1

Individualistic Culture

Igor Grossmann & Henri C. Santos

University of Waterloo, Canada

Author’s note Correspondence should be addressed to: Igor Grossmann, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo. E-mail: [email protected]; Fax: +1 519-746-8631.

Pre-print represent a pre-review version

Citation: Grossmann, I. & Santos, H. C. (2016). Individualistic cultures. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford, Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_2024-1 2

Abstract

The notion of individualism plays a central role for various domains of economics and moral and political philosophy, including liberalism, existentialism, and anarchism, among others.

Individualism has also been the center of different lines of research in social sciences, including the exploration of dimensions defining cultural differences as well as the study of cohort effects

(e.g., the individualistic focus of “hipsters,” “millennials,” or “baby boomers”). The present overview discusses how individualism informs individual psychology, along with the social, cognitive, and emotional processes impacting personal attitudes, values, and behavior. We also touch on how individualism has been changing over time and the macro-social factors contributing toward such changes.

Synonyms

Individualism vs. collectivism, independence vs. interdependence, Gesellschaft vs.

Gemeinschaft, civic society vs. community, contractual vs. communal cultures, ideocentrism vs. allocentrism 3

Definition

In most fundamental terms, individualism refers to a focus on the individual. In cross- cultural research, the notion of individualism is often contrasted with collectivism – i.e. the orientation towards one’s social community. Other terms to describe the cross-cultural dimension of individualism vs. collectivism are independence vs. interdependence (Markus & Kitayama,

1991), Gesellschaft vs. Gemeinschaft (i.e. civic society vs. community; Greenfield, 2009;

Tönnies, 1887), contractual vs. communal cultures (Schwartz, 1990), and ideocentrism vs. allocentrism (Triandis, Leung, Villareal, & Clack, 1985).When describing cultural differences, the terms individualism and collectivism are often viewed as diametrically opposite ends of the same dimension (Grossmann & Na, 2014; Hofstede, 1991; Triandis, 1989, 1995). Individualist cultures emphasize self-direction, autonomy, self-expression, along with self-fulfillment, personal achievement, and personal rights and liberties. Collectivist cultures emphasize harmony, relatedness, and connection, along with in-group goals, social responsibilities, relationships, and conformity (Morling & Lamoreaux, 2008; Triandis, 1989).

Differences between Individualist and Collectivist Cultures

Differences in value structures between individualist and collectivist cultures have implications for the conceptualization of the self. People in individualist cultures view the person as bounded and separate from others, whereas people in collectivist cultures view the person as interconnected and as encompassing meaningful relationships (e.g., Markus & Kitayama,

1991; Triandis, 1989). Different conceptions of the self in these cultures also impact choices people make and justification of these choices. For instance, individuals in individualist cultures tend to justify their personal choices by reporting liking the chosen option more, even though they don’t show such tendency when choosing for others. In contrast, individuals in collectivist 4 cultures tend to justify choices make for others, but not necessarily own choices (Hoshino-

Browne et al., 2005; Kimel, Grossmann, & Kitayama, 2012).

Individualism-collectivism also has consequences for cognitive style (Varnum et al.,

2013). It appears that individualist cultures are more likely to endorse analytic patterns of cognition, which include a narrow attention field, focus on salient objects with the intention to manipulate them, dispositional attributions, and analytical thinking. Conversely, collectivist cultures are more likely to endorse holistic patterns of cognition, which include a broad attention field, focus on the relationship of elements and the context, situational-contextual attributions, and dialectical thinking. People in individualist cultures also tend to report different phenomenology of memory recall compared to individuals in collectivist cultures. Specifically, individualist cultures are more likely to encourage a first-person perspective in memory recall of social situations, reflecting on the experience from the “inside-out” field vantage point). In contrast, collectivist cultures are more likely to encourage a third-person perspective in recall of similar social situations, reflecting on the experience from the “outside-in” observer vantage point) (Cohen, Hoshino-Browne, & Leung, 2007; Grossmann & Kross, 2010).

Finally, there are consequences for emotions. Whereas people in individualist cultures report greater happiness in socially disengaging contexts (i.e. when feeling pride), individuals in collectivist cultures report greater happiness is socially engaging contexts (i.e. when feeling a sense of closeness to others) (Kitayama, Mesquita, & Karasawa, 2006). As a consequence, the pursuit of (socially disengaging) happiness comes at a greater cost in individualist societies, as compared to the pursuit of (socially engaging) happiness in collectivist societies (Ford et al.,

2015). Moreover, people in individualist cultures tend to report emotions in a more compartmentalized, good or wrong or “black or white” fashion, whereas individuals in 5 collectivist cultures tend to report emotions in a more nuanced way, allowing for various shades of “gray” (Grossmann, Huynh, & Ellsworth, 2016).

Cultural Variation across Different Levels of Analysis

Individualism appears to be more common among people from Western countries such as

Germany, UK, USA, or Canada. In contrast, collectivism seems to be more common among people from many Asian countries, Eastern Europe, and the developing world (e.g., Africa,

Central & South America). It is important to note, however, that individualist vs. collectivist cultures also play a role for understanding value systems, along with social, cognitive, and emotional processes among different groups from the same country. In particular, both in North

America, Eastern Europe, and in East Asia, individualism appears more prevalent among groups representing the higher ends of the socio-economic standing, e.g., a highly educated (upper-) middle class with white-collar jobs. In contrast, collectivism appears more prevalent among groups representing the lower ends of the socioeconomic standing – i.e. less education working class with blue-collar jobs (Grossmann & Varnum, 2011; Kraus, Piff, Mendoza-Denton,

Rheinschmidt, & Keltner, 2012; Stephens, Rose Markus, & Fryberg, 2012).

Although there is cultural variation across different regions and classes, individualism is not static. Researchers have observed that individualism-related psychological variables in increasing in countries such as the U.S., China, Japan, and Mexico (e.g., Greenfield, 2013;

Grossmann & Varnum, 2015; Hamamura, 2012; Twenge, Abebe, & Campbell, 2010). One of the major factors contributing to this change is socio-economic development. More prosperous societies make it possible for individuals to rely less on a close community and instead pursue personal goals (Inglehart & Baker, 2000; Kagitçibasi, 2007). A related argument focuses on the rise of urban communities, which are better suited for individualistic living (Tönnies, 1887; 6

Yamagishi, Hashimoto, Li, & Schug, 2012). Building on these ideas, researchers have found that increases in socio-economic development (e.g., from blue-collar to white-collar occupations) preceded increases in individualistic values and practices over time, suggesting that socio- economic changes contributed towards the rise of individualism (Grossmann & Varnum, 2015).

Notably, cultural-level differences in individualism-collectivism may not necessarily correspond to comparable constructs operating on the individual level of analysis (Na et al.,

2010). According to Triandis and colleagues (1985), idiocentrism is the expression of individualist values and norms on an individual level, defined through an individual-level preference for personal goals, self-reliance, competitive orientation, and individual achievement.

It stands in contrast to the notion of allocentrism, which roughly corresponding to the idea of cultural-level collectivism. On the cultural level, individualism and collectivism often represent opposite poles of the same dimension (Hofstede & Bond, 1984; Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov,

2010). However, corresponding individual level concepts appear to be distinct -- i.e. the same person can value allocentrism and ideocentrism at the same time, and either tendency can be activated based on certain situational contingencies (Oyserman & Lee, 2008).

Conclusion

Individualism is a cultural-level construct concerning greater attention to the individual

(vis-à-vis social community), self-direction, autonomy, and self-expression. Typically, scholars consider individualism to be more prevalent in the English-speaking North America, Australia,

New Zealand, and Western Europe compared to the other parts of the world. However, individualism is dynamic; many countries around the globe have experienced a substantial rise in individualism over the course of the twentieth century. Given this dynamic nature of 7 individualism, exact mapping of cultural differences in this cultural-level construct is by definition subject to change.

Cross-References

Collectivistic Cultures, Individualism-Collectivism, Working Models of Self/Other, Culture,

Social Class Differences, Cultural Dimensions Theory (Hofstede), Self-Concept, Interpersonal

Self 8

References

Cohen, D., Hoshino-Browne, E., & Leung, A. K. y. (2007). Culture and the structure of personal experience: Insider and outsider phenomenologies of the self and social world. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 39, pp. 1–67). San Diego: Academic. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(06) 39001-6. Ford, B.Q., Dmitrieva, J.O., Heller, D., Chentsova-Dutton, Y., Grossmann, I., Tamir, M., ..., & Mauss, I.B. (2015). Culture shapes whether the pursuit of happiness predicts higher or lower well-being. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(6), 1053–1062. doi:10.1037/xge0000108. Greenfield, P. M. (2009). Linking social change and developmental change: Shifting pathways of human development. Developmental Psychology, 45(2), 401–418. doi:10.1037/a0014726. Greenfield, P. M. (2013). The changing psychology of culture from 1800 through 2000. Psychological Science, 24(9), 1722–1731. doi:10.1177/ 0956797613479387. Grossmann, I., & Kross, E. (2010). The impact of culture on adaptive versus maladaptive self- reflection. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1150–1157. doi:10.1177/ 0956797610376655. Grossmann, I., & Na, J. (2014). Research in culture and psychology: Past lessons and future challenges. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 5(1), 1–14. doi:10.1002/wcs.1267. Grossmann, I., & Varnum, M. E. W. (2011). Social class, culture, and cognition. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(1), 81–89. doi:10.1177/ 1948550610377119. Grossmann, I., & Varnum, M. E. W. (2015). Social structure, infectious diseases, disasters, secularism, and cultural change in America. Psychological Science, 26(3), 311–324. doi:10.1177/0956797614563765. Grossmann, I., Huynh, A.C., & Ellsworth, P.C. (2016). Emotional complexity: Clarifying definitions and cultural correlates. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology 111(6), 895– 916. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000084. Hamamura, T. (2012). Are cultures becoming individualistic? A cross-temporal comparison of individualismcollectivism in the United States and Japan. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(1), 3–24. doi:10.1177/1088868311411587. Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1984). Hofstede’s culture dimensions an independent validation using Rokeach’s value survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15(4), 417–433. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Hoshino-Browne, E., Zanna, A. S., Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., Kitayama, S., & Lackenbauer, S. (2005). On the cultural guises of cognitive dissonance: The case of Easterners and Westerners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 294–310. Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65(1), 19–51. Kagitçibasi, Ç. (2007). Family, self, and human development across cultures. Mahwah: Erlbaum. 9

Kimel, S. Y., Grossmann, I., & Kitayama, S. (2012). When gift-giving produces dissonance: Effects of subliminal affiliation priming on choices for one’s self versus close others. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(5), 1221–1224. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.05.012. Kitayama, S., Mesquita, B., & Karasawa, M. (2006). Cultural affordances and emotional experience: Socially engaging and disengaging emotions in Japan and the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 890–903. Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., Mendoza-Denton, R., Rheinschmidt, M. L., & Keltner, D. (2012). Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: How the rich are different from the poor. Psychological Review, 119(3), 546. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. Morling, B., & Lamoreaux, M. (2008). Measuring culture outside the head: A meta-analysis of individualismcollectivism in cultural products. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(3), 199–221. doi:10.1177/1088868308318260. Na, J., Grossmann, I., Varnum, M. E. W., Kitayama, S., Gonzalez, R., & Nisbett, R. E. (2010). Cultural differences are not always reducible to individual differences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(14), 6192–6197. doi:10.1073/pnas.1001911107. Oyserman, D., & Lee, S. W. S. (2008). Does culture influence what and how we think? Effects of priming individualism and collectivism. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 311–342. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.311. Schwartz, S. H. (1990). Individualism-collectivism: Critique and proposed refinements. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21(2), 139–157. doi:10.1177/ 0022022190212001. Stephens, N. M., Rose Markus, H., & Fryberg, S. A. (2012). Social class disparities in health and education: Reducing inequality by applying a sociocultural self model of behavior. Psychological Review, 119(4), 723. Tönnies, F. (1887). Community and society. New Brunswick: Transaction Books. Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96(3), 269–289. Triandis, H. C., Leung, K., Villareal, M. J., & Clack, F. I. (1985). Allocentric versus idiocentric tendencies: Convergent and discriminant validation. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(4), 395–415. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(85)90008-X. 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. Varnum, M. E. W., Grossmann, I., Kitayama, S., & Nisbett, R. E. (2010). The origin of cultural differences in cognition: Evidence for the social orientation hypothesis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(1), 9–13. doi:10.1177/0963721409359301. 10

Yamagishi, T., Hashimoto, H., Li, Y., & Schug, J. (2012). Stadtluft Macht Frei (City air brings freedom). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 38–45. doi:10.1177/

0022022111415407.