Collectivism and individualism are culturally-related psychological structures which have been used to distinguish people within and across various societies. From a review of the literature, it is argued that the most salient feature of individualism is valuing personal independence, which includes self-knowledge, uniqueness, privacy, clear communication, and competitiveness. Collectivism is associated with a strong sense of duty to group, relatedness to others, seeking others' advice, harmony, and working with the group. The purpose of the thesis is to explore how collectivist and individualist attributes affect the way people respond to Likert-type questionnaires. In the first study, a new measurement tool for individualism and collectivism was developed to address critical methodological issues in this field of cross-cultural psychology. This new measure the “Auckland Individualism and Collectivism Scale” defined three dimensions of individualism: (a) Responsibility (acknowledging one's responsibility for one's actions), (b) Uniqueness (distinction of the self from the other) and (c) Compete (striving for personal goals is one's prime interest); and two dimensions of collectivism: (d) Advice (seeking advice from people close to one, before taking decisions), and (e) Harmony (seeking to avoid conflict). The AICS avoids the need for measuring horizontal and vertical dimensions of collectivism and individualism, and the confounding effect of familialism on the collectivism-individualism constructs. The second study investigated the relationship between collectivism and individualism and various response sets that have been reported relating to the way in which individuals respond to Likert-type scales. Using structural equation modelling, the Collectivism-Individualism Model of Response Bias was developed. This model suggests two types of response sets: (a) the Impression-Response Bias which includes response sets such as social desirability and context, that affect the first four stages of responding to questions, namely receiving and retrieving data and making decisions; and (b) the Expression-Response Bias which includes response sets such as the extreme response set and the neutral response set that relate to the application of the responses, namely the actual answer chosen by the respondent. Collectivism is negatively correlated with context and with self deception enhancement whereas individualism is positively correlated with context and self deception enhancement and impression management. Context is positively correlated with extreme response set and negatively correlated with neutral response set. The Collectivism-Individualism Model of Response Bias suggests that collectivist and individualist attributes directly affect the Impression-Response Bias response sets and indirectly affect the Expression-Response Bias response sets. It was concluded that attributes of collectivism and individualism affect the decision made by the respondents and therefore lead to different responses to Likert-type questionnaires. Nevertheless, the effect of collectivism and individualism on the magnitude of the responses would be limited as it is mediated by the Impression-Response Bias response set. / Subscription resource available via Digital Dissertations only.

Collectivism and individualism are culturally-related psychological structures which have been used to distinguish people within and across various societies. From a review of the literature, it is argued that the most salient feature of individualism is valuing personal independence, which includes self-knowledge, uniqueness, privacy, clear communication, and competitiveness. Collectivism is associated with a strong sense of duty to group, relatedness to others, seeking others' advice, harmony, and working with the group. The purpose of the thesis is to explore how collectivist and individualist attributes affect the way people respond to Likert-type questionnaires. In the first study, a new measurement tool for individualism and collectivism was developed to address critical methodological issues in this field of cross-cultural psychology. This new measure the “Auckland Individualism and Collectivism Scale” defined three dimensions of individualism: (a) Responsibility (acknowledging one's responsibility for one's actions), (b) Uniqueness (distinction of the self from the other) and (c) Compete (striving for personal goals is one's prime interest); and two dimensions of collectivism: (d) Advice (seeking advice from people close to one, before taking decisions), and (e) Harmony (seeking to avoid conflict). The AICS avoids the need for measuring horizontal and vertical dimensions of collectivism and individualism, and the confounding effect of familialism on the collectivism-individualism constructs. The second study investigated the relationship between collectivism and individualism and various response sets that have been reported relating to the way in which individuals respond to Likert-type scales. Using structural equation modelling, the Collectivism-Individualism Model of Response Bias was developed. This model suggests two types of response sets: (a) the Impression-Response Bias which includes response sets such as social desirability and context, that affect the first four stages of responding to questions, namely receiving and retrieving data and making decisions; and (b) the Expression-Response Bias which includes response sets such as the extreme response set and the neutral response set that relate to the application of the responses, namely the actual answer chosen by the respondent. Collectivism is negatively correlated with context and with self deception enhancement whereas individualism is positively correlated with context and self deception enhancement and impression management. Context is positively correlated with extreme response set and negatively correlated with neutral response set. The Collectivism-Individualism Model of Response Bias suggests that collectivist and individualist attributes directly affect the Impression-Response Bias response sets and indirectly affect the Expression-Response Bias response sets. It was concluded that attributes of collectivism and individualism affect the decision made by the respondents and therefore lead to different responses to Likert-type questionnaires. Nevertheless, the effect of collectivism and individualism on the magnitude of the responses would be limited as it is mediated by the Impression-Response Bias response set. / Subscription resource available via Digital Dissertations only.

Collectivism and individualism are culturally-related psychological structures which have been used to distinguish people within and across various societies. From a review of the literature, it is argued that the most salient feature of individualism is valuing personal independence, which includes self-knowledge, uniqueness, privacy, clear communication, and competitiveness. Collectivism is associated with a strong sense of duty to group, relatedness to others, seeking others' advice, harmony, and working with the group. The purpose of the thesis is to explore how collectivist and individualist attributes affect the way people respond to Likert-type questionnaires. In the first study, a new measurement tool for individualism and collectivism was developed to address critical methodological issues in this field of cross-cultural psychology. This new measure the “Auckland Individualism and Collectivism Scale” defined three dimensions of individualism: (a) Responsibility (acknowledging one's responsibility for one's actions), (b) Uniqueness (distinction of the self from the other) and (c) Compete (striving for personal goals is one's prime interest); and two dimensions of collectivism: (d) Advice (seeking advice from people close to one, before taking decisions), and (e) Harmony (seeking to avoid conflict). The AICS avoids the need for measuring horizontal and vertical dimensions of collectivism and individualism, and the confounding effect of familialism on the collectivism-individualism constructs. The second study investigated the relationship between collectivism and individualism and various response sets that have been reported relating to the way in which individuals respond to Likert-type scales. Using structural equation modelling, the Collectivism-Individualism Model of Response Bias was developed. This model suggests two types of response sets: (a) the Impression-Response Bias which includes response sets such as social desirability and context, that affect the first four stages of responding to questions, namely receiving and retrieving data and making decisions; and (b) the Expression-Response Bias which includes response sets such as the extreme response set and the neutral response set that relate to the application of the responses, namely the actual answer chosen by the respondent. Collectivism is negatively correlated with context and with self deception enhancement whereas individualism is positively correlated with context and self deception enhancement and impression management. Context is positively correlated with extreme response set and negatively correlated with neutral response set. The Collectivism-Individualism Model of Response Bias suggests that collectivist and individualist attributes directly affect the Impression-Response Bias response sets and indirectly affect the Expression-Response Bias response sets. It was concluded that attributes of collectivism and individualism affect the decision made by the respondents and therefore lead to different responses to Likert-type questionnaires. Nevertheless, the effect of collectivism and individualism on the magnitude of the responses would be limited as it is mediated by the Impression-Response Bias response set. / Subscription resource available via Digital Dissertations only.

Collectivism and individualism are culturally-related psychological structures which have been used to distinguish people within and across various societies. From a review of the literature, it is argued that the most salient feature of individualism is valuing personal independence, which includes self-knowledge, uniqueness, privacy, clear communication, and competitiveness. Collectivism is associated with a strong sense of duty to group, relatedness to others, seeking others' advice, harmony, and working with the group. The purpose of the thesis is to explore how collectivist and individualist attributes affect the way people respond to Likert-type questionnaires. In the first study, a new measurement tool for individualism and collectivism was developed to address critical methodological issues in this field of cross-cultural psychology. This new measure the “Auckland Individualism and Collectivism Scale” defined three dimensions of individualism: (a) Responsibility (acknowledging one's responsibility for one's actions), (b) Uniqueness (distinction of the self from the other) and (c) Compete (striving for personal goals is one's prime interest); and two dimensions of collectivism: (d) Advice (seeking advice from people close to one, before taking decisions), and (e) Harmony (seeking to avoid conflict). The AICS avoids the need for measuring horizontal and vertical dimensions of collectivism and individualism, and the confounding effect of familialism on the collectivism-individualism constructs. The second study investigated the relationship between collectivism and individualism and various response sets that have been reported relating to the way in which individuals respond to Likert-type scales. Using structural equation modelling, the Collectivism-Individualism Model of Response Bias was developed. This model suggests two types of response sets: (a) the Impression-Response Bias which includes response sets such as social desirability and context, that affect the first four stages of responding to questions, namely receiving and retrieving data and making decisions; and (b) the Expression-Response Bias which includes response sets such as the extreme response set and the neutral response set that relate to the application of the responses, namely the actual answer chosen by the respondent. Collectivism is negatively correlated with context and with self deception enhancement whereas individualism is positively correlated with context and self deception enhancement and impression management. Context is positively correlated with extreme response set and negatively correlated with neutral response set. The Collectivism-Individualism Model of Response Bias suggests that collectivist and individualist attributes directly affect the Impression-Response Bias response sets and indirectly affect the Expression-Response Bias response sets. It was concluded that attributes of collectivism and individualism affect the decision made by the respondents and therefore lead to different responses to Likert-type questionnaires. Nevertheless, the effect of collectivism and individualism on the magnitude of the responses would be limited as it is mediated by the Impression-Response Bias response set. / Subscription resource available via Digital Dissertations only.

Collectivism and individualism are culturally-related psychological structures which have been used to distinguish people within and across various societies. From a review of the literature, it is argued that the most salient feature of individualism is valuing personal independence, which includes self-knowledge, uniqueness, privacy, clear communication, and competitiveness. Collectivism is associated with a strong sense of duty to group, relatedness to others, seeking others' advice, harmony, and working with the group. The purpose of the thesis is to explore how collectivist and individualist attributes affect the way people respond to Likert-type questionnaires. In the first study, a new measurement tool for individualism and collectivism was developed to address critical methodological issues in this field of cross-cultural psychology. This new measure the “Auckland Individualism and Collectivism Scale” defined three dimensions of individualism: (a) Responsibility (acknowledging one's responsibility for one's actions), (b) Uniqueness (distinction of the self from the other) and (c) Compete (striving for personal goals is one's prime interest); and two dimensions of collectivism: (d) Advice (seeking advice from people close to one, before taking decisions), and (e) Harmony (seeking to avoid conflict). The AICS avoids the need for measuring horizontal and vertical dimensions of collectivism and individualism, and the confounding effect of familialism on the collectivism-individualism constructs. The second study investigated the relationship between collectivism and individualism and various response sets that have been reported relating to the way in which individuals respond to Likert-type scales. Using structural equation modelling, the Collectivism-Individualism Model of Response Bias was developed. This model suggests two types of response sets: (a) the Impression-Response Bias which includes response sets such as social desirability and context, that affect the first four stages of responding to questions, namely receiving and retrieving data and making decisions; and (b) the Expression-Response Bias which includes response sets such as the extreme response set and the neutral response set that relate to the application of the responses, namely the actual answer chosen by the respondent. Collectivism is negatively correlated with context and with self deception enhancement whereas individualism is positively correlated with context and self deception enhancement and impression management. Context is positively correlated with extreme response set and negatively correlated with neutral response set. The Collectivism-Individualism Model of Response Bias suggests that collectivist and individualist attributes directly affect the Impression-Response Bias response sets and indirectly affect the Expression-Response Bias response sets. It was concluded that attributes of collectivism and individualism affect the decision made by the respondents and therefore lead to different responses to Likert-type questionnaires. Nevertheless, the effect of collectivism and individualism on the magnitude of the responses would be limited as it is mediated by the Impression-Response Bias response set. / Subscription resource available via Digital Dissertations only.

Doctor of Philosophy / Department of Psychological Sciences / Donald A. Saucier / The current studies examine two types of rape humor to determine whether there are differences in individuals’ evaluations and understanding of each. Reinforcing rape humor is that which contributes to the normalization of rape, while subversive humor challenges it. Across two studies, I compared these types of humor to determine if individuals’ evaluations (i.e., as funny, offensive, etc.) and understanding differed between types (and compared to neutral humor), as well as how individual difference variables may moderate those effects. Results suggest that while there is variation in individuals’ understanding of subversive humor depending on the way in which they are asked to express their understanding, subversive humor evokes more positive evaluations than reinforcing rape humor, as expected. Additionally, reinforcing rape humor also evoked variation in understanding, which was related to participants’ evaluations of the humor, and selected individual differences. Examining these research questions provides insight into an issue that has become increasingly important in the United States, and may also inform us about the potential role of humor in contributing to the national discussion on this issue. Thus, although some have suggested that rape humor is never appropriate, these studies suggest that there is potential for humor to be an effective tool in working toward diminishing rape culture.

Master of Science / Department of Family Studies and Human Services / Jared R. Anderson / This study investigated the relationships between attachment style, relationship confidence, and constructive communication among a sample of 71 newlywed military couples. Using Karney & Crown’s (2007) military adapted Vulnerability-Stress-Adaptation model as a guide, the current study predicted that romantic attachment style (an enduring vulnerability) would be associated with couples’ communication (an adaptive process) directly, and indirectly through marital confidence (a marital resource). Actor and partner effects were examined using the Actor Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006). Results indicate that after controlling for financial worry and husband’s rank, wives’ avoidant attachment was directly associated with her constructive communication and husband’s anxious attachment was directly associated with his constructive communication. Tests of mediating paths from anxious and avoidant attachment to relationship confidence through constructive communication were significant for wives. When accounting for anxious attachment partner effects were present between relationship confidence and constructive communication. The results suggest the importance of assessing for attachment style and relationship confidence when working with military couples in the early years of their marriage.

Doctor of Philosophy / Department of Psychology / Mark A. Barnett / To date, the research testing the predictors of relational aggression has largely mirrored that of the more robust physical aggression literature. Similar to the physical aggression literature, research on relational aggression has focused on age and gender differences and, more recently, the possible associations between relational aggression and other variables. However, there is a lack of research investigating the parent and peer behaviors that could potentially model relationally aggressive behavior in children. The current study drew upon social-cognitive models of aggression to test such associations. Specifically, I measured parents’ use of psychological control with their children, parents’ use of manipulative behavior with their children and other adults, and peer groups’ use of relational aggression to determine whether these variables predicted children’s use of relational aggression. It was expected that the aforementioned variables would be positively associated with children’s use of relational aggression. One hundred and sixty-five fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade children (52% male) enrolled in public elementary schools in the Midwest participated in the study. Additionally, 137 female and 70 male caregivers also participated. The children completed questionnaires to measure a) their use of relational aggression, b) their peers’ use of relational and physical aggression, c) the cohesiveness and distinctiveness of their main group of friends, and d) their parents’ use of psychological control. The caregivers also completed questionnaires that assessed a) their behaviors toward other adults when angry, b) how they respond to their children’s misbehavior, and c) social desirability. Consistent with Social Learning Theory and the Social-Cognitive Theory of Aggression, children’s use of relational aggression was positively related to their mothers’ use of psychological control and to their peer groups’ use of relational aggression especially when that peer group was seen as relatively cohesive and distinct. In addition, children’s use of relational aggression was more strongly associated with their parents’ use of psychological control than was their peer groups’ use of relational aggression. The current study was the first to examine and compare the associations between parent- and peer-related variables and children’s use of relational aggression.

This research investigated the causes of behavioural difficulties among family businessers in two studies. Study one adapted the evolutionary theory of the firm to the family business context in an empirical study that involved 370 family businessers from 46 families. The study found that: (1) stakeholder cohorts within the family (employed by the business versus not employed by the business; owners of stock versus non stock owners; related to founder versus not related; male versus female) were significantly divided on business direction and planning, the introduction of new routines to the business and various roles, habits, norms and codes that made up the collective knowledge base of the firm; (2) the founding generation reported significantly higher levels of individualism and self-belief than second and third generation family businessers; and (3) the founding generation differed significantly to the third (but not the second) generation on business direction and planning related matters.The second study was a single case design study involving two second-generation family businessers and one third-generation family businesser from three separate family businesses. Using the Skinnerian theory-based technique of functional assessment and the recently formulated Valued Outcomes Analysis (VOA) each individual’s behaviour was analyzed after an initial interview. From this analysis, causes of behaviour were derived and presented to each participant with suggestions for behaviour change. As a result of adopting the suggestions, each individual reported improved functioning at a second interview conducted after a five-week lapse. It was found that individual functioning in family business could be improved by establishing (1) the function of the behaviour, and (2) the valued outcomes that drive the behaviour. The findings of the two studies are linked, limitations of the research are addressed and future projects discussed.

People engage in a constant and reflexive process of categorizing others according to their race, gender, age or other salient social category. Decades of research have shown that social categorization often elicits stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination. Social perception is complicated by the fact that people have multiple social identities and self-categorization with these identities can shift from one situation to another, coloring perceptions and evaluations of the self and others. This dissertation provides evidence that self-categorization with a novel group can override ostensible stable and pervasive racial biases in memory and evaluation and examines the neural substrates that mediate these processes. Experiment 1 shows that self-categorization with a novel mixed-race group elicited liking for ingroup members, regardless of race. This preference for ingroup members was mediated by the orbitofrontal cortex – a region of the brain linked to subjective valuation. Participants in novel groups also had greater fusiform and amygdala activity to novel ingroup members, suggesting that these regions are sensitive to the current self-categorization rather than features associated with race. Experiment 2 shows that preferences for ingroup members are evoked rapidly and spontaneously, regardless of race, indicating that ingroup bias can override automatic racial bias. Experiment 3 provides evidence that preferences for ingroup members are driven by ingroup bias rather than outgroup derogation. Experiment 4 shows that self-categorization increases memory for ingroup members eliminating the own-race memory bias. Experiment 5 provides direct evidence that fusiform activity to ingroup members is associated with superior memory for ingroup members. This study also shows greater amygdala activity to Black than White faces who are unaffiliated with either the ingroup or outgroup, suggesting that social categorization is flexible, shifting from group membership to race within a given social context. These five experiments illustrate that social perception and evaluation are sensitive to the current self-categorization – however minimal – and characterized by ingroup bias. This research also offers a relatively simple approach for erasing several pervasive racial biases. This multi-level approach extends several theories of intergroup perception and evaluation by making explicit links between self-categorization, neural processes, and social perception and evaluation.