Null

RESEARCH REPORT Collectivism and Individualism among Young Vietnamese
Who Have Studied Abroad: An Exploratory Study.
Research Questions
 Do young Vietnamese who have studied abroad score higher on collectivism
or individualism, or maintain a balance of both?
 What are the factors that influence one’s levels of collectivism and
individualism?
Date 14 May 2010.
Student Vu Thi Quynh Giao (s3221929@rmit.edu.vn).
Learning facilitator in charge Lukas Parker (lukas.parker@rmit.edu.vn).
An assignment in COMM2382 Communication Research and Evaluation.
COMM2382 Assignment 2 May 14, 2010 Vu Thi Quynh Giao (s3221929) Page 1 of 22
ABSTRACT Research questions about collectivism and individualism were examined by
means of quantitative and qualitative research. An online survey with Likert scale questions
was employed, generating 81 complete responses from young Vietnamese who studied in
different countries, most of which were Western. Generally the participants were more
individualistic than collectivistic, although there were specific aspects of collectivism and
individualism which they could equally endorse, and they also had opposite views towards
other aspects of the two dimensions. Noticing was that almost all of them scored well above
average on both collectivism and individualism. Eight factors were found to be the key
influence of the participants’ collectivistic and individualistic orientations , the most
important of which were “relationships with the ones I care about” and “family and
upbringing.” Practically, this study suggested that a new group of Vietnamese, on getting
exposed to foreign education and international travelling, had departed from the
Vietnamese culture traditionally considered as being collectivistic. Theoretically, the study’s
findings gave support to the idea that collectivism and individualism are two independent
continua. Future research should focus on Vietnamese who have studied in either
collectivistic countries or individualistic ones. There is also a need for clarifying the
collectivism and individualism dimensions among young Vietnamese living inside Vietnam.
In a broader term, opportunities for research also include studying the impact of specific
factors on people’s collectivistic and individualistic orientations.
INTRODUCTION
Most popular introductory texts about Vietnam, e.g. Vietnam Today: A Guide to a Nation at
a Crossroads, a book by Ashwill & Thai (2005), and Country Profile—Vietnam on the BBC’s
news website (BBC News 2010), define its culture, and thus, Vietnamese people, as being
collectivistic. However, since Doi Moi (Reform) in 1986, and especially since Vietnam joined
the WTO in 2007, there has been official emphasis on individuals as the driving force of
national progress (Vietnamese Communist Party Online 2005; Nguyen & Johanson 2008).
Coupled with that internal economic reform is globalization which, in some way, has
produced a new group of Vietnamese who travel more and become more socially mobile.
As such, there is a need for locating the current level of collectivism and/or
individualism among those “new” Vietnamese. Thus, the objective of this research project is
yielding preliminary data to anticipate whether young Vietnamese people, especially those
who have been exposed to external forces, are higher in collectivism or individualism, or
embrace a balance of both. Foreign education, as one among such external forces, is chosen
to be the focus of this research project. The significance of the study is expected to be a
better understanding of those foreign-educated Vietnamese.
The following parts will give a background to the study of culture in relation to
collectivism and individualism, where Vietnam has generally stood in that “picture,” national
policy and empirical data that point to two research questions, and a description of the
project’s methodology. Finally, the research results will be presented, followed by a
discussion of their implications and recommendations for further research on collectivism
and individualism among Vietnamese who have studied abroad.
LITERATURE REVIEW
In the area of cross-cultural communication, Geert Hofstede is widely known for his five
cultural dimensions 1, including IDV (Individualism), which is considered by many researchers
(e.g. Triandis 2004) as the most important dimension. IDV measures individualism over
collectivism, revealing the importance that people of a culture put on their own lives versus
that on their groups (Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions nd).
Among the 68 countries studied by Hofstede (nd), Vietnam’s level of individualism is
ranked 38th (equal to those of Bangladesh, China, Singapore, Thailand and West Africa), with
an IDV score of 20 (out of 100). This score has been taken up by many researchers (e.g.
Swierczek 1994; Quang 1997, cited in Truong & Nguyen 2002), indicating that Vietnam has a
collectivistic culture. Further, collectivism has become a general word that most popular
texts use to describe Vietnam.
Yet, collectivism may no longer portray the reality of Vietnam for two reasons. First,
the Vietnamese government officially favors building individual capacity to avoid the
1
The five cultural dimensions of Hofstede’s (Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions nd) are:
PDI (Power Distance Index): To what extent the less powerful members of a culture consent to power
inequality.
IDV (Individualism vs. Collectivism): The importance that individuals put on their own lives versus
that on their groups.
MAS (Masculinity vs. Femininity): “The distribution of roles between the genders” in a society. In
high MAS societies, there are distinct roles between men and women; people tend to be assertive,
ostentatious and competitive. Whereas, in low MAS societies, males and females’ roles are expected to be
similar; people tend to be caring for others and the quality of life.
UAI (Uncertainty Avoidance Index): The ex tent to which a society is tolerant towards ambiguity and
unstructured situations.
LTO (Long-Term Orientation vs. Short-Term Orientation): The ex tent to which members of a society
favor planning far ahead for their futures.
problem of “Everybody’s business is nobody’s business” (Nguyen & Johanson 2008, p. 7).
Second, as Hofstede (2001) noted, when a culture becomes richer, it tends to be more
individualistic (cited in Hofstede 2006); and, it is agreeable that Vietnam has enjoyed high
GDP growth and considerably tackled poverty (Nguyen & Johanson 2008).
The aforementioned ideas are based on a particular premis e, i.e. collectivism and
individualism are two end-points of a spectrum. Nonetheless, other researchers (e.g.
Triandis 2004; Nguyen et al 2005) have maintained that collectivism and individualism are
not each other’s mirrors. The study by Ralston et al (1999) supported this idea convincingly,
pointing out that Northern Vietnamese managers are both more collectivistic and
individualistic than their Southern Vietnamese and American counterparts. Not only that, as
MTN Hoang (2009) noted from Tinh Cong Dong, Tinh Ca Nhan va “Cai Toi” cua Nguoi
Vietnam Hien Nay (Collectivism, Individualism and “the Self” of the Vietnamese Today) 2,
even though Vietnamese are still more collectivistic compared to people of developed
countries, such as the USA, Japan and South Korea, individualism is a root in the Vietnamese
culture, and has now and then been concealed by situations. This is also shared by Bradley
(2004), who argued that individual agency has been vibrant in Vietnam since the 1920s.
Under conditions as free as today’s, as K Hoang (2009) observed, young Vietnamese have
developed a more balanced combination of collectivism and individualism. Likewise, Ralston
et al (1999, p. 668) maintained that “as developing Asian countries adopt market economic
perspectives, they will become more individualistic without substantially forsaking their
collectivistic *…+ roots.”
The current project is set to study collectivism and individualism among young
Vietnamese who have pursued foreign education. The reason is that the number of such
people has become large—in 2009, the Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training
estimated there were 60,000 Vietnamese studying in America, Australia, New Zealand, the
2
The book is in Vietnamese. This proposal’s writer has yet to read it, but has read a review by MTN Hoang
(2009), posted on Harvard Yenching Institute’s blog and a summary of its findings by K Hoang (2009). Details
about the book:
Do, L & Phan, TMH (eds) 2002, Tinh cong dong, tinh ca nhan va “cai toi” cua nguoi Viet Na m hien nay
*Collectivism, individualism and “the self” of the Vietna mese today+, Chinh Tri Quoc Gia
Publisher, Hanoi.
UK, Singapore and China (reported by Hoang, Q 2009) ; whereas there has been no research
on them. As part of the young population of Vietnam, they may share the characteristic of
embracing a balance between collectivism and individualism. Yet, one can also speculate
that such people are higher in individualism than collectivism because, according to Triandis
(2004), when people have received more education and experienced international traveling,
they will tend to be more individualistic. Moreover, this paper proposes that foreign-
educated Vietnamese may be influenced by the host cultures, and thus, if they have studied
in individualism-oriented countries, they may become more individualistic. While this
project focuses on Vietnamese who have gone abroad for the sake of education, not the
ones who have acquired immigration into foreign countries, the study of Oyserman &
Sakamoto (1997), which asked for the involvement of Asian-Americans, lends support to
such speculation, since they found that Asian-American students endorsed individualism
more than collectivism.
In short, Vietnamese people are generally seen as being collectivistic, but this paper
has so far presented four reasons for reconsidering collectivism (and thus individualism)
among young Vietnamese who have studied in foreign countries . One, as part of the Doi Moi
(Reform) strategy, the Vietnamese government has formally endorsed individualism. Two,
more economic development may have made its culture more individualistic. Three,
individualism and collectivism can simultaneously exist as two independent continua, and
Vietnamese youth tend to embrace a balance between collectivism and individualism. Four,
Vietnamese people who have studied abroad, especially in individualistic countries, may get
influenced by the host cultures and thus endorse individualism more than collectivism.
Accordingly, the following research question has been set:
RQ1 Do young Vietnamese who have studied abroad score higher on collectivism
or individualism, or maintain a balance of both?
Additionally, to go beyond the general linkage between culture and
collectivism/individualism, this project aims to get preliminary responses to the following
qualitative question:
RQ2 What are the factors that influence one’s levels of collectivism and
individualism?
METHODOLOGY
Procedure and Participants
A survey was launched online and over the course of one week, it received 83 responses
which Survey Gizmo claimed to be complete. However, there were 2 responses that did not
include the foreign countries where the participants studied, thus only 81 responses were
considered honest and analyzed.
This project initially applied judgmental sampling, emailing some 50 members on the
forum of VietAroader (http://vietabroader.org) with a link to the survey. The forum was
chosen because it is a non-profit, student-run organization that works to help Vietnamese
youth receive higher education outside Vietnam (VietAbroader 2010), which fitted in with
the project’s target audience, i.e. those who had to be Vietnamese and went abroad for the
sake of education.
In addition, a thread about the survey was posted on the forum, and the email
receivers were asked to forward the survey to those meeting the project’s participatory
criteria. This means snowball sampling was also applied, which is “appropriate when the
members of a special population are difficult to locate” (Baxter & Babbie 2004, p. 135).
There was a gender balance among the participants, with 49% of them being male
and 48% female (N=81). They had studied in 16 countries, and half of them (51%)
specifically studied in the USA (N=81). The majority (88%) of the participants were 24 or
younger (N=81), with the youngest being 16.
The limitation regarding this sample may be that it involved both Vietnamese who
had studied in collectivistic countries like Singapore and China, and individualistic countries
such as the USA and Australia (see Appendix 1 for a complete list of the countries
mentioned by the participants). Future research should focus on young Vietnamese studying
in countries either high in or collectivism or individualism so that comparison can be made
and the influence of the host cultures can be clearly identified.
Data Collecting and Analysis

As set out in the literature review, this research project took it that collectivism and
individualism are two different c ontinua, quite obviously leading to using Likert scale to
measure the level of collectivism and individualism of the participants.
As Vogt (2007) puts it, Likert scale can “give specific information” and allow the
researcher to “add up the answers to the questions to get a general rating. And such
composite rating scales tend to be more accurate than answers to single questions” (p. 88).
Two types of questions were incorporated in the survey, one for collectivism and one
for individualism. Each question took the form of a statement and the participant had to
choose an option among Strongly Agree—Agree—Neutral—Disagree—Strongly Disagree.
Each option was tied to a value, ranging from 5 (Strongly Agree) to 1 (Strongly Disagree). All
of the questions were written based on Hofstede’s (2006) summary of the features of
collectivistic and individualistic cultures (see Appendix 2).
Finally, each participant’s scores on every eight questions were added up to identify
his/her level of individualism or collectivism.
For the second research question, all of the answers were put into groups according
to their similarities or differences in meaning.
FINDINGS
Most of the participants (88%, N=81) were found to be higher in individualism than
collectivism. Their overall mean score on individualism (32.6) was also notably higher than
that on collectivism (26.6). Thus, the general answer to RQ1 is that the surveyed young
Vietnamese, who had studied abroad, were more individualistic than collectivistic. In
addition, the small difference between their overall mean, median and mode scores on
collectivism (respectively being 26.6, 26 and 25) and individualism (32.6, 33 and 32) ensures
this answer (see Table 1.)
Collectivism Individualism
26.6 Mean 32.6
26 Median 33
25 Mode 32
4.1 SD 3.3
Table 1.
Further, it is worth noticing, given that the maximum score for each scale is 40,
almost all of the participants (98%) scored above average on collectivism, and 100% of them
scored above average on individualism (N=81).
When each pair of questions is considered, it appears there were some questions
(also statements) that the participants perceived as opposites; whereas there were some
questions on which the participants did not score much differently. In detail, there were
marked contrasts between the mean scores on the following pairs of questions: Q5-Q7, Q8-
Q12, Q9-Q3 (as they appeared in the surveys the participants actually received); less notable
were the differences between Q11-Q2, Q14-Q6; whereas there were slight differences
between Q1-Q15; Q16-Q10 Q13-Q4 (see Table 2.)
Questions Mean
scores
Q5. Individual opinions should be negotiated and predetermined by the 2.9
members of my group.
Q7. Everyone should have his/her own opinion. 4.5
Q8. I feel obliged to my extended families because they protect me. 3.2
Q12. Everyone is supposed to take care of himself/herself and their 4.3
immediate family.
Q9. I like to think of myself as belonging to a certain group. 3.2
Q3. I like to think of myself as an individual. 4.2
Q11. I appreciate belonging to groups. 3.6
Q2. I value privacy. 4.4
Q14. I see people as part of my group or others’ group. 3.2
Q6. I see people as independent individuals. 3.9
Q1. The purpose of education is learning how to do. 3.4
Q15. The purpose of education is learning how to learn. 3.7
Q16. Regarding work, it is necessary to place emphasis on the relationships 3.4
associated with the tasks.
Q10. Regarding work, it is necessary to place emphasis on the tasks 3.7
themselves.
Q13. Harmony among people should always be maintained. 3.6
Q4. Speaking one’s mind is healthy. 3.9
Table 2.
Finally, the participants gave various answers as to what factors had the most
important impact on their levels of collectivism and individualism, which were then grouped
into 8 key factors as in Chart 1., giving an answer to RQ2.
Key Factors Influencing One's COL and IND
Percentage of participants (% )
(N=81)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Relationships with the ones

31%
I care about
Family and upbringing 28%
Myself 17%
Environment where I live

16%
Factors
and work
Education 12%
My understanding of life
10%
and philosophy
Experience, the nature of

6%
work and situations I face
Others 3%
Chart 1.
Note that the first factor, relationships with the ones I care about, included primacy
of friendship, love, learning, work and admiration.
DISCUSSION
In this part, the findings above will be contemplated in relation to some reasons leading to
the first research question and related literature. Then the answer to the second research
question will be discussed.
As a recap, the participants, young Vietnamese who pursued overseas education,
were found to be notably more individualistic than collectivistic. With regard to their age, it
appears to draw a connection to the first reason for which RQ1 was developed, that is, most
of them were born after 1986 and since that year, Vietnamese national policies have shifted
towards encouraging building individual capacity. The participants only spent some time
studying overseas and their root was still Vietnamese, so it can be speculated that, being
born after Doi Moi (Reform), those young Vietnamese had, in a sense, been exposed to
individualism right within Vietnam.
Although the survey did not ask for information about the participants’ wealth, it is
fair to assume, in order to afford life in general, and education in particular, in foreign
countries (note that the countries mentioned are mainly developed ones), they may at least
have got sound economic status. This, coupled with the fact that they were more
individualism-oriented, supports Hofstede’s (2001) argument which says more wealth may
lead to higher individualism (cited in Hofstede 2001). The current research’s findings also
resonate Triandis’ (2004) idea that more education and international travelling make people
tend to be individualistic. An expansion of the idea may be that travelling to different places
requires people to have better adaptive capacity and also to be more independent.
Of importance is the finding that, even though the participants were higher in
individualism than collectivism, almost all of them scored above average on both of the
scales, which, by interpretation, makes Hofstede’s (2006) view on the IDV (Individualism vs.
Collectivism) questionable because he basically asserted that collectivism and individualism
are two end-points of a spectrum. The current study’s findings suggest that collectivism and
individualism should be seen as two independent continua, which was accepted
theoretically by Triandis (2004) and empirically by Ralston et al (1999) and Nguyen et al
(2005).
Clearly seen from the participants’ mean scores on each pair of questions measuring
their collectivistic and individualistic orientations is that, there were aspects the two
dimensions that they could both endorse or had to lean sharply to one dimension. For
instance, when it came to opinions, there was a big difference between “group opinion
should win” (indicating collectivism) and “my opinion should win” (indicating individualism);
whereas when it came to work practices, the participants showed little difference in
attitudes toward the associated relationships (collectivism) and the tasks themselves
(individualism). This idea is, perhaps, best generalized by Ralston et al (1999), “there may be
components of both the individualism and collectivism dimensions that are polar opposites,
while other components are not” (p. 669).
More research should also be done among young Vietnamese living inside Vietnam
to see if there is any individualistic/collectivistic mismatch between them and their
counterparts who have pursued overseas education.
Regarding the factors that the participants perceived to have significant influence on
their collectivistic and individualistic levels, it is interesting that, education was important
only to a moderate number of people. The paradox is that while they scored higher on
individualism, the weightiest factors were relationships with the ones I care about, together
with family and upbringing, each being mentioned by respectively 31% and 28% of the
participants (N=81). Myself is perhaps a strong indication of individualism, yet, mentioned
by 17% of the participants (N=81), it was not present as strongly as their scores on
individualism supposed.
The upside of having such a qualitative question in this research is that it yields some
information, which questions and options in future surveys can be structured around. A
research direction springing from this is studying the interplay of those factors and how it
enhances or lowers people’s collectivistic and individualistic orientations.
Finally, it is noticing that the factors mentioned all involved human. No participants
thought of technologies as having influence on their levels of collectivism and individualism
while it has been argued that information technologies augment people’s individualism (Lull
2007). It is unclear if such technologies had no actual impact on their self-perceivement or
they were unaware of the impact. Nonetheless, the fact that this research was conducted
via the Internet and that the majority of the participants were higher in individualism should
give weight to Lull’s (2007) argument. Further research can speculate a relation between
one’s use of information technologies and their, not only individualistic, but also
collectivistic, orientation.
CONCLUSION
This research project found that young Vietnamese who had studied abroad were more
individualistic than collectivistic. Yet, there were specific aspects of collectivism and
individualism which they could equally endorse, while they also had opposite views towards
other aspects of the two dimensions. As the participants claimed, there were 8 factors
influencing one’s self-perceivement. Myself and education played considerable roles to
them although not as much as relationships with the ones I care about and family and
upbringing.
In practice, this study indicates that a new group of Vietnamese, on getting exposed
to foreign education and international travelling, have departed from the collectivistic
culture which has, for a long time, believed to be characteristic of Vietnam.
In theory, it confirms an important point in the collectivism-individualism literature
which was pioneered by Triandis, i.e. collectivism and individualism are two independent
continua (cited in Triandis 2004).
Future research should focus on Vietnamese who have studied in either collectivistic
countries or individualistic ones. Moreover, to have solid comparison, there is a need for
clarifying the collectivism and individualism dimensions among young Vietnamese living
inside Vietnam. In a broader term, opportunities for research also include studying the
impact of specific factors on people’s collectivistic and individualistic orientations, including
the use of new information technologies.
(2,855 words)
REFERENCES
Ashwill, MA & Thai, ND 2005, Vietnam today: A guide to a nation at a crossroads,
Intercultural Press, Yarmouth, Maine, USA.
Baxter, L & Babbie, E 2004, ‘Chapter 7: The logic of sampling’, The basics of communication
research, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, pp. 131-165.
Bradley, MP 2004, ‘Becoming “van minh”: Civilizational discourse and visions of the self in
twentieth-century Vietnam’, Journal of World History, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 65-83.
BBC News 2010, Country profile—Vietnam, viewed 12 May 2010
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1243338.stm>.
Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions nd, Geert Hofstede BV, Velp, the Netherlands, viewed
12 May 2010, <http://www.geert-hofstede.com>.
Hoang, K 2009, Gioi thieu sach: Tinh cong dong – tinh ca nhan va “cai toi” cua nguoi Viet
Nam hien nay *Book introduction: Collectivism, individualism and “the self” of the
Vietnamese today], Chung Ta, viewed 12 May 2010,
<http://chungta.com/Desktop.aspx/ChungTa-SuyNgam/Sach-
Hay/Tinh_cong_dong_tinh_ca_nhan_va_cai_toi_cua_nguoi_Viet>.
Hoang, MTN 2009, ‘Collectivism, individualism and “the self” of the Vietnamese today’,
Harvard Yenching Institute, blog post, 7 December, viewed 12 May 2010,
<http://hyi.scribo.harvard.edu/2009/12/07/collectivism-individualism>.
Hoang, Q 2009, 60.000 du hoc sinh: Nguon nhan luc tuong lai [60,000 overseas students:
Human resources for the future], AH Edu Links, viewed 12 May 2010,
<http://ahedulinks.com/Home/modules.php?name=News&op=viewst&sid=333>.
Hofstede, G 2006, ‘Dimensionalizing cultures: the Hofstede model in context, in W Lonner, D
Dinnel, S Hayes & D Sattler (eds), Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 2:
Conceptual, Methodological and Ethical Issues in Psychology and Culture, Bellingham
WA: Center for Cross-Cultural Research, Western Washington University.
Hofstede, G nd, Geert Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, viewed 12 May 2010,
<http://www.geert-
hofstede.com/hofstede_dimensions.php?culture1=98&culture2=#compare>.
Lull, J 2007, ‘The push and pull of culture’, Culture-on-demand: communication in a crisis
world, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, pp. 80-103.
Nguyen, PM, Terlouw, C & Pilot, A 2005, ‘Cooperative learning vs Confucian heritage
culture’s collectivism: confrontation to reveal some cultural conflicts and mismatch’,
Asia Europe Journal, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 403-419.
Nguyen, TT & Johanson, G 2008, ‘Culture and Vietnam as a Knowledge society’, The
Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, vol. 33, issue 2,
pp. 1-16, viewed 12 May 2010,
<http://www.ejisdc.org/ojs2/index.php/ejisdc/article/viewFile/309/241>.
Oyserman, D & Sakamoto, I 1997, ‘Being Asian American: identity, cultural constructs, and
stereotype perception’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, vol. 33, no. 4, pp.
435-453.
Ralston, DA, Nguyen, VT, Napier, NK 1999, ‘A comparative study of the work values of North
and South Vietnamese managers’, Journal of International Business Studies, vol. 30,
no. 4, pp. 655-672.
Triandis, HC 2004, ‘The many dimensions of culture’, Academy of Management Executive,
vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 88-93.
Truong, Q & Nguyen, TV 2002, ‘Management styles and organizational effectiveness in
Vietnam’, Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, vol. 10, issue 2,
pp. 36-55, viewed 12 May 2010,
<http://rphrm.curtin.edu.au/2002/issue2/vietnam.html>.
Vietnamese Communist Party Online 2005, Doi moi—su lua chon dung dan vi muc tieu phat
trine hien dai cua Viet Nam [Reform—the right decision for the sake of modern
development of Vietnam], viewed 30 March 2010
<http://dangcongsan.vn/cpv/Modules/Preview/PrintPreview.aspx?co_id=30525&cn
_id=134611>.
VietAbroader 2010, VietAbroader, viewed 12 May 2010, <http://www.vietabroader.org>.
Vogt, WP 2007, ‘Surveys and sampling’, in AE Burvikovs, Quantitative research methods for
professionals, Allyn & Bacon, Boston, pp. 76-94.
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
List of the countries where the participants had studied
No. Country n Percentage
(N=81)
1 USA 41 51%
2 Australia 12 15%
3 Singapore 10 12%
4 UK 3 4%
5 Canada 3 4%
6 Holland 3 4%
7 South Korea 3 4%
8 Costa Rica 2 2%
9 Hungary 1 1%
10 Belgium 1 1%
11 Germany 1 1%
12 Finland 1 1%
13 Japan 1 1%
14 Malaysia 1 1%
15 China 1 1%
16 Thailand 1 1%
Appendix 2
Development of survey questions
The survey questions were written based on the features of collectivistic and individualistic
cultures as in Figure 1. Each question provided five options and the participant had to
choose one option.
Ten Differences Between Collectivist and Individualist Societies
INDIVIDUALISM COLLECTIVISM
1.a. Everyone is supposed to take care of 1.b. People are born into extended families
him- or herself and his or her immediate or clans which protect them in exchange for
family only loyalty
2.a. "I" - consciousness 2.b. "We" –consciousness
3.a. Right of privacy 3.b. Stress on belonging
4.a. Speaking one's mind is healthy 4.b. Harmony should always be maintained
5.b. Others classified as in-group or out-
5.a. Others classified as individuals
group
6.a. Personal opinion expected: one person 6.b. Opinions and votes predetermined by in-
one vote group
7.a. Transgression of norms leads to guilt 7.b. Transgression of norms leads to shame
feelings feelings
8.a. Languages in which the word "I" is 8.b. Languages in which the word "I" is
indispensable avoided
9.a. Purpose of education is learning how 9.b. Purpose of education is learning how to
to learn do
10.a. Task prevails over relationship 10.b. Relationship prevails over task
Figure 1. Reproduced from Hofstede 2006.
To reduce confusion, statements 7.a. and 7.b. were not adapted to become the
survey’s questions. It would be hard to make the participants understand the difference
between “guilt feelings” and “shame feelings” in a written survey. It might have been easier
for the participants to understand such a difference if face-to-face interviews had been
conducted.
Statements 8.a. and 8.b. were eliminated because all of the participants were
Vietnamese and in conversations, Vietnamese people, even when addressing themselves as
individuals, usually use different first personal pronouns to indicate their relationships with
the ones they are talking to. Thus, even though most of the participants were probably able
to speak English, cognition matters, and “I” may have pointed to different meanings to
them.
As seen below, statements 1.a., 2.a., 3.a., 4.a., 5.a., 6.a., 9.a., and 10.a. were
respectively adapted to become survey questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8; whereas
statements 1.b., 2.b., 3.b., 4.b., 5.b., 6.b., 9.b., and 10.b. were respectively adapted to
become survey questions 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16.
Measuring individualism
1. Everyone is supposed to take care of himself/herself and their immediate family.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
2. I like to think of myself as an individual.

3. I value privacy.
4. Speaking one’s mind is healthy.

5. I see people as independent individuals.

6. Everyone should have his/her own opinion.

7. The purpose of education is learning how to learn.

8. Regarding work, it is necessary to place emphasis on the tasks themselves.

Measuring collectivism
9. I feel obliged to my extended families because they protect me.
10. I like to think of myself as belonging to a certain group.

11. I appreciate belonging to groups.

12. Harmony among people should always be maintained.

13. I see people as part of my group or others’ group.

14. Individual opinions should be negotiated and predetermined by the members of my

group.
15. The purpose of education is learning how to do.

16. Regarding work, it is necessary to place emphasis on the relationships associated

with the tasks.
Appendix 3
Survey instrument
Below is the complete survey that was made available online online from 23-30 April 2010
at http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/283260/Collectivism-and-Individualism-among-young-
Vietnamese-who-have-studied-abroad
1. Your Consent to the Research Project
This project is about how young Vietnamese, who have studied abroad, perceive
themselves in relation to Collectivism and Individualis m. The results are expected to
lay the groundwork for further studies on effective learning and working practices
for and with this particular group of Vietnamese.
The research is being conducted by an RMIT University student as part of an

assessment for the course Communication Research and Evaluation. By responding
to this survey you are agreeing for your responses to be used as part of the research
results.
The survey will take you about five minutes. Your response is well-appreciated.
Please give your answers before 30 April 2010, and indicate at the end of the survey
whether you are interested in seeing the research report.
2. Background Information
My age
My biological sex
Male
Female
I'm a Vietnamese who has studied abroad in
(Please specify what country you have come to study. If you have not studied
abroad, please feel free to discontinue answering this survey.)
3. The Survey
1. The purpose of education is learning how to do.*
2. I value privacy.*
3. I like to think of myself as an individual.*
4. Speaking one’s mind is healthy.*
5. Individual opinions should be negotiated and predetermined by the members of

my group.*
6. I see people as independent individuals.*
7. Everyone should have his/her own opinion.*
8. I feel obliged to my extended families because they protect me.*
9. I like to think of myself as belonging to a certain group.*
10. Regarding work, it is necessary to place emphasis on the tasks themselves.*
11. I appreciate belonging to groups.*
12. Everyone is supposed to take care of himself/herself and their immediate

family.*
13. Harmony among people should always be maintained.*
14. I see people as part of my group or others’ group.*
15. The purpose of education is learning how to learn.*
16. Regarding work, it is necessary to place emphasis on the relationships associated

with the tasks.*
17. What factor (e.g. family) has the most significant influence on your levels of
Individualism and Collectivism?*
4. Interest in the Research Report
If you like to see the research report, please specify the email address which it
should be sent to.
5. Thank You
Thank you for taking the survey. Your response is very important to me.

Null

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Null

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RESEARCH REPORT Collectivism and Individualism among Young Vietnamese

Who Have Studied Abroad: An Exploratory Study.

Date 14 May 2010.

Student Vu Thi Quynh Giao (s3221929@rmit.edu.vn).

Learning facilitator in charge Lukas Parker (lukas.parker@rmit.edu.vn).

An assignment in COMM2382 Communication Research and Evaluation.

Data Collecting and Analysis

Key Factors Influencing One's COL and IND

Relationships with the ones

Family and upbringing 28%

Environment where I live

Experience, the nature of

2. I like to think of myself as an individual.

4. Speaking one’s mind is healthy.

5. I see people as independent individuals.

6. Everyone should have his/her own opinion.

7. The purpose of education is learning how to learn.

8. Regarding work, it is necessary to place emphasis on the tasks themselves.

10. I like to think of myself as belonging to a certain group.

11. I appreciate belonging to groups.

12. Harmony among people should always be maintained.

13. I see people as part of my group or others’ group.

14. Individual opinions should be negotiated and predetermined by the members of my

15. The purpose of education is learning how to do.

16. Regarding work, it is necessary to place emphasis on the relationships associated

1. Your Consent to the Research Project

The research is being conducted by an RMIT University student as part of an

1. The purpose of education is learning how to do.*

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

3. I like to think of myself as an individual.*

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

4. Speaking one’s mind is healthy.*

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

5. Individual opinions should be negotiated and predetermined by the members of

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

7. Everyone should have his/her own opinion.*

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

8. I feel obliged to my extended families because they protect me.*

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

9. I like to think of myself as belonging to a certain group.*

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

10. Regarding work, it is necessary to place emphasis on the tasks themselves.*

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

11. I appreciate belonging to groups.*

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

12. Everyone is supposed to take care of himself/herself and their immediate

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

14. I see people as part of my group or others’ group.*

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

15. The purpose of education is learning how to learn.*

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

16. Regarding work, it is necessary to place emphasis on the relationships associated

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

4. Interest in the Research Report

You might also like