actualize do so within the context of the group. A Deaf person attempting to actualize must question his or her role in relation to the group and accept the core values of the culture and community while growing into the provided role. Therein is actualization.

Given that collectivism and individual actualization is not so cut and dried, it is likely that the actualization process differs for each individual. This would pertain more with Ladd (2003)’s theories of Deafhood.

Resources

Fiske, A.P. (2002) Using individualism and collectivism to compare cultures – A critique of the validity and measurements of the constructs: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin. 128(1). 78-88. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database

Ladd, P. (2003). Understanding deaf culture: in search of deafhood. Tonawanda, NY. Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., & Vevea, J.L. (2005). Pancultural self-enhancement reloaded: A meta-analytic reply to Heine (2005). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. (89)4. 539-551. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.

Triandis, H.C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C.H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59(5). 1006-1020. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database

Using individualism and collectivism to compare cultures – A critique of the validity and measurements of the constructs: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002).

It seems to me that psychologists and researchers are apt to classify their research material into categories, even if none are necessary. While psychologists and researchers try to hold true to positivist thought and maintain complete objectivity, it is quite impossible to remove themselves entirely from human nature and, some might argue, from the research itself (Gergen, 1985). It appears to be a human tendency to classify. Our ancestors classified according to type and we continue to classify according to qualities.

Of late I have been reading about Individualism and collectivism. I am aware that Deaf studies researchers have classified Deaf culture as collectivist and my thesis hinges on what many perceive to be collectivist traits. Individualism and collectivism are not new categories in psychology. The concepts have been around for over a century (Fiske, 2002). That these categories exist is a testament to human need for clear boundaries. Earlier research I’ve read (and some later ones, too, but we won’t go into that right now) have attempted to establish certain cultures as either collectivist or individualist. Western culture, for example, is usually classified as individualist and eastern culture, collectivist (Fiske, 2002; Trandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). Culture; however, is not so stark. Individualism and collectivism, for example, are not exactly opposites (Fiske, 2002). When describing individualism and collectivism in general terms, psychologists tend to refer to the person’s relationship to the group (Trandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). Collectivists tend to derive a sense of self from their role in the greater community. Individualists derive a sense of self from their own desires. There is; however, no negative correlation between individualists and collectivists (Fiske, 2002). In most dyad categories, the categories themselves are polar opposites. Black is the opposite of white, so given two categories, an item is either black or white. Culture, according to Fiske (2002) is neither black or white, but a rainbow of colors. While we like our nice boundaries between individualist and collectivist cultures, researchers have found that very rarely is a culture completely individualist or completely collectivist (Fiske, 2002).

Trandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990) attempted to ameliorate this situation with the terms, “idiocentric” and “allocentric”. While it was helpful to classify cultures as collectivist with idiocentric qualities or individualist with allocentric qualities, the terminologies still allowed for broad classifications. A good comparison would be gender. Some people insist that there are only male and female genders. Trandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990)’s terminology allows for men with feminine characteristics or women with masculine characteristics. Fiske (1990) on the other hand, would argue that even Trandis, McCusker, & Hui’s classifications are still too extreme. How might one measure a gender trait? Is it a masculine trait to prefer sports over dolls? Fiske (2002) believes that it may be impossible to truly classify a culture as either individualist or collectivist.

Let’s begin with the general distinction that western cultures are individualist and eastern cultures are collectivist. Recent studies have shown that Japanese culture, in many ways, is more individualist than western cultures, depending on how the studies are set (Fiske, 2002). Korea is just as collectivist as North American cultures (Fiske, 2002). Given that two of the major countries in the “east” are individualist, it is a misconception to claim that eastern cultures are generally collectivist. Fiske (1990) mentions that it is also improper to assume that country has a set culture which is either collectivist or individualist. American does not have a singular culture because it is not homogenous. This holds true for other countries as well. Japan, which is considered pretty homogenous, has many different cultures, each with different norms and values (Fiske, 2002). That society is so heterogeneous makes it hard to use general terms, at least when culture is involved.

There is also not a singular type of individualist or collectivist culture (Fiske, 2002). Cultures considered collectivist will not be similar. What a particular culture values as important for its collective soul is not the same as what another culture values for its collective soul. The collective cultures of China and India are not the same. That there are many types of collective cultures holds true for individualist cultures as well. Individualist cultures are not all self-serving, hedonists (Fiske, 2002). Scandinavian culture, which is more individualist than North American culture, is non-competitive and finds referring to the self, shameful (Fiske, 2002).

Even in cultures, whether or not a person has collectivist or individualist tendencies varies with age. Post-college aged adults tend to be more individualist while college-aged persons tend to be more collectivist (Fiske, 2002). That means a person from a culture generally considered collectivist may be, at any point in his or her life, either collectivist or individualist. For me, this points to the fluidity of the sense of self, and for cultural affiliation. A person is not only of one culture (Fiske, 2002). Personally, Deaf culture is not the only culture for which I consider myself a member. I am also a part of Jewish culture as well as an overall American culture. I do not consider my membership in different cultures a bad thing. Many leaders in the Deafhood movement have considered the general American/hearing culture to be a colonial culture. While I understand that hearing culture has served to oppress me and “colonize” my primary culture, I bear no more anger towards it than I do my puppy who occasionally bites me by accident. It is possible that those who lash out at colonial hearing culture may be in the immersion-emersion stage of self-actualization, but I am in no position to judge (Parham & Helms, 1985).

That culture is fluid is a matter of course. I was not born into Deaf culture. I migrated into it. It is questionable whether or not a Deaf person who is actualized into Deaf culture can truly leave it; but I can envision émigrés abandoning their parent culture in favor of an adopted culture. Truly labels cannot contain culture. Gergen (1985) points out that language is a harsh tool for manipulating abstract and subjective concepts. I am inclined to agree with him.

People are rather insistent that things be either this or that. In order to test whether something is either this or that, or in this case, whether a culture is individualist or collectivist, a system of measures need to be developed. In the past, psychologists used tests which consists of a statement and a ranking (Fiske, 2002). For example, a person taking a individualist/collectivist measurement assessment might find a question which reads “I do not mind taking orders from my parents”. The person would then rank the validity of that statement from 1 to 5. There are many immediate problems with this form of assessment. First, the numerical scale used to rank the validity of the statement is arbitrary. Is the statement of a person who circled 4 twice as valid as the statement of a person who circled 2? Even if the statements are measured on an ordinal scale, the numbers have no quantifiable meaning. That a person circled a 4 for the previously mentioned statement tells me nothing about whether or not the person minds taking orders from his or her parents. It is an arbitrary snap-shot statistic which is dependant on the participant’s frame of mind while taking the assessment as well as his or her understanding of the sentence.

Given that language is a social beast means that culture has an enormous impact on how language is used and understood (Gergen, 1985). Two speakers of English from different cultures may have different semantic interpretations of the same sentence (Fiske, 2002). This is particularly true of extremely subjective, vague terms such as “how much”, “privacy’, or various distance adverbs (Fiske, 2002). Two people from different cultures confronted with the same statement may circle different numbers although in truth, their cultures value that particular statement equally. The different interpretation of the sentences destroyed any statistical truth the statement might’ve had. If speakers of the same language might interpret the same sentence differently, we can only imagine the difficulties translation might incur.

Deaf people tend to rely on visual language. Visual language is processed quite differently than verbal. If reality is constructed on language, then a Deaf reality is nicely different than a hearing reality. If a Deaf person were to take the cultural assessment mentioned above, it is likely that Deaf scores could not accurately be compared to hearing scores since each statement would have a different truth bearing for the Deaf person.

Given that measuring individualism and collectivism is meaningless, and it is not likely than an adequate system will be developed soon, it is moot to attempt to classify cultures as either individualist or collectivist (Fiske, 2002). It is pointless to compare cultures since cultures are rarely formed in relation to another (Fiske, 2002). Cultures should be assessed and crystallized as a meaningful self without arbitrary labels.

I have not seen any assessment that proves Deaf culture to be collectivist, but any such assessment would be irrelevant. It would have to compare Deaf culture to other collectivist cultures and individualist cultures. Fiske (2002) has shown the futility of such an endeavor. I do not have enough information to determine the validity of claims that Deaf culture is collectivist; however, I am willing to accept that there is a tendency for deaf people to actualize through the group. This, to me, shows more of a need to communicate fluidly with people who understand the culture than any form of pure collectivism.

Fiske, A.P. (2002) Using individualism and collectivism to compare cultures – A critique of the validity and measurements of the constructs: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin. 128(1). 78-88. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database

Gergen, K. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist. 40(3). 266-275. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.

Parham & Helms (1985) Relation of racial identity attitudes to self-actualization and affective states of black students. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 32(3) 431-440. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.

Triandis, H.C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C.H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59(5). 1006-1020. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.

Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism


Individualist and collectivist constructs impact more than how persons in either construct perceive themselves. They also possibly affect cognitive processes (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). That cognitive processes are influenced by cultural affiliation is important in psychological research. Positivist research assumes that scientific inquiry (in this case, studies about cognitive processes) creates universal information. Data gained from empirical study, according to positivists, can be blanketed across all people from all cultures. Given that people in individualist and collectivist cultures not only have a different sense of self, but a different cognitive process, it is only natural that any pertinent study needs to use a multi-method mode of research (Trandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). Triandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990) emphasize that although a completely positivist stance towards research is counterproductive, a completely constructionist view is too extreme as well. Either/or stances fragment the psychological community and slow the advance of the psychological sciences (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). It’s important to combine both positivist and constructionist thought in a multi-method inquiry in order to provide a broad view of research.

Triandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990) emphasize that creating two separate labels for vast groups of people and cultures creates divisions which do not naturally exist. This view was later echoed by Ben-Ari and Lavee (2004). Not all groups exhibit completely individualist or completely collectivist traits. Some individualist groups have collectivist qualities and some collectivist groups have individualist qualities. Triandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990) determined that there needs to be a word which distinguishes the collectivist-individualist and the individualist-collectivist. The word “idiocentricism” defines a collectivist with individualist traits and the word “allocentrisim” defines an individualist with collectivist traits (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990).

Idiocentricism and allocentricism are important words to add to the Deaf studies vocabulary. I, personally, have not seen any definitive research on why the Deaf community is collective. It seems to me that researchers begin with the assumption that the Deaf community is collective and this assumption is pervasive. I’ve seen it referenced to in Ladd’s book, as well as Holcomb, Humphries, and Padden’s books. My own experiences in the Deaf community shows that the community is not collectivist as generally accepted, but shares traits with individualist cultures. I am not sure whether or not the collectivist Deaf community mirrors the colonial culture, but I understand that the community is collectivist with several idiocentric traits.

The differences between collectivist and individualist cultures is not as simple as defining the role of the self (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). A better method for establishing boundaries, according to Triandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990) is to use “ingroups”. An ingroup is defined as a group which shares a common fate (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). The immediate family is a more familiar ingroup, but the ingroup can also include a community, a region, a religion, or a country. Persons in a collectivist culture define themselves by their relation to the ingroup (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). The ingroup establishes social roles and behavioral norms. Ingroups also have a clear social hierarchy and dissent is considered inappropriate because it diminishes the social harmony of the ingroup (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990).

If the Deaf community were purely collective, then it would have a strongly defined ingroup which shares the traits listed by Triandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990). We can determine that the Deaf community is its own main ingroup. Not all collective cultures have a singular ingroup (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). If the Deaf community followed this trend, then we can assume that members of the Deaf community have one ingroup that is composed of the local Deaf community, and a greater ingroup which is composed of the entire Deaf community. It is possible that these ingroups are partitioned further according to Deaf clubs, sports, and schools; however, that adds a level of complexity for which I am not prepared to deal with. The various ingroups which compose Deaf culture do establish behavior and social norms. These behaviors are enforced through discourse and other social processes. Members of the Deaf community do employ different social behaviors than the greater hearing communities. For example, the pragmatic systems of American Sign Language allow for direct intercourse of a type that English language users in America disapprove. Language pragmatics, especially in American Sign Language, correlate with the social norms of the culture which adopts them. That members of the Deaf community tend to define themselves in accordance to their role in the Deaf community (school, club participation, “oh there are a lot of deaf people in san Francisco…”) is evident of a general trend towards collectivism. I also propose that there exists a clear hierarchy in the Deaf community composed of an “aristocracy” of multi-generation Deaf families and persons who have contributed much to the community. I am not quite sure if there is a correlation between being born into a well-known deaf family and later actualization activities, or being born into a deaf family actualizes the child who later goes on to give back to the community. It is worth looking into that later.

Triandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990) noticed that some cultures which are traditionally collectivist have been shifting towards individualist tendencies. It is not a matter of whether or not there are idiocentric members of a collectivist community, but that there is a general trend towards individualism. Triandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990) concluded that affluence tends to encourage individualist traits. Affluence brings awareness of a global media as well as an understanding that a person need not share a common fate with others in the ingroup. Those who shift to individualist perspectives tend to change their behavior as well as the norms to which they conform (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). Cultures which become individualist lost the social network which sustained it. There is also a breakdown in the hierarchical structure which leads some to believe that the individualists are selfish and have no respect for authority (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990).

There does appear to be a schism in the Deaf community among the collectivists and those who are largely individualist. Triandis, McCusker, & Hui (1990) are correct that it is likely new affluence which causes these gaps. In the past, the Deaf community was dependant on only itself. Deaf professionals were limited to those who could integrate with the colonial culture or to those who had acquired their money through non-traditional means. Since the IDEA and the ADA was passed, it is more common to see Deaf professionals who are enjoying an affluence not known to their Deaf forbearers. The growing divide between “grassroot” Deaf individuals and Deaf professionals is cause for concern. Without thread, the Deaf community will fracture into a have-and-have-not culture. I believe the greater Deafhood movement allows individualist Deaf persons to reconnect with the Deaf community.

Ben-Ari, A. & Lavee, Y. (2004). Cultural orientation, ethnic affiliation, and negative daily occurrences, A multidimensional cross-cultural analysis. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 74(2). 102-111. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.

Triandis, H.C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C.H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59(5). 1006-1020. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.

Cultural orientation, ethnic affiliation, and negative daily occurrences, A multidimensional cross-cultural analysis

If western Deaf culture is considered collectivist, then it is only natural that research on individualist and collectivist cultures would apply to western Deaf culture. Ben-Ari & Lavee (2004) studied the impact affiliation with either an individualistic culture or a collectivist culture had on stress perception. Cultural impact on stress perception is critical because stress negatively affects both mental and physical health (Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2004). That members of the Deaf community are collectivists means that Deaf people may understand and suffer stress differently than the greater hearing community. Understanding how Deaf people react to stress would be a critical step towards treating stress-related problems.

Stress sources differ across cultures. Individualist cultures tend to have self-originating stress whereas collectivist cultures have collectively originating stress (Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2004). That is not to say that members of the collective community lack an idea of self. Rather, the collectivist perception of self originates from the collectivist individual’s role in the community and whether or not that role is meaningful (Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2004). The collectivist individual thinks of himself or herself as a part of the community and all his or her goals and desires are a reflection of the community needs (Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2004). Deaf members of the community place a lot of emphasis on their role in the Deaf community. Deaf community members who do not have a positive experience in the Deaf community may suffer higher degrees of self-doubt, stress, and lack of actualization than the Deaf who derive a positive community experience. The lack of actualization is critical in understanding the mental health of Deaf members who are not involved or who do not have a positive involvement with the Deaf community. Collectivist cultures encourage actualization through the collective culture (Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2004). If an individual cannot actualize because of negative community involvement, then the individual’s self-esteem will suffer terribly.

Ben-Ari & Lavee (2004) recognize that creating two broad labels for all cultures is rather complicated. Not all collectivist cultures approach the community in the same way and not all individualist cultures approach the self in the same way. Some cultures share traits with both individualist and collectivist cultures. There currently is some friction in the Deaf community about whether or not the community is truly collectivist since there are a lot of individualist elements present. Certainly members of the Deaf community have leeched elements of the greater western culture in which it exists; however, an argument can be made that truly individualistic Deaf people are in the pre-encounter stage and are suffering from the effects of colonialism (Parham & Helms, 1985).

What Ben-Ari & Lavee (2004) found was that individualist and collectivist cultures do process stress differently, although not to much of a degree. Certain stress sources, such as financial and social-environmental were nearly identical across cultures (Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2004). One major difference is that one set of collectivists reported that family was a major source of stress (Ben-Ari & Lavee, 2004). It may be that members of the collectivist community feel pressure to meet their family’s needs and expectations and that these stresses are not that potent in an individualist culture. The Deaf community can be seen as a Deaf person’s family. Pressure to find a place in the Deaf community or to meet the expectations of local Deaf community members and greater Deaf community leaders may place a lot of stress on Deaf individuals.

Ben-Ari, A. & Lavee, Y. (2004). Cultural orientation, ethnic affiliation, and negative daily occurrences, A multidimensional cross-cultural analysis. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 74(2). 102-111. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.

Parham & Helms (1985) Relation of racial identity attitudes to self-actualization and affective states of black students. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 32(3) 431-440. Retrieved September 15, 2006 from psycARTICLES database.