Running head: INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM
Applying the Cultural Dimension of Individualism and Collectivism
to Erikson's Theory of Psychosocial Development
O. Randall Braman
University of Phoenix, Hawaii Campus
O. Randall Braman currently teaches Educational Counseling on the faculty of the University of Phoenix, Hawaii Campus. Previous to this appointment, he was an Instructor of Counseling on the faculty of the University of Guam.
Abstract
Erikson's theory of psychosocial development has been applied by counseling practitioners and researches in order to understand and explain human behavior across cultures. However, through close examination of research and literature surrounding the cultural dimension of individualism and collectivism, Erikson's psychosocial stages may not be relevant to individuals from collectivistic cultures. This article reviews the individualism and collectivism literature and offers alternative stages that are more conducive to the collectivistic experience of human development.
Applying the Cultural Dimension of Individualism and Collectivism
to Erikson's Theory of Psychosocial Development
Some animals, like wolves, are gregarious, and others are solitary, like tigers. The human species should no doubt be classified with the gregarious animals, but different human societies show gregariousness to different degrees. Here again, then, we have a fundamental dimension on which societies differ: the relationship between the individual and the collectivity. (Hofstede, 1980, p. 214)
The Universality of Erikson's Theory
In his 1992 work, Theories of Development: Concepts and Applications, William Crain contends that stage theories must meet particular criteria, one of which is that stages be culturally universal. Crain suggests that to some degree, Erikson's (1980) psychosocial stages of development meet this criteria. He refers to Erikson's work with the Sioux Native Americans to illustrate his point. He concludes,
All cultures try to provide their children with consistent care, regulate their extreme wish to do everything their own way, and instill incest taboos. And, as children grow, all cultures ask them to learn the tools and skills of their technology, to find a workable adult identity, to establish bonds of intimacy, to care for the next generation, and to face death with integrity. (p. 263)
Stated generally, Erikson's psychosocial stages may appear to be culturally universal, but upon closer examination, specific cultural differences suggest differences in his proposed stages of development. There are particular dimensions of cultural differences that must be considered when addressing constructs which are meant to be universally applied. One such dimension is "individualism and collectivism."
Individualism and Collectivism
Over the past 15 years, the constructs of individualism and collectivism have become a major dimension of cultural differences as determined by theorists from a variety of disciplines (Hofstede, 1980; Morisaki and Gudykunst, 1994; Triandis, 1989). Hofstede (1980), through a study that involved over 117,000 employees of a multinational corporation in 66 countries, categorized four cultural variation dimensions. These dimensions include power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity-femininity, and individualism and collectivism. "Power distance" refers to the issue of human inequality and addresses the extent of societal members' acceptance of power inequality within organizations. "Uncertainty avoidance" refers to the degree of tolerance members of a society have concerning the presence or lack of a well-defined social structure. The "masculinity-femininity" dimension refers to a culture's preference for stereotypically "masculine" goals (e.g., achievement, assertiveness, and material success) as opposed to stereotypically "feminine" goals (e.g., relationships, modesty, and nurturing).
Hofstede suggests that the dimension of individualism and collectivism has appealed particularly to psychologists "because the relationship between the individual and other individuals has traditionally been a central concern in Western psychology" (1994, p. x). Cross-cultural psychologists claim that the individualism and collectivism dimension has "proved to be a more concise, coherent, integrated, and empirically testable dimension of cultural variation" (Kim, Triandis, Kagitcibasi, Choi, & Yoon, 1994, p. 2).
Hofstede (1991) offers this basic definition of individualism and collectivism:
"Individualism" pertains to societies in which the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family. "Collectivism" as its opposite pertains to societies in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people's lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. (p. 51)
Generally, what we refer to as "Western" cultures (e.g., Northern European and North American countries) tend to be individualistic while "non-Western" cultures (e.g., Asian, Latin American, and African countries) tend to be collectivistic (Morisaki and Gudykunst, 1994; Ting-Toomey, 1994). However, many additional factors contribute to the designation of individualistic or collectivistic cultural orientation. These may include affluence, socialization, rural/urban environment, mass media exposure, and education (Ting-Toomey, 1994).
The basic difference between individualistic cultures and collectivistic cultures is the relative importance each places on the goals of the individual versus the goals of the group. Individualists emphasize personal goals over group goals and collectivists either emphasize both equally or give preference to group goals (Triandis, 1989). Markus and Kitayama (1991) introduce "two construals of the self: independent and interdependent" (p. 226). Autonomy and independence are central to the concept of the independent construal of the self. Other terms associated with the independent self are "egocentric," "individualist," and "self-contained." In contrast, the interdependent self is referred to as "sociocentric, holistic, collective, allocentric, ensembled, constitutive, contextualist, connected, and relational" (p. 227). The interdependent construal is characteristic of "connectedness" and individual behavior is largely governed by what an individual perceives is required of him or her by the group to which he or she is connected.
Triandis, Leung, Villareal, and Clark (1985) distinguish the cultural-level terms of "individualism" and "collectivism" from the individual-level terms of "idiocentrism" and "allocentrism." Idiocentrism represents characteristics of individualist cultures at the individual-level. Values among idiocentrics include autonomy, freedom, achievement, and competition. Allocentrism represents characteristics of collectivistic cultures at the individual-level. Allocentric values would include in-group harmony, hierarchy, and obedience (Triandis, 1994). This distinction is useful, according to Triandis (1989), especially in reference to allocentrics in individualist cultures and idiocentrics in collectivistic cultures. Although it is important to distinguish between the two levels of analysis, cultural and individual, ". . . this does not, however, preclude the existence of some correspondence . . . these two levels interact through intermediate structures (such as institutions, norms, and beliefs)" (Kim et al., 1994, p. 4).
Triandis (1994) has been a key figure in adapting the individualism and collectivism dimension from cultural-level analyses to individual-level analyses. As previously discussed, he has developed terminology to help distinguish individual traits from cultural characteristics. Although the two levels, cultural and individual, remain connected simply due to the fact that cultures are made up of individuals, it is important to recognize that within individualistic cultures there exist allocentrics, and within collectivistic cultures there exist idiocentrics. Furthermore, individuals are not either idiocentric or allocentric, but respond according to situational factors. One is capable cognitively to think and act according to either cultural orientation. Triandis claims,
Thus the essential advance from Hofstede's (1980) formulation is that we are both allocentric and idiocentric, and we sample cognitive elements that correspond to these relational models differently in different situations. However, in some cultures more situations are sampled allocentrically, and in other cultures more situations are sampled idiocentrically. (1994, p. 46)
Based on Triandis (1994, pp. 47-48) and studies reviewed by Markus and Kitayama (1991), there are several ways to contrast the characteristics of allocentrics and idiocentrics. The basic social unit for idiocentrics is the individual, whereas allocentrics perceive groups as the basic social unit. Allocentrics tend to attribute their failures to themselves and their successes to others. Idiocentrics attribute their failures to others and their successes to themselves. For allocentrics, the self is defined by affiliation with in-groups and one has a greater awareness of others than oneself. Similarities with others is the more prevalent perspective than others' similarities with oneself, memories are linked to relationships, and achievement is for the sake of the group. Idiocentrics view themselves as independent, are more self- than other-aware, and see themselves as unique. They remember things in relation to themselves and are motivated to achieve in order to be personally successful. Idiocentrics prioritize personal goals, but allocentrics prioritize in-group goals.
Emotions and cognitions are contrasted between allocentrics and idiocentrics. Allocentrics are primarily concerned about others and display higher levels of empathy than do idiocentrics. Emotions have a shorter duration for allocentrics than idiocentrics. Allocentrics are drawn to the quality of modesty while idiocentrics are attracted to self-confidence. The idiocentric generally considers issues from a point of view of individual needs, rights, and responsibilities. The allocentric primarily considers in-group needs and social context.
Idiocentric attitudes, norms, and values are based on independence and detachment characterized by terms such as "pleasure," "achievement," "competition," "freedom," and "autonomy." "Security," "obedience," "duty," and "hierarchy" characterize the interdependent attitudes, norms, and values of allocentrics. Although the major calamity among allocentrics is ostracism, the major calamity for idiocentrics is dependence (Triandis, 1994, p. 47).
The role and nature of in-groups differ between allocentrics and idiocentrics. There are few but extremely close relationships for the allocentric. Perceived homogeneity of in-groups is greater than that of out-groups. In-group harmony is essential and its influence is broad and profound. In-group membership is primarily predetermined by blood relationship, ethnicity, or social status. Casual relationships are more common among idiocentrics. They are less likely to unconditionally commit to a group. Perceived heterogeneity of the in-group is greater than that of out-groups. Confrontation within the group is acceptable. For idiocentrics, in-groups are usually established based on shared achievements rather than predetermined criteria.
Allocentrics are more accepting of hierarchical group structures than are idiocentrics. Allocentrics place more importance on vertical relationships and idiocentrics place more importance on horizontal relationships. For the allocentric, social behavior is dependent on in-group/out-group status. In conflict it is essential to not only "save one's own face," but to spare one's disputant of any humiliation. An allocentric considers his or her family when choosing friends and a spouse, and makes decisions that will maintain and perpetuate family integrity. For the idiocentric, social relationships are generally casual, whether they involve in- or out-groups. Winning in conflict takes precedence over sparing another's image and life choices are based on personal preferences.
Individualism dominates in Western European and North American countries and collectivism dominates in East Asian countries due to the philosophies of liberalism and Confucianism respectively. "Liberalism extols the virtues of individualism, and Confucianism glorifies collectivism" (Kim, 1994). Thus the rise and prominence of these two philosophies provide the basis for the various characteristics at different levels of analysis. At the individual level, autonomy versus interdependence characterize the different perspectives. At the cultural level, equality, equity, noninterference, and detachability versus role fulfillment, maintenance of face, and social obligations represent the values of the opposing philosophies (Kim, 1994). Consequently, because of the influence of these dominant philosophies in certain parts of the world, constructs foundational to Western developmental psychology theory have been susceptible to cultural bias.
An Alternative Cultural Perspective
Triandis (1995) gives this conceptualization of culture and relates it to individualism and collectivism:
Culture is to society what memory is to individuals. It includes the things that have “worked” in the past . . . One of culture's most important aspects is “unstated assumptions.” The assumption that we are bound together into tight groups of interdependent individuals is fundamental to collectivism. The assumption that we are independent entities, different and distant from our groups, is fundamental to individualism. . . Such basic unstated assumptions are so fundamental that we are unaware of them. It is not until we come into contact with people from another culture that we realize that our assumptions are not universal. (pp. 4-5)
The individualism and collectivism dimension of cross-cultural differences may have implications regarding ego development and progression through Erikson's stages of psychosocial development. Issues to be resolved during periods of crisis may differ between those with an individualistic cultural orientation (i.e., idiocentrics) and those with a collectivistic cultural orientation (i.e., allocentrics). Based on the research addressing individualism and collectivism, Erikson's stages appear to be more conducive to idiocentrics than allocentrics. The following table introduces alternative stages corresponding with those of Erikson that may be more conducive to individuals with a collectivistic cultural orientation.
The initial crisis of trust versus mistrust is perhaps universal across cultures. The positive goal of this stage (i.e., trust) appears to be similar in both individualistic and collectivistic cultures. The child is oriented to his or her immediate surroundings through the care of significant others. It is in the subsequent stages that the child is socialized toward individualism or collectivism. Crain (1992) notes that in Erikson's cross-cultural research, he observed that Native American women tended to be in less of a hurry to wean their babies from breast feeding. This may be the point during which the individualistic and collectivistic orientations begin to be distinguished. Erikson (Crain, 1992) suggested that the prolonged nursing encourages a level of dependence and trust that early weaning discourages. Thus, whereas the second stage developmental goal for individualistic cultures is "autonomy," collectivistic cultures may stress "interdependence" as the preferred crisis resolution.
_____________________________________________________________
Psychosocial Stages according to Cultural Orientation
Erikson's "Individualistic" Stage Alternative "Collectivistic" Stage
Trust vs. Mistrust Trust vs. Mistrust
Autonomy vs. Shame, Doubt Interdependence vs. Shame, Doubt
Initiative vs. Guilt Conformity vs. Guilt
Industry vs. Inferiority Cooperation vs. Individual Striving
Identity vs. Role Confusion In-group Identity vs.
Social Role Confusion
Intimacy vs. Isolation Social Role Fulfillment vs. Ostracism
Generativity vs. Stagnation Loyalty/Devotion vs.
Selfish Ambition
Ego Integrity vs. Despair Family/Group Integrity vs. Disgrace
_____________________________________________________________
Furthermore, "conformity" may be the collectivistic alternative to the individualistic developmental goal of "initiative." Although the term carries negative connotations for westerners, "conformity" is rewarding to individuals with a collectivistic orientation (Schwartz, 1994; Ho & Chiu, 1994). It is "initiative," with connotations of standing out and not fitting in, that most non-Western cultures find undesirable. Hence, the well-known Japanese proverb, “The nail that sticks out gets hammered down.” It is important to note that the negative outcomes for the second and third stages are the same for each orientation (i.e., shame, doubt, and guilt). Ting-Toomey (1994) refers to the concept of "losing face" in collectivistic cultures. This concept is similar to the western concept of "shame" and is probably learned at an early age. Although the goals of a successful resolution at stages two and three may be different, the consequences of unsuccessful crisis resolution at these early stages may well be the same.
The remainder of the alternative collectivistic stages emphasizes certain group dynamics that are more prevalent in collectivistic cultures. The crisis in late childhood calls for the successful development of social cooperation rather than personal industry. Adolescence in collectivistic cultures demands expanding membership from the family in-group to educational, religious, and even occupational in-groups. In collectivistic cultures, careers are more likely to be determined at an earlier age by family members, school officials, or by national mandate (Ho & Chiu, 1994). It is important for the allocentric teenager to be aware of the social forces that determine his or her societal status and to be clear regarding his or her specific social role.
This social role is often fulfilled in young adulthood. Intimacy for the sake of fulfilling one's own needs is secondary to meeting the needs that perpetuate the status of one's family or other in-group. Young adults are expected to adhere to family expectations in regard to choosing a college major, spouse, and professional career. The failure to obey parental wishes may lead to ostracism from one or more in-groups. Loyalty, devotion, and a commitment to duty characterize the healthy development of the middle adult. Allocentric adults establish themselves more permanently in job and family situations than do idiocentric adults. Finally, the older adult is charged with overseeing the integrity of future collective development among families, institutions, and the nation.
Conclusion
Culture impacts almost every aspect of human development. One can hardly address any developmental topic without recognizing how culture may effect how one approaches or responds to that topic. It is therefore important to be aware of major cultural dimensions such as individualism and collectivism when considering the worth of developmental theories and literature. In this article, only Erikson's stage theory was addressed through the filter of individualism and collectivism. It is necessary to continue to analyze and test theories cross-culturally in order to legitimize and broaden their application.
References
Crain, W. (1992). Theories of development: Concepts and applications. (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
Ho, D. Y., & Chiu, C. (1994). Component ideas of individualism, collectivism, and social organization: An application in the study of Chinese culture. In U. Kim, H. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism (pp. 137-156). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (1994). Foreword. In U. Kim, H. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism (pp. ix-xiii). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kim, U. (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Conceptual clarification and elaboration. In U. Kim, H. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism (pp. 19-40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kim, U., Triandis, H., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S, & Yoon, G. (Eds.). (1994). Individualism and collectivism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Morisaki, S., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1994). Face in Japan and the United States. In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The challenge of facework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues (pp. 47-93). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism (pp. 85-119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506-517.
Triandis, H. C. (1994). Theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of collectivism and individualism. In U. Kim, H. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism (pp. 41-51). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Triandis, H. C., Leung, K., Villareal, M. V., & Clark, F. L. (1985). Allocentric versus idiocentric tendencies: Convergent and discriminant validation. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 395-415.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Managing conflict in intimate intercultural relationships. In D. Cahn (Ed.), Conflict in personal relationships. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
1
Individualism and Collectivism
16
Individualism and Collectivism