理性式微、功利扩张?近40年中国社会两种个人主义的变迁

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00911

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

随着全球范围内的现代化变迁, 个人主义异常增长, 但这一增长究竟是自我的功利扩张(如利益至上)、还是理性提升(如人格独立), 引发了众多学者的反思。预研究建立了理性个人主义(如独立、自主、开拓、进取)和功利个人主义(如财产、利益、快乐、享受)词典。进而对谷歌中文图书语料库(1980~2019)的词频分析显示, 理性个人主义显著下降, 功利个人主义显著增长(研究1); 词嵌入分析表明, 自我靶词与理性(vs.功利)个人主义属性词的相对语义关联也呈下降趋势(研究2)。总之, 中国社会近几十年来的文化转型并非个人主义的简单增长, 而是出现了理性个人主义下降、功利个人主义增长的趋势。这表明, 理性式微、功利扩张的价值失衡是社会变迁的重要议题, 其背后的多重自我结构、演化路径及社会精神动力的培育还有待未来深入研究。

关键词: 个人主义, 功利, 理性, 中国, 价值观

Abstract:

Individualism appears to have increased along with modernization and globalization, yet it is a great debate whether such a cultural shift fell in the value discrepancy between the independence-focused rational individualism and the interest-focused utilitarian individualism, especially in fast-changing societies like China.

Based on expert interview, self-report survey, and open-question analysis (pilot study), the pilot study established a reliable and valid dictionary of rational individualism and utilitarian individualism, finding that rational (vs. utilitarian) individualism prevailed in responses to questions about rational individualism, and vice versa.

Furthermore, based on word counting (Study 1) and word embedding (Study 2) analyses of Chinese version of Google Books Ngram (1980~2019), the present research was designed to test the effect of social change on rational individualism and utilitarian individualism. We hypothesized that (1) rational individualism decreased while utilitarian individualism increased from 1980 through 2019, and that (2) the semantic association between self and rational (vs. utilitarian) individualism decreased over the past 40 years. As expected, Study 1 revealed that the usage of rational individualism decreased, while that of utilitarian individualism increased over time; and via the single-target Word Embedding Association Test (WEAT), Study 2 revealed that the semantic similarity between the target words about self (e.g., I, self) and attribute words about rational (vs. utilitarian) individualism decreased over time.

Taken together, the results demonstrate the cultural shift of the increase in utilitarian individualism and decrease in rational individualism over the past 40 years in China, whereas both rational enlightenment and utilitarian expansion serve as psychological drives in the development of modern societies. It was suggested that the value discrepancy of rational and utilitarian individualism should be seriously concerned, and that further work is needed on multiple selves, cultural evolution, and psychological function of the two types of individualism.

Key words: individualism, utility, rationality, China, values

中图分类号:

B849: C91

吴胜涛, 王予灵, 彭凯平. (2024). 理性式微、功利扩张?近40年中国社会两种个人主义的变迁. 心理学报, 56(7), 911-925.

WU Michael Shengtao, WANG Yuling, PENG Kaiping. (2024). More utilitarian and less rational? Social change and two types of individualism over the last 40 years in China. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(7), 911-925.

图/表 7

参考文献 77

[1]	Arnolds, C. A., & Boshoff, C. (2002). Compensation, esteem valence and job performance: An empirical assessment of Alderfer's ERG theory. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(4), 697-719.
[2]	Bao, H., Cai, H., & Huang, Z. (2022). Discerning cultural shifts in China? Commentary on Hamamura et al. (2021). American Psychologist, 77(6), 786-788.
[3]	Baumeister, R. F. (2011). Self and identity:A brief overview of what they are, what they do, and how they work. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1234(1), 48-55.
[4]	Baumeister, R. F. (1986). Identity: Cultural change and the struggle for self. Oxford University Press.
[5]	Baumeister, R. F. (2006). Self, psychology of. In Encyclopedia of cognitive science. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/0470018860.s00647
[6]	Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1986). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley: University of California Press
[7]	Brown, P. R. (1996). Authentic individualism: A guide for reclaiming the best of America’s heritage. University Press of America.
[8]	Cai, H. J., Kwan, V. S. Y., & Sedikides, C. (2012). A sociocultural approach to narcissism: The case of modern China. European Journal of Personality, 26(5), 529-535.
[9]	Cai, H., Zou, X., Feng, Y., Liu, Y., & Jing, Y. (2018). Increasing need for uniqueness in contemporary China: Empirical evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, article 554.
[10]	Caliskan, A., Bryson, J. J., & Narayanan, A. (2017). Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases. Science, 356(6334), 183-186. doi: 10.1126/science.aal4230 pmid: 28408601
[11]	Chen, Y. (2021). The paradox of autonomy: An analysis of two interpretations of Kant's concept of autonomy. Studies in Ethics, 81(6), 76-84.
	[陈杨. (2021). 自主性的悖论——试析关于康德自主性概念的两种诠释. 伦理学研究, 81(6), 76-84.]
[12]	Chen, Y. R., Brockner, J., & Chen, X. P. (2002). Individual- collective primacy and ingroup favoritism: Enhancement and protection effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(5), 482-491.
[13]	Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
[14]	Dewey, J. (1930). Individualism:Old and new. In J. A.Boydston (Ed.) (2008), Later works of John Dewey (1925-1953) (Vol.5). Southern Illinois University Press.
[15]	Evers, N. F., Greenfield, P. M., & Evers, G. W. (2021). COVID‐19 shifts mortality salience, activities, and values in the United States: Big data analysis of online adaptation. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3(1), 107- 126.
[16]	Garg, N., Schiebinger, L., Jurafsky, D., & Zou, J. (2018). Word embeddings quantify 100 years of gender and ethnic stereotypes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(16), e3635-e3644.
[17]	Goldman-Mellor, S., Caspi, A., Arseneault, L., Ajala, N., Ambler, A., & Danese, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2016). Committed to work but vulnerable: Self-perceptions and mental health in NEET 18-year olds from a contemporary British cohort. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 57(2), 196-203.
[18]	Greenfield, P. M. (2009). Linking social change and developmental change: Shifting pathways of human development. Developmental Psychology, 45, 401-418. doi: 10.1037/a0014726 pmid: 19271827
[19]	Greenfield, P. M. (2013). The changing psychology of culture from 1800 through 2000. Psychological Science, 24(9), 1722-1731.
[20]	Grossmann, I., & Varnum, M. E. (2015). Social structure, infectious diseases, disasters, secularism, and cultural change in America. Psychological Science, 26(3), 311-324. doi: 10.1177/0956797614563765 pmid: 25656275
[21]	Hamed, K. H. (2009). Exact distribution of the Mann-Kendall trend test statistic for persistent data. Journal of Hydrology, 365(1-2), 86-94.
[22]	Hamed, K. H., & Rao, A. R. (1998). A modified mann-kendall trend test for autocorrelated data. Journal of Hydrology (Amsterdam), 204(1-4), 182-196.
[23]	Hayek, F. A. Individualism and economic order. University of Chicago Press.
[24]	Hirsch, R. M., Alexander, R. B., & Smith, R. A. (1991). Selection of methods for the detection and estimation of trends in water quality. Water Resources Research, 27(5), 803-813.
[25]	Huang, F., Ding, H., Liu, Z., Wu, P., Zhu, M., Li, A., & Zhu, T. (2020). How fear and collectivism influence public's preventive intention towards COVID-19 infection: A study based on big data from the social media. BMC Public Health, 20(1), article 1707.
[26]	Huang, Z., Jing, Y., Yu, F., Gu, R., Zhou, X., Zhang, J., & Cai, H. (2018). Increasing individualism and decreasing collectivism? Cultural and psychological change around the globe. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(11), 2068-2080. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.02068
	[黄梓航, 敬一鸣, 喻丰, 古若雷, 周欣悦, 张建新, 蔡华俭. (2018). 个人主义上升, 集体主义式微? ——全球文化变迁与民众心理变化. 心理科学进展, 26(11), 2068-2080.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.02068
[27]	Huang, Z., Wang K., & Cai H. (August 2016). Rising individualism in China: Convergent evidence from diverse perspectives. Poster presented on the 23rd Conference of International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology in Nagoya, Japan.
[28]	Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65(1), 19-51.
[29]	Izenberg, G. (2011). The modern notion of self has reached its ultimate conclusion. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1234(1), 124-126.
[30]	James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
[31]	Kasser, T. (2003). The high price of materialism. MIT press.
[32]	Kendall, M. G. (1995). Rank correlation methods. Charles Griffin.
[33]	Leary, M. R., & Tangney, J. P. (2012). The self as an organizing construct in the behavioral and social sciences. In M. R.Leary & J. P.Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 1-18). New York: Guilford Press.
[34]	Lenci, A. (2018). Distributional models of word meaning. Annual Review of Linguistics, 4, 151-171.
[35]	Lukes, S. (1969). Durkheim’s ‘Individualism and the intellectuals’. Political Studies, 17(1), 14-30.
[36]	Lukes, S. (1971). The meanings of "individualism". Journal of the History of Ideas, 32(1), 45-66.
[37]	Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.
[38]	Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 420-430.
[39]	Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013). Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arxiv: 1301.3781v3.
[40]	Nicolas, G., Bai, X., & Fiske, S. T. (2021). Comprehensive stereotype content dictionaries using a semi-automated method. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51(1), 178-196.
[41]	Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3-72.
[42]	Pettit, M. (2016). Historical time in the age of big data: Cultural psychology, historical change, and the Google books Ngram viewer. History of Psychology, 19(2), 141-153. doi: 10.1037/hop0000023 pmid: 27100927
[43]	Qian, M. (2018). Emerson and China: Reflection on individualism. Oriental Press.
	[钱满素. (2018). 爱默生和中国:对个人主义的反思. 东方出版社.]
[44]	Qin, X., & Dai, Y. (2022). Involution and lying flat and the cultivation of Chinese youth's struggle spirit. China Youth Study, (2), 5-13.
	[覃鑫渊, 代玉启. (2022). "内卷""佛系"到"躺平"——从社会心态变迁看青年奋斗精神培育. 中国青年研究, (2), 5-13.]
[45]	Santos, H. C., Varnum, M. E., & Grossmann, I. (2017). Global increases in individualism. Psychological Science, 28(9), 1228-1239. doi: 10.1177/0956797617700622 pmid: 28703638
[46]	Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values:Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P.Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65, Chapter ix). Academic Press
[47]	Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580-591.
[48]	Swann, W. B., Jr., & Buhrmester, M. D. (2012). Self as functional fiction. Social Cognition, 30(4), 415-430.
[49]	Talhelm, T., Zhang, X., Oishi, S., Shimin, C., Duan, D., Lan, X., & Kitayama, S. (2014). Large-scale psychological differences within China explained by rice versus wheat agriculture. Science, 344(6184), 603-608. doi: 10.1126/science.1246850 pmid: 24812395
[50]	Tilman, R. (2002). Durkheim and Veblen on the social nature of individualism. Journal of Economic Issues, 36(4), 1104-1110.
[51]	Toney-Wails, A., & Caliskan, A. (2021). ValNorm quantifies semantics to reveal consistent valence biases across languages and over centuries. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 7203-7218). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.574
[52]	Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. Westview Press.
[53]	Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 118-128.
[54]	Twenge, J. M. (2000). The Age of anxiety? Birth cohort change in anxiety and neuroticism, 1952-1993. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 1007-1021. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.79.6.1007 pmid: 11138751
[55]	Twenge, J. M. (2015). Time period and birth cohort differences in depressive symptoms in the U.S., 1982-2013. Social Indicators Research, 121(2), 437-454.
[56]	Twenge, J. M., Abebe, E. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2010). Fitting in or standing out: Trends in American parents' choices for children’s names, 1880-2007. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(1), 19-25.
[57]	Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Gentile, B. (2013). Changes in pronoun use in American books and the rise of individualism, 1960-2008. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(3), 406-415.
[58]	Twenge, J. M., Joiner, T. E., Rogers, M. L., & Martin, G. N. (2018). Increases in depressive symptoms, suicide-related outcomes, and suicide rates among U.S. adolescents after 2010 and links to increased new media screen time. Clinical Psychological Science, 6(1), 3-17.
[59]	Twenge, J. M., & Kasser, T. (2013). Generational changes in materialism and work centrality, 1976-2007: Associations with temporal changes in societal insecurity and materialistic role modeling. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(7), 883-897. doi: 10.1177/0146167213484586 pmid: 23637277
[60]	Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Campbell, W. K., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Further evidence of an increase in narcissism among college students. Journal of Personality, 76(4), 919-928.
[61]	Vignoles, V. L., Owe, E., Becker, M., Smith, P. B., Easterbrook, M. J., Brown, R., ... Bond, M. H. (2016). Beyond the ‘east-west’dichotomy: Global variation in cultural models of selfhood. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(8), 966-1000.
[62]	Williams, B. (1995). Formal and substantial individualism. In B. Williams (edits). Making sense of humanity and other philosophical papers 1982-1993. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
[63]	Wood, G. S. (1969). The Creation of the American republic, 1776-1787. New York: John Day.
[64]	Wu, M. S., Li, B., Zhu, L., Jiao, D., & Zhu, T. (2018). Connecting with others in economic downturn:A big data analysis of collectivism from 2010 through 2016. In Proceedings of the Academic Forum on Research into Social Mentality and Social Psychological Services under the New Era (pp. 81-86). American Scholars Press, Inc.
[65]	Wu, M. S., Li, B., Zhu, L., & Zhou, C. (2019). Culture change and affectionate communication in China and the United States: Evidence from Google digitized books 1960-2008. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, article 1110.
[66]	Wu, M. S., Mao, Y., Wu, S., Feng, J., Zhang, Q., Xie, T., Chen, H., & Zhu, T. (2023). The big data analysis in cultural psychology. Advances in Psychological Science, 31(3), 317-329. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2023.00317
	[吴胜涛, 茅云云, 吴舒涵, 冯健仁, 张庆鹏, 谢天, 陈浩, 朱廷劭. (2023). 基于大数据的文化心理分析. 心理科学进展, 31(3), 317-329.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2023.00317
[67]	Wu, M. S., Yang, C., Wang, S., Ma, R., & Han, B. (2020). Robust effect of justice for others: Evidence from word embedding association test. Chinese Science Bulletin, 65(19), 2047-2054.
	[吴胜涛, 杨晨曦, 王世强, 马瑞启, 韩布新. (2020). 正义动机的他人凸显效应: 基于词嵌入联想测验的证据. 科学通报, 65(19), 2047-2054.]
[68]	Wu. M.S., Zhou, C., Chen, H., Cai, H., & Sundararajan, L. (2018). Cultural value mismatch in urbanizing China: A large-scale analysis of collectivism and happiness based on social media and nationwide survey. International Journal of Psychology, 53(s2), 54-63.
[69]	Yan, Y. (2010). The Chinese path to individualization. The British Journal of Sociology, 61(3), 489-512.
[70]	Yang, Z., Liu, Y., Yu, Z., & Cai, H. (2015). Applications of implicit association test. Advances in Psychological Science, 23(11), 1966-1980. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2015.01966
	[杨紫嫣, 刘云芝, 余震坤, 蔡华俭. (2015). 内隐联系测验的应用:国内外研究现状. 心理科学进展, 23(11), 1966-1980.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2015.01966
[71]	Yu, F., Peng, T., Peng, K., Tang, S., Chen, C. S., Qian, X., ... Chai, F. (2016). Cultural value shifting in pronoun use. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47(2), 310-316.
[72]	Zeng, R., & Greenfield, P. M. (2015). Cultural evolution over the last 40 years in China: Using the Google Ngram Viewer to study implications of social and political change for cultural values. International Journal of Psychology, 50(1), 47-55.
[73]	Zhang, M. (2009). The puritan origin of American individualism. The Chinese Journal of American Studies, (3), 116-126.
	[张孟媛. (2009). 美国个人主义的清教源流. 美国研究, (3), 116-126.]
[74]	Zhang, Z., Yi, L., & Huang, L. (2022). The lack of meaning and spiritual crisis behind the “Lying Down” of young people. Philosophical Analysis, 13(1), 91-102.
	[张自慧, 依力亚, 黄利金. (2022). 青年"躺平"背后的意义缺失与精神危机. 哲学分析, 13(1), 91-102.]
[75]	Zhou, C., Yiu, W. Y. V., Wu, M. S., & Greenfield, P. M. (2018). Perception of cross-generational differences in child behavior and parent socialization: A mixed-method interview study with grandmothers in China. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(1), 62-81.
[76]	Zhou, K., Zhou, Z., Wang, Y., Lan, C., & Deng, J. (2018). The relationship between materialism and subjective well-being in China: A meta-analysis. Psychology: Techniques and Applications, 6(1), 29-41.
	[周开济, 周正, 王映朝, 兰春梅, 邓家齐. (2018). 物质主义与主观幸福感的关系:基于中国样本的元分析. 心理技术与应用, 6(1), 29-41.]
[77]	Zinn, H. (1980). A people’s history of the United States. New York: Harper & Row.

理性个人主义词典						功利个人主义词典
编号	词汇	对应特征	排序	评分 (M ± SD)	语料库特征次数 (频率)	编号	词汇	对应特征	排序	评分 (M ± SD)	语料库特征次数 (频率)
1	独立	独立人格	3	8.15 ± 1.79	162 (1.70%)	1	利益	自然权利	1	8.66 ± 1.77	1993 (2.09%)
2	自主	独立人格	1	8.30 ± 1.77	121 (0.13%)	2	权利	自然权利	16	8.15 ± 1.93	1257 (1.32%)
3	自觉	独立人格	4	7.68 ± 2.02	755 (0.79%)	3	财富	自然权利	13	8.11 ± 2.03	468 (0.49%)
4	勤奋	进取精神	13	6.38 ± 2.57	110 (0.12%)	4	财产	自然权利	9	7.92 ± 2.21	701 (0.73%)
5	努力	进取精神	15	6.61 ± 2.46	174 (0.18%)	5	赢得	自然权利	2	8.05 ± 1.87	162 (0.17%)
6	开拓	进取精神	11	6.63 ± 2.52	291 (0.30%)	6	快乐	感觉经验	11	6.36 ± 2.49	353 (0.37%)
7	开创	进取精神	14	6.61 ± 2.51	173 (0.18%)	7	享受	感觉经验	12	6.76 ± 2.53	508 (0.53%)
8	工作	进取精神	20	6.07 ± 2.28	10531 (11.02%)	8	舒适	感觉经验	15	6.60 ± 2.50	154 (0.16%)
9	奋斗	进取精神	18	6.68 ± 2.30	453 (0.47%)	9	获得	自然权利	3	7.74 ± 1.94	2394 (2.51%)
10	创造	进取精神	16	6.63 ± 2.66	3122 (3.27%)	10	报酬	自然权利	10	7.78 ± 1.99	301 (0.31%)
11	能力	独立人格	8	7.16 ± 2.26	3108 (3.25%)	11	金钱	自然权利	7	8.32 ± 1.85	218 (0.23%)
12	才能	独立人格	10	7.08 ± 2.26	3554 (3.72%)	12	愉快	感觉经验	18	6.76 ± 2.47	454 (0.48%)
13	进取	进取精神	5	7.52 ± 2.02	117 (0.12%)	13	好处	自然权利	8	8.21 ± 1.83	437 (0.46%)
14	人格	独立人格	6	7.72 ± 2.11	344 (0.36%)	14	乐意	感觉经验	19	6.61 ± 2.65	106 (0.11%)

理性个人主义词典						功利个人主义词典
编号	词汇	对应特征	排序	评分 (M ± SD)	语料库特征次数 (频率)	编号	词汇	对应特征	排序	评分 (M ± SD)	语料库特征次数 (频率)
1	独立	独立人格	3	8.15 ± 1.79	162 (1.70%)	1	利益	自然权利	1	8.66 ± 1.77	1993 (2.09%)
2	自主	独立人格	1	8.30 ± 1.77	121 (0.13%)	2	权利	自然权利	16	8.15 ± 1.93	1257 (1.32%)
3	自觉	独立人格	4	7.68 ± 2.02	755 (0.79%)	3	财富	自然权利	13	8.11 ± 2.03	468 (0.49%)
4	勤奋	进取精神	13	6.38 ± 2.57	110 (0.12%)	4	财产	自然权利	9	7.92 ± 2.21	701 (0.73%)
5	努力	进取精神	15	6.61 ± 2.46	174 (0.18%)	5	赢得	自然权利	2	8.05 ± 1.87	162 (0.17%)
6	开拓	进取精神	11	6.63 ± 2.52	291 (0.30%)	6	快乐	感觉经验	11	6.36 ± 2.49	353 (0.37%)
7	开创	进取精神	14	6.61 ± 2.51	173 (0.18%)	7	享受	感觉经验	12	6.76 ± 2.53	508 (0.53%)
8	工作	进取精神	20	6.07 ± 2.28	10531 (11.02%)	8	舒适	感觉经验	15	6.60 ± 2.50	154 (0.16%)
9	奋斗	进取精神	18	6.68 ± 2.30	453 (0.47%)	9	获得	自然权利	3	7.74 ± 1.94	2394 (2.51%)
10	创造	进取精神	16	6.63 ± 2.66	3122 (3.27%)	10	报酬	自然权利	10	7.78 ± 1.99	301 (0.31%)
11	能力	独立人格	8	7.16 ± 2.26	3108 (3.25%)	11	金钱	自然权利	7	8.32 ± 1.85	218 (0.23%)
12	才能	独立人格	10	7.08 ± 2.26	3554 (3.72%)	12	愉快	感觉经验	18	6.76 ± 2.47	454 (0.48%)
13	进取	进取精神	5	7.52 ± 2.02	117 (0.12%)	13	好处	自然权利	8	8.21 ± 1.83	437 (0.46%)
14	人格	独立人格	6	7.72 ± 2.11	344 (0.36%)	14	乐意	感觉经验	19	6.61 ± 2.65	106 (0.11%)

个人主义类型	年份(r)	1980词频vs. 2019词频(SD)	d	词频变化比率
理性个人主义	−0.55^***	0.43%−0.35% (0.04%)	−2.00	81.40%
功利个人主义	0.75^***	0.12%−0.19% (0.02%)	3.50	158.33%

个人主义类型	年份(r)	1980词频vs. 2019词频(SD)	d	词频变化比率
理性个人主义	−0.55^***	0.43%−0.35% (0.04%)	−2.00	81.40%
功利个人主义	0.75^***	0.12%−0.19% (0.02%)	3.50	158.33%

	年份(r)	1980词频vs. 2019词频(SD)	d	词频变化比率
理性个人主义	−0.33^***	0.04%−0.04% (0.00%)	0.91	108.55%
功利个人主义	−0.77^***	0.06%−0.03% (0.01%)	−3.00	50.00%