THE SELF AND SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 309 Additional measures of complexity can be obtained by exam- ining various domains of culture. Culture includes language, technology, economic, political, and educational systems, reli- gious and aesthetic patterns, social structures, and so on. One analyze each of these domains by considering the number of distinct elements that can be identified in it. For example, (a) language can be examined by noting the number of terms that are available (e.g,, 600 camel-related terms in Arabic; many terms about automobiles in English), (b) economics by noting the number of occupations (the U.S. Employment and Training Administration's Dictionary of Occupational Titles contains more than 250,000), and (c) religion by noting the number of different functions (e.g., 6,000 priests in one temple in Orissa, India, each having a different function). The subject is left to the specialists such as Carneiro (1970), Lomax and Berkowitz (1972), and Murdock and Provost (1973), who do have reliable ways of measuring the construct. time and de-emphasize their independence from ingroups (Tri- andis et al., 1986). Shweder's data (see Shweder & LeVine, 1984) suggest that collectivists perceive ingroup norms as universally valid (a form of ethnocentrism). A considerable literature suggests that col- lectivists automatically obey ingroup authorities and are willing to fight and die to maintain the integrity of the ingroup, whereas they distrust and are unwilling to cooperate with members of outgroups (Triandis, 1972). However, the definition of the in- group keeps shifting with the situation. Common fate, common outside threat, and proximity (which is often linked to common fate) appear to be important determinants of the ingroup/out- group boundary. Although the family is usually the most impor- tant ingroup, tribe, coworkers, co-religionists, and members of the same political or social collective or the same aesthetic or scientific persuasion can also function as important ingroups. When the state is under threat, it becomes the ingroup. Ingroups can also be defined on the basis of similarity (in demographic attributes, activities, preferences, or institutions) and do influence social behavior to a greater extent when they are stable and impermeable (difficult to gain membership or difficult to leave). Social behavior is a function of ingroup norms to a greater extent in collectivist than individualist cul- tures. (Davidson, Jaccard, Triandis, Morales, and Diaz-Guer- rero, 1976). In collectivist cultures, ingroups influence a wide range of so- cial situations (e.g., during the cultural revolution in China, the state had what was perceived as "legitimate influence" on every collective). In some cases, the influence is extreme (e.g, the Rev. Jones's People's Temple influenced 911 members of that collec- tive to commit suicide in 1978). In collectivist cultures, role relationships that include in- group members are perceived as more nurturant, respectful, and intimate than they are in individualistic cultures; those that include outgroup members are perceived to be more manipula- tive and exploitative in collectivist than in individualist (Sinha, 1982; Triandis, Vassiliou, & Nassiakou, 1968). In other words, more ingroup social relationships are communal in the collectivist and more exchange relationships can be found in the individualist cultures. Outgroup relationships follow exchange can f the consequences of increased complexity is that indi- viduals have more and more potential ingroups toward whom they may or may not be loyal. As the number of potential in- groups increases, the loyalty of individuals to any one ingroup decreases. Individuals have the option of giving priority to their personal goals rather than to the goals of an ingroup. Also, the greater the affluence of a society, the more financial indepen- dence can be turned into social and emotional independence, with the individual giving priority to personal rather than in- group goals. Thus, as societies become more complex and affluent, they also can become more individualistic. However, there are some moderator variables that modify this simple pic- ture, that will be discussed later, after I examine more closely the dimension of individualism-collectivism. Individualism-collectivism. Individualists give priority to personal goals over the goals of collectives: collectivists either make no distinctions between personal and collective goals, or if they do make such distinctions, they subordinate their personal goals to the collective goals (Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988). Closely related to this dimension, in the work of Hofstede (1980), is power distance (the tendency to see a large difference between those with power and those without power). Collectivists tend to be high in power distance. cultures the terms individualism and collectivism should be used to characterize cultures and societies, the terms idiocentric patterns everywhere. The distinction between communal and exchange relations (Mills & Clark, 1982) is useful. The attributes of communal and exchange relationships involve a number of contrasts, such as (a) lack of clarity versus clarity about what is to be exchanged, and when and where, (b) concern for the other person's needs aractenze and allocentric should be used to characterize individuals. Tri- andis, Leung. Villareal, and Clack (1985) have shown that within culture (Illinois) there are individuals who differ on this dimension, and the idiocentrics report that they are concerned with achievement, but are lonely, whereas the allocentrics re- port low alienation and receiving much social support. These findings were replicated in Puerto Rico (Triandis et al., 1988). The distinction of terms at the cultural and individual levels of analysis is useful because it is convenient when discussing the behavior of allocentrics in individualist cultures and idiocen- trics in collectivist cultures (e.g., Bontempo, Lobel, & Triandis, 1989). In addition to subordinating personal to collective goals, col- lectivists tend to be concerned about the results of their actions on members of their ingroups, tend to share resources with in- group members, feel interdependent with ingroup members, and feel involved in the lives of ingroup members (Hui & Tri- andis, 1986). They emphasize the integrity of ingroups over versus concern for equity, (c) importance of maintaining equal- ity of affect (if one is sad, the other is sad) as opposed to emo- tional detachment, (d) inequality of the benefits exchanged ver- sus equality or equity bases of the benefits exchanged, and (e) benefits are not comparable versus benefits are comparable. Mills and Clark (1982) gave many examples in which exchange theory (e.g., Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) does not seem to provide adequate accounts of social behavior, makes predictions about the conditions under which exchange theory will be adequate, and tests experimentally some of these predictions. We expect that in collectivistic cultures the applicability of exchange theo- ries will be more limited than in individualistic cultures. As discussed earlier, over the course of cultural evolution there has been a shift toward individualism (i.e. exchange rela-