Comparing the horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism scale and the Auckland individualism and collectivism scale in two cultures: Switzerland and South Africa

This study investigated the psychometric properties of the Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism Scale (HVIC) and the Auckland Individualism and Collectivism Scale (AICS). The sample consisted of 1,403 working individuals from Switzerland (N = 585) and from South Africa (N = 818). Principal component factor analyses indicated that a two-factor structure replicated well across the two countries for both scales. In addition, the HVIC four-factor structure replicated well across countries, whereas the responsibility dimension of individualism of the AICS replicated poorly. Confirmatory factor analyses provided satisfactory support to the original theoretical models for both the HVIC and the AICS. Equivalence measurement indices indicated that the cross-cultural replicability properties of both instruments are generally acceptable. However, canonical correlations and correlations between the HVIC and AICS dimensions confirm that these two instruments differ in their underlying meaning of the individualism and collectivism constructs, suggesting that these two instruments assess individualism and collectivism differently.

The Impact of Personality and Culture on the Job Demands-Control Model of Job Stress

Among the various work stress models, one of the most popular has been the job demands-control (JDC) model developed by Karasek (1979), which postulates that work-related strain is highest under work conditions characterized by high demands and low autonomy. The absence of social support at work further increases negative outcomes. This model, however, does not apply equally to all individuals and to all cultures. This review demonstrates how various individual characteristics, especially some personality dimensions, influence the JDC model and could thus be considered buffering or moderator factors. Moreover, we review how the cultural context impacts this model as suggested by results obtained in European, American, and Asian contexts. Yet there are almost no data from Africa or South America. More crosscultural studies including populations from these continents would be valuable for a better understanding of the impact of the cultural context on the JDC model.

Personality and Culture Cross-Cultural Psychology at the Next Crossroads

A review of nearly three decades of cross-cultural research shows that this domain still has to address several issues regarding the biases of data collection and sampling methods, the lack of clear and consensual definitions of constructs and variables, and measurement invariance issues that seriously limit the comparability of results across cultures. Indeed, a large majority of the existing studies are still based on the anthropological model, which compares two cultures and mainly uses convenience samples of university students. This paper stresses the need to incorporate a larger variety of regions and cultures in the research designs, the necessity to theorize and identify a larger set of variables in order to describe a human environment, and the importance of overcoming methodological weaknesses to improve the comparability of measurement results. Cross-cultural psychology is at the next crossroads in it's development, and researchers can certainly make major contributions to this domain if they can address these weaknesses and challenges.