Approaches to Culture in Mainstream Social Psychology and in Early Cross-Cultural Psychology 37However, although the study of culture and personality left
a rich and highly influential legacy with many investigators
associated with this tradition at the forefront of contemporary
work in cultural psychology, work in culture and personality
did not directly move into the issues of culture and basic psy-
chological theory that are being addressed in contemporary
research in cultural psychology. Rather, most work in culture
and personality assumed psychological universalism or what
theorists have characterized as the “postulate of psychic
unity” (e.g., Shweder, 1990). Personality theories were
treated as having universal validity and thus as applicable in
unchanged form in diverse cultural populations. Little consid-
eration was given to respects in which these theories (e.g.,
psychoanalysis) might themselves be culturally bound.
Individualism-Collectivism
Work on individualism-collectivism represents one of the
most influential and long-standing traditions of research in
cross-cultural psychology. Associated particularly with the
early theoretical work of investigators such as Hofstede and
Triandis (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1972, 1980, 1988), this
perspective has been applied to explain variation in a wide
range of behavioral domains on a worldwide scale. Thus,
the constructs of individualism-collectivism have been in-
voked in explaining such diverse phenomena as values
(Hofstede, 1980; S. H. Schwartz, 1994), cognitive differen-
tiation (Witkin & Berry, 1975), and modernity (Inkeles,
1974). Embracing the explanatory goals of predictive power
and parsimony as well as the quantitative methodological
approaches of the mainstream discipline, the primary focus
of work on individualism-collectivism has been to forward a
universal framework that predicts the nature of both cultural
forms and individual psychological experience.
Individualism and collectivism are conceptualized as syn-
dromes of beliefs and attitudes that distinguish different cul-
tural populations. Collectivismis seen as encompassing such
core ideas as an emphasis on the views, needs, and goals of
one’s in-group as having priority over one’s own personal
views, needs, and goals, and a readiness to cooperate with
in-group members. In contrast, individualism is seen as en-
tailing such core ideas as that of individuals as ends in them-
selves who should realize their own selves and cultivate their
own judgment. In collectivist cultures, in-groups are assumed
to influence a broad range of behaviors, with individuals ex-
periencing pressure to conform to in-group norms or leave
the groups. In contrast, in individualistic cultures, in-groups
are seen as providing only limited norms, with individuals
readily able to enter and exit in-groups: The relationship of
individuals with their in-groups is of limited intensity.
Further distinctions are made in this broad dichotomy to
capture dimensions of variation between different individual-
istic and collectivist cultures (e.g., Triandis, 1989, 1996).
Thus, for example, cultures are seen as differing in terms of
which in-groups are important (e.g., family vs. country), the
particular collectivist values emphasized (e.g., harmony vs.
dignity), and the ease with which individuals can join in-
groups and deviate from their norms (e.g., tightness vs. loose-
ness of norms; Triandis, 1988). In addition to the global
constructs of individualism-collectivism, additional con-
structs are invoked to explain individual differences. Thus,
the constructs of idiocentrismandallocentrismhave been
proposed as the psychological manifestations at the level of
individual self-definitions, beliefs, and attitudes of individu-
alism and collectivism. It is assumed that individuals in all
cultures maintain both idiocentric and allocentric aspects of
their selves. Cultural differences at the psychological level,
then, are seen as reflecting the differential sampling of idio-
centric as compared with allocentric features of self in di-
verse sociocultural contexts (Triandis, 1990, 1996).
In terms of explaining the cultural syndromes of individu-
alism and collectivism, research has shown that factors such
as affluence, exposure to mass media, modernization, mobil-
ity, movement from rural to urban settings, and industrializa-
tion are linked to societal shifts from collectivism toward
individualism. In turn, a wide range of psychological conse-
quences are seen as linked to such shifts, with individualism,
as compared with collectivism, associated with such out-
comes as higher self-esteem and subjective well-being (e.g.,
Diener & Diener, 1995; Diener, Diener, & Diener, 1995),
values such as being curious and broad-minded as compared
with emphasizing family security and respect for tradition
(S. H. Schwartz, 1994), as well as direct and frank communi-
cation styles, as compared with relatively indirect communi-
cation styles that emphasize context and concern for the
feelings of the other (Gudykunst, Yoon, & Nishida, 1987;
Kim, Sharkey, & Singelis, 1994; Triandis, 1994).
The prototypical research conducted by investigators in the
tradition of individualism-collectivism involves multiculture
survey or questionnaire research. This work is concerned with
developing ecological models of culture that can be invoked
to explain the distribution of individualism-collectivism and
of related psychological characteristics on a worldwide scale
(for review, e.g., see Berry et al., 1992).
In recent years, researchers have shown increased interest
in the constructs of individualism and collectivism as a con-
sequence of these constructs being linked to the distinction
drawn by Markus and Kitayama (1991) between independent
versus interdependent modes of self-construal. In introduc-
ing the contrast between independent versus interdependent