Individualism-Collectivism

TLDR

The individualism‑collectivism dichotomy is criticized for overlooking values that serve both individual and collective interests, ignoring values that benefit other collectivities, and assuming that individualistic and collective values form mutually exclusive syndromes. The study proposes hypotheses on which value types may differ in importance between societies with collectivist versus individualistic social structures. The authors apply a fine‑tuned analysis of ten Schwartz value types to data from four empirical studies to illustrate the problems with the dichotomy. The analysis shows that meaningful group differences in values are obscured by the dichotomy.

Abstract

Three criticisms of the individualism-collectivism dichotomy are explicated. The dichotomy leads one to overlook values that inherently serve both individual and collective interests (e.g., wisdom), it ignores values that foster the goals of collectivities other than the ingroup (e.g., universal values, such as social justice), and it promotes the mistaken assumption that individualistic and collective values each form coherent syndromes that are in polar opposition. These problems are illustrated by applying a more fine-tuned analysis of ten types of values postulated to be present in all cultures (Schwartz, 1987) to data from four empirical studies. This analysis reveals meaningful group differences that are obscured by the individualism-collectivism dichotomy. As an impetus to future research, hypotheses are offered about the types of values likely to differ in importance between societies with a more collectivist (communal) social structure and those with a more individualistic (contractual) structure.