A truly global, non-WEIRD examination of collectivism: The Global Collectivism Index (GCI)(2022) A quick summary of the part about Japan
-
Oyserman et al. (2002).
- Japanese, Koreans, and Americans have comparable collectivism scores
- It also suggests that some of the cross-cultural differences observed between the U.S. and Japan in the past may no longer be found in contemporary samples of young adults (see also Hamamura, 2012).
-
On Hofstede et al.’s (2010) general measure of individualism, 39 of 70 countries were more collectivist (individualistic) than Japan in 1970; on the GLOBE index, Japan ranks 44th out of 55 countries in collectivism; by Minkov et al. (2017) In the updated Hofstede individualism scale, Japan ranks one rank higher than the U.S. in global individualism.
- There is growing evidence that Japan has become more individualistic over the past few decades (see, for example, Ogihara, 2017, Ogihara, 2018)
-
There appears to be one very good candidate for distinguishing Japan and other East Asian countries from the United States and Western Europe. This is the concept of flexibility-memorialism of Minkov et al. (2017).
- flexibility-monumentalism
- It seems to overlap significantly with what Vignoles et al. call self-consistency (Vignoles et al., 2016; see especially Table 7).
- In a study of 56 countries, Japan scored the highest in the world on this dimension of monumentalism and flexibility (scoring strongly in the flexible direction).
- Minkov and colleagues specifically argue that this dimension has little to do with the individualism vs. collectivism dimension.
The Japanese have the highest flexibility scores in the world, and that is what makes the difference between the Japanese and Americans, not “because the Japanese are collectivists”.
-
Brewer and Chen (2007).
- Noted that past methods of measuring collectivism, other-centeredness, and interdependence may have confused relational and group processes
- There are two different forms of collectivism Gabriel and Gardner (1999)
- Relational identities are motivations and self-evaluations based on close relationships and personal roles (e.g., aunt or grandfather). Group identity, on the other hand, connects people to larger, less intimate social groups (e.g., Moroccans or Cubs fans).
- It has been found that men tend to emphasize group identity and women tend to emphasize relational identity.
- From this perspective, the GCI (collectivist index) focuses on relational identity (fertility, family structure, marriage and divorce ratios)
- As for religiosity, this is not quite true.
- Because religiosity connects people to groups outside the larger family.
- The within-group bias in GCI can be said to be about a 2:1 mixture of relational and collective issues, since Van de Vliert’s measure includes familism and nepotism (nepotism) (which are primarily relational) and nationalism (which is related to very large groups).
This page is auto-translated from [/nishio/A truly global, non-WEIRD examination of collectivism: The Global Collectivism Index (GCI)](https://scrapbox.io/nishio/A truly global, non-WEIRD examination of collectivism: The Global Collectivism Index (GCI)) using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.