Allocentrism is a collectivistic personality attribute whereby people center their attention and actions on other people rather than themselves.[1][2] It is a psychological dimension which corresponds to the general cultural dimension of collectivism.[3] In fact, allocentrics "believe, feel, and act very much like collectivists do around the world."[4] Allocentric people tend to be interdependent, define themselves in terms of the group that they are part of, and behave according to that group's cultural norms.[5][6] They tend to have a sense of duty and share beliefs with other allocentrics among their in-group.[7] Allocentric people appear to see themselves as an extension of their in-group and allow their own goals to be subsumed by the in-group's goals.[8] Additionally, allocentrism has been defined as giving priority to the collective self over the private self, particularly if these two selves happen to come into conflict.[9]
Allocentrism is closely related to collectivism; it is the psychological manifestation of collectivism.[10] Scholars have discussed collectivism since at least the 1930s.[11] Collectivism has been used to describe cultural level tendencies and has been described as a "broad cultural syndrome."[12] It was not until much later (1985) that Triandis, Leung, Villareal, and Clack proposed that the term allocentrism be used to describe collectivistic tendencies on the individual level.[13] They proposed this because of the confusion that arises when talking about cultural level collectivism versus individual level collectivism. Allocentrism, therefore, has been used since by some scholars to describe personal collectivism, "the individual level analog of cultural collectivism,"[14] as a very broad cultural trait.[15]
Allocentrism versus Idiocentrism
Allocentrism is contrasted with idiocentrism, the psychological manifestation of individualism.[16] As stated earlier, allocentrism includes holding values and preferences of placing higher importance on in-group needs and goals over one's own, defining oneself in terms of the in-group, and seeing oneself as an extension of the in-group. Idiocentrism, however, is an orientation whereby individuals hold quite different values and preferences from those with an allocentric orientation. Idiocentric people tend to focus more on their own goals and needs rather than in-group ones. They prefer self-reliance, to make their own decisions without worrying about what others think, and enjoy competition.[17] It seems people can be both allocentric and idiocentric, but how much they are either is dependent on the situation and how the individual defines that situation. Certain situations encourage more allocentric behavior. These are found more in some cultures than others. These situations include when people are rewarded by the social context for being group orientated, when cultural norms encourage conformity which leads to success, when goals are easier achieved through group action, and when there are not many options for acting independently.[18]
Measuring Allocentrism
When researchers measure collectivism, they tend to use large scale studies that look at the cultural level. They add up many people's responses within different cultures with the unit of analysis the whole culture; the N of these studies is the number of cultures.[19] This can be confusing when trying to measure collectivism on an individual level, which is why the term allocentrism has been suggested.[20] One way to measure allocentrism is to look at what it is correlated with which includes high affiliation with others, low need to be unique, and high sensitivity to rejection.[21] Allocentrism includes a sense of self that is interdependent which can be measured by statements about the self-starting with "I am" or by using interdependence scales. If individuals answer the "I am" statements with statements about others and common fate with others, they are deemed to be more allocentric. This method was highly recommended for measuring allocentrism.[22]
Another aspect of allocentrism is the priority of in-group goals over personal goals and this can be measured using the Collectivism Scale [23] or scales that look at interdependence versus independence. Triandis et al., 1995 Allocentrism has been measured utilizing The Collectivism Scale in three cultures—Korean, Japanese, and American—and found to have good concurrent and criterion validity and acceptable reliability (Cronbach's Alpha .77-.88). It is a ten item, five point Likert scale that assesses how much an individual acts in his or her own self-interest versus his or her group's interest. The group can be defined in various ways such as one's family, peer group, or work group.[24] Allocentrism is a very broad construct and therefore cannot be measured using only a few items; therefore, it is suggested that it be measured with multi-methods due to the limitations of each method.[25][26]
Culture
Allocentrism tends to be found more in collectivistic cultures (about 60%) but can also be found in all cultures,[27] and in every culture there is a "full distribution of both types."[28] While individualism and collectivism are used on the broad cultural level, Triandis et al. (1985) suggested the use of idiocentrism and allocentrism respectively for conducting analyses on the individual level (within-culture analyses). All humans have both collectivist and individualist cognitive structures; people in collectivist cultures are exposed more to collectivist cognitive structures and hence tend to be more allocentric than those in individualistic cultures.[29] The amount of allocentrism an individual portrays depends in a large part on their culture; there is a possibility that an individual could be high (or low) on both allocentrism and idiocentrism.[30] Different people in the same culture can have different levels of allocentrism and it is both group and setting specific.[31] Minorities in the US such as Hispanics and Asians tend to be highly allocentric.[32] There are certain personality dimensions that all allocentrics share despite whether they are from an individualistic (American) or collectivistic (Japanese and Korean) culture. These dimensions include high affiliation with others, being sensitive to rejection from others, and less of a need for individual uniqueness.[33]
Situation
For allocentrics, the situation is of paramount importance and they tend to define themselves relative to the context. Priming people to think about commonalities that they have with family and friends gets them to be more allocentric.[34] Allocentrics tend to be more cooperative in a collectivistic situation and less in an individualistic situation.[35] There are, however, also transituational aspects to allocentrism. Even when allocentrics are living in a more individualistic culture, they still will put more emphasis on relationships than idiocentrics through joining groups such as gangs, churches, and collectives.[36]
Sociability
Allocentrics tend to receive higher quality and more social support than idiocentrics;[37] they tend to be more social, interdependent with others, and pay a lot of attention to their in-group and family.[38] This could possibly be because some of the important values of allocentrics are cooperation, honesty, and equality.[39][40] Allocentrics usually perceive that they have more and better social support than idiocentrics.[41] The amount of social support allocentrics receive seems to be related to their well-being with higher support indicative of higher levels of well-being and lower support with lower well-being.[42] Allocentrics tend to be less lonely, receive more social support (and are more satisfied with it), and are more cooperative than idiocentrics.[43][44]
Subjective well-being (SWB) is term psychological researchers have used when studying happiness[45] Amount of social support allocentrics in collectivist countries received seemed to be related to their well-being with higher support indicative of higher levels of well-being and lower support with lower well-being.[46] North Americans whose lifestyles are more allocentric tend to have higher subjective well-being than those whose life styles are idiocentric. In addition, allocentrics’ evaluation of their in-group in addition to how they perceive others view their group is positively related to higher subjective well-being.[47] Allocentrism had a greater effect on the SWB of African Americans than on Euro-Americans. Furthermore, idiocentrism was more negatively related to SWB for Euro-Americans than it was for African Americans.[48]
Allocentrics tend to be more ethnocentric in terms of showing more negative attitudes towards people who are not in their group and more positive attitudes to those in their own group. People who are in allocentrics’ in-group are considered much closer than out-group members who are put at a much larger social distance.[49] Allocentrics tend to minimize with-in group differences while preferring equal outcomes in social dilemmas.[50]
Consumer ethnocentrism
Allocentric people tend to be more consumer ethnocentric (the tendency to prefer the products on their own countries when shopping). Huang et al., (2008) looked at consumer ethnocentrism (CET) and allocentrism among a group of Taiwanese participants in relation to Korean products sold in Taiwan versus national products. This study found that allocentrism with parents was positively correlated with higher CET. However, allocentrism with friends was negatively correlated with CET.
Tourism and travel
The term allocentrism has also been used in the travel field to have a different meaning from the way it is used in the psychological research. Here the term allocentric traveler refers to a traveler who is an extroverted venturer. This is contrasted with the term psychocentric traveler who is dependable, less adventurous, and cautious. They tend to be curious, confident, seek out novelty, and prefer to travel by plane and alone. They often visit locations that the average traveler would not consider visiting. There are an estimated 4% of true allocentric travelers among tourists, with the majority of travelers being midcentrics (halfway between psychocentric and allocentric).[51] Female allocentric travelers were found to be more neurotic and less extroverted than psychocentric travelers.[52] American and Japanese college students who reported being more horizontally individualistic tended to prefer more allocentric destinations.[53] A gap was shown between the vacations that individuals ideally would like to go on and the ones they actually go on. It was predicted that about 17% of individuals would go to allocentric destinations, however it was found that only 3% did, quite rare. Indeed, it seems people tend to compromise ideal for practicality, however some people will choose allocentric locations at some point in their lives.[54]
Shyness is the feeling of apprehension, lack of comfort, or awkwardness especially when a person is around other people. This commonly occurs in new situations or with unfamiliar people; a shy person may simply opt to avoid these situations. Although shyness can be a characteristic of people who have low self-esteem, the primary defining characteristic of shyness is a fear of what other people will think of a person's behavior. This fear of negative reactions such as being laughed at, humiliated or patronized, criticized or rejected can cause a shy person to retreat. Stronger forms of shyness can be referred to as social anxiety or social phobia.
A self-serving bias is any cognitive or perceptual process that is distorted by the need to maintain and enhance self-esteem, or the tendency to perceive oneself in an overly favorable manner. It is the belief that individuals tend to ascribe success to their own abilities and efforts, but ascribe failure to external factors. When individuals reject the validity of negative feedback, focus on their strengths and achievements but overlook their faults and failures, or take more credit for their group's work than they give to other members, they are protecting their self-esteem from threat and injury. These cognitive and perceptual tendencies perpetuate illusions and error, but they also serve the self's need for esteem. For example, a student who attributes earning a good grade on an exam to their own intelligence and preparation but attributes earning a poor grade to the teacher's poor teaching ability or unfair test questions might be exhibiting the self-serving bias. Studies have shown that similar attributions are made in various situations, such as the workplace, interpersonal relationships, sports, and consumer decisions.
Power distance refers to the relationship between authority and subordinate individuals that depends on how the latter react to the former. It is an anthropological concept used in cultural studies to understand the relationship between individuals with varying power, the effects, and their perceptions. It uses the Power Distance Index (PDI) as a tool to measure the acceptance of power established between the individuals with the most power and those with the least. In these societies, power distance is divided into two categories that resemble a culture's power index; people in societies with a high power distance are more likely to follow a hierarchy where everybody has a place and does not require further justification, and high-ranking individuals are respected and looked up to. In societies with a low power distance, individuals aim to distribute power equally. Without regards to the same level of respect of high-power distance cultures, additional justification is often needed among those in low power distance societies. Research has also indicated that before any other relationships in a business can be established, a cross-cultural relationship must be formed first.
The evaluation apprehension theory was proposed by Nickolas B. Cottrell in 1972. He argued that we quickly learn that the social rewards and punishments that we receive from other people are based on their evaluations of us. On this basis, our arousal may be modulated. In other words, performance will be enhanced or impaired only in the presence of persons who can approve or disapprove of our actions.
Cultural psychology is the study of how cultures reflect and shape the psychological processes of their members.
In anthropology, high-context culture and low-context culture are ends of a continuum of how explicit the messages exchanged in a culture are and how important the context is in communication. The continuum pictures how people communicate with others through their range of communication abilities: utilizing gestures, relations, body language, verbal messages, or non-verbal messages. "High-" and "low-" context cultures typically refer to language groups, nationalities, or regional communities. However, the concept may also apply to corporations, professions and other cultural groups, as well as to settings such as online and offline communication. High-context cultures often exhibit less-direct verbal and nonverbal communication, utilizing small communication gestures and reading more meaning into these less-direct messages. Low-context cultures do the opposite; direct verbal communication is needed to properly understand a message being communicated and relies heavily on explicit verbal skills. The model of high-context and low-context cultures offers a popular framework in intercultural-communication studies, but has been criticized as lacking empirical validation.
Self-monitoring, a concept introduced in the 1970s by Mark Snyder, describes the extent to which people monitor their self-presentations, expressive behavior, and nonverbal affective displays. Snyder held that human beings generally differ in substantial ways in their abilities and desires to engage in expressive controls. Self-monitoring is defined as a personality trait that refers to an ability to regulate behavior to accommodate social situations. People concerned with their expressive self-presentation tend to closely monitor their audience in order to ensure appropriate or desired public appearances. Self-monitors try to understand how individuals and groups will perceive their actions. Some personality types commonly act spontaneously and others are more apt to purposely control and consciously adjust their behavior. Recent studies suggest that a distinction should be made between acquisitive and protective self-monitoring due to their different interactions with metatraits. This differentiates the motive behind self-monitoring behaviours: for the purpose of acquiring appraisal from others (acquisitive) or protecting oneself from social disapproval (protective).
Cross-cultural psychology is the scientific study of human behavior and mental processes, including both their variability and invariance, under diverse cultural conditions. Through expanding research methodologies to recognize cultural variance in behavior, language, and meaning it seeks to extend and develop psychology. Since psychology as an academic discipline was developed largely in North America and Europe, some psychologists became concerned that constructs and phenomena accepted as universal were not as invariant as previously assumed, especially since many attempts to replicate notable experiments in other cultures had varying success. Since there are questions as to whether theories dealing with central themes, such as affect, cognition, conceptions of the self, and issues such as psychopathology, anxiety, and depression, may lack external validity when "exported" to other cultural contexts, cross-cultural psychology re-examines them using methodologies designed to factor in cultural differences so as to account for cultural variance. Some critics have pointed to methodological flaws in cross-cultural psychological research, and claim that serious shortcomings in the theoretical and methodological bases used impede, rather than help the scientific search for universal principles in psychology. Cross-cultural psychologists are turning more to the study of how differences (variance) occur, rather than searching for universals in the style of physics or chemistry.
According to some theories, emotions are universal phenomena, albeit affected by culture. Emotions are "internal phenomena that can, but do not always, make themselves observable through expression and behavior". While some emotions are universal and are experienced in similar ways as a reaction to similar events across all cultures, other emotions show considerable cultural differences in their antecedent events, the way they are experienced, the reactions they provoke and the way they are perceived by the surrounding society. According to other theories, termed social constructionist, emotions are more deeply culturally influenced. The components of emotions are universal, but the patterns are social constructions. Some also theorize that culture is affected by emotions of the people.
Face-Negotiation Theory is a theory conceived by Stella Ting-Toomey in 1985, to understand how people from different cultures manage rapport and disagreements. The theory posited "face", or self-image when communicating with others, as a universal phenomenon that pervades across cultures. In conflicts, one's face is threatened; and thus the person tends to save or restore his or her face. This set of communicative behaviors, according to the theory, is called "facework". Since people frame the situated meaning of "face" and enact "facework" differently from one culture to the next, the theory poses a cultural-general framework to examine facework negotiation. It is important to note that the definition of face varies depending on the people and their culture and the same can be said for the proficiency of facework.
Conversational Constraints Theory, developed in Min-Sun Kim, attempts to explain how and why certain conversational strategies differ across various cultures and the effects of these differences. It is embedded in the Social Science communication approach which is based upon how culture influences communication. There are five universal conversational constraints: 1) clarity, 2) minimizing imposition, 3) consideration for the other's feelings, 4) risking negative evaluation by the receiver, and 5) effectiveness. These five constraints pivot on the notion of if a culture is more social relational, or task oriented.
Life satisfaction (LS) is the way in which people show their emotions, feelings (moods), how they feel about their directions, and options for the future. It is a measure of well-being assessed in terms of mood, satisfaction with relationships, achieved goals, self-concepts, and self-perceived ability to cope with one's daily life. Life satisfaction involves a favorable attitude towards one's life—rather than an assessment of current feelings. Life satisfaction has been measured in relation to economic standing, degree of education, experiences, residence, and among many other topics.
Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory is a framework for cross-cultural communication, developed by Geert Hofstede. It shows the effects of a society's culture on the values of its members, and how these values relate to behavior, using a structure derived from factor analysis.
Individualistic cultures are characterized by individualism, which is the prioritization or emphasis of the individual over the entire group. In individualistic cultures people are motivated by their own preference and viewpoints. Individualistic cultures focus on abstract thinking, privacy, self-dependence, uniqueness, and personal goals. The term individualistic culture was first used in the 1980s by Geert Hofsted a Dutch social psychologists to describe countries and cultures that are not collectivist, Hofsted created the term individualistic culture when he created a measurement for the five dimensions of cultural values.
Cultural communication is the practice and study of how different cultures communicate within their community by verbal and nonverbal means. Cultural communication can also be referred to as intercultural communication and cross-cultural communication. Cultures are grouped together by a set of similar beliefs, values, traditions, and expectations which call all contribute to differences in communication between individuals of different cultures. Cultural communication is a practice and a field of study for many psychologists, anthropologists, and scholars. The study of cultural communication is used to study the interactions of individuals between different cultures. Studies done on cultural communication are utilized in ways to improve communication between international exchanges, businesses, employees, and corporations. Two major scholars who have influenced cultural communication studies are Edward T. Hall and Geert Hofstede. Edward T. Hall, who was an American anthropologist, is considered to be the founder of cultural communication and the theory of proxemics. The theory of proxemics focuses on how individuals use space while communicating depending on cultural backgrounds or social settings. The space in between individuals can be identified in four different ranges. For example, 0 inches signifies intimate space while 12 feet signifies public space. Geert Hofstede was a social psychologist who founded the theory of cultural dimension. In his theory, there are five dimensions that aim to measure differences between different cultures. The five dimensions are power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, and Chronemics.
Subjective well-being (SWB) is a self-reported measure of well-being, typically obtained by questionnaire.
Decision-making is a mental activity which is an integral part of planning and action taking in a variety of contexts and at a vast range of levels, including, but not limited to, budget planning, education planning, policy making, and climbing the career ladder. People all over the world engage in these activities. The underlying 'cross-cultural differences in decision-making can be a great contributing factor to efficiency in cross-cultural communications, negotiations, and conflict resolution.
Cultural differences can interact with positive psychology to create great variation, potentially impacting positive psychology interventions. Culture differences have an impact on the interventions of positive psychology. Culture influences how people seek psychological help, their definitions of social structure, and coping strategies.
Culture defines how people view the world and certain phenomena. Culture also appears to influence the way people experience depression. An individual's experience with depression can vary from country to country. For example, a qualitative study revealed that some countries did not recognize post-natal depression as an illness; rather, it was viewed as a state of unhappiness that did not require any health interventions.
Harry Charalambos Triandis was Professor Emeritus at the Department of Psychology of the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. He was considered a pioneer of cross-cultural psychology and his research focused on the cognitive aspects of attitudes, norms, roles and values in different cultures.
References
Bettencourt, B. A., & Dorr, N. (1997). Collective self-esteem as a mediator of the relationship between allocentrism and subjective well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(9), 955-955-964. doi:10.1177/0146167297239005
Hoxter, A. L., & Lester, D. (1988). Tourist behavior and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 9(1), 177–178. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(88)90045-1
Huang, Y. (2008). Allocentrism and consumer ethnocentrism: The effects of social identity on purchase intention. Social Behavior and Personality, 36(8), 1097-1097.
Hulbert, L. G., Corrêa, d. S., & Adegboyega, G. (2001). Cooperation in social dilemmas and allocentrism: A social values approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(6), 641-641-657. doi:10.1002/ejsp.53
Kernahan, C., Bettencourt, B. A., & Dorr, N. (2000). Benefits of allocentrism for the subjective well-being of African Americans. Journal of Black Psychology, 26(2), 181–193. doi:10.1177/0095798400026002004
Litvin, S. W. (2006). Revisiting plog's model of allocentricity and psychocentricity . . . one more time. United States, Ithaca: Sage Publications, Inc.
McKercher, B. (2005). Are psychographics predictors of destination life cycles? Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 19(1), 49.
Muller, H. M. (1935). Democratic collectivism. New York: Wilson.
Sakakida, Y. (2004). A cross-cultural study of college students' travel preferences. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 16(1), 35–41.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. New York: The Free Press.
Sinha, J. B. P., & Verma, J. (1994). Social support as a moderator of the relationship between allocentrism and psychological well-being. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, Ç. Kâğitçibaşi, S. Choi & G. Yoon (Eds.), (pp.267–267-292). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
Trafimow, D., Triandis, H. C., & Goto, S. G. (1991). Some tests of the distinction between the private self and the collective self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 649–655.
Triandis, H. C. (2000). In Kazdin A. E. (Ed.), Allocentrism-idiocentrism. Washington New York, DC NY, US US: American Psychological Association Oxford University Press. doi:10.1037/10516-037
Triandis, H. C., Leung, K., Villareal, M. J., & Clack, F. I. (1985). Allocentric versus idiocentric tendencies: Convergent and discriminant validation. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(4), 395–415. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(85)90008-X
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. Boulder: Westview Press.
Triandis, H. C., & University Publications of America (Firm). (1983). Allocentric vs. idiocentric social behavior: A major cultural difference between Hispanics and the mainstream. [Urbana-Champaign, IL]: University of Illinois.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
