Individualism vs.

Collectivism - Triandis (1995)

Individualism is a social pattern that consists of loosely linked individuals who view themselves as
independent of collectives;
o are primarily motivated by their own preferences, needs, rights, and contracts they establish with others;
o give priority to their personal goals over the goals of others;
o And emphasize rational analysis of the advantages and disadvantages to associating with other.
Collectivism can be defined as a social pattern consisting of closely linked individuals who see themselves as
parts of one or more collectives (family, co-workers, tribe, and nation);
o are primarily motivated by the norms of, and duties imposed by, those collectives;
o are willing to give priority to the goals of these collectives over their own personal goals;
o And emphasize their connectedness to members of these collectives.

Attributes of individualism and collectivism, Triandis (1995)

o Individualists have an independent concept of self, they have their goals independent from their in-groups,
their social behaviors are attitude-, values-, and belief-driven, and they emphasize rationality in evaluating
and choosing their social relationships.
o Collectivists have an interdependent concept of self, their goals are compatible with those of their in-groups,
their social behaviors are norm-driven, and they are relational in their social exchange with other people.
These four defining attributes are synthesized in a theoretical framework in which concept of self is at the
center, and the three other attributes are captured in the interaction of self with group, society, and other
individuals.

Concept of self
o Individualists view themselves in a much more definitive way: “This is me, but that is not me.” For
example, they are likely not to think of their parents, spouse, children, even the closest members of the
nucleus family, as a part of themselves. There is no overlap between their selves and others’. In other words,
their view of themselves is digital.
o On the other hand, collectivists view people in their family (e.g., parents, spouse, children, siblings, and so
forth) as a continuation of their selves. For example, a mother or father is likely to think of a child as a part
of his or her self, and even adult children who have their own children constitute part of their self. Similar
closeness is felt for other relatives, friends, and coworkers. Thus, they have an analogue self.
o The boundary of independent self is sharply and rigidly defined (shown by a solid line in the illustrations),
whereas interdependent self has a less rigid and amorphous boundary (shown by a dashed line). This is a
consequence of the holistic view of the world held by people in collectivist cultures.
o The solid line around the interdependent self in Figure schematically captures the idea that it is difficult to
get to know collectivists because their interpersonal needs are met by the people with whom they share the
self. But if one were to succeed in breaking that hard shell, one becomes a part of the collective. Therefore,
collectivists can be likened to a coconut, hard on the outside and soft inside.
o On the other hand, individualists have a softer boundary around their self, which makes them approachable
and friendly. However, there is only so close one can get to an individualist. It is almost like there is a
concrete barrier that cannot be broached. Behind this barrier people hide their proverbial skeletons. Thus,
individualists are likened to peaches, soft on the outside but hard on the inside. This schematic helps one
understand why individualists are extremely friendly to talk to at a cocktail party, but this should not be
misconstrued as friendship.
The second defining attribute focuses on the relationship between self and groups of people.
o Those with the independent concept of self-develop ties with other people to satisfy their own needs, rather
than to serve the needs of a particular group of people.
o However, those with an interdependent concept of self-try to satisfy their own needs as well as those of the
members of the collective included in the self.
o For example, both American and Japanese children are found to be motivated to learn when they are
individually rewarded for learning; however, unlike American children, Japanese students are motivated to
learn even when their teacher is rewarded. Japanese children are socialized to observe and respond to
others’ feelings early on. So a mother may say “I am happy” or “I am sad” to provide positive or negative
reinforcement rather than directly saying “You are right” or “You are wrong.”
o Thus, difference in concept of self leads to difference in how people relate to their in-group or out-group.
Collectivists define in-groups and out-groups quite sharply compared to individualists.
o An aspect of this interdependent self is people’s concern about how their decisions would affect others in
their collectivity, which often leads to people sacrificing something, such as an activity that they find
interesting, some food item they really enjoy, or some product they really like, to accommodate the need of
a member of the collective.
o Collectivists are found to subordinate their individual goals to the goals of a collective, whereas
individualists pursue the goals that are dear to them, and even change their in-groups to achieve those goals.
o When a certain group of people is accepted as trustworthy, collectivists cooperate with these people, are
willing to make self-sacrifices to be part of this group, and are less likely to indulge in social loafing.
However, they are likely to indulge in exploitative exchange with people who are from the community of
out-groups.
o Individualists, on the other hand, do not make such strong distinctions between in-groups and out-groups.

The third defining attribute focuses on how the individual interacts with society at large.
o Those with an independent concept of self-do what they like to do—they pursue their individual desires,
attitudes, values, and beliefs. Since this works for everybody with an independent concept of self, people in
individualistic cultures value doing their own thing. However, people with an interdependent concept of
self-inherit many relationships and learn to live with these interdependencies.
o Part of managing the interdependencies is to act properly in all kinds of social settings, which requires that
people follow the norm quite strictly so as not to upset the nexus of social expectations.
o One reason for collectivists’ desire to conform results from their need to pay attention to what their
extended family, friends, colleagues, and neighbors have to say about what they do and how they do it. A
sense of duty guides them toward social norms in both the workplace and interpersonal relationships.
o Individualists, on the other hand, are more concerned about their personal attitudes, beliefs, and values.
Often, in individualist cultures, there are fewer norms about social and workplace behaviors, whereas in
collectivist cultures there are many clear norms.
o It should be noted that it is not true that in individualist cultures there are no norms, or that in collectivist
cultures people do not do what they like to do. Though there are exceptions, in individualistic cultures there
are fewer norms, and those that exist are not severely imposed; in contrast, in collectivist cultures, not only
are norms tightly monitored and imposed but also anti-normative behaviors are often hidden from the public
eye.
o Collectivists’ willingness to accept the opinions and views of others—in other words, their willingness to
conform—leads to their concern for face-saving or gaining the approval of the collective. Face-saving is an
important construct that guides all communications in collectivist cultures. However, in individualistic
cultures, people are not guided by face-saving; it is more important for people to speak their mind and tell
the other person directly how they feel than hide their feelings to make the other person comfortable.

The fourth defining attribute focuses on the nature of social exchange between self and others.
o In individualist cultures, social exchange is based on the principle of rationality and equal exchange. People
form new relationships to meet their changing needs based on cost–benefit analysis. On the other hand, in
collectivist cultures, where relationships are inherited, people nurture relationships with unequal social
exchanges over a long period of time. They view all relationships as long-term in nature and maintain them
even when they are not cost-effective.
o Social exchange suggests that it is the valuing of the benefits and costs of each relationship that
determine whether or not we choose to continue a social association.
o In collectivist cultures, people are found to maintain relationships that they have inherited from their
grandparents. In this type of relationship people feel an “equality of affect.” In other words, when one feels
up the other also feels up, and when one feels down the other also feels down. It is related to the notion of
having a common fate.

Types of Individualism and Collectivism

 “Horizontal” = stresses equality
 “Vertical” = stresses hierarchy (status)
Each cultural perspective has its positives and negatives. For instance, VIs foster creativity but also stress and
workaholic. While HIs are freer from group constraints, they are prone to become socially isolated.

1. Horizontal Individualism:
Emphasizes individual autonomy and personal achievement without necessarily prioritizing competition or
comparison with others.
Example: Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway, where there's a strong emphasis on personal
freedom, equality, and social welfare.

2. Vertical Individualism:
Focuses on personal success and achievement in comparison to others, often resulting in social hierarchies.
Example: United States, where individual success and competition are highly valued, and social mobility is
considered achievable through personal effort.

3. Horizontal Collectivism:
Emphasizes collaboration, cooperation, and equality within the community while maintaining individual
autonomy.
Example: Indigenous societies or small communal societies where decisions are made collectively, and
individuals contribute to the common good without strict hierarchies.

4. Vertical Collectivism:
Prioritizes collective goals and the well-being of the group over individual desires, often resulting in strong
hierarchical structures.
Example: Confucian cultures like China and South Korea, where there's a strong emphasis on duty,
obedience to authority, and harmony within the group.
These types of individualism and collectivism are not mutually exclusive, and many societies may exhibit
characteristics of more than one type. Additionally, individualism and collectivism can manifest differently
depending on various factors such as historical, social, economic, and political contexts.

Nepal leans towards vertical collectivism due to its emphasis on hierarchy, authority, and interdependence, it
also exhibits elements of horizontal collectivism through its emphasis on equality, community cohesion, and
shared identity.

Why do cultures differ on Individualism–Collectivism?

1. Social ecology that are linked with economic prosperity
Recent research argues that a society transitions from collectivism to individualism as its social ecology shifts
toward being more urban, affluent, and technologically advanced. First, in cross-national comparison studies,
indices of economic prosperity, such as per capita GDP, are strongly correlated with indices of individualism.

2. Historical Migration to Frontiers

Some cultures are individualistic today due to their history as a frontier settled by many independently minded
individuals. For example, the Western frontier in the United States during the eighteenth to nineteenth centuries
attracted settlers for the prospects of wealth and freedom. Inhabited by these individuals with an independent
and goal-oriented mindset, a culture of individualism emerged in these frontiers. Consequently, these frontiers
socialized those individualistic beliefs, values, and customs to newcomers. Interestingly, this theory posits that
individualistic culture within frontiers may continue even after the areas have ceased to be frontiers. The idea
that a culture, once evoked in response to a particular ecology, can have a life of its own is important for many
theories of culture.

3. Residential Mobility
Results from these studies suggest that moving is associated with individualistic psychology. For example, one
study found that American college students who had moved often in childhood rated their personal selves to be
more central to their self-concepts, whereas the collective self was more central among the non-movers.

4. Type of Agriculture
Talhelm et al. (2014) argued that collectivism has emerged in Chinese regions that farm rice, whereas
individualism has emerged in regions that farm wheat.
Farming rice is highly labor intensive and also necessitates the coordination of labor to build and maintain an
elaborate irrigation system, as well as to plant and harvest rice within a short window of time. These labor
practices gave rise to a culture that emphasizes cooperation and the avoidance of conflict. In contrast, wheat
farming does not require as elaborate a system of irrigation or as rigid a coordination of labor, which gives rise
to individualistic culture.

5. Pathogens
A historical prevalence of disease-causing pathogens. This theory maintains that, in ecologies characterized by a
high historical prevalence of infectious diseases, norms of contagion minimizing behaviors, such as restrained
sexual behavior and xenophobia are strongly adhered (Fincher and Thornhill, 2012; Schaller and Murray,
2008). This theory argues that one set of norms which developed to mitigate the pathogen threats was
collectivism, because it provides an effective defense by limiting interactions with members of out-groups,
discouraging individuals from deviating from social and cultural traditions, and emphasizing obedience in child
rearing practices

What are the psychological processes associated with individualism–collectivism?

Many studies have examined psychological differences between individualistic and collectivistic cultures. As
the above discussion suggests, many of these findings were obtained from comparisons between different
countries, most frequently these comparisons were between societies in East Asia (e.g., China, Korea, Japan)
and those in North America or Europe (e.g., Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom).

1. Self-Concept
A prevalent way to understand the self in individualistic societies is to see it as an autonomous and socially
independent entity that carries a stable set of attributes across situations. In collectivistic societies, Markus and
Kitayama argued that a prevalent way to understand the self is to see it as relational in nature as informed by
one’s roles in a society and relationships with close others.

2. Emotion
Kitayama et al. (2006b) maintain that the interdependent self is associated with a tendency to experience
socially engaging emotions (e.g., friendly feelings, guilt), whereas independent self is associated with a
pervasive tendency to experience socially disengaging emotions (e.g., pride, anger).
Findings from multiple studies suggest that anger is more frequently experienced in individualistic cultures due
to its emphasis on personal goals and agendas – failing to achieve these goals results in frustration and anger
(Boiger et al., 2013; Park et al., 2013).
Tsai et al. (2006) showed that, compared with East Asians, North Americans more strongly preferred to feel
high-arousal positive states (e.g., excited, elated). In contrast, East Asians more strongly preferred to feel
lowarousal positive states (e.g., calm, peaceful).
Morality in individualistic cultures is mainly concerned with the protection of individual autonomy and
integrity, morality in collectivistic cultures concerns a broader array of values also encompassing
loyalty, respect for authority, and the avoidance of disgusting acts to preserve purity (Haidt, 2001, 2007; Haidt
and Bjorklund, 2008; Rozin et al., 1999).

3. Motivation
One influential study (Iyengar and Lepper, 1999) instructed Asian- and European-American children to solve an
educational puzzle. Half of the children worked on the puzzle they chose whereas the other half worked on the
puzzle that was chosen by others, either close others (e.g., their mother, classmates) or more distant others. The
findings indicated that European American children were most strongly motivated when they solved a puzzle
that they chose. The self-selected puzzle was also more enjoyable and their performance was better. This is
consistent with the robust positive effect of autonomous motivation in Western contexts. In contrast, Asian
American children were motivated most strongly when they solved a puzzle that was chosen by a close other.
The other-selected puzzle was also perceived as more enjoyable and better performance was recorded. This
finding inspired research examining the conception of autonomy in different cultural contexts (Rudy et al.,
2007). An emerging view is that, in collectivistic contexts, doing something that is expected of the self is not at
odds with one’s autonomy; rather it co-occurs and provides support to it (Markus, 2016)
Accumulated findings also suggest the independent self’s motivation for uniqueness and the interdependent
self’s motivation for social harmony.
4. Cognition
Nisbett et al. (2001) articulated that the system of thought prevalent in Western individualistic societies is an
analytic system, such that it focuses on the attributes of an object that is decontextualized from the environment
and uses them as the basis for explaining behaviors. In contrast, the theory proposed that the system of thought
that is prevalent in East Asian collectivistic societies is holistic, such that it focuses on the relationships between
the object and its context and uses these relationships as the basis for explaining behaviors.

5. Interpersonal Relationships and Group Processes

In the realm of interpersonal relationships, a key postulate has been that people in collectivistic societies tend to
maintain a close-knit social network with others who are connected through social roles, whereas people in
individualistic societies tend to have social networks that are less tightly knit and less inwardly focused.
Findings also suggest that a cultural norm of interpersonal harmony can become a burden. For example,
Chinese participants have been found to be more reluctant than Canadian participants to accept a gift from an
acquaintance in order not to be indebted (Shen et al., 2011).

Effect of Individualism Collectivism

 Behavior difference – helping nature, sharing
 Low/High context communication –
 Attribution Style – Collectivists possess high external attribution whereas individualists possess internal
attribution.
 Locus of control (Who controls my behavior?) – collectivist – external & Individuaism – internal.
 Motivation: Ind – Achievement motivation & Coll. – High affiliation
 Individualism was positively correlated with COVID-19 prevalence and mortality (Rajkumar, 2021)

Find advantages/disadvantages of Individualism Collectivism.