A reduced version of the horizontal and vertical individualism andcollectivism scale: A four-country assessment!

Eugene Sivadas a,!, Norman T. Bruvold b, Michelle R. Nelson c

a Milgard School of Business, University of Washington, Tacoma, 1900 Commerce Street, Campus Box 358420, Tacoma, WA 98402, United Statesb College of Business Administration, University of Cincinnati, Ohio, United States

c University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign, United States

Abstract

Individualism/Collectivism is the most widely used cultural dimension in the marketing literature; yet researchers suggest that distinctionswithin cultures, such as the horizontal and vertical dimensions of Individualism and Collectivism (Singelis et al., 1995; Shavitt et al., 2006), mayprovide better insights into consumption behavior and responses to marketing stimuli. However, the 32-item attitudinal scale typically used tomeasure H/V dimensions has been plagued by measurement problems limiting its use and applicability in cross-cultural marketing and consumerresearch. This paper presents data from six samples in four countries (China, Denmark, India, the U.S.) conducted to test a parsimonious andpsychometrically stable 14-item scale measuring the horizontal/vertical and individualist/collectivist dimensions of culture. Theoretical andmethodological support for the new scale is offered. The 14-item reduced scale adequately taps into the domain of the construct.© 2007 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Since the 1960s when Hofstede first measured individualismand collectivism across cultures, the original two-dimensionalconceptualization has been a successful predictor of behavioralpatterns (Triandis and Gelfand, 1998; Wheeler et al., 1989) andis now considered fundamental to the understanding of culturalvalues (Triandis, 2004; Triandis et al., 1988). In marketing andconsumer behavior research, the influence of individualist/collectivist orientations has been well documented in researchon information processing, persuasion, values, motivation,attribution and behavioral outcomes (see Aaker and Mahes-waran, 1997; Dutta-Bergman and Wells, 2002; Maheshwaranand Shavitt, 2000).

However, more recently, researchers have suggested that thedichotomymay be too simplistic and that attention should be paidto important value distinctions within cultures, such as thehorizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collec-tivism, which emphasize equality and hierarchy (Singelis et al.,1995; Shavitt et al., 2006). Shavitt et al. (2006) suggest thatunderstanding the emphasis placed on equality versus hierarchy

in individualistic and collectivistic cultures could result in moreeffective advertising strategies as well as generate greaterunderstanding of consumption values. However, measurementof horizontal/vertical individualism/ collectivism has beensomewhat problematic (cf. Triandis and Gelfand, 1998; Probstet al., 1999; Kurman and Sriram, 2002; Soh and Leong, 2002).The purpose of this paper is to test a theoretically grounded,psychometrically stable, and more easily administered four-dimensional INDCOL Horizontal/Vertical Individualism/Collec-tivism scale (Singelis et al., 1995) for use in cross-culturalresearch. We first begin with a detailed overview of the construct.

1. Individualism/collectivism and horizontal/verticalconstructs

The construct of individualism–collectivism expresses thedistinction between prevalent cultural orientations that value theimportance of an individual versus those that value groupharmony. People with individualist values tend to see themselvesas independent of others and generally behave according topersonal attitudes and preferences, whereas people with collec-tivistic values see themselves as interdependent with others andusually behave according to social norms (Triandis, 1995). Inindividualistic societies, personal goals take precedence over in-

Journal of Business Research xx (2007) xxx–xxx

+ MODEL

JBR-06407; No of Pages 10

! The authors gratefully acknowledge the help of Sharon Shavitt and BarbaraStern at the earlier stages of this project.! Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 253 692 4707.E-mail address: sivadas@u.washington.edu (E. Sivadas).

0148-2963/$ - see front matter © 2007 Published by Elsevier Inc.doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.016

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Please cite this article as: Sivadas E et al. A reduced version of the horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism scale: A four-country assessment. J BusRes (2007), doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.016

group goals, whereas in collectivist societies, in-group goals takeprecedence over those of the individual, with personal goalssecondary. That is, individualistic societies are “me”-oriented andcollectivist societies are “we”-oriented.

Cultures that score high on individualism include mostWestern countries such as the United States and Australia, andthose that score high on collectivism include many Asiancountries such as China and South Korea (cf. Adler et al.,1992). Moderately collectivist countries include India and Brazil(Hofstede, 2001), and moderately individualistic countries in-clude Denmark and Belgium. Following Hofstede, research con-ducted at the cultural level of analysis has been based on thepremise that the orientations comprise a simple dichotomousspectrum anchored by individualism and collectivism at oppo-site poles (see Triandis, 2004 for a review). The individualism/collectivism framework has been influential in social scienceresearch (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988; Triandis, 1995) andconsumer research (for a review, see Aaker and Maheswaran,1997; Maheshwaran and Shavitt, 2000) since the late 1980s.

However, Triandis et al. (1995) and Triandis and Gelfand(1998) suggested that the dichotomy was too simplistic toaccount for personal differences within members of individu-alist and collectivist cultures. They pointed out that a morecomprehensive system of cultural orientations was needed tocontribute to a clearer understanding of group influences onconsumer behavior (Maheshwaran and Shavitt, 2000). To thisend, Triandis proposed a four-fold typology including horizon-tal and vertical measurement of social relationships at theindividual level of analysis. The objective was to measuredifferences between people with a predilection for hierarchy orfor equality within cultures that tend to be individually orcollectively oriented. Horizontal and vertical dimensions weresaid to exist in both individualist and collectivist cultures, alsoat opposite poles of a spectrum. Vertical relationships arestructurally hierarchical with members of the culture acceptinginequality and acknowledging the importance of social rank orstatus (Triandis and Gelfand, 1998), while horizontal relation-ships are structurally egalitarian with members acceptinginterdependence and equal status for all (Triandis, 1995).

Hence, an expanded typology enlarges the original dichot-omy by incorporating four orientations: Horizontal Individual-ism (HI), Vertical Individualism (VI), Horizontal Collectivism(HC), and Vertical Collectivism (VC) (Triandis and Gelfand,1998; Singelis et al., 1995) — see Fig. 1 for representativenational cultures. The four countries in our study were chosenbecause each can be placed predominately into one of the fourcultural orientations. The U.S. is the quintessential VI culture inwhich people want to be “the best” and strive for achievement, incontrast to Denmark, an HI culture in which people consider it

inappropriate to stand out from a group by aiming at status orachievement (Triandis, 2004). India is a VC culture, influencedby its historically embedded caste system. China may be con-sidered a HC culture, influenced by the historical political andeconomic environment that emphasized egalitarian and group-centered values. While the Israeli Kibbutz may be the bestexample of an HC culture, China because of its population andeconomy, is more important to marketers. China has historicallybeen regarded as an interesting and complicated case ofcollectivism (Triandis, 1995, pages 90–91). Traditional Chineseculture may be inclined toward verticality, but the Stateadvocates horizontal themes. Triandis (1995) estimated that“Chinese culture is more vertical than horizontal. Perhaps 30%HC and 40% VC” (p.90). Further, Triandis notes that “thetraditions of Confucius, Taoism, and Buddhism have beenwedded to new ideas in order to emphasize not only egali-tarianism but also individual and team responsibility andcompetition.” Thus, China may present an acceptable exampleof an HC culture. Studying countries that represent all fourcultural types is important because as Shavitt et al. (2006) pointout, knowledge about the consequences of vertical and hori-zontal differences is limited because most papers tend to com-pare people of only two cultural types: the U.S. (VI) with those inEast Asian Countries (VC or HC).

Research findings reveal evidence of the four distinctivepatterns and confirm differences in self-perceptions, judgmentsof others, aspiration to social status, and importance of equality(Nelson and Shavitt, 2002; Triandis and Gelfand, 1998; Probstet al., 1999; Kurman and Sriram, 2002; Soh and Leong, 2002;Cukur et al., 2004). In both HI and VI cultures, the autonomy ofthe self is emphasized, but in HI cultures, the self is perceived asequal in status to others, whereas in VI cultures, the self isperceived as different from others (Singelis et al., 1995). Thevertical self emphasizes uniqueness in a status orientation orrelationship regardless of the larger cultural values. A horizontalself sees oneself as part of a group (no status or power), butwithin an individualist society, s/he may be ‘unique’ in ways notrelated to status.

Yet, even though people are self-reliant and want to be uniquein both types of individualist cultures, the VIs are competitiveand status-oriented and the HIs are not. For example, inDenmark, people do not want to “stick out” from others, andthere is an ingrained social modesty code emphasizing that “youshould not think you are better than anyone else” (Nelson andShavitt, 2002). And, despite the focus of both types of col-lectivist cultures on similarity to others and commonality ofgoals, the HCs defer to authority and view personal goals assecondary, in contrast to the VCs, who accept inequality andrelative status differentiation (Singelis et al., 1995).

Fig. 1. Four dimensions of cultural orientation with exemplar countries.

2 E. Sivadas et al. / Journal of Business Research xx (2007) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Please cite this article as: Sivadas E et al. A reduced version of the horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism scale: A four-country assessment. J BusRes (2007), doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.016

Although there are similarities in the emphasis on hierarchyin vertical/horizontal dimensions and the Power–Distance(PDI) orientation (Hofstede, 2001), there are differences in theassumptions underlying these theoretical frameworks (Shavittet al., 2006). Hofstede conceptualizes PDI as a single bipolardimension at the country level, so that a country receives a singlePDI score, which “implies that countries low in power distancerepresent either the absence or the opposite of hierarchicalpatterns” (Shavitt et al., 2006, p.339). Alternatively, the horizontaland vertical distinction adds to the INDCOL patterns to revealfour separate, not unidimensional cultural orientations (Triandis,1995). Thus, a culture and the individuals within it, may havevarying levels and combinations of hierarchy (e.g., VC, VI).

Shavitt et al. (2006) suggest that the horizontal/verticaldistinction has important implications for marketers and consum-er researchers. Advertising appeals are culturally influenced withsome cultures more likely to use certain ad appeals than othercultures (Han and Shavitt, 1994). For instance, societies thattolerate hierarchy are also characterized by advertising wherethere are status differences between ad characters (Shavitt et al.,2006). Similarly, ads emphasizing hierarchy and status valuesmay also appeal more to vertically inclined cultures. Since VCcultures defer to authority and show primacy to the wishes of thegroup, individuals within these societies are alsomore likely to beconforming in terms of product choice (Shavitt et al., 2006).These researchers further suggest that the HI cultural orientationcould lead to a misplaced confidence in one's consumer skills, asHI cultures tend to focus on independence and self-competence.Gurhan-Canli and Maheshwaran (2000) also make the case thatvertical cultures may be more likely to emphasize country oforigin and preference for products from their own country.

2. Singelis et al. scale: a problematic measure

The Singelis et al. (1995) scale was developed to examineindividual differences in HI, VI, HC, and VC. The fourdimensions were measured according to individuals' responsesto 32 attitudinal items on an agree–disagree Likert scale. Eachcultural dimension was measured with eight items. The intent ofthe scale was to better explain cultural differences and patternsof social relationships than was possible using the Individualismand Collectivism dimensions alone.

However, the scaling question is, “Can an unstable measure beconsidered the ‘same’ scale?" The history of the 32-itemattitudinal four-dimensional scale (Singelis et al., 1995) supportsa negative answer. Table 1 lists the items that comprise the 32-item scale. Singelis et al. (1995) originally developed a pool of 94items and also employed other scales measuring individualismand collectivism and self-construal. This questionnaire wasadministered to 267 U.S. college students. The original 94-itemscale was drilled down to a 32-item scale to measure horizontaland vertical individualism and collectivism and was shown to bereliable and valid. The scale's structure was shown to be sound bymeans of confirmatory factor analysis, and the measures hadreasonable coefficient alphas (Horizontal Individualismalpha= .67; Vertical Individualism alpha= .74; Horizontal Col-lectivism alpha= .74, and Vertical Collectivism alpha= .68).

Nonetheless, despite the theoretical appeal of the horizontal/vertical dimension, it has not yet made as significant an impact onmarketing and consumer research as might be expected (Singeliset al., 1995; Maheswaran and Shavitt, 2000). The reason is that,notwithstanding the potential contribution of the four dimensionsto the study of culture (cf. Triandis and Gelfand, 1998 for adetailed review), measurement problems have clouded studyresults. That is, even though study findings in general support thefour-dimension perspective (Singelis et al., 1995; Triandis andGelfand, 1998), the scale developed by Singelis and colleagueshas not proven to be particularly robust. The original 32-iteminstrument (please see Table 1) that contained eight statementsreflecting each orientation (1995, Instrument 1, p. 206–207) hasbeen dogged by its lack of parsimony, which Triandis himselfacknowledged (Triandis, 1995). Its usefulness has been hamperedbecause when one reduces the number of items after administer-ing a scale, results indicate inconsistent factor loadings anddubious reliabilities (Lonner and Adampoulos, 1980).

Specifically, after the initial one-country test, subsequentuses in other studies (cf. Triandis and Gelfand, 1998; Probstet al., 1999; Kurman and Sriram, 2002; Soh and Leong, 2002;

Table 132-ITEM Singelis et al. (1995) scale

1. I prefer to be direct and forthright when I talk with people HI2. My happiness depends very much on the happiness of those around

meaHC

3. I would do what would please my family, even if I detested thatactivitya

VC

4. Winning is everythingb VI5. One should live one's life independently of others HI6. What happens to me is my own doing HI7. I usually sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of my groupa VC8. It annoys me when other people perform better than I do VI9. It is important to maintain harmony within my group HC10. It is important that I do my job better than othersb VI11. I like sharing little things with my neighbors HC12. I enjoy working in situations involving competition with othersa VI13. We should keep our aging parents with us at home VC14. The well-being of my co-workers is important to mea,b HC15. I enjoy being unique and different from others in many waysa HI16. If a relative were in financial difficulty, I would help within my means HC17. Children should feel honored if their parents receive a distinguished

awardaVC

18. I often “do my own thing”a,b HI19. Competition is the law of naturea,b VI20. If a co-worker gets a prize, I would feel prouda,b HC21. I am a unique individuala HI22. To me, pleasure is spending time with othersb HC23. When another person does better than I do, I get tense and arousedb VI24. I would sacrifice an activity that I enjoy very much If my family did

not approve of itaVC

25. I like my privacy HI26. Without competition it is not possible to have a good societya VI27. Children should be taught to place duty before pleasure VC28. I feel good when I cooperate with others a,b HC29. I hate to disagree with others in my group VC30. Some people emphasize winning; I'm not one of them (reverse) VI31. Before taking a major trip, I consult with most members of my family

and many friendsVC

32. When I succeed, it is usually because of my abilities HIaIndicates that the item was retained in our final list of 14 items.bIndicates that the item is in common with Triandis and Gelfand (1998).

3E. Sivadas et al. / Journal of Business Research xx (2007) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Please cite this article as: Sivadas E et al. A reduced version of the horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism scale: A four-country assessment. J BusRes (2007), doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.016

Cukur et al., 2004) indicated a certain lack of robustness in thatresults were not fully replicable. Researchers found it difficult toextract unidimensional scales with all items loading on theposited dimensions. As a consequence, certain items have beeneliminated in various studies, where the typical practice hasbeen to administer the 32-item scale and then discard someitems after an exploratory factor analysis.

For example, in Probst et al.'s (1999) study conducted with asample of U.S. college students, only 21 of the 32 items wereretained, and items with factor loadings less than 0.50 wereeliminated. Similarly, a Kurman and Sriram (2002) study withSingaporean and Israeli samples retained 20 of the original 32items that had loadings greater than 0.45 in both cultures. InTriandis and Gelfand's (1998) four-study test, a modified 27-item version of the Singelis measure was used. Study 1 in Koreapresented an exploratory factor analysis yielding four factors(orthoism and oblimin solution), yet only the factor loadingsfor the 16 highest items (.68 to.40) were reported. The other 11item loadings were not included, and more importantly, noconfirmatory factor analysis was performed. Studies 2, 3, and 4based on U.S. samples used the same 27-item measure, (and notthe sixteen-item measure reported in Table 1 of that study).Further, even though Study 4 reported satisfactory Cronbachalphas and convergent and divergent validity (using a scenariomeasure), the factor scores and dimensionality and robustnessof the 4-factor scale were not reported. Similarly, Soh andLeong's (2002) study of American and Singaporean studentswas only able to retain 16 of 32 items. In a study comparing thePhilippines, the United States, and Turkey, Cukur et al. (2004)retained another set of 16 of the 32 items. Robert et al. (2000)used only 24 of the 32 items in a study of plant employees of aU.S. MNC from the United States, Mexico, India, and Poland.Robert et al. (2006) reported that the model fit for the scale tendsto be low and low reliability can also be a problem. Theirsample was comprised of students from American, Singapor-ean, and Korean Universities and Singapore military personnel.

Another concern about the scale's psychometric stability andcontent validity is that the VC and HC dimensions are signifi-cantly correlated in the studies by Singelis et al. (1995) and Probstet al. (1999). Thus, the derivation of four-factor models that fitwell has been difficult, and the scale's dimensionality is ques-tionable in view of significant correlations between the dimen-sions of HC and VC. To overcome these problems, we aim atderiving a more parsimonious scale with stable psychometricproperties and metrical equivalence across countries.

To extract the theoretically posited unidimensional scalesand demonstrate metric equivalence of the dimensions acrosscountries, we conducted the following five studies. We firstbegan with a test of the 32-item Singelis et al. scale with datacollected from the United States and China.

3. Studies 1 and 2: U.S. and China

Study 1 took place in the U.S., where data were collectedfrom two hundred undergraduate business students enrolled inan introductory marketing class at a large MidwesternUniversity. The students received extra credit for participating

in the paper-and-pen study, which took about 15 minutes tocomplete. The 32-item (8 items each for HI, HC, VI, and VC)nine-point scale developed by Singelis et al. (1995) wasadministered in conjunction with questions asking respondentsto rate purchase intentions for four products. The study alsomeasured respondents' gender, age, and type of communitythey grew up in (i.e., city, suburb, small town, or rural).

Study 2 took place in China, using a translated version of thesame questionnaire. The process was begun by a translation intoChinese by two university professors teaching at a regionaluniversity in China who were not connected with the study. Thistranslation was followed by a back-translation into English by aChinese national living in the U.S. who is fluent in both Englishand Chinese. One researcher worked closely with all threetranslators to ensure that the translated version was accurate.Prior to administering the questionnaire, a small pilot test wasconducted using undergraduate business students at a leadingnational university in southwest China. The questionnaire wasthen administered to ninety undergraduate business students atthe same national university in southwest China. The question-naires were completed during an in-class session.

3.1. Results

We performed Confirmatory Factor Analyses on the datagathered in the U.S. and China.We beganwith the 32 items, usingthe covariance matrix as input. As expected, given the problem offinding factors when the number of items exceeds 5 (Andersonand Gerbing 1988), the resulting fit indices were not good. Wenext tested for outliers using the hat matrix X(X"X)!1X"measure(Neter et al., 1996, p. 375; Bagozzi and Baumgartner 1994,p. 393), which enabled reduction of the number of usable surveysby the omission of those with missing values and significantoutliers. The total sample size for the U.S. was now 182 (downfrom 200) and for China 88 (down from 90).

We next used LISREL to construct separate unidimensionalmeasurement models for each dimension–HC, HI, VC, and VI–based on both data sets (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1996). In sodoing, we followed the precept that unidimensional measuresusing multiple-indicator measurement models require at least 4measures each for internal consistency, with each measureserving as an estimate of one construct alone (Anderson andGerbing, 1988). This approach allows us to test the unidimen-sionality of a scale and refine the factor structure in exploratoryfactor analysis (Steenkamp and Van Trijp, 1991). We also usedLISREL confirmatory factor analysis and analysis of thestandardized residuals for respecification of the unidimensionalscales measuring HC, HI, VC, and VI (Anderson and Gerbing,1988; Steenkamp and Van Trijp, 1991).

3.2. Modification indices and residual analyses

Following Bagozzi and Baumgartner's (1994) suggestion, wethen examined two alternative tools – modification indices andresidual analyses – used for “locating sources of misspecifica-tion” in a measurement model. The value of modification indicesis that they provide an estimate of the expected decrease in overall

4 E. Sivadas et al. / Journal of Business Research xx (2007) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Please cite this article as: Sivadas E et al. A reduced version of the horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism scale: A four-country assessment. J BusRes (2007), doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.016

chi-square if the fixed parameters under consideration wereestimated freely. Fit can be improved by freeing parameters foritems with a modification index greater than 3.84 if significantimprovement in fit is obtained.

Substantial improvement could be seen in the outcomeindicators when an 8-item measure is winnowed down to a 4-item scale, with a dramatic drop of RMSEA for each of the fourscales (HC, HI, VC and VI). However, notwithstanding the useof LISREL to produce unidimensional measures, the reliabil-ities for the reduced four item scales for the U.S. were far fromdesirable (HC= .45, HI= .57, VC=.46, VI= .69), and inferior tothe 8-item scales (HC=.69, HI= .64, VC=.38 and VI= .83).The reliabilities for China were even worse (HC=.27, HI= .28,VC=.37, VI= .58), being less than those of the 8-item scales(HC=.53, HI= .43, VC=.38 VI= .57). Given the less thansatisfactory reliabilities and factor structure, we exploredadditional configurations for the scale.

3.3. Two-sample/three-factor analyses: China and U.S. data

We next performed a Multi-sample Analysis ( Joreskog andSorbom, 1996) for the four-item scales of the U.S. and Chinadata. Here, the fit values for the combined sample were X2 =278.62 196 df, pb .0001, GFI=0.860, RMSEA=0.056, whichindicates a reasonable but not highly robust fit. Therefore, wedid not choose to proceed with an investigation of whether thismeasurement instrument operates equivalently across differentpopulations. We returned to the drawing board and performedan exploratory factor analysis on the U.S. sample. However, theuse of varimax and promax rotations yielded similar unimpres-sive results. While all 8 VI items loaded on one single factorwith respectable factor loadings (.56 to.67), the other dimen-sions were problematic. While all 8 HI items also loaded on onefactor, 3 out of 8 HI items had less than desirable loadingsbelow.40. In addition, the VC and HC dimensions were evenmore problematic, for they tended to cross-load with each other:five HC items and three VC items loaded on the same factor,and the remaining three HC items loaded with the remainingfive VC items.

The messy situation was reconfirmed by a 3 factor exploratoryanalysis, in which the 8 HC and 8 VC items loaded on the samefactor, and nine of these items (5 of the HC and 4 VC items) hadloadings greater than 0.40 on this combined factor. It seems fair tosay that the use of the 32-item scale to extract four clean factorsrepresenting the four distinct cultural constructs would beproblematic. To resolve this issuewe conducted additional studies.

4. Study 3: Denmark sample

The 32-item scale in conjunction with other measures thatmeasured value orientations of respondents was administered to82 Danish undergraduate students at a university in Denmark.The questionnaire was translated into Danish and back trans-lated by two bilingual volunteers. The questionnaires werehanded out and completed in-class. The final sample size was80 as two responses were omitted because of significant outliersor missing values.

5. Study 4: U.S. and India samples

The 32-item Singelis et al. scale and some other scale itemswere administered to (N=149) American undergraduatemarketing students at a large Midwestern university. Thequestionnaire was answered in-class, and students were givenextra course credit for participation. The same study was alsoadministered to (N=123) undergraduate and post-secondarystudents at a regional university located in southern India.Professors affiliated with several colleges in the universityadministered the in-class questionnaire handed out to thestudents. The English language questionnaire was administeredto the students who were fluent in English.

5.1. Results

The coefficient alpha reliabilities for the 32-item scaleacross the five samples are reported in Table 2. Many of thereliabilities were very low, falling below the acceptable range.Given the less than adequate performance in studies 1 and 2and the low reliabilities, we next attempted to find a commonreduced set of scale items across the five studies. First, aprincipal components analysis was done on each scale andfactors were kept that had eigen values greater than 1. Second,a Varimax with Kaiser Normalization rotation method wasdone and higher loadings were used to identify the items on theoriginal principal components explaining the most variance inthe data set. In 80% of the cases (16/20) there were 3 or moreeigenvalues greater than 1. This may indicate that these scales(HC, HI, VC, VI) are not performing as a single factor withinthis data and the dominant component does not explain amajority of the variance as one would like. Third, a number ofcombinations of items from the high loadings were submittedto an alpha scale reliability analysis and those that had a similarperformance across the common data sets were identified. Insome cases the subscale alpha values were just a bit more orless than the entire eight-item set, but there was consistency inperformance across the data sets. While arguably in some ofthe datasets, the common subscale was not as strong, butgiven the ability to identify a common set of items from fivesamples in four countries and the problems associated withthe full 32-item scale, we retained the reduced set of items asdescribed in Tables 1 and 3. We used both Varimax andPromax rotations to examine the factor structure of the scales.The results were similar for both Varimax and Promax rota-tions. Factor loadings of less than 0.35 were suppressed. The

Table 2Coefficient alpha reliabilities for 32-item and reduced 14-item horizontal andvertical individualism and collectivism scale

Data set N 8HC 4HC 8HI 3HI 8VC 4VC 8VI 3VI

China 88 .535 .606 .400 .578 .380 .446 .574 .390USA1 182 .685 .621 .640 .669 .592 .553 .827 .789USA2 149 .724 .543 .626 .763 .531 .397 .508 .641India 123 .490 .557 .339 .417 .261 .384 .418 .613Denmark 80 .610 .599 .592 .571 .475 .402 .626 .779

5E. Sivadas et al. / Journal of Business Research xx (2007) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Please cite this article as: Sivadas E et al. A reduced version of the horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism scale: A four-country assessment. J BusRes (2007), doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.016

factor loadings from the Confirmatory Factor Analyses arepresented in Table 3.

On the whole, the performance of the 14-item subscale wasfound to be reasonable with most items loading on the positedfactors. All 14 items had significant factor loadings with the twoU.S. samples. Ten of the 14 items had significant loadings withthe Danish sample while 9 items had significant factor loadingson the Chinese and Indian samples. A major issue is that thefactor structure for VC and HI tends to show up as a twodimensional scale for China and Denmark. In the first U.S.Sample (Study 1), HC, HI, and VI perform well though one VCitem cross-loads with HC. For the second U.S. sample HI andVI items perform well, but the factor structure for VC seemsproblematic. The VC factor structure also appears problematicfor the Chinese and Indian samples.

6. Discussion of reduced versus full-set of items: samplingthe domain of the construct

As a snapshot of the four cultural orientations, Triandis(1995, p.47) offers an exemplar scenario, “If you had todescribe yourself to another person, which of the followingdescriptions would you choose?” with the following responsecategories: (1) achievement oriented (vertical individualism);(2) cooperative (horizontal collectivism); (3) dutiful (verticalcollectivism); and (4) unique (horizontal individualism). Inother words, those who rate high on horizontal collectivism, asdescribed earlier, are other-oriented in a way that emphasizescooperation but not out of duty or obligation to fulfill statusrelationships. In our scale, 4 of the 8 original items wereretained (see Table 1). These items are able to fully capture the

Table 3Confirmatory factor analyses

Item China USA1 USA2 India Denmark

32 item 14 item 32 item 14 item 32 item 14 item 32 item 14 item 32 item 14 item

HC1 0.54 0.65 0.43 0.37 0.42 0.39 0.31 0.60 0.42 0.43HC2 0.26 0.43 0.48 0.12a 0.53HC3 0.11 0.28 0.44 0.18a 0.34HC4 0.53 0.67 0.62 0.79 0.54 0.67 0.67 0.32 0.69 0.70HC5 0.38 0.45 0.41 0.42 0.26a

HC6 0.44 0.50 0.59 0.61 0.41 0.65 0.54 0.28 0.45 0.43HC7 0.27 0.44 0.66 0.31 0.13a

HC8 0.45 0.36 0.57 0.45 0.64 0.35 0.39 0.74 0.36 0.34HI1 0.09 0.38 0.44 0.26 0.26HI2 0.22a 0.27 0.38 0.49 0.08a

HI3 !0.15a 0.20 0.36 0.15a 0.37a

HI4 !0.97a 0.97 0.71 0.86 0.61 0.68 0.47 0.49 0.51a 0.89HI5 !0.18a 0.18a 0.56 0.42 0.66 0.57 0.27a 0.23a 0.21a 0.23a

HI6 !0.57a 0.57a 0.66 0.61 0.72 0.76 0.79 0.77a 0.73a 0.52a

HI7 !0.18a 0.44 0.59 0.02a 0.31a

HI8 !0.07a 0.30 0.42 !0.06a 0.48a

VC1 0.10 0.22 0.31 0.68 0.71 0.79 1.00 0.86 0.51 0.57VC2 0.57 0.80a 0.40 0.60 0.24 0.26 !0.51a 0.26a 0.00a 0.03a

VC3 0.11 0.35 0.37 !0.12a 0.08a

VC4 0.30 0.31a 0.50 0.26 0.35 0.32 !2.14 0.16a 0.63 0.60VC5 0.09 0.26a 0.35 0.43 0.65 0.59 0.68a 0.21a 0.10a 0.19a

VC6 0.40a 0.49 0.39 !1.02a 0.65VC7 0.05a 0.30 0.26 0.62 0.03a

VC8 !0.18a 0.38 0.43 3.39 0.15a

VI1 0.44 0.64 0.74 0.01a 0.61VI2 0.07a 0.49 0.68 !0.09a 0.27VI3 0.59 0.51 0.65 !0.46a 0.37VI4 0.56 0.31 0.72 0.71 0.53 0.71 !0.65a 0.49 0.59 0.54VI5 0.24a 0.84 0.71 0.81 0.59 0.59 !0.54a 0.67 0.82 0.82VI6 0.17a 0.54 0.69 !0.01a 0.46VI7 0.22a 0.71 0.68 0.72 0.42 0.64 !0.54a 0.61 0.81 0.90VI8 0.73 0.59 !0.50 !0.07a 0.61

Chisquare

757.05,458 df,p=0.00

124.21,71 df,p=0.00

931.27,458 df,p=0.00

100.27,71 df,p=0.013

989.99,458 df,p=0.00

152.14,71 df,p=0.00

938.07,458 df,p=0.00

148.36,71 df,p=0.00

689.02,458 df,p=0.00

88.55,71 df,p=0.078

GFI 0.66 0.84 0.76 0.93 0.68 0.85 0.69 0.87 0.67 0.88AGFI 0.61 0.77 0.72 0.90 0.63 0.79 0.64 0.80 0.62 0.82RMSR 0.50 0.10 0.085 0.069 0.11 0.099 0.12 0.096 0.11 0.093CFI 0.38 0.74 0.64 0.93 0.55 0.74 0.29 0.58 0.56 0.90NFI 0.23 0.57 0.48 0.81 0.41 0.62 0.20 0.46 0.33 0.66RMSEA 0.079 0.082 0.076 0.043 0.093 0.094 0.086 0.083 0.068 0.039aNon-significant factor loadings.

6 E. Sivadas et al. / Journal of Business Research xx (2007) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Please cite this article as: Sivadas E et al. A reduced version of the horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism scale: A four-country assessment. J BusRes (2007), doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.016

conceptual meaning of HC, with an emphasis on ‘those aroundme’ and cooperation with others. Two of the items show thisother-orientation related to co-workers (“The well-being of myco-workers is important to me,” “If a co-worker gets a prize, Iwould feel proud”). These co-worker others are important in-group members, indicative of collectivism, but they do not havea status relationship like that of family members. Horizontalindividualists show an independent self and like to be uniquefrom others, but do not feel competitive with others. Althoughour scale retains only 3 of the 8 original items, the primarymeaning of the construct (“unique”) is fully captured with theseitems (“I enjoy being unique and different from others in manyways,” “I often ‘do my own thing,’” and “I am a uniqueindividual”). The items that were not retained appear to tap into

other meanings (direct communication — item 1, privacy —item 25, and independent/self-sufficiency-items 5, 6, 32).

The vertical items retained show similar ability to capture thekey meaning of VC and VI. For VC, the emphasis is on dutyand self-sacrifice related to one's in-group, which may result inthe individual performing an activity out of obligation and torespect and honor those in a higher status position. Our scaleretains 4 of the 8 original items for VC. Three of the items clearlyshow the primary meaning of duty/obligation (“I would do whatwould please my family, even if I detested that activity,” “Iusually sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of my group,”and “I would sacrifice an activity that I enjoy very much if myfamily did not approve of it”). The fourth item (“Children shouldfeel honored if their parents receive a distinguished award”)relates to respect and honor of elders. Two of the items that werenot retained deal with specific behaviors, which may beproblematic over diverse populations and changing culturalnorms (e.g., “We should keep our aging parents with us at home”and “Before taking a major trip, I consult with most members ofmy family and many friends”). For VI, the primary meaning ofachievement – over others – is competition. Our scale retainedthree of the eight original items. Each of these items (“I enjoyworking in situations involving competition with others,”“Competition is the law of nature,” and “Without competitionit is not possible to have a good society”) deals directly with abelief in the intrinsic importance of competition; thus, together,they are able to tap into the primary meaning of verticality. Someof the items not retained for VI tend to emphasize the outcomesassociated with not succeeding in competition (e.g., “It annoysme when other people perform better than I do,” “When anotherperson does better than I do, I get tense and aroused”) but do notspeak to competition in general.

Thus, the reduced 14 items that are retained appear to tap intothe domain of the construct adequately.

7. Study 5: test of the reduced scale

The objective of Study 5 was to test the 14-item scale on itsown. Seventy-three undergraduate marketing majors at twoAmerican universities were administered the 14-item modifiedscale as well as some other scale items. The questionnaire was

Table 4Study 5: U.S. confirmatory factor loadings

Item Completely standardizedcoefficients

HC VC HI VI

My happiness depends very much on the happinessof those around me

0.38

I would do what would please my family, even ifI detested that activity

0.86

I usually sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit ofmy group

0.72

I enjoy working in situations involving competitionwith others

0.64

The well-being of my co-workers is importantto me

0.86

I enjoy being unique and different from others inmany ways

0.78

Children should feel honored if their parentsreceive a distinguished award

0.25

I often “do my own thing” 0.87Competition is the law of nature 0.87If a co-worker gets a prize, I would feel proud 0.63I am a unique individual 0.63I would sacrifice an activity that I enjoy very much

If my family did not approve of it0.76

Without competition it is not possible to have agood society

0.56

I feel good when I cooperate with others 0.54

Table 5Confirmatory factor analyses (16/8 and 14/7 HC and VI comparisons)

Item China USA1 USA2 India Denmark

16/8 item 14/7 item 16/8 item 14/7 item 16/8 item 14/7 item 16/8 item 14/7 item 16/8 item 14/7 item

Chi square 25.84, 19 df,p=0.13

19.44, 13 df,p=0.11

41.5, 19 df,p=0.002

19.66, 13 df,p=0.10

46.42, 19 df,p=0.001

17.39, 13 df,p=0.18

Non-admissible

34.48, 13 df,p=0.001

35.16, 19 df,p=0.013

13.65, 13 df,p=0.40

GFI 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.97 0.92 0.96 0.93 0.90 0.96AGFI 0.87 0.88 0.90 0.94 0.85 0.92 0.85 0.81 0.91RMSR 0.093 0.096 0.059 0.046 0.075 0.056 0.091 0.098 0.071CFI 0.75 0.92 0.90 0.97 0.86 0.96 0.76 0.77 0.99NFI 0.53 0.82 0.82 0.93 0.80 0.86 0.71 0.64 0.90RMSEA 0.059 0.07 0.08 0.050 0.100 0.049 0.11 0.098 0.016PRMSEAvalue 0.38 .29 0.068 .45 0.024 .46 .026 .058 .62NNFI(TLI) .63 .88 .84 .96 .80 .93 .64 .66 .99IFI .81 .93 .90 .97 .87 .96 .79 .79 .99

7E. Sivadas et al. / Journal of Business Research xx (2007) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Please cite this article as: Sivadas E et al. A reduced version of the horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism scale: A four-country assessment. J BusRes (2007), doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.016

completed in-class. Table 4 reports the results from theconfirmatory factor analyses. The chi-square was significant(129.95, df=71, p=.000), and the fit indices were mediocre.GFI=0.82, AGFI=0.73, RMSR=0.33, CFI=0.82, NFI=0.69,RMSEA=0.091. However, all estimated factor loadings weresignificant as indicated by all t values exceeding 1.96. Thecoefficient alpha reliabilities were as follows: HI=0.806,VI=0.709, HC=0.645 and VC=.745. Thus, on the whole, the14-item scale shows promise. There was a modest correlation of0.33 between the HC and VC dimensions.

8. Comparison of the reduced 14-item scale with the full32-item and the Triandis and Gelfand (1998) 16-itemreduced version

Triandis and Gelfand (1998) used a 27-item scale in fourstudies reported in that paper. However, in Table 2 (p.120), theyreport the factor loadings for only 16 of those 27 items. Eventhough Triandis and Gelfand (1998) used the full 27-item scale instudies 2, 3, and 4 of that paper, other researchers have tended touse the 16 items reported in Table 2 of that paper with mixedresults. In Lalwani et al. (2006) four studies were conductedwhere the 16-item scale was used. In the first study the 4 (HC, HI,VI, VC) summated scales were used in a regression analysis withno reported Fit values. In studies 2 and 3 there are reported alphavalues listed (p. 169 and 171), but these were considered too low(Study 2 min=.00 to max=.45. Study 3 min=.04 to max=.35)and the authors stated, “…thus these data were not consideredfurther.” In Study 4 (p. 172 presents min=.62 and max=.73) theauthors used the summated scale in various regression analyses.No SEM fits or CFA runs with fits were reported. In the previousdiscussions of the scale, there is no in-depth presentation orreview of fit values or fit requirements reported for the multipleuses of this 16-item scale (Shavitt et al., 2006).

Even though we did not set out to conduct a direct compari-son, but given the prevalent usage of the Triandis and Gelfand(1998) truncated scale, we decided to the extent possible to do acomparison of the full 32-item scale, our reduced 14-item scaleand the 16-item reduced Triandis and Gelfand scale. Matching upthe 16 items in the Triandis and Gelfand paper and the 32 items inthe Singelis et al. (1995) scale, there are 9 matches and 7 Triandisand Gelfand items that do not overlap with the Singelis et al.(1995) scale. There are 4-item scale matches for each of VI andHC and only one out of four for HI and none of the four for VC.The matching items are identified in Table 1. Thus, we were ableto do a head-to-head comparison of the VI and HC dimensionsacross the three scale configurations.

The coefficient alpha reliabilities indicated that our 14-itemscale based on a higher alpha is superior to the 16-item scale in8 out of 10 comparisons.

Data set N 32/hc/8 14/hc/4 16/hc/4 32/vi/8 14/vi/3 16/vi/4

China 88 .535 .606 .406 .575 .391 .304USA1 182 .686 .621 .646 .827 .790 .717USA2 149 .724 .543 .665 .509 .641 .562India 123 .491 .557 .465 .418 .614 .210Denmark 80 .610 .599 .472 .627 .780 .670

The 14-item scale based on higher alpha values performsabout the same as the full 32= item scale in 5 out of 10comparisons. The 16-item scale based on a higher alphaperforms behind the 32-item scale in 8 out of 10 comparisons.In Table 5, we also compare the fit values for HC and VIdimensions of the Triandis and Gelfand (1998) 16-item scaleand our scales. In four of the country data sets (the Indiasolution was non-admissible) our 14/7 scale for the (4 HC and 3VI items) scale performs better than the Triandis and Gelfand16/8 (4 HC and 4 VI items). For example the NNFI for the 14/7scale is higher for every country. Thus, there is preliminaryevidence that our 14-item scale, on the two dimensions that wewere able to test, outperforms the reduced Triandis and Gelfand(1998) scale.

9. Country profiles on the four dimensions

Although the four countries were chosen a priori to representcertain cultural dimensions (e.g., China: HC, Denmark: HI,India: VC, U.S.: VI), the results of mean scores on the dimen-sions show a more complicated composite of culture. Chinaappears to be a VI country while USA appears to be a HIcountry across three samples. India scores highest on the HCdimension. Denmark is clearly a horizontally inclined culturebut exhibits both HC and HI characteristics in equal measure.Table 6 reports means of the full 32-item and the reduced 14-item measures for all the countries. There is consistency in meanscores across the 32 and 14 item measures. Fig. 2 presents a bargraph corresponding to the mean centered values that werecomputed from Table 6.

Table 6Mean country scores on horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism

Cultural characteristic USA1 China Denmark USA2 India USA3

8HC 6.481 6.411 5.595 5.559 7.6644HC 6.348 6.639 5.681 5.360 8.065 6.1798HI 6.986 7.117 5.422 5.686 6.3893HI 7.163 6.231 5.658 5.985 6.075 7.1028VC 5.577 6.123 3.582 4.449 7.0464VC 5.715 6.096 3.511 4.514 6.478 5.5248VI 5.614 6.595 4.184 4.729 5.5493VI 6.142 8.075 4.481 4.955 6.337 6.210

Fig. 2. Country cultural profiles using mean centered values from reduced scale.

8 E. Sivadas et al. / Journal of Business Research xx (2007) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Please cite this article as: Sivadas E et al. A reduced version of the horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism scale: A four-country assessment. J BusRes (2007), doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.016

10. Limitations and research implications

In this study we have been able to take an inconsistent 32-item scale and successfully winnow it down to a more easilyadministered 14-item scale. We have shown that this 14-itemscale is robust in a test in four countries that were chosen torepresent the four cultural orientations. Even though a fairlyhomogenous sample is ideal when comparing across cultures asa means of controlling for confounding factors, the limitation ofan undergraduate student sample prevents generalizabilityacross populations. We acknowledge that despite the derivationof a reduced scale that shows robustness across the studies,further testing of the scale is necessary. After deriving the scalefrom multiple samples in multiple countries, we tested it directlywith one study on a sample of 73 undergraduates. We wouldrecommend researchers conduct a re-test of our 14-item scalewith a larger sample of U.S. undergraduates and other non-student populations and using a multi-country sample.

Further, a built-in limitation in the use of a universalframework is that it cannot capture the rich interplay ofcontextual factors that may influence items of interest (Munroeand Munroe, 1980). But a reduced 14-item scale allowsresearchers greater flexibility than the 32-item scale in addingitems that capture contextual factors and differentiate within-culture nuances. The study limitations provide opportunities forfuture researchers to advance the study of cultural values byinvestigating different-age populations in different countries,with specific rather than universal scales (Poortinga, 1980).

Thus, we consider the parsimonious scale a starting pointthat can be used as a springboard for research aimed at increasedcomparison and understanding of consumer behavior.

There are a number of ways that the examination of the fourfactors can help us understand culture and consumer behavior. Insome cases, the refinement of verticality offers a better expla-nation of cultural differences. In a recent issue on cross-culturalpsychology (JCP, 2006) a number of leading scholars offerideas. Shavitt et al. (2006) review a number of areas wherethe distinction in horizontal/vertical cultural values — beyondbroad INDCOL distinctions-offers value to advertising andconsumer behavior scholarship. For example, a study byGurhan-Canli and Maheshwaran (2000) investigated consumerethnocentrism (i.e., preference for products from own country)between consumers in Japan (a VC Culture) and the U.S. (a VIculture). Their results showed that the ways in which theindividuals evaluated the products were based on the uniquecombination of verticality and individualism or collectivism.Namely, the Japanese were more likely to prefer their ownproducts due to the perceived superiority of their “in-group”(indicative of collectivism), whereas those in the U.S. eval-uated the products based on the superiority of the productattributes, regardless of origin (thus, not considering “in-group” in their evaluation). Thus, both vertical cultures wereinterested in superiority over others but who the “others” werevaried by INDCOL orientation. Differences in the prevalenceand persuasiveness of advertisements-attributed mainly to thevertical (status) dimension have also been noted — so that adsin the U.S. (a VI culture) are significantly more likely to use

status and celebrity appeals than are ads in Denmark (a HICulture) (Stein, 2004).

Additional applications of the scale may work to investigateleisure patterns or politics (Meyers-Levy, 2006) or the sense ofself in the workplace versus the home (Aaker, 2006). Nelsonand Devanathan (2006) suggest that the use of celebrity productplacements may be more effective for members of verticalcultures. Perhaps domestic celebrities (in-group role modelssuch as the cricket stars in India) will fare best for VC cultures.Some researchers (cf. Gelfand and Realo, 1999) have used the32-item scale to measure Individualism and Collectivismwithout considering the horizontal and vertical dimensions. Insuch cases the (HI and VI) items and (HC and VC) items can besummated to get individualism and collectivism scoresrespectively. Researchers interested in just obtaining the two-dimensional scores could explore using our reduced scale forthis purpose as well.

In addition to scale items, researchers have also supplementedmeasurement with scenarios to tap into horizontal and verticalindividualism and collectivism (cf. Triandis et al., 1998; Chircovet al., 2005). Our 14-item scale makes it significantly easier tocombine multiple methods as the shorter scale will be lesscumbersome to respondents.We have been able to demonstrate thatfor two of the dimensions (HC andVI) our 14-item scale appears tooutperform the Triandis and Gelfand (1998) reduced version. Theliterature does not provide much evidence for the psychometricrobustness of the 16-item scale. However, we would commendresearchers to do a full-blown comparison of the two scales.

In this paper, we test the scale in four countries that wereselected as exemplars of each of the four posited cultural types.Our sample was comprised of younger undergraduate students. Itis possible that because of global awareness or aspirations such asample may have a different cultural orientation than the generalpopulation at large. Further testing with other samples of differingage and socio-economic backgrounds is needed to get a betterunderstanding of cultural orientations within these largecountries. In most research, scholars restrict themselves to acomparison of two cultural types. A more robust test of our scalewould emerge if we could use the scale to distinguish anddifferentiate amongst several countries of a single cultural type.We would also encourage researchers to examine the interrela-tionship of the horizontal and vertical individualism andcollectivism constructs with other values such as SchwartzValue Surveys (cf. Oishi et al., 1998). More work is needed in thisarea and our scale derived from the original Singelis et al. (1995)scale makes it easier to work with this promising construct.

References

Aaker Jennifer L. Delineating culture. J Consum Psychol 2006;16(4):343–7.Aaker Jennifer L, Maheswaran D. The effect of cultural orientation on persuasion.

J Consum Res 1997;24(3):315–28.Adler Nancy, Brahm Richard, Graham John L. Strategy implementation: a

comparison of face-to-face negotiations in the People's Republic of Chinaand the United States. Strateg Manage J 1992;13(6):449–66.

Anderson John, Gerbing DavidW. Some methods for respecifying measurementmodels to obtain unidimensional construct measurement. J Mark Res1988:453–60 19 (November).

9E. Sivadas et al. / Journal of Business Research xx (2007) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Please cite this article as: Sivadas E et al. A reduced version of the horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism scale: A four-country assessment. J BusRes (2007), doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.016

Bagozzi Richard P, Baumgartner Hans. The evaluation of structural equationmodels and hypothesis testing. Principles of marketing research. Oxford,England: Blackwell Publishers; 1994. pp. 386–422.

Chircov Valery I, Lynch Martin, Niwa Sora. Application of the scenarioquestionnaire of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism to theassessment of cultural distance and cultural fit. Int J Intercult Relat 2005;29(4):469–90.

Cukur Cem S, De Guzman Maria RT, Gustavo Carlo. Religiosity, values, andhorizontal and vertical individualism–collectivism: a study of Turkey, theUnited States, and the Philippines. J Soc Psychol 2004;144(6):613–34.

Dutta-Bergman Mohan J, Wells William D. The values and lifestyles ofidiocentrics and allocentrics in an individualist culture: a descriptiveapproach. J Consum Psychol 2002;12(3):231–42.

Gelfand Michelle, Realo A. Individualism–collectivism and accountability inintergroup negotiations. J Appl Psychol 1999;84:721–36.

Gudykunst William B, Ting-Toomey S. Culture and affective communication.Am Behav Sci 1988;31(3):384–400.

Gurhan-Canli Zeynep, Maheshwaran Durairaj. Cultural variations in country-of-origin effects. J Mark Res 2000;37(3):309–17.

Han S-P, Shavitt S. Persuasion and culture: advertising appeals in individualisticand collectivistic societies. J Exp Soc Psychol 1994;30(4):326.

Hofstede G. Culture's consequences. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage;2001.

Joreskog KG, Sorbom D. LISREL 8: user's reference guide. Chicago: ScientificSoftware International; 1996.

J Consum Psychol 2006;16(4).Kurman Jenny, Sriram N. Interrelationships among vertical and horizontal

collectivism, modesty, and self-enhancement. J Cross-Cult Psychol 2002;33(1):71–86.

Lalwani Ashok K, Shavitt Sharon, Johnson Timothy. What is the relationbetween cultural orientation and socially desirable responding? J Pers SocPsychol 2006;90(1):165–78.

Lonner WHJ, Adampoulos J. Culture as antecedent to behavior. In: Berry JohnW, Poortinga Ype H, Pandey Janak, editors. Handbook of cross-culturalpsychology. Second edition. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon; 1980.pp. 43–84.

Maheshwaran D, Shavitt S. Issues and new directions in global consumerpsychology. J Consum Psychol 2000;9(2):59–66.

Meyers-Levy Joan. Using horizontal/vertical distinction to advance insights intoconsumer psychology. J Consum Psychol 2006;16(4):347–51.

Munroe RL, Munroe RH. A comparative anthropological perspective. In: BerryJohn W, Poortinga Ype, Pandey Janak, editors. Handbook of cross-culturalpsychology. Second edition. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon; 1980.pp. 171–214.

Nelson Michelle R, Shavitt Sharon. Horizontal and vertical individualism andachievement values. J Cross-Cult Psychol 2002;33(2):439–58.

Nelson Michelle R, Devanathan Narayan. Brand placements bollywood style.J Consum Behav 2006;5:211–21.

Neter J, Kutner Michael H, Nachtsheim Christopher J, Wasserman William.Applied Linear Statistical Models. 4th edition. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill;1996.

Oishi Shigehiro, Schimmack Ulrich, Diener Ed, Suh Eunkook M. Themeasurement of values and individualism–collectivism. Pers Soc PsycholBull 1998;vol. 24(11):1177–89.

Poortinga Y. Towards convergence? In: Berry JohnW, Poortinga Ype H, PandeyJanak, editors. Handbook of cross-cultural psychology. Second edition.Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon; 1980. pp. 347–89.

Probst Tahira M, Carnevale Peter J, Triandis Harry C. Cultural values inintergroup and single-group social dilemmas. Org Behav Human DecisProcess 1999;77(3):171–91.

Roberts Christopher, Probst T, Martocchio J, Drasgow F, Lawler J.Empowerment and continuous improvement in the U.S., Mexico, Poland,and India: predicting fit on the basis of the dimensions of power distance andindividualism. J Appl Psychol 2000;85:643–58.

Roberts Christopher, Lee Wayne C, Chan Kim-Yin. An empirical analysis ofmeasurement equivalence with the INDCOL measure of individualism andcollectivism: implications for valid cross-cultural influence. Pers Psychol2006;59:65–99.

Singelis TM, Triandis Harry C, Bhawuk D, Gelfand MJ. Horizontal and verticaldimensions of individualism and collectivism: a theoretical and measure-ment refinement. Cross-Cult Res 1995;29:240–75.

Shavitt Sharon, Lalwani Ashok K, Zhang Jing, Torelli Carlos J. The horizontal/vertical distinction in cross-cultural consumer research. J Consum Psychol2006;16(4):325–42.

Soh Star, Leong Frederick TL. Validity of vertical and horizontal individualismand collectivism in Singapore. J Cross-Cult Psychol 2002;33(1):3!15.

Steenkamp Jan-Benedict, Van Trijp Hans CM. The use of Lisrel in validatingmarketing constructs. Int J Res Mark 1991;8(4):283–99.

Stein, Marianne F. A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Advertising and Attitudes toAdvertising in Denmark and the United States. Published Dissertation.University Press of Southern Denmark; 2004.

Triandis Harry C. Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: WestviewPress; 1995.

Triandis Harry C. The many dimensions of culture. Acad Manage Exec 2004;16(1):88–93.

Triandis Harry C, Gelfand Michele J. Converging measurement of horizontaland vertical individualism and collectivism. J Pers Soc Psychol 1998;74(1):118–28.

Triandis H, Brislin R, Hui CH. Cross cultural training across the individualism–collectivism divide. Int J Intercult Relat 1988;12:269–89.

Triandis Harry C, Chen XP, Chan DKS. Scenarios for the measurement ofcollectivism and individualism. J Cross-Cult Psychol 1998;29:275–89.

Wheeler L, Reis HT, Bond MH. Collectivism–individualism in everyday sociallife: the middle kingdom and the melting pot. J Pers Soc Psychol 1989;57:79–86.

10 E. Sivadas et al. / Journal of Business Research xx (2007) xxx–xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Please cite this article as: Sivadas E et al. A reduced version of the horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism scale: A four-country assessment. J BusRes (2007), doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.016