Running head: INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM
1
The Impact of Individualism and Collectivism on Self-Concept
David Warren
University of Kentucky
Abstract
The following paper examines several peer-reviewed journals on the subject of the
Individualism-Collectivism (I-C) dichotomy. This review also contains input from the textbook
written by Adler & Proctor (2013). The impact of the I-C dichotomy will be approached from
three different angles. The first angle will analyze the self-concepts of those raised in
collectivistic and individualistic environments. The next will determine how those self-concepts
influence a person’s biases and views of themselves in relation to others. Finally, the connection
between self-construal, empathy and cognitive complexity will be examined.
INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM
2
The Impact of Individualism and Collectivism on Self-Concept
The advent of the Internet and mass media communication has accelerated the rate of
globalization. More individuals from cultures across the world are communicating at
interpersonal levels. Because of this, it has become more vital than ever that members of cultures
with disparate ideologies work together to achieve a shared perspective with one another. The
differences in cultures aren’t always as obvious as what daily rituals are performed or what types
of foods are eaten. Many of these differences lie in the basic fundamentals that govern the view
of the self and the individual’s relation to the environment he or she inhabits. (Hoftsede, 1980;
Markus & Kityama, 1991)
The goal of this literature review is to highlight and illustrate some of these differences
for the purposes of better understanding how a shared perspective can be achieved.
Literature Review
In 1980, Hofstede provided an initial framework for viewing different cultures through
the prism of the Individualism-Collectivism (I-C) dichotomy. This cultural distinction (best
represented by the individualist western countries and the collectivist east Asian countries) rests
on the axiom that those raised in an individualistic society are more likely to be motivated by
self-interest, while those in a collectivist society will be more invested in the interests of the
group. (Hofstede, 1980)
The (I-C) dichotomy has been criticized as for its limitations and has been examined by
many social scientists. (Markus & Kityama, 1991; Lim, Allen, Burell, & Kim, 2008) Yet it
remains the basis for the large majority of research centered around the subject of cultural
influences on individual’s worldviews and self-concepts. (Kim, Lim, Dindia & Burell, 2010)
INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM
3
Independent and Interdependent Self-Concepts
Markus & Kityama (1991) elaborated further on Hofstede’s I-C foundation by illustrating
that those raised in individualist societies possess an independent self-construal, meaning they
define themselves in terms of their abilities, traits, or individual values. Collectivists, on the other
hand, tend to display an interdependent self-construal. Meaning they will define themselves
based on relationships with those around them. Social context matters most to collectivists.
The self-image of a collectivist is highly contextualized and based on relations with
others and social standing. Thus their self-descriptions are more specific, or concrete. On the
inverse, individualists will be more abstract in the way they describe themselves. They don’t rely
as much on situations or roles in forming a self-image and therefore will describe themselves
using more general terms. (Cousins, 1989)
These assertions run parallel with the cultural rules recognized by Adler and Proctor
(2013) that identified the predominate North American cultures as being low-context, putting a
premium on being assertive and direct. As opposed to high-context Asian and Latin American
countries which value “social harmony over directness.” (Adler & Proctor, 2013, P. 98). Direct
behaviors such as perception checking are more likely to be successful in low-context cultures,
whereas candor and straightforwardness are frowned upon in high-context cultures. (Adler &
Proctor, 2013)
More recently, Lim et al. (2007) sought to add new context to the I-C dichotomy (a
distinctly Western approach) by reframing it as a holistic-analytical argument. Westerners, they
argued, view things analytically and are most comfortable with direct cause and effect. East
Asians, however, value relativity and tend to organize holistically. That is not to say that the two
are mutually exclusive to one another, only that the societal values emphasize one over the other.
INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM
4
For instances, Americans are taught rule-based categories, and rely more on theses categories in
the realm problem solving and social navigation. In other words, they are more likely to look at
individual parts rather than the whole picture. (Lim et al., 2008; Kim et al., 2010)
This is not intended to devalue the I-C dichotomy, but rather to enhance it with an
additional framework to give deeper meaning as to why the variations between the two exist,
beyond viewing them as simply a conflict between independent and interdependent selfconstruals. (Kim et al., 2010)
The Above Average Effect
According to Adler and Proctor (2013) “we tend to judge ourselves in the most generous
terms possible”(p. 93). Self-serving biases have shown a propensity to show up more in
individualists than in collectivists. (Balectis & Dunning, 2008) Individualists tend to estimate
themselves as slightly above their general peers, while collectivists tend to avoid describing
themselves as superior in any definitive way. (Markus & Kityama, 1991) This tendency is known
as the above average effect. (Epley & Dunning, 2000)
It is important to note that possessing a more favorable view of oneself is not indicative
of holding a less accurate view. Just because a person sees him or herself as above average,
doesn’t mean that their self-predictions are wrong. It could mean that the person has a more
pessimistic view of their peers but one that doesn’t necessarily affect their own self-construal.
(Balectis & Dunning, 2008)
Baletics & Dunning (2008) attempted to gauge whether the above average effect was a
result of errors in self-insight or social-insight. Demonstrating what is called the, “holier-than–
thou phenomenon” (Balectis & Dunning 2008, p. 1253). By which an individual will overpredict his or her own generosity while under predicting the generosity of others.
INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM
5
Studies found that individualist are more apt to see themselves as being far more
generous they actually ended up being. While a collectivist will generally have a much easier
time accurately predicting his or her own behavior. However, there is only a tangential
correlation in the I-C dichotomy’s impact on the assessment others. Showing, possibly, that the
individualist and collectivist views are more instrumental in forming self-insight rather than
social-insight (Balectis & Dunning 2008).
This may be the result of a cultural emphasis on building confidence and self-esteem.
Individualists are taught to see themselves as unique and autonomous. While collectivists, in
contrast, put a larger premium on social harmony (Markus & Kityama, 1991; Adler & Proctor,
2013). While individualists can maintain a positive sense of self-concept through multiple
scenarios (Belectis & Dunning, 2008) there may be difficulties in relating themselves to their
peers and effectively empathizing with others (Adler & Proctor, 2013).
Empathy and Cognitive Complexity
Cognitive Complexity, the ability to take multiple viewpoints when examining an issue,
has been linked to the presence of empathy (Adler & Proctor, 2013). It makes sense then, that the
holistically minded collectivists (Lim et al. 2008; Kim et al. 2010) would be more likely to
empathize others. Individualists have been shown to be less skilled at perspective taking (Adler
& Proctor, 2013) especially when dealing with a culture that is dissimilar to their own (Nelson &
Baumgarte, 2004).
In their research, Nelson and Baumgarte (2004) found that Americans (individualists),
when unable to relate to another’s situation, showed a tendency to assign blame to the person
rather the situation itself. Put simply, if a subject acted differently or in manner they perceived as
inappropriate, the individualists felt less concern for that person. This reinforces the idea of
INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM
6
relating empathy to cognitive complexity (Adler & Proctor 2013).
Limitations and Future Research
At its heart, the Individualist-Collectivist argument is a very simple binary construct. It
classifies society on the margins and doesn’t allow for much depth or leeway in determining
what constitutes an individualist or collectivist. Cultural values and norms may alter from region
to region within any given country. The United States alone houses several different cultures and
ethnicities.
There are also several influencing factors present throughout each individual. Factors
such as age, economic standing, or political ideologies may impact a person’s predisposition
toward individualism or collectivism. Also, many citizens of the United States are either
immigrants, or the children of immigrants who come from nations that identify as collectivist.
Bearing that in mind, it would be prudent to examine the cross-cultural impact of
collectivism-individualism. Examining individuals who have been raised in one type of culture
but living in another may give us insight into how the influence of one may affect the other. As
the lines between cultures begin to blur, it will be interesting to see if the I-C dichotomy will
stand as it is or, as Kim et al. (2010) assert, need to be reframed to more accurately reflect
cultural differences.
RQ1a: How do students from collectivist cultures studying abroad in individualist
Cultures, compare in their self-concepts with students from their home country?
AND
RQ1b: How do students from individualist cultures studying abroad in collectivist
Cultures, compare in their self-concepts with students from their home country?
RQ2a: How do adults from collectivist cultures working in individualist cultures,
INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM
7
compare in their self-concepts with those from their home country?
AND
RQ2b: How do adults from individualist cultures working in collectivist cultures,
compare in their self-concepts with those from their home country?
Conclusion
Every culture has its own way of looking at the world and the Individualists-Collectivist
dichotomy is simply one way in many of framing those viewpoints. By looking for the
fundamental differences, we can better ascertain the influences that a culture’s system of values
can have on the self-concept of individuals in that culture. Being mindful of the impact that selfconcept has on perception and worldview is vital when working to achieve a shared perspective.
INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM
8
References
Adler, R.B., & Proctor II, R.F. (2013). Looking out, looking in, (14 ed.). Boston, MA:
Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.
Balectis, E., Dunning, D., & Miller, R. (2008) Do collectivists know themselves better
than individualists? Cross-cultural studies of the holier than thou phenomenon. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1252-1267 doi: 10.1037/a0013195
Cousins, S.D. (1989) Culture and perception in Japan and the United States. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 124-131 doi: 0.1037/0022-3514.56.1.124
Epley, N., & Dunning, D. (2000). Feeling “holier than thou”: Are self-serving
assessments produced by errors in self- or social prediction? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 79, 861-875. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.79.6.861
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kim, J., Lim, T., Dindia, K., & Burell, N. (2010). Reframing the cultural
differences between the East and the West. Communication Studies. 61(5) 543-566 doi:
10.1080/10510974.2010.514675
Lim, T., Allen, M., Burell, M., & Kim, S. (2008). Differences in cognitive
relativity between Americans' and Koreans' assessments of self. Journal of Intercultural
Communication Research, 37(2), 105-118 doi: 10.1080/17475750802533471
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.
doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM
9
Nelson, D. W., & Baumgarte, R. (2004). Cross-cultural misunderstandings reduce
empathic responding. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 391–401.
issn: 0021-9029