Interactive effects of levels of individualism–collectivism on cooperation: A meta‐analysis

• Published date: 01 August 2013
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.1875
• Date: 01 August 2013
• Author: Justin Marcus,Huy Le

Interactive effects of levels of individualism–

collectivism on cooperation: A meta-analysis

JUSTIN MARCUS

1

*AND HUY LE

2

1

Özyeğin University, Istanbul, Turkey

2

University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S.A.

Summary We examined the interactive effects of levels of individualism–collectivism (I–C) on cooperation at work by

meta-analytically combining results obtained from 201 studies, representing 225 independent samples. I–C

was operationalized at the individual, organizational, and societal levels of analyses. Cooperation was

conceptualized at both individual and group levels of analysis. Both cooperative behavior and performance

were included as outcomes. The correlation between individual-level I–C and cooperation/performance was

stronger in collectivistic as opposed to individualistic societies. Similarly, the correlation between

organizational-level I–C and cooperation was stronger in collectivistic societies. Results also indicated that

individual-level and organizational-level I–C, but not societal-level I–C, were moderately related to study

outcomes. Examination of other potential moderators indicated that neither study setting, I–C dimensionality,

nor performance measurement type (objective vs subjective measures) altered these relations. However, a

conceptual match between I–C and cooperation was a moderator such that effect sizes were generally larger

when I–C and outcomes were both measured at the same level of analysis. Overall, our results indicate that I–C

is both theoretically and empirically distinct across the various levels of analyses and that it may be a better

predictor of outcomes in collectivistic as opposed to individualistic societies. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley

& Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: individualism; collectivism; cooperation; levels of analyses; meta-analysis

Cooperation at work is an essential component for both overall organizational success (Barnard, 1938) and optimal

organizational performance in a global economy (Gratton, 2005). As noted by Nardon and Steers (2009), individualism–

collectivism (I–C) is one of four major cultural constructs that have guided theory and organizational and management

research on culture and is a key determinant of criteria that are of organizational importance. Broadly defined as a cultural

construct reflecting the extent to which people in a society value working together to achieve collective goals (Hofstede,

1980/2001), I–C has increasingly gained popularity in the literature as a meaningful way to distinguish societies and their

people (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002). However, there is wide variation in the way I–C is operationalized

across studies and sparse research on potential relations between these levels.

Hofstede (1980/2001) originally conceptualized I–C as a societal-level construct. However, several decades on,

conceptualization of the I–C construct has expanded and resultantly become less clear. Some researchers considered

I–C to be a cultural characteristic of societies (e.g., Brett & Okumura, 1998; Oetzel, 1998; Parks & Vu, 1994; Pearson

& Stephan, 1998); others considered it to be an individual characteristic (e.g., Chatman and Barsade, 1995; Earley,

1989; Probst, Carnevale, & Triandis, 1999; Wagner, 1995); some examined it as an organization-level construct

(e.g., Erez & Somech, 1996; Kirkman & Shapiro, 2000; Tjosvold, 1983). From a construct validity perspective, this

is problematic because a construct cannot be clearly defined if its level of analysis is not clearly determined (Shadish,

Cook, & Campbell, 2002). Clarification regarding this matter, then, can inform theory building regarding I–C.

More importantly, because individuals interact within organizations that themselves are situated within societies,

a lack of clarity regarding potential interactions between levels of I–C can also limit our understanding of the

*Correspondence to: Dr. Ju stin Marcus, Özyeğin University, Ni şantepe Mah, Orman Sok, no: 1334794 Ale mdağ, Çekmeköy, Istanbul, Turkey.

E-mail: justin.marc us@ozyegin.edu.tr

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 19 October 2011

Revised 20 January 2013, Accepted 23 April 2013

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 813–834 (2013)

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.1875

Special Issue Article

relations between I–C and cooperation. Although there is much research on the relations between I–C (at all three

levels) and cooperation, the vast majority of such research has studied these relations separately and without consid-

eration of interplay between these levels of analysis. That is, the two higher levels of I–C (organizational and societal)

can be viewed as potentially moderating situational factors altering relations between I–C (at any particular level) and

cooperation, because situational factors exert powerful effects within cultures that can radically change baseline

cultural tendencies (Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007; Yamagishi, 2010). By the same token, studying the impact of

I–C as a cultural dimension on cooperative behavior requires taking into account the potential effects of individ-

ual-level and group-level moderators; understanding these moderating influences allows us to determine when culture

makes a difference (Gibson, Maznevski, & Kirkman, 2009).

The few primary studies explicitly examining this issue have produced mixed results. Gelfand and Realo (1999)

found that high accountability (an organizational practice that can be seen as an embodiment of organizational-level

I–C, whereby collectivistic organizations place accountability with groups [low accountability] and individualistic

organizations place accountability with individuals [high accountability]) enhanced cooperation among collectivists.

Conversely, Chatman and Barsade (1995) found that collectivists behaved uncooperatively when placed in organi-

zations where an individualistic culture dominated. Nguyen, Le, and Boles (2010) found that cooperation in collec-

tivistic organizations embedded in collectivistic societies was less likely relative to that in individualistic societies.

From the preceding, it can be seen that there is little primary research into this topic, and the research that does

exist has yielded inconclusive and sometimes counterintuitive results, raising questions regarding the role of

study-specific artifacts. Thus, there is a clear need in the literature for a synthesis explicitly targeted at understanding

the interactive relations between individual, organizational, and societal levels of I–C and cooperation. With the

accumulation of research findings over almost three decades since the formal conception of the I–C construct by

Hofstede (1980/2001), the time is ripe for such a systematic investigation. The current study fills this void in the

literature by means of meta-analyses.

Individualism and Collectivism

Individualism–collectivism refers to dual cultural worldviews, whereby Individualism is typified by loose ties

between individuals, self-reliance, and the formation of tendencies to separate, isolate, and alienate the self, the urge

to master one’s environment and emphasize the self over the collective. Conversely, Collectivism refers to norms

that emphasize the group over the individual, where people are congenitally integrated into strong, cohesive in-

groups, and is manifested in the formation of tendencies toward contact, openness, and union, and emphasizes

the collective over the self (Bakan, 1966; Hofstede, 1980/1991; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Tonnies, 1887/2002;

Triandis, 1995). Essentially, I–C delineates a distinction between the individual and the collective—independence

versus interdependence, individual versus group goals, self-enhancement versus group enhancement, and

competition versus cooperation. Summarizing the literature, Triandis (1995) identified four attributes that define

I–C: (1) conceptions of the self; (2) goal relationships; (3) relative importance of attitudes and norms; and (4)

emphasis on relationships. Hence, individualists define the self as autonomous, place personal goals ahead of

group goals, exhibit attitude-driven behavior, and are task oriented. Conversely, collectivists view the self in

terms of how connected they are to in-groups, subordinate personal goals to collective goals, exhibit norm-driven

behavior, and are relationship oriented.

Levels of individualism–collectivism

Societal-level individualism–collectivism

As a societal/cultural-level construct, I–Creflects the shared meaning system that characterizes a culture (Erez &

Gati, 2004; Gelfand, Bhawuk, Nishii, & Bechtold, 2004). Hofstede (1980/2001) originally defined I–Casa

814 J. MARCUS AND H. LE

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 34, 813–834 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/job