Psychological Bulletin Copyright 2002 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 2002, Vol. 128, No. 1, 3–72 0033-2909/02/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0033-2909.128.1.3 Rethinking Individualism and Collectivism: Evaluation of Theoretical Assumptions and Meta-Analyses Daphna Oyserman, Heather M. Coon, and Markus Kemmelmeier University of Michigan Are Americans more individualistic and less collectivistic than members of other groups? The authors summarize plausible psychological implications of individualism–collectivism (IND-COL), meta- analyze cross-national and within-United States IND-COL differences, and review evidence for effects of IND-COL on self-concept, well-being, cognition, and relationality. European Americans were found to be both more individualistic—valuing personal independence more—and less collectivistic—feeling duty to in-groups less—than others. However, European Americans were not more individualistic than African Americans, or Latinos, and not less collectivistic than Japanese or Koreans. Among Asians, only Chinese showed large effects, being both less individualistic and more collectivistic. Moderate IND-COL effects were found on self-concept and relationality, and large effects were found on attribution and cognitive style. To contemporary Americans, being an individualist is not only permanent bonds formed among similar others in traditional soci- a good thing; it is a quintessentially American thing. However, the eties (mechanical solidarity)—a collective focus. Max Weber term individualism itself appears to have its roots outside of the (1930) contrasted individual-focused Western European Protes- North American continent, namely in the French Revolution. It tantism with collective-focused Catholicism. He saw the former as appears that individualism was first used to describe the negative promoting self-reliance and pursuit of personal interests and the influence of individual rights on the well-being of the common- latter as promoting permanent and hierarchical relationships. Sim- wealth. The rising tide of the individual rights movement was ilarly, To¨nnies (1887/1957) contrasted the community-focused feared; it was thought that individualism would soon make com- (Gemeinschaft) relationships of small villages with the munity “crumble away, be disconnected into the dust and powder association-based (Gesellschaft) relationships of urban societies. of individuality” (Burke, 1790/1973, p. 109). In this usage, indi- In the past 20 years, the idea of contrasting societies on the basis vidualism describes a worldview antagonistic to community and of differences in individualism has increased in popularity, in large collective social structure. part because of the highly influential work of Geert Hofstede. In Indeed, there is a long Western tradition of contrasting individ- his widely cited book Culture’s Consequences, Hofstede (1980) ual and collective focus. For example, Emile Durkheim (1887/ differentiated country-level individualism from “power distance,” 1933) used the terms organic and mechanical solidarity to contrast “masculinity,” and “uncertainty avoidance.” Within his conceptu- the temporary relations formed in complex societies among dis- alization, the specific questions used to assess individualism fo- similar others (organic solidarity)—an individual focus—and the cused on the workplace, contrasting the extent that workers valued personal time and choice with the extent they valued job security and on-the-job training. Hofstede (1980) reviewed possible ante- Daphna Oyserman, Department of Psychology, School of Social Work, cedents and implications of these job-relevant values for societies. and Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan; Heather M. Although certainly not the first social scientist to focus explicitly Coon and Markus Kemmelmeier, Department of Psychology, University of on culture, Hofstede’s model was important because it organized Michigan. cultural differences into overarching patterns, which facilitated Heather M. Coon is now at the Department of Psychology, North comparative research and launched a rapidly expanding body of Central College. Markus Kemmelmeier is now at the Department of cultural and cross-cultural research in the ensuing 20 years. Be- Sociology, University of Nevada, Reno. Daphna Oyserman was supported by a Research Scholar’s Award from cause of Hofstede’s influence in organizing culture research the W. T. Grant Foundation while writing this article; this support and the around the concept of individualism, the present review focuses on support of the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences are research published since 1980. gratefully acknowledged. A Founders’ Dissertation Fellowship from the Usually, researchers conceptualize individualism as the opposite Institute of Social Research and the Department of Psychology, University of collectivism (e.g., Hui, 1988), especially when contrasting Eu- of Michigan, supported Markus Kemmelmeier. We thank the participants ropean American and East Asian cultural frames (e.g., Chan, 1994; of the 1998 Stanford Mini-Conference, the Stanford culture lab, Jennifer Kitayama, Markus, Matsumoto, & Norasakkunkit, 1997; Yamagu- Boyd Ritsher, Hazel Markus, Tony Manstead, Agneta Fischer, and Norbert chi, 1994). Social scientists assume that individualism is more Schwarz for their comments on earlier versions of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Daphna prevalent in industrialized Western societies than in other societ- Oyserman, Institute for Social Research, Room 5240, University of Mich- ies, especially more traditional societies in developing countries. igan, 426 Thompson Avenue, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106-1248. E-mail: Protestantism and the process of civic emancipation in Western [email protected] societies resulted in social and civic structures that championed the 3 4 OYSERMAN, COON, AND KEMMELMEIER role of individual choice, personal freedom, and self-actualization (self-concept, well-being, attribution style, and relationality). Last, (e.g., Inglehart, 1997; Sampson, 2001). Researchers assume that we draw conclusions and articulate emerging questions about these processes led to a Western cultural focus on individualism implications of a culture frame for psychology generally. that is more salient in countries and ethnic groups with a Protestant Methodologically, we collected all English-language literature heritage, applying the idea of Western individualism to both cross- published since 1980 on individualism and collectivism that either regional and within-country comparisons of ethnic groups with assessed these constructs directly or related them to the basic different cultural heritages. Thus, within the United States it is psychological domains of self-concept, well-being, attribution commonly assumed that European Americans are higher in indi- style, or relationality. We meta-analyzed individualism and col- vidualism and lower in collectivism than are members of ethnic lectivism studies contrasting European Americans with other minority groups (e.g., Freeberg & Stein, 1996; Gaines et al., 1997; groups and reviewed the empirical literature linking individualism Rhee, Uleman, & Lee, 1996). Taken together, current theorizing in and collectivism with basic psychological processes. Together the cultural psychology portrays European Americans as the most meta-analyses and literature reviews clarify the extent to which individualistic group. European Americans are in fact uniquely high in individualism and Considering European Americans the gold standard of individ- make sense of themselves, their lives, and their relationships with ualism seems at first glance unremarkable. Certainly, “rugged others in terms of the values of individualism. individualism” has been an American hallmark at least since de As we demonstrate in subsequent sections, contemporary Amer- Tocqueville’s (1835/1969) classic analysis of America that linked ican psychological research is particularly suited to an individual- individualism with individual rights and freedom, equal opportu- istic worldview and may not necessarily fit as a universal model of nity, and limited government (Lukes, 1973). Others have also human behavior to the extent that other peoples or regions of the linked American individualism to the Puritans, the founding fa- world are sharply different from Americans in individualism and thers, the birth of a market economy, and the vast American collectivism. For example, self-concept research is dominated both frontier (Curry & Valois, 1991). From the beginning, Americans by a focus on self-esteem and by the belief that attainment of have been enjoined to value “life, liberty, and the pursuit of personal happiness is a basic motivational drive (e.g., Baumeister, happiness” and to think of themselves as separate and independent 1998). Likewise, person perception and cognitive processes are individuals, isolated from others. In de Tocqueville’s words, “Such understood in terms of stable traits, and equity is viewed as the folk owe no man anything and hardly expect anything from any- basis for successful relationships (e.g., Triandis, 1995). These body. They form the habit of thinking of themselves in isolation research frames fit individualistic, not collectivistic, conceptions and imagine that their whole destiny is in their own hands” of human nature. To preview our findings, our analysis of the (1835/1969, p. 508). literature suggests first that differences