Individualist Culture

Individualistic cultures are societies that prioritize the needs, goals, and rights of the individual over those of the group, valuing independence, personal choice, and self-reliance above collective loyalty.

Historical Development

Scholars have been discussing the concept of individualism for about 250 years. The idea is old.

Edmund Burke was among the first to describe it, fearing the influence of the French Revolution on individual rights. He wrote that it would make a community, “crumble away, be disconnected into the dust and power of individuality.” (1790, p. 109). It captured a real fear.

The 19th-century French sociologist Emile Durkheim (1893) outlined a related distinction.

“Mechanical solidarity” is where individuals are so similar that they relate to each other automatically. “Organic solidarity” is where people are interdependent, namely because it confers privileges. The distinction still matters.

The 20th century brought further contributions from sociologists such as Toennies (1957), Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961), Weber (1947), and Parsons (1949). Bakan (1966), Witkin and Berry (1975), and Inkeles and Smith (1974) added more. Their ideas largely overlap with the modern conception of individualism.

Hofstede and Individualism

It was not until 1980 that Hofstede’s survey of IBM employees popularized the idea of individualism in its modern form.

Hofstede (1980) surveyed over 116,000 IBM employees worldwide. The most fiercely independent respondents were from the US, Australia, Great Britain, Canada, and the Netherlands, in that order. The most interdependent were from Venezuela, Colombia, Pakistan, Peru, and Taiwan.

Hofstede (1980) proposed four cultural dimensions.

These were individualism/collectivism, power distance, masculinity/femininity, and uncertainty avoidance, a way to assess attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors between disparate cultures. Two more dimensions came later: long-term orientation, and indulgence versus restraint. That expanded the model to six.

Hofstede (1980) considered individualism to be a focus on rights above duties.

He defined it as a concern for oneself and immediate family, an emphasis on personal autonomy and self-fulfillment, and the basing of one’s identity on personal accomplishments.

Other sociologists have since added to these implications. Waterman (1984) considered normative individualism to be a focus on personal responsibility and freedom of choice, living up to one’s potential, and respecting the integrity of others. Schwartz (1990) goes further still.

He calls individualistic societies fundamentally contractual, consisting of small social networks and specialized social relations, with specific obligations and expectations focusing on achievement.

Individualistic vs. Collectivist Cultures

Hofstede’s cultural dimensions put individualism opposite collectivism. Individualism values the self over the group. Collectivism does the reverse: it emphasizes cohesiveness among individuals and prioritizes the group over the self.

Individualist societies see social ties as impermanent and often goal-oriented. Collectivist societies, by contrast, are structured around largely permanent ingroups and strong social bonds. Ties run deep.

As personified by the Japanese shinyuu, “best friends,” social ties outside a collectivist’s immediate family can lead to major life changes. Cargile (1998) reports one such case: a Japanese woman who quit graduate school to be with her emotionally distressed friend in another town.

The deep contrasts between individualism and collectivism also appear in more subtle behavior, as outlined by Hofstede (1991):

Collectivist Culture	Individualistic Culture
Use of the word “I” is avoided	Use of the word “I” is encouraged
Interdependent self	Independent self
High introversion	High extraversion
Showing sadness is encouraged, and happiness discouraged	Showing happiness is encouraged, and sadness discouraged
Slower walking speed	Faster walking speed
Dependence on others	Self-supporting lifestyles
Social network is the primary source of information	Media is the primary source of information
Students talk in classes only when sanctioned by the group	Students expected to talk individually in class
Education is learning how to do	Education is learning how to learn
Diplomas provide entry to higher-status groups	Diplomas increase economic worth and/or self respect
Occupational mobility is lower	Occupational mobility is higher
Employees as members of in-groups pursuing the group’s interest	Employees will pursue the employer’s interest if it coincides with self-interest

Examples of Individualistic Cultures

Individualistic cultures tend to be found in western countries such as the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.

Individualism exists on a spectrum. Those within a predominantly individualist society can behave more or less individualistically, depending on their beliefs and circumstances.

In the United States, for example, sociologists often find that ethnic minority groups hold more collectivist beliefs and behaviors than average (Kemmelmeier 2001).

Hofstede’s Individuality Index

Geographic ratings of individuality, such as those in Hofstede’s 1980 survey, generally reflect the beliefs and behaviors of the most-studied segments of a country’s population. Scores run 0 to 100.

Hofstede (1980) assigned each country an individuality index on that scale, based on responses in a large survey study.

The United States ranked highest (91). This was specifically the predominantly white, middle-and-upper class, mainline Protestant culture of the United States. Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Hungary followed close behind (Hofstede, 2010).

Individuality is sometimes described as fundamentally American (Kemmelmeier 2002). Yet most of the world’s most individualistic societies are Western European or former colonies of Western Europe.

Of the ten most individualistic countries in Hofstede’s survey, just two — Italy and Hungary — fall outside that sphere (Hofstede 1991).

Individualism in American Law and Family Life

American society expresses a high degree of individualism in its law and societal values. It guarantees, for example, freedom of speech and the right to “bear arms” in its Constitution. Americans vote at low rates.

Many find self-definition through work instead. Families are relatively small, too.

One’s close social ties are generally limited to immediate family members and close friends, with a large circle of acquaintances and loose relations specific to certain activities (Putnam, 2000).

By and large, individual liberty takes precedence over the rights of the collective. Still, the United States is not completely individualistic in its law.

Horizontal vs Vertical Individualism

Individualistic societies can also contrast with each other. Sociologists use the horizontal and vertical cultural orientation (Triandis 1995) to compare how much an individualistic or collectivist culture values hierarchy.

The United States, where high wealth and social achievement compared to others are highly valued, is a “vertical” individualistic culture. Sweden values equality and self-sufficiency instead, making it a “horizontal” individualistic culture.

Triandis (1998) illustrates the difference with an example. A Swede may be content contributing high amounts to a social welfare system, yet still insist on paying for a cigarette he has asked for.

An American may be similarly self-sufficient but revile high taxes. Triandis (1989, 1995) frames this horizontal-vertical split as part of a wider psychological model of individualism and collectivism.

Effects on Behavior

Self Concept

In individualism, the self is individual rather than interdependent. Individualist cultures value personal success, self-esteem, and distinctive attitudes and opinions (Triandis, 1995). The self comes first.

Individualism considers creating and maintaining a positive sense of self to be a basic human endeavor (Baumeister, 1998). This sense of self consists of abstract traits rather than descriptions of how one may behave situationally (Fiske, Kitayama, Markus, & Nisbett, 1998).

One in an individualistic culture must “find” who the self is, beyond their immediate communities. Travel often serves that purpose.

It separates a person geographically from their social networks. That is often considered a typical way of finding one’s self in an individualistic culture (Bellah 1985).

Some individualistic cultures also see work as a way of self-conception. In the United States, “What do you do for a living?” is often one of the first questions new acquaintances ask. It’s an early marker.

Over the past several decades, time spent on leisure has dropped in the United States while hours worked have increased (Putnam 2000). Work itself now often serves as self-actualization.

Career-finding guides suggest that one follow their “passion.” Companies increasingly focus on “self-growth” and “wellness” activities for employees.

Relationships

In individualistic cultures, individuals need relationships to attain their goals. But relationships are also seen as costly to maintain (Kagitcibasi, 1997).

Social theorists assume that individualists leave relationships and groups once the costs of maintaining them outweigh the personal benefits, or when personal goals shift. Ties are disposable.

Individualists see their relationships as impermanent and non-intensive (Triandis, 1995).

Those in an individualist culture may join what is known as a lifestyle enclave, which is a group of otherwise untethered people sharing a common interest. Retirees may join a gated retirement community, and those interested in golfing may join a golf club.

However, one can easily leave these lifestyle enclaves by, for example, moving away or joining a different association. The relationships formed through these enclaves mostly exist around a shared activity or experience (Cargile 2012).

Individualistic cultures extend these loose relationships to family.

Those in individualistic cultures are less likely to live in intergenerational households and consider gaining independence from one’s immediate family to be a hallmark of maturity.

During adolescence, the self — an identity that’s separate and autonomous from one’s family — develops, and this manifests in the relationship between the adolescent and his parents.

The adolescent becomes self-reliant and less cooperative with authority (Morris 2011). An individualist can decide with little family oversight.

He can, for example, marry someone whom his parents do not approve of. He might instead move away to pursue a better salary. Either choice carries less consequence than it would in a collectivist culture (Triandis, 1995).

Conformity

Individualistic cultures tend to be cultures of “loose” adherence. Many responses to a given situation are seen as appropriate.

A person in some individualistic societies looking to have a child can do so alone, with a steady partner, or in a marriage, all with general societal acceptance (Triandis, 1995).

Individualism’s value of uniqueness also manifests in less conscious decision-making. Bond and Smith (1996) showed that those from more individualistic cultures perform better in the Asch conformity experiment than those from more collectivist cultures.

When participants planted by the researchers answered wrongly to a question about the length of lines, people from individualistic cultures were more likely to disobey the majority and answer correctly.

Mental Health

Those from individualistic cultures have smaller and less satisfying support networks than those from collectivist cultures. They show less skill managing their own and others’ emotions, too.

They report lower intentions to seek help from family and friends for personal and suicidal problems, and higher levels of hopelessness and suicide ideation (Scott 2004). The pattern is consistent.

For both societies and individuals, individualistic cultures, and cultures becoming more individualistic, have seen rates of mental illness and suicide climb (Eskin et al. 2020). The trend is real.

These negative mental health effects are even more pronounced in individualists living within highly collectivist cultures. The reverse holds too. Being individualistic in highly individualistic cultures has positive effects on well-being (Morris 2011).

Individualistic cultures see mental health problems as a matter of one’s inherent personality rather than one’s circumstances (Williams, 2003). Cognitive behavioral therapy in the individualistic context tends to focus on working on self-definition and recognizing patterns in one’s own life (Morris 2011).

What determines whether a culture becomes individualistic or collectivistic?

Speculating on the origins of these orientations, Harry Triandis (1994) suggests that there are three key factors.

The first factor is the complexity of society. More complex industrialized societies, compared to food-gathering nomads, offer more groups to identify with. That variety means less loyalty to any single group, and a greater focus on personal rather than collective goals.

Affluence and Wealth

Second is the affluence of society. As people begin to prosper, they gain financial independence from each other. Independence follows money.

That condition promotes social independence, mobility, and a focus on personal rather than collective goals. Sociologists have found a strong relationship between national wealth and individualism.

The pattern holds broadly. They theorize that the high individualism of countries in or near the anglosphere traces to these countries’ historical wealth and influence.

Rather than depending on social networks for needs, many in these cultures can simply hire help (Cargile, 2012). The connection is not limited to Western countries, either.

Countries with fast economic development over the last century have also shifted toward individualism. Care for elderly family members by the family, for example, is becoming less common in Korea and Japan than it was for previous generations.

The shift is global. On a local level, groups with higher wealth and social status exhibit more individualist behaviors and beliefs than others.

Individualistic beliefs rise and fall in line with economic growth and recession (Bianchi 2016).

Cultural Heterogeneity

The third factor is heterogeneity. Homogenous or ‘tight’ societies, where members share the same language, religion, and customs, tend to be rigid and intolerant of those who veer from the norm.

Culturally diverse or ‘loose’ societies, where two or more cultures coexist, are more permissive of dissent. That permissiveness allows for more individual expression.

This tightness-looseness distinction is itself a recognized dimension of culture. Gelfand and colleagues (2011) measured how strongly a society enforces its social norms across 33 nations, treating norm enforcement as separate from Hofstede’s values-based dimensions.

The dimension has since predicted how societies respond to threat, including, in later research, compliance with public-health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. That is evidence that norm enforcement, not just cultural values, shapes collective behavior.

Critical Evaluation of Individualism-Collectivism

Hofstede’s individualism-collectivism dimension is widely used, but it has real limits. Three criticisms matter most.

Ecological Fallacy and Individual Variation

A country’s individualism score describes the average tendency of that culture, not any single person within it. Scores are not destiny.

Hofstede and McCrae (2004) warned that using culture-level scores to predict an individual’s behavior commits the ecological fallacy. That is the error of inferring from group data.

A given American may be more collectivist than a given Chinese person, even though the national averages point the other way.

Oyserman, Coon, and Kemmelmeier’s (2002) meta-analysis of individual-level individualism-collectivism measures found substantial within-country variation. Some European American samples, for example, were not consistently more individualist than some East Asian samples. National means hide a lot.

Markus and Kitayama (1991) trace this variation to differences in self-construal. An independent self-construal treats the self as bounded and defined by personal attributes, typical of individualist cultures. An interdependent self-construal treats the self as relational, defined instead by roles and connections to others, typical of collectivist cultures.

Cultures Are Not Uniform

Assigning one score per country implies a cultural uniformity that does not exist. No two cultures match exactly.

Triandis (2001) argues that no two individualist, or two collectivist, cultures are the same. Korean, Kenyan, and Chinese collectivism each work differently.

Within-country differences can even exceed between-country ones. Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s (1988) meta-analysis of attachment studies across eight countries found that attachment-type distributions varied more within nations than between them.

That is a direct caution. Do not treat a nation as if it were a single culture.

Brewer and Chen (2007) go further, distinguishing two things a single collectivism score can conflate. Relational collectivism means interdependence with specific, known others such as family; group collectivism means identification with a larger, more impersonal social category.

Contemporary Research

Individualism is also a moving target. Santos, Varnum, and Grossmann (2017) analyzed 51 years of data across 78 countries and found individualist practices and values rising in most of them.

Socioeconomic development was the strongest predictor of the shift. Scores measured decades ago can misrepresent a country’s current culture.

Beugelsdijk and Welzel (2018) combined Hofstede’s model with the World Values Survey. Absolute values shift over time. But countries’ relative positions to one another change far more slowly, since generational replacement drives most of the movement.

Minkov (2018) used new samples from 56 countries and proposed a slimmed two-dimension model in which individualism-collectivism absorbs power distance. The classic six-dimension structure, he argues, does not fully replicate on modern data.

References

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Baumeister, R. (1998). The self. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Vol. 1). New York: Oxford University Press.

Bellah, R. N. (1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bianchi, E. C. (2016). American individualism rises and falls with the economy: Cross-temporal evidence that individualism declines when the economy falters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(4), 567-584. doi:10.1037/pspp0000114

Burke, E. (1973). Reflections on the revolution in France. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.

&, C. L. C.-H., & Ayçiçegi, A. (2006). When personality and culture clash: the psychological distress of allocentrics in an individualist culture and idiocentrics in a collectivist culture. Transcult Psychiatry, 43(3), 331-361. doi:10.1177/1363461506066982

Cargile, A. (2012). Individualism and Collectivism

Giles, A. C. C. H. (1998). Language attitudes toward varieties of English: An American‐Japanese context. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 26(3), 338-356. doi:10.1080/00909889809365511

Durkheim, E. (1933). The division of labor in society. New York: Macmillan.

Eskin, M., Tran, U. S., Carta, M. G., Poyrazli, S., Flood, C., Mechri, A., . . . Voracek, M. (2020). Is Individualism Suicidogenic? Findings From a Multinational Study of Young Adults From 12 Countries. Frontiers in psychiatry, 11, 259-259. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00259

Fiske, A. P., Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Nisbett, R. E. (1998). The cultural matrix of social psychology. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (4 ed. Vol. 2). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences (Vol. Sage): Beverly Hills, CA.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the mind. London, England: McGraw-Hill.

Inkeles, A., & Smith, D . H (1974). Becoming modern. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Kagitcibasi, C. (1997). Individualism and collectivism. In M. H. S. J. W. Berry, & C. Kagitcibasi (Ed.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Vol. 3. Social behavior and applications. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Kemmelmeier, M. (2001). Cultural Orientations in the United States(Re)Examining Differences among Ethnic Groups. Cross-Cultural Psychology, 3(32), 348-364.

Morris, K. (2011). The Impact of Cultures of Origin on Attitudes Toward Mental Health Treatment. MJUR.

Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin(128), 3–72.

Parsons, T. (1949). The structure of social action. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Schwartz, S. H. (1990). Individualism– collectivism: Critique and proposed refinements. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology(21), 139–157.

Scott, G., Ciarrochi, J., & Deane, F. P. (2004). Disadvantages of being an individualist in an individualistic culture: Idiocentrism, emotional competence, stress, and mental health. Australian Psychologist, 39(2), 143-154. doi:10.1080/00050060410001701861

Strodtbeck, F. K. a. F. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Evanston, Ill.: Peterson Row.

Toennies, F. (1957). Community and Society (C. P. Loomis, Trans.). East Landing: Michigan State University Press.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and Collectivism. New York, New York: Taylor & Francis.

Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior.

Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology(74), 118–128.

Waterman, A. S. (1984). The psychology of individualism. New York: Praeger.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.

Witkin, H., & Berry, J. W. (1975). Psychological differentiation in cross-cultural per- spective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology (6), 4-87.

Further Information

• Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological review, 98(2), 224.
• Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological review, 96(3), 506.
• Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological bulletin, 128(1), 3.
• Brewer, M. B., & Chen, Y. R. (2007). Where (who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism. Psychological review, 114(1), 133.
• Grossmann, I., & Santos, H. (2017). Individualistic culture.