In the United States, we have the proverb “the squeaky wheel gets the grease,” a saying which means that the loudest and most noticeable problems are the ones that will be addressed first. This is often used to encourage people to speak up, be assertive, and put themselves first because being quiet will lead to your problems being ignored. However, Japan has a proverb which is practically the polar opposite of ours. There, the phrase “the nail that stands out gets pounded down” promotes conformity to social norms and is used to describe the negative consequences of being an outlier. These two proverbs are often cited as describing the differences between Western and Eastern cultures, and while generalizations are never completely accurate, this comparison does have a basis in reality.
During the 1960s, Geert Hofstede identified four major dimensions of culture, one of which was the division between individualistic and collectivistic societies (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012). Culture plays a huge part in how we behave and, in turn, interpret the behavior of others. On one hand, individualistic cultures place a large emphasis on the individual, personal success, and originality (Schneider et al., 2012). People define themselves by their own internal thoughts, feelings, and actions (Schneider et al., 2012). This is pretty much standard in Western society. For example, the United States has the American dream, an ideal which forms the basis to our culture and principally promotes the importance of the individual. On the other hand, non-Western cultures tend to be collectivistic (Schneider et al., 2012). In these societies, the primary concern is the group (Schneider et al., 2012). Connectedness and interdependence are valued, whereas independence and atypical behavior can sometimes be seen as disruptive (Schneider et al., 2012). Collectivistic cultures are allocentric, as opposed to the idiocentrism of individualism, meaning that they tend to define themselves by their relationships with others (Schneider et al., 2012).
There are many different theories on the origin of these two distinct styles of culture. One theory is that religion, a common didactic tool, helped create the division. For example, Western culture stresses individual autonomy. It’s been suggested that this stems from the Judeo-Christian belief in the individual soul whereas non-Western culture was influenced by Buddhism and Confucianism — religious and philosophical systems which stress that individuals are merely one part of a greater whole (Konsky, Kapoor, Blue, & Kapoor, 2000). However, it could be that these religions stemmed from the pre-existing cultural mores, instead of the other way around. It’s a bit of a chicken and egg situation. Another, more surprising, theory is that the pathogenic prevalence of the location helped to determine whether a culture turned out to be individualistic or collectivistic (Fincher, Thornhill, Murray, & Schaller, 2008). Fincher et al. (2008) found that collectivistic societies tended to have a higher prevalence of pathogens and that certain collectivistic behaviors, like ethnocentrism and conformity, actually inhibited the transmission of these harmful pathogens. For example, conformity to “specific traditions and norms (such as those pertaining to food preparation[…]) can serve as buffers against pathogen transmission, [meaning that] deviance from the status quo may pose a contagion risk” (Fincher et al., 2008).
While we still may not be entirely sure of why these differences occurred, we do know that they continue to affect us today. The differences between individualism and collectivism can impact an individual’s values, their perception of themselves, and even more specific things like work behavior and conflict decision making (Schneider et al., 2012). In applied social psychology, it is important to take these cultural differences into account when developing interventions. For example, a teacher in a collectivistic culture who is trying to improve a student’s reading level might see the most success by appealing to their parents’ interdependent values and suggesting that the student read to a younger sibling at home (Harkness & Keefer, 2000). This does not mean that the child’s individual success is not important to their parents, it’s just that interventions that are in keeping with the individual’s cultural values tend to suit them better. The best interventions are ones that easily fit into the recipients’ lives.
References
Fincher, C., Thornhill, R., Murray, D., & Schaller, M. (2008). Pathogen Prevalence Predicts Human Cross-Cultural Variability in Individualism/Collectivism. Proceedings: Biological Sciences,275(1640), 1279-1285. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/stable/25249653
Harkness, S., & Keefer, C. H. (2000). Contributions of Cross-Cultural Psychology to Research and Interventions in Education and Health. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(1), 92–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022100031001008
Konsky, C., Kapoor, U., Blue, J., & Kapoor, S. (2000). Religion and communication: A study of Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity. Intercultural Communication Studies,10(2), 235-254.
Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2017). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Thank you for selecting and writing about this topic, I have a fascination with non-Western cultures. You’re decisive to remark that cultural differences are important when developing interventions. It reminds me of an uproar about Marie Kondo which can be glimpsed in this article: https://www.bustle.com/p/the-marie-kondo-books-debate-has-classist-racist-undertones-that-cant-be-ignored-15796044 . I followed a rather lively Facebook thread about the topic somewhat recently. Claims that her Netflix show is targeting classes, belittling, insulting Americans and their abundance, threatening book owner’s surplus of untouched books, etc. But the concept that Marie Kondo brings to the states is outlandish to us because of the cultural differences. I wonder if some of the ingrained concepts might stem from the collectivistic cultures. There is a belief of respect of objects and those that made them and is explained briefly here: https://sojo.net/articles/respecting-spirituality-behind-marie-kondos-tidying . Even though there is an air of benefit for self, there is a collective result in having a peaceful home benefiting the unit.
Great choice of topic, thanks for sharing. Our society as you mentioned in the western world is highly individualistic. When our children become adolescents we value their search for independence and give them opportunity to spend quality time outside of the home with friends much of the time. This is not the case in other countries that follow collectivism. The American culture most definitely emphasizes individualism as a societal value that all should seek.
As stated in our textbook by Schneider, Gruman & Coutts (2012) an individualistic society is idiocentric in nature and makes goals and decisions based on their own personal needs, while the allocentric society’s goals are determined by the needs of the family or the group associated with the individual. Since collectivism and individualism are societal values that are instilled in individuals at a young age. It is a huge part of our cultural upbringing and it helps develop and build our self-identity and influences our overall perspective about ourselves and the world and how we fit into it.
I agree with your statement about psychologists needing to be aware of and being considerate to the societal values within the culture they are studying because it does have an effect on the individuals overall views and decision making strategies as well in their overall attitudes and behaviors (Schneider et al, 2012).
References
Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2017). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Los Angeles: SAGE.