Sweden scored 71 on IDV and the gro

Sweden scored 71 on IDV and the group of Arab-speaking countries to which Saudi Arabia belongs scored an average of 38, which demonstrates the cultural roots of Johannesson's dilemma, of course, the Arab countries differ among themselves, and impressionistically the Saudis within this region are even more collectivist than some other Arabs, such as the Lebanese or the Egyptians In the IBM sample, the latter were more strongly represented than the Saudis Sweden's rank among seventy-four countries and regions is 13-14, and the Arab countries rank 39-40, so there are still a lot of countries scoring more collectivist than the Arab average. As stated earlier, collectivism is the rule in our world, and individualism the exception.
Individualism and Collectivism in other Cross-National Studies
Table 1.1. listed six major replications of the IBM research, published between 1990 and 2002. five of these, covering between fifteen and twenty-eight countries from the IBM set, produced IDV scores significantly correlated with the original IBM scores. As in the case of PDI (Chapter 2 ) the various replications did not sufficiently agree to justify changing the score of any of the countries The original IBM set still served as the best common denominator for the various studies.
Bond's Chinese Value Survey study among students in twenty-three countries described in Chapter 1. produced an integration dimension, on which the countries positioned themselves largely in the same way as they had done on individualism-collectivism in the IBM studies(n statistical terms, integration was significantly correlated with IDV)' Students from countries scoring individualist" answered that the following values were particularly important:
• Tolerance of others.
• Harmony with others .
• Non competitiveness .
• A close, intimate friend .
• Trustworthiness .
• Contentedness with one's position in life .
• Solidarity with others.
• Being conservative.
This was the largest cluster of CVS values associated with any single IBM dimension pole. In the individualist society. relationships with others are not obvious and prearranged, but rather they are voluntary and have to be carefully fostered. The values at the individualist pole of the integration dimension describe conditions for the ideal voluntary relationship.
Students in collectivist societies answered that the following values were particularly important:
 filial piety (obedience to parents, respect for parents, honoring of ancestors, financial support of parents)
 Chastity in women
 Patriotism
in the collectivist society, there is no nced to make specific friendships.who one's friends are is predetermined by one's family or group membership. maintained by filial piety and chastity in women The family relationship and is associated with patriotism. In some versions of the IDM question- naire, a work goal serve your country was included This too, was found to be strongly associated with collectivism.
Chapter 1 mentioned four other cross-national values databases by Trompenaars, GLOBE, and the world values survey. four Schwartz, produced dimensions or categories strongly correlated with IDV Schwartz identified seven categories of values from which no fewer than five were significantly correlated with IDV.
Smith's analysis of the Trompenaars database produced two major dimensions, one primarily correlated with IDv and one with PDI.
The GLOBE project defined two categories of collectivism social and in-group. As this is written, their correlations with IDV have not yet been published we expect both to be significant.
Inglehart's overall analysis of the huge database of the world values Survey produced two statistical factors. One of these, secular-rational ver- traditional authority, was associated with small versus large power ditance, and met it in the previous chapter. The other, well-being versus traditional authority was strongly correlated with individualism versus collectivism.
An ingenious study by British psychologist Peter Smith compared not international studies but rather the degree of the results of the various acquiescence in their answers. Acquiescena, which occurs in all paper-and pencil surveys is the tendency among respondents to give positive answers regardless of the content of the questions. smith compared six studies that each covered thirty-four or more countri including studies by Geert dealing with Schwartz, and GLOBE. For sections of the questionnaires values, all six studies demonstrated similar acquiescence patterns. Smith showed that the common tendency to give positive answers in the six stud- ies was stronger in countries that, according to our measures, were col lectivist and large power distance, Smith's study has supplied us with a nonobtrusive measure of the degree to which respondents in a culture want to maintain formal harmony and respect toward the researchers.

Are Individualism and Collectivism one or Two Dimensions?
A frequently asked question is whether it is correct to treat individualism and collectivism as opposite poles of the same dimension, shouldn't they be seen as two separate dimensions? The answer is that it depends on whether we compare entire societies(which is what our book is about) or individuals within societies. This is known as the level of analysis issue. Societies are composed of a wide variety of individual members, holding a variety of personal values. Tests have shown that a person can score high on both individualist and collectivist values high on one kind and low on the other, or low on both. So when we compare the values of ndividu- als, individualism and collectivism should be treated as two separate dimensions.
When we study societies, we compare two types of data average value scores of the individuals within each society, plus characteristics of the societies as wholes, including their institutions Research by us and by oth- ers has shown that in societies where people on average hold more indi- vidualist values, they also on average hold less collectivist values Individual persons may differ from this pattern, but those who dimer are fewer than those who conform to it. The institutions of such societies reflect the fact that they evolved or were designed primarily for catering to individualists in societies where people on average hold more collec- tivist values, they also on average hold less individualist values. The insti tutions of such societies assume that people are primarily collectivist Therefore at the society(or country) level, individualism and collectivism appear as opposite poles of one dimension. The position of a country on this dimension shows the society's solution for a universal dilemma: the desir- able strength of the relationships of an adult person with the group or groups with which she or he identifies.
Collectivism Versus Power Distance
Many countries that score high on the power distance index(Table 2-1) score low on the individualism index (Table 3.1), and vice versa. In other words, the two dimensions tend to be negatively correlated:large-power distance countries are also likely to be more collectivist, and small-power- distance countries to be more individualist The relationship between the two indices is plotted in Figure 3.1.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Swedia mencetak 71 di IDV dan kelompok negara-negara berbahasa Arab yang milik Arab Saudi mencetak rata 38, yang menunjukkan akar budaya Johannesson's dilema, tentu saja, negara-negara Arab berbeda antara mereka sendiri, dan impressionistically Saudi wilayah ini secara kolektif bahkan lebih daripada beberapa Arab lainnya, seperti orang Lubnan atau sampel Mesir di IBM , yang kedua adalah lebih kuat diwakili dari Swedia Saudi peringkat di antara tujuh puluh empat negara dan daerah adalah 13-14, dan negara-negara Arab peringkat 39-40, jadi masih ada banyak negara-negara yang mencetak lebih kolektif daripada rata-rata Arab. Sebagaimana dinyatakan sebelumnya, kolektivisme adalah aturan di dunia, dan individualisme pengecualian.Individualisme dan kolektivisme dalam penelitian Cross-National lain Tabel 1.1. terdaftar enam besar replications IBM Research, diterbitkan antara tahun 1990 dan 2002. lima ini, meliputi antara lima belas dan dua puluh delapan negara dari IBM set, diproduksi IDV nilai secara signifikan berkorelasi dengan nilai IBM asli. Seperti dalam kasus PDI (Bab 2) replications berbagai tidak cukup setuju untuk membenarkan mengubah apapun negara IBM asli ditetapkan masih menjabat sebagai common denominator terbaik untuk berbagai studi. Bond's Chinese Value Survey study among students in twenty-three countries described in Chapter 1. produced an integration dimension, on which the countries positioned themselves largely in the same way as they had done on individualism-collectivism in the IBM studies(n statistical terms, integration was significantly correlated with IDV)' Students from countries scoring individualist" answered that the following values were particularly important:• Tolerance of others.• Harmony with others .• Non competitiveness .• A close, intimate friend .• Trustworthiness .• Contentedness with one's position in life .• Solidarity with others. • Being conservative.This was the largest cluster of CVS values associated with any single IBM dimension pole. In the individualist society. relationships with others are not obvious and prearranged, but rather they are voluntary and have to be carefully fostered. The values at the individualist pole of the integration dimension describe conditions for the ideal voluntary relationship. Students in collectivist societies answered that the following values were particularly important:  filial piety (obedience to parents, respect for parents, honoring of ancestors, financial support of parents) Chastity in women Patriotismin the collectivist society, there is no nced to make specific friendships.who one's friends are is predetermined by one's family or group membership. maintained by filial piety and chastity in women The family relationship and is associated with patriotism. In some versions of the IDM question- naire, a work goal serve your country was included This too, was found to be strongly associated with collectivism. Chapter 1 mentioned four other cross-national values databases by Trompenaars, GLOBE, and the world values survey. four Schwartz, produced dimensions or categories strongly correlated with IDV Schwartz identified seven categories of values from which no fewer than five were significantly correlated with IDV. Smith's analysis of the Trompenaars database produced two major dimensions, one primarily correlated with IDv and one with PDI. The GLOBE project defined two categories of collectivism social and in-group. As this is written, their correlations with IDV have not yet been published we expect both to be significant. Inglehart's overall analysis of the huge database of the world values Survey produced two statistical factors. One of these, secular-rational ver- traditional authority, was associated with small versus large power ditance, and met it in the previous chapter. The other, well-being versus traditional authority was strongly correlated with individualism versus collectivism. An ingenious study by British psychologist Peter Smith compared not international studies but rather the degree of the results of the various acquiescence in their answers. Acquiescena, which occurs in all paper-and pencil surveys is the tendency among respondents to give positive answers regardless of the content of the questions. smith compared six studies that each covered thirty-four or more countri including studies by Geert dealing with Schwartz, and GLOBE. For sections of the questionnaires values, all six studies demonstrated similar acquiescence patterns. Smith showed that the common tendency to give positive answers in the six stud- ies was stronger in countries that, according to our measures, were col lectivist and large power distance, Smith's study has supplied us with a nonobtrusive measure of the degree to which respondents in a culture want to maintain formal harmony and respect toward the researchers.Are Individualism and Collectivism one or Two Dimensions? Pertanyaan yang sering diajukan adalah apakah hal itu benar untuk memperlakukan individualisme dan kolektivisme sebagai kutub berlawanan dengan dimensi yang sama, tidak boleh mereka dilihat sebagai dua dimensi terpisah? Jawabannya adalah bahwa hal ini tergantung pada apakah kita membandingkan seluruh masyarakat (yang adalah apa yang adalah tentang buku kami) atau individu dalam masyarakat. Hal ini dikenal sebagai tingkat analisis masalah. Masyarakat terdiri dari berbagai macam anggota individu, memegang berbagai nilai-nilai pribadi. Tes telah menunjukkan bahwa seseorang dapat Skor tinggi pada individualis dan nilai-nilai kolektif yang tinggi pada satu jenis dan rendah di sisi lain, atau rendah pada kedua. Jadi ketika kita membandingkan nilai-nilai ndividu-als, individualisme dan kolektivisme harus diperlakukan sebagai dua dimensi yang terpisah. When we study societies, we compare two types of data average value scores of the individuals within each society, plus characteristics of the societies as wholes, including their institutions Research by us and by oth- ers has shown that in societies where people on average hold more indi- vidualist values, they also on average hold less collectivist values Individual persons may differ from this pattern, but those who dimer are fewer than those who conform to it. The institutions of such societies reflect the fact that they evolved or were designed primarily for catering to individualists in societies where people on average hold more collec- tivist values, they also on average hold less individualist values. The insti tutions of such societies assume that people are primarily collectivist Therefore at the society(or country) level, individualism and collectivism appear as opposite poles of one dimension. The position of a country on this dimension shows the society's solution for a universal dilemma: the desir- able strength of the relationships of an adult person with the group or groups with which she or he identifies.Collectivism Versus Power Distance Many countries that score high on the power distance index(Table 2-1) score low on the individualism index (Table 3.1), and vice versa. In other words, the two dimensions tend to be negatively correlated:large-power distance countries are also likely to be more collectivist, and small-power- distance countries to be more individualist The relationship between the two indices is plotted in Figure 3.1.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:

Swedia mencetak 71 pada IDV dan kelompok negara-negara Arab berbahasa yang Arab Saudi kepunyaan mencetak rata-rata 38, yang menunjukkan akar budaya dilema Johannesson, tentu saja, negara-negara Arab berbeda di antara mereka sendiri, dan impresionistis Saudi di kawasan ini bahkan lebih kolektif dari beberapa orang Arab lainnya, seperti Lebanon atau Mesir Dalam sampel IBM, yang terakhir yang lebih kuat terwakili dari peringkat Saudi Swedia antara tujuh puluh empat negara dan wilayah adalah 13-14, dan negara-negara Arab peringkat 39 -40, sehingga masih banyak negara mencetak lebih kolektif dari rata-rata Arab. Seperti yang dinyatakan sebelumnya, kolektivisme adalah aturan di dunia kita, dan individualisme pengecualian.
Individualisme dan kolektivisme di lain Cross-National Studi
Tabel 1.1. terdaftar enam ulangan utama dari penelitian IBM, yang diterbitkan antara tahun 1990 dan 2002. lima ini, yang meliputi antara lima belas dan dua puluh delapan negara dari set IBM, menghasilkan skor IDV signifikan berkorelasi dengan skor IBM asli. Seperti dalam kasus PDI (Bab 2) berbagai ulangan tidak cukup setuju untuk membenarkan mengubah skor salah satu negara asli IBM set masih menjabat sebagai yang terbaik denominator umum untuk berbagai penelitian.
Penelitian Cina Nilai Survei Bond kalangan mahasiswa dalam dua puluh tiga negara yang dijelaskan dalam Bab 1. menghasilkan dimensi integrasi, di mana negara-negara memposisikan diri sebagian besar dengan cara yang sama seperti yang mereka lakukan pada individualisme-kolektivisme dalam studi IBM (n istilah statistik, integrasi secara signifikan berkorelasi dengan IDV) 'Siswa dari negara mencetak individualis "menjawab bahwa nilai berikut yang sangat
penting:. • Toleransi orang lain
• Harmony dengan orang lain.
• Non saing.
• Seorang dekat, teman akrab.
• Kepercayaan.
• contentedness dengan posisi seseorang dalam hidup.
• Solidaritas dengan orang lain.
• Menjadi konservatif.
Ini adalah cluster terbesar dari nilai-nilai CVS terkait dengan IBM tiang dimensi tunggal. Dalam masyarakat individualis. hubungan dengan orang lain yang tidak jelas dan diatur sebelumnya, melainkan mereka sukarela dan harus hati-hati dipupuk. Nilai-nilai di kutub individualis dari dimensi integrasi menggambarkan kondisi untuk hubungan sukarela yang ideal.
Siswa dalam masyarakat kolektivis menjawab bahwa nilai berikut yang sangat penting:
 bakti (ketaatan kepada orang tua, menghormati orang tua, menghormati leluhur, dukungan keuangan orang tua)
 Chastity pada wanita
 Patriotisme
dalam masyarakat kolektivis, tidak ada nced untuk membuat teman-teman tertentu friendships.who seseorang yang sudah ditentukan sebelumnya oleh seseorang keluarga atau kelompok keanggotaan. dikelola oleh bakti dan kesucian pada wanita Hubungan keluarga dan berhubungan dengan patriotisme. Dalam beberapa versi dari Naire IDM pertanyaan-, tujuan pekerjaan servis negara Anda termasuk ini juga, itu ditemukan sangat terkait dengan kolektivisme.
Bab 1 disebutkan empat database nilai cross-nasional lainnya oleh Trompenaars, GLOBE, dan dunia menghargai survei . empat Schwartz, dimensi diproduksi atau kategori sangat berkorelasi dengan IDV Schwartz mengidentifikasi tujuh kategori nilai yang tidak kurang dari lima secara signifikan berkorelasi dengan IDV.
analisis Smith dari database Trompenaars dihasilkan dua dimensi utama, satu terutama berkorelasi dengan IDV dan satu dengan PDI.
Proyek GLOBE didefinisikan dua kategori kolektivisme sosial dan kelompok. Karena ini ditulis, korelasi mereka dengan IDV belum dipublikasikan kami berharap kedua untuk menjadi signifikan.
Analisis keseluruhan Inglehart ini dari database besar dunia nilai-nilai Survey menghasilkan dua faktor statistik. Salah satunya, sekuler-rasional ver- otoritas tradisional, dikaitkan dengan kecil dibandingkan daya ditance besar, dan bertemu di bab sebelumnya. Yang lain, kesejahteraan dibandingkan otoritas tradisional sangat berkorelasi dengan individualisme vs kolektivisme.
Sebuah studi cerdik oleh psikolog Inggris Peter Smith dibandingkan studi tidak internasional melainkan tingkat hasil dari berbagai persetujuan dalam jawaban mereka. Acquiescena, yang terjadi dalam semua survei kertas dan pensil adalah kecenderungan di antara responden untuk memberikan jawaban positif terlepas dari isi pertanyaan. smith dibandingkan enam studi yang masing-masing meliputi tiga puluh empat atau lebih countri termasuk studi oleh Geert berurusan dengan Schwartz, dan GLOBE. Untuk bagian dari nilai-nilai kuesioner, semua enam penelitian menunjukkan pola persetujuan serupa. Smith menunjukkan bahwa kecenderungan umum untuk memberikan jawaban positif dalam enam studi-studi lebih kuat di negara-negara itu, menurut langkah-langkah kami, yang lectivist col dan jarak kekuasaan besar, studi Smith telah disediakan kami dengan ukuran nonobtrusive dari sejauh mana responden dalam suatu budaya ingin mempertahankan resmi harmoni dan rasa hormat kepada para peneliti. Are Individualisme dan kolektivisme satu atau dua Dimensi? Sebuah pertanyaan yang sering diajukan adalah apakah sudah benar untuk mengobati individualisme dan kolektivisme kutub sebagai kebalikan dari dimensi yang sama, tidak mereka harus dipandang sebagai dua dimensi yang terpisah? Jawabannya adalah bahwa hal itu tergantung pada apakah kita membandingkan seluruh masyarakat (yang adalah apa buku kami adalah tentang) atau individu dalam masyarakat. Ini dikenal sebagai tingkat masalah analisis. Masyarakat terdiri dari berbagai anggota individu, memegang berbagai nilai-nilai pribadi. Pengujian telah menunjukkan bahwa seseorang dapat skor tinggi pada kedua nilai-nilai individualis dan kolektivis tinggi pada satu jenis dan rendah di sisi lain, atau rendah pada kedua. Jadi ketika kita membandingkan nilai-nilai als ndividu-, individualisme dan kolektivisme harus diperlakukan sebagai dua dimensi yang terpisah. Ketika kita mempelajari masyarakat, kita membandingkan dua jenis data nilai rata-rata skor dari individu-individu dalam setiap masyarakat, ditambah karakteristik masyarakat sebagai keutuhan , termasuk lembaga-lembaga penelitian mereka dengan kami dan dengan lain- ers telah menunjukkan bahwa dalam masyarakat di mana orang-orang rata-rata ditahan nilai vidualist lebih-individu, mereka juga rata-rata terus nilai kurang kolektivis orang individu mungkin berbeda dari pola ini, tetapi mereka yang dimer lebih sedikit daripada mereka yang sesuai dengan itu. Lembaga-lembaga masyarakat seperti mencerminkan fakta bahwa mereka berevolusi atau dirancang terutama untuk katering untuk individualis dalam masyarakat di mana orang-orang rata-rata ditahan nilai tivist lebih kolektif, mereka juga rata-rata terus nilai kurang individualis. The lembaga-insti masyarakat seperti menganggap bahwa orang terutama kolektivis Oleh karena itu pada masyarakat (atau negara) tingkat, individualisme dan kolektivisme muncul kutub sebagai lawan dari satu dimensi. Posisi negara pada dimensi ini menunjukkan solusi masyarakat untuk dilema yang universal: kekuatan yang sangat dibutuhkan oleh dari hubungan dari orang dewasa dengan kelompok atau kelompok dengan yang dia atau dia mengidentifikasi. Kolektivisme Versus Kekuasaan Jarak Banyak negara yang skor tinggi pada indeks jarak kekuasaan (Tabel 2-1) skor rendah pada indeks individualisme (Tabel 3.1), dan sebaliknya. Dengan kata lain, dua dimensi cenderung berkorelasi negatif: negara jarak kekuatan besar juga cenderung lebih kolektif, dan negara-negara jarak kecil-daya-lebih individualis Hubungan antara dua indeks diplot pada Gambar 3.1.