Triandis et al. 1988 – Individualism and Collectivism (Key Vocabulary)

Page 1: Introduction and Theoretical Propositions

• Over the past 30 to 40 years, psychology increasingly views culture as a powerful environmental influence on humans.

• Harry Triandis (University of Chicago) aims to unravel how cultural factors shape who we become.

• Focus: differences between Individualistic and Collectivist cultures.

• Collectivist culture: the individual’s needs, desires, and outcomes are secondary to the needs, desires, and goals of the ingroup (the larger group the individual belongs to).

  • Ingroup examples: family, tribe, village, professional organization, or even an entire country depending on the context.
  • Behavior is often motivated by what benefits the larger group, rather than maximizing personal achievement.
  • Individuals rely on the ingroup to meet emotional, psychological, and practical needs.

• Individualistic culture: greater value placed on the welfare and accomplishments of the individual over the ingroup’s needs/goals.

  • The ingroup’s influence on the individual is relatively small.
  • Individuals feel less emotional attachment to the group and may leave an ingroup if it becomes too demanding; may join or form a new ingroup.
  • Tends to be in Northern and Western Europe.

• Theoretical Propositions:

  • Triandis emphasizes that culture is a fuzzy construct; to relate culture to social-psychological phenomena, we should analyze it along dimensions of cultural variation.
  • One of the most promising dimensions is individualism–collectivism.
  • Underlying assumption: defining/interpreting cultures along the individualism–collectivism model can explain a large portion of variation in human behavior, social interaction, and personality.
  • Key quote: "Culture is a fuzzy construct. If we are to understand the way culture relates to social psychological phenomena, we must analyze it by determining dimensions of cultural variation. One of the most promising such dimensions is individualism--collectivism."
  • Therefore, studying cultures through this dimension helps explain cross-cultural differences.

• Significance: lays groundwork for using the individualism–collectivism framework to interpret cross-cultural variation in behavior, social relations, and personality across contexts.

Note: Summarized from Triandis, 1988, pp. 323-335.

Page 2: Differences Between Collectivist and Individualistic Cultures

COLLECTIVIST CULTURES

• Sacrifice: emphasize personal goals over ingroup goals
• Interpret self as extension of group
• Concern for group paramount
• Rewards for achievement of group
• Less personal and cultural affluence
• Greater conformity to clear group norms
• Greater value on love, status, and service
• Greater cooperation with in-group, but less with out-group members
• Higher value on vertical relationships (child–parent; employer–employee)
• Parenting through frequent consultation and intrusion into child’s private life
• More people oriented in reaching goals
• Prefer to hide interpersonal conflicts
• Many individual obligations to the ingroup, but high level of social support, resources, and security in return
• Fewer friends, but deeper, lifelong friendships with many obligations
• Few ingroups and everyone else is perceived as one large outgroup
• Great harmony within groups, but potential for major conflict with outgroups
• Shame (external) used more as punishment
• Slower economic development and industrialization
• Fewer social pathologies (crime, suicide, child abuse, domestic violence, mental illness)
• Fewer illnesses
• Happier marriages; less divorce
• Less competition
• Focus on family group rather than larger public good

INDIVIDUALISTIC CULTURES

• Hedonism: focus on personally satisfying goals over ingroup goals
• Interpret self as distinct from group
• Self-reliance is paramount
• Rewards for personal achievement
• Greater personal and cultural affluence
• Less conformity to group norms
• Greater value on money and possessions
• Greater cooperation with members of ingroup and members of various outgroups
• Higher value on horizontal relationships (friend–friend; husband–wife)
• Parenting through detachment, independence, and privacy for the child
• More task oriented in reaching goals
• Prefer to confront interpersonal conflicts (leading to more lawsuits)
• Many individual rights with few obligations to the group, but less support, resources, and security from the group in return
• Make friends easily, but friends are less intimate acquaintances
• Many ingroups, but less perception of all others as outgroup members
• Ingroups tend to be larger and interpersonal conflicts more likely to occur within the ingroup
• Guilt (internal) used more as punishment
• Faster economic development and industrialization
• Greater levels of all categories of social pathology
• Higher illness rates
• Less happy marriages; higher divorce rates
• More competition
• Greater concern for greater public good

Summarized from Triandis, 1988, pp. 323-335.

Page 3: Method and Results

• Method: The article reports on three separate studies.
• Study 1:
  • Participants: 300 American graduate students from the University of Chicago.
  • Procedure: A 158-item questionnaire measuring tendencies toward collectivist versus individualistic behaviors and beliefs.
  • Results: Individualists are more concerned with their own goals than ingroup goals, less attentive to ingroup views, more self-reliant and competitive, and more detached from the ingroup.
• Study 2:
  • Participants: 91 American University of Chicago students, 97 Puerto Rican students, 150 Japanese students, and 106 older Japanese individuals.
  • Aim: Explore individuals’ concern for the group, feelings of closeness to the ingroup, and willingness to subordinate personal goals to the ingroup’s goals.
  • Results: Mixed. Japanese (collectivists) were significantly more concerned with coworkers’ and friends’ views than Puerto Ricans (also collectivists). Japanese also felt personally honored when a member of their ingroup is honored.
• Study 3:
  • Participants: 50 Americans and 50 Puerto Ricans.
  • Aim: Determine whether there is more social support in collectivist cultures and more loneliness in individualistic cultures.
  • Results: As the degree of collectivism increased, social support increased; as the degree of collectivism increased, loneliness decreased.
• Discussion:
  • Culture is not a strict dichotomy but lies on a continuum between Individualist and Collectivist.
  • Within any single culture, there are individuals, subcultures, and situational deviations from the overall pattern.
• Cultural continuum illustration (Figure 1):
  • United States, Canada, Puerto Rico, Japan distribution along the collectivist–individualist spectrum (approximate placements shown in Figure 1).
  • Labels: INDIVIDUALISTIC vs COLLECTIVIST; with U.S. males/females and younger/older Japanese indicated.
• Significance of findings and related research are framed in the broader cross-cultural landscape.

Page 4: Significance of Findings and Related Research

• Coronary Heart Disease correlation with culture:
  • Heart attack rates tend to be lower in collectivist societies than in individualistic ones.
  • Triandis suggests stressful life events related to heart disease are more common in individualistic cultures where solitary individuals face pressure to compete and achieve alone.
  • Studies show that individuals from collectivist cultures who move to more individualistic countries become increasingly prone to illnesses, including heart disease.
• Culture and child rearing:
  • Collectivist cultures encourage obedience and conformity to group norms.
  • Individualistic cultures encourage independence and self-reliance.
  • Rebellion in one culture may be socially desirable in another.
• Recent Applications:
  • Self-esteem research: Tafarodi & Swann (1996) proposed a two-factor model of self-esteem: self-liking and self-competence. Findings:
  • Chinese college students scored higher on self-liking, while American students scored higher on self-competence.
  • This supports a Cultural Trade-off Hypothesis: collectivist cultures may like themselves more but be less confident in abilities, whereas individualistic cultures may feel better about task abilities but be harsher on themselves.
  • Attitudes toward disabled individuals: Crystal, Watanabe, & Chen (1999) used a cross-cultural framework to study children's reactions to people with physical disabilities. Findings:
  • Children in collectivist societies were more likely to feel sorry for and worry about imposing on disabled individuals.
  • American children were more likely to express embarrassment for those in a disabled role.

Key Concepts and Takeaways

• Culture as a dimension: individualism–collectivism explains a large portion of cross-cultural variation in behavior, social interaction, and personality.
• The continuum view: no strict dichotomy; individuals and subcultures within societies may align differently.
• Societal outcomes linked to cultural orientation: economic development pace, social pathology, marriage stability, conflict patterns, and public/private life emphasis.
• Practical implications: parenting styles, social support systems, tolerance for outgroup vs. ingroup dynamics, and health outcomes.

Connections and Implications

• Connects to foundational cross-cultural psychology concepts: how self-construal (independent vs interdependent) shapes cognition and behavior.
• Real-world relevance: immigration and acculturation, workplace multicultural teams, education systems adapting to diverse value orientations.
• Ethical/practical implications: understanding cultural differences to reduce bias, improve mental health support, and design inclusive policies.

References to Data and Figures

• Triandis, H., Bontemp, R., Villereal, M., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and Collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships.
• In-article figures and tables: Table 1 differences between collectivist and individualistic cultures; Figure 1 collectivist–individualistic cultural continuum.
• pp. references: pp. 323-335 for the summarized table content.