See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/51245608

Are Cultures Becoming Individualistic? A Cross-Temporal Comparison of

Individualism-Collectivism in the United States and Japan

Article in Personality and Social Psychology Review · June 2011

DOI: 10.1177/1088868311411587 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

364 7,732

1 author:

Takeshi Hamamura
Curtin University
85 PUBLICATIONS 2,571 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

cultural change View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Takeshi Hamamura on 08 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Personality and Social Psychology
Review http://psr.sagepub.com/

Are Cultures Becoming Individualistic? A Cross-Temporal Comparison of Individualism−Collectivism in

the United States and Japan
Takeshi Hamamura
Pers Soc Psychol Rev 2012 16: 3 originally published online 23 June 2011
DOI: 10.1177/1088868311411587

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://psr.sagepub.com/content/16/1/3

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Society for Personality and Social Psychology

Additional services and information for Personality and Social Psychology Review can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://psr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://psr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Dec 21, 2011

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jun 23, 2011

What is This?

Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com by guest on October 11, 2013

411587
uraPersonality and Social Psychology Review
PSR16110.1177/1088868311411587Hamam

Personality and Social Psychology Review

Are Cultures Becoming Individualistic? 16(1) 3­–24

© 2012 by the Society for Personality
and Social Psychology, Inc.
A Cross-Temporal Comparison of Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Individualism–Collectivism in the
DOI: 10.1177/1088868311411587
http://pspr.sagepub.com

United States and Japan

Takeshi Hamamura1

Abstract
Individualism–collectivism is one of the best researched dimensions of culture in psychology. One frequently asked but
underexamined question regards its cross-temporal changes: Are cultures becoming individualistic? One influential theory
of cultural change, modernization theory, predicts the rise of individualism as a consequence of economic growth. Findings
from past research are generally consistent with this theory, but there is also a body of evidence suggesting its limitations. To
examine these issues, cross-temporal analyses of individualism–collectivism in the United States and Japan were conducted.
Diverging patterns of cultural changes were found across indices: In both countries, some of the obtained indices showed rising
individualism over the past several decades, supporting the modernization theory. However, other indices showed patterns
that are best understood within the frameworks of a shifting focus of social relationships and a persisting cultural heritage. A
comprehensive theory of cultural change requires considerations of these factors in addition to the modernization effect.

Keywords
culture, individualism–collectivism, modernization, heritage, history, cross-temporal analysis

A pattern of culture can persist for centuries. Nisbett and
colleagues have suggested that cultural differences in per-
ception, attention, and reasoning reflect differences in intel-
lectual heritages: Daoism and Confucianism in East Asia and
Greek philosophy in North America (Nisbett, Peng, Choi,
& Norenzayan, 2001). However, sometimes a pattern of cul-
ture can transform itself in a matter of a few decades, as seen
in post–cold war Eastern European societies. Putnam (2000)
amassed substantial evidence documenting the decline of
social engagement and civic participation in American society
within the past several decades. This consideration illustrates
two intuitive but seemingly contradictory aspects of culture:
Culture can persist for centuries, but it can change in a matter
of a few decades. To the extent that culture and mind are mutu-
ally constitutive (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), understanding
the ways in which culture changes and continues is important
for psychological research. The current research takes on this
challenging question by focusing on one specific aspect of
culture, the dimension of individualism–collectivism.
Individualism–Collectivism in Psychological Research. Individu-
als differ in their relative independence from and interde-
pendence to a social environment. This distinction is one of
the most important in social science research and has been
introduced repeatedly in the past, for example, as the dis-
tinctions between gemeinschaft and gesellschaft (Tonnies,
1887/1957) or mechanical and organic solidarity (Durkheim,
1893/1964). In psychological research, this distinction is best
known as the dimension of individualism–collectivism.
Triandis (1995) defined the dimension as follows:
Collectivism may be initially defined as a social pattern
consisting of closely linked individuals who see them-
selves as parts of one or more collectives (family, co-
workers, tribe, nation); are primarily motivated by the
norms of, and duties imposed by, those collectives; are
willing to give priority to the goals of these collectives
over their own personal goals; and emphasize their con-
nectedness to members of these collectives. A prelimi-
nary definition of individualism is a social pattern that
consists of loosely linked individuals who view them-
selves as independent of collectives; are primarily moti-
vated by their own preferences, needs, rights, and contracts
they establish with others; give priority to their personal
goals over the goals of others; and emphasize rational
analysis of the advantages and disadvantages to associ-
ating with others. (p. 2)
1
Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Corresponding Author:
Takeshi Hamamura, Chinese University of Hong Kong,
Department of Psychology, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong
Email: hamamura@psy.cuhk.edu.hk
4 Personality and Social Psychology Review 16(1)
Individualism and collectivism are “cultural syndromes,” or
central themes of culture around which various social and
psychological processes are organized (Triandis, 1995). For
this reason, this dimension affords an examination of a wide
range of social psychological processes of significant impor-
tance (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Also for this reason,
individualism–collectivism has received more attention than
other dimensions of culture that past research has introduced.
For example, Geert Hofstede, in his landmark study of IBM
employees worldwide, introduced three dimensions of cul-
ture aside from individualism–collectivism: uncertainty avoid-
ance, power distance, and masculinity–femininity (Hofstede,
1984). Nevertheless, findings on individualism–collectivism
are probably the most frequently cited aspect of this research.
In contemporary cross-cultural research, the dimension of
individualism–collectivism has been used most intensively
in comparisons of East Asians and North Americans. This
framework has given rise to hundreds of studies on a diverse
range of topics, such as self-concept (Markus & Kitayama,
1991), cognition (Nisbett et al., 2001), emotion (Kitayama,
Mesquita, & Karasawa, 2006), subjective well-being (Diener,
Oishi, & Lucas, 2003), and choice making (Iyengar &
Lepper, 1999), among others (see Kitayama & Cohen, 2007).
These studies have greatly contributed to psychologists’ under-
standing of the interplay between culture and mind.
With accumulating findings, however, several challeng-
ing issues have been uncovered. One issue is the appropriate-
ness of applying the dimension at country level (e.g., the
international ranking obtained by Hofstede) as a schema for
cross-cultural variations observed at individual level. In fact,
a meta-analysis conducted on this topic identified discrepan-
cies between the so-called “common view” (i.e., collectivism
in East Asia and individualism in North America) and the
empirical findings (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002).
For example, there was no significant difference between
Americans and Koreans on the level of collectivism, and
Americans were more collectivistic than Japanese. This meta-
analysis incited much subsequent research. Several studies
have investigated the possibility of methodological artifacts
causing the identified divergence from the “common view.”
These studies have found that the measures that control for
these problems, for example, by specifying a reference group
in self-report items with the Likert-type scale, do yield a pat-
tern that is consistent with the “common view” (Heine, Lehman,
Peng, & Greenholtz, 2002).
Another issue facing individualism–collectivism research
is the demand for a more refined conceptualization of the
dimension (Brewer & Chen, 2007). Individualism–collectivism
research has flourished by treating individualism and collec-
tivism as cultural syndromes encompassing a collection of
social and psychological processes (Triandis, 1995). From
this perspective, much research has taken the form of theoreti-
cally deriving a particular psychological process from the indi-
vidualism–collectivism framework and then demonstrating
cross-cultural variation in that process. To cite just one example,
several studies demonstrated cultural differences in approach
and avoidance motivation based on the rationale that the approach
focus is more beneficial for seeking socially independent goals,
whereas the avoidance focus is more beneficial for seeking
socially interdependent goals (Elliot, Chirkov, Kim, & Sheldon,
2001; Hamamura, Meijer, Heine, Kamaya, & Hori, 2009; Lee,
Aaker, & Gardner, 2000).
This approach has been productive in uncovering cross-
cultural variations in many psychological processes, even ones
that were previously regarded as universal, such as basic pro-
cesses of cognition (Nisbett et al., 2001) or the need for posi-
tive self-regard (Heine, Lehman, Markus, & Kitayama, 1999).
However, one consequence of this approach is that the field
is left with a rather impoverished understanding of ways in
which various psychological processes of individualism–
collectivism cohere. As one example of this challenge,
Kitayama, Park, Sevincer, Karasawa, and Uskul (2009) mea-
sured individualism–collectivism with five tasks that are theo-
retically related (dispositional bias, focused vs. holistic attention,
experience of disengaging and engaging emotions, personal
vs. social happiness, and relative self-size) in four countries
(United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan). These
five tasks converged in finding the expected cross-cultural
differences: In all tasks, Americans were most individualistic,
Japanese were most collectivistic, and British and Germans
were individualistic but to a lesser extent compared to
Americans. At the individual level, however, these five tasks
were uncorrelated with each other.
Faced with this issue, greater attention has been paid to
the mechanism by which various psychological processes of
individualism–collectivism are organized. For instance,
Kitayama and colleagues (2009) suggested the role of inde-
pendence and interdependence as the unifying theme of a cul-
tural syndrome. Within each culture, according to this theory,
various psychological processes are used in an idiosyncratic
fashion to strive toward independence or interdependence. For
example, to reach toward the goal of social interdependence,
some individuals may adopt conformity, some may adopt
holistic attention, and yet others may adopt self-criticism.
Consequently, one’s inclination toward conformity does not
necessarily predict one’s holistic attention or self-criticism.
Nevertheless, at the collective level, these psychological
processes are distributed in a systematic manner. That is, at
the society level, conformity, holistic attention, and self-
criticism are more prevalent in collectivistic societies rela-
tive to individualistic societies. In sum, recent research has
introduced new ways of thinking about ways in which vari-
ous psychological processes of individualism and collectivism
cohere.
Theories of Cross-Cultural Variation in Individualism–Collectivism.
Why is it that cultures differ on individualism–collectivism?
Recent research has started to examine factors (ecological,
economic, or historical) that have produced cross-cultural
variation in individualism–collectivism. These factors include
Hamamura
economic development (Hofstede, 1984), prevalence of
pathogens (Fincher, Thornhill, Murray, & Schaller, 2008),
residential mobility (Oishi, 2010), language use (Y.
Kashima & Kashima, 2003), and voluntary migration (Kita-
yama, Ishii, Imada, Takemura, & Ramaswamy, 2006). How-
ever, of these factors, economic development has received the
most attention. In fact, the idea that individualism is caused by
economic development has been enormously influential, to
the extent that it has penetrated the lay theory of cultural
change (Y. Kashima et al., 2009). The current research exam-
ines predictions from this theory, hereinafter called moderniza-
tion theory, in cross-temporal comparisons of the United States
and Japan on the dimension of individualism–collectivism.
Modernization Theory: Individualism as a Consequence of
Modernization. Modernization research emerged out of
multidisciplinary interests in understanding cross-cultural
differences in development (Inkeles, 1975). In psychological
research, modernization theorists have focused on identify-
ing the psychological consequences of societal moderniza-
tion (Inkeles, 1983). Studies conducted in this tradition have
yielded a long list of characteristics. Although the list differs
among theorists, it is generally composed of such things as
personal efficacy, gender equality, achievement motivation,
independence, greater civic participation, greater social rela-
tionships beyond kin, distancing from tradition and religion as
a source of authority, and acceptance of social mobility (for a
review, see Yang, 1988). A brief survey of these lists suggests
that individualism is one construct that encompasses many
of the identified characteristics. In fact, it has been suggested that
contemporary individualism–collectivism research emerged out
of the tradition of modernity research (Kagitcibasi, 2005;
Yang, 1988).
How does societal modernization foster individualism?
Sachs (2005) illustrated this process with an example of gar-
ment factories in urban centers of developing countries, such
as Dhaka, Bangladesh. These factories often provide employ-
ment opportunities that are attractive to many workers, par-
ticularly young women from rural areas where there are no
viable alternatives. This “foothold in the modern economy”
in turn affords these workers an opportunity to manage their
own income, own living space, and own life, such as making
decisions regarding whom to date and marry and when to have
children, decisions that are traditionally made in accordance
with the interests of kin. This observation suggests that a soci-
ety’s participation in the modern economy triggers changes in
social institutions, such as greater urbanization, smaller house-
hold size, and a lower fertility rate (also see Newson, Postmes,
Lea, & Webley, 2005). At the psychological level, these social
changes not only free individuals from traditional sources of
social influence (e.g., kin relations) but also afford means of
autonomous decision making.
Empirically, the link between societal modernization and
individualism is well established. A correlation between
Hofstede’s international index of individualism and per capita
5
GDP, which is a frequently used index of societal moderniza-
tion because of its wide availability and convergence with other
indices of social development (e.g., infant mortality rate,
level of education, urbanization), is high (r = .82; Hofstede,
1984). Greenfield (2009) observed a shift from traditional com-
munal orientation to a more urban individualistic orientation
in many societies around the world, including small-scale
societies. In a large cross-cultural study, Inglehart and Baker
(2000) also found that per capita GDP is correlated with less
emphasis placed on collectivistic ways of living (e.g., less
emphasis on family and religion) and greater emphasis placed
on individualistic ways of living (e.g., the pursuit of happiness
or an emphasis on self-expression).
The relationship between social development and individu-
alism is found within a society as well. Modernization trig-
gers a series of changes in social structure, such as changes in
family structure, advances in the level of education, and urban-
ization (Inkeles, 1975). Within a society, individuals from a
high socioeconomic status (SES) background tend to have
greater exposure to these modern institutions. Hence, the
modernization theory predicts a positive correlation between
individualism and SES. Studies conducted around the world
have indeed found such a correlation. For example, Inkeles
(1975) found that individuals’ exposure to modern institutions
predicts individualism in all countries investigated (Argentina,
Bangladesh, Chile, India, Israel, and Nigeria). Among Kenyans,
Ma and Schoeneman (1997) found that whereas university
students tended to describe themselves with personality attri-
butes on the Twenty Statements Test, context-dependent
descriptions of the self were more common among workers
in Nairobi, and even more so among members of traditional
communities, such as Masaai and Samburu. Among Americans,
Snibbe and Markus (2005) found that self-expression and the
pursuit of uniqueness are more important for Americans with
a high SES background relative to a low SES background.
This research indicates that individualism is more descrip-
tive of Americans with high (relative to low) SES backgrounds
(also see Kraus, Piff, & Keltner, 2009; Stephens, Markus, &
Townsend, 2007). A positive correlation between SES and
individualism has also been reported among Filipinos (Guthrie,
1977), Chinese (Hamamura, Xu, & Du, 2011), and Japanese
(Kameda, Takezawa, & Hastie, 2005). In sum, evidence link-
ing societal modernization and individualism is robust and is
found across cultures.
Problems With the Modernization Theory. Despite the converg-
ing evidence, there are a few problems with modernization
theory. First, the theory does not explain collectivism
observed in highly developed societies in East Asia. Although
there is a debate regarding the extent to which East Asian soci-
eties are collectivistic relative to Western societies (Oyserman
et al., 2002), findings from much research in cultural psychol-
ogy generally converge in suggesting the relatively collectivis-
tic nature of East Asian societies (for a review, see Kitayama
& Cohen, 2007). To the extent that there is little difference in
6 Personality and Social Psychology Review 16(1)
economic development between these two regions, collectiv-
ism in highly developed East Asian societies poses a challenge
to the modernization theory.
Another problem with the modernization theory is the
issue of the direction of causality. Modernization theory
argues that economic development causes individualism.
However, the case for the opposite—that particular patterns
of culture cause economic development—has been made, most
prominently by Max Weber (1904/1992). In sum, despite
available evidence pointing to the robust relationship between
societal modernization and individualism, a few issues con-
cerning the modernization theory raise doubts.
Modernization Without Westernization. An alternative to the
modernization theory is to consider the role of a society’s cul-
tural heritage in shaping the course of its change over time.
Samuel Huntington (1996), in The Clash of Civilizations,
rejected modernization as a framework for cross-cultural differ-
ences and proposed that a society’s cultural heritage sets a
path for its evolution. Huntington and other critics (e.g.,
Gusfield, 1967; Kagitcibasi, 1994) have argued against the
conflation of modernization with “Westernization.” To some
extent, such a conflation is inevitable, as modernized societ-
ies have predominately been Western societies. Nonetheless,
Huntington (1996) stated, “[T]he West was the West long before
it was modern” (p. 69), and argued that modernization of the
West is a product of Western cultural heritage.
Under this framework, hereinafter called cultural heritage
theory, the process of modernization is not uniform across cul-
tures. Moreover, individualism, which is seen as a uniquely
Western cultural phenomenon, is not a necessary consequence
of modernization. Much has been written on the idea of mul-
tiple pathways for societal modernization. Huntington (1996)
found evidence in Japan. Modernization in Japan, starting in
the mid-19th century, thoroughly transformed key political,
economic, and technological institutions. Traditional cultural
ideas and practices (e.g., Confucianism, filial piety) were seen
as obstacles, and not only did Japanese adopted Western
products, institutions, and technologies but also many rul-
ing elites experimented with Western ideas, values, and ways
of living (Hirakawa, 1989). Nevertheless, in a matter of a few
decades, the trend swung back and newly introduced Western
ideas and technologies began to coexist with traditional cul-
tural practices (Rozman, 1991).
Empirical support for the multiple pathways of modern-
ization was found in a large cross-cultural survey (Inglehart &
Baker, 2000). With data obtained from 65 countries, Inglehart
and Baker (2000) investigated the relationship among economic
development, cultural heritage, and values. One of the value
dimensions investigated was that of survival versus self-
expression orientation, which is highly similar to individual-
ism–collectivism (Inglehart & Oyserman, 2004). This research
found the following. First, consistent with modernization
theory, the endorsement of individualistic values was posi-
tively correlated with GDP. Second, cultural heritage accounted
for variance in values, even after controlling for differences
in GDP. For example, predominantly Protestant countries in
Europe were more individualistic relative to other countries
after controlling for differences in GDP. In contrast, countries
belonging to the former communist bloc were more collectiv-
istic relative to other countries. In sum, this research suggests
that a society’s cultural heritage influences its current orienta-
tion on the individualism–collectivism dimension, indepen-
dently of modernization.
Review of Prior Cross-Temporal Comparison Studies. Two broad
theories of cultural change were considered. On one hand,
the modernization theory suggests that the rise of individual-
ism is one of the consequences of economic growth, and the
theory predicts such a trend across societies. On the other
hand, the cultural heritage theory considers the role of a
society’s cultural heritage in shaping the course of its cross-
temporal changes. This theory predicts continuity in a pattern
of culture over time. Findings from past cross-temporal research
support both of these theories.
Some studies are consistent with the modernization theory.
Inglehart and Baker (2000) found increasing importance of
individualistic values between the 1980s and the 1990s in
those societies that posted economic growth. This effect was
independently replicated across societies in Asia and the
Pacific with a different set of values (Allen et al., 2007).
Among Chinese, Yang (1996) concluded that the personality
profile of Chinese people has shifted toward individual orien-
tation from social orientation over the years. Many commen-
tators in Japan have noted the rise of individualism over the
past several decades (e.g., Yamagishi, 1999). One telling
example of this trend is found in the changing norms of mar-
riage. In the 1950s, the norm of Japanese marriage was to marry
someone arranged by the concerned parties (e.g., parents,
senior colleagues at work); arranged marriages accounted for
more than half of all marriages, whereas love-based mar-
riages accounted for only about one third. However, in a mat-
ter of several decades, the norm reversed. In recent years, the
norm of marriage has become love based, which accounts for
more than 80% of all marriages, and arranged marriages have
become rare, accounting for only about 5% of all marriages
(National Institute of Population and Social Security Research,
2009).
Findings from the United States suggest a similar trend.
Alwin (1989) noted the rising importance of independence
and the decline of obedience and conformity among Americans.
A meta-analysis of conformity found that the conformity effects
among Americans decreased over time (Bond & Smith, 1996).
Over the years, Americans have become more withdrawn
from social groups and institutions (Glenn, 1987; Putnam,
2000). Roberts and Helson (1997) found a rise in the individu-
alistic personality profile over time. Research by Twenge and
colleagues also found a pattern of rising individualism in
many psychological processes over the past several decades,
including self-esteem and self-enhancement (Twenge &
Hamamura
35,000
30,000
Per capita GDP (inflation adjusted)
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1950 1960
Figure 1. Inflation adjusted per capita G.D.P (from Maddison, 2008)
Campbell, 2001, 2008), narcissism (Twenge, Konrath, Foster,
Campbell, & Bushman, 2008), and a decreasing need for social
approval (Twenge & Im, 2007). In addition, Twenge, Abebe,
and Campbell (2010) reported that American parents are
increasingly choosing unique names for their children, suggest-
ing an increasing emphasis placed on uniqueness. In sum,
findings from these studies are consistent with the modern-
ization theory in showing the rise of individualism in those
societies that experienced economic growth.
However, other findings do not fit this pattern. Among
Americans, despite the rise of individualistic psychological
processes, the importance of family life has remained relatively
stable (Thornton & Young-DeMarco, 2001), and external locus
of control has increased (Twenge, Zhang, & Im, 2004).
In addition, some indices of individualism have shown no
cross-temporal change (Trzesniewski & Donnellan, 2010).
Furthermore, several studies conducted in East Asian societies
have reported the coexistence of rising individualism and
traditional patterns of culture. Findings from Japanese social
surveys indicated continuing emphasis on group orientation
(Caudill, 1973) and traditional values, such as filial piety, obe-
dience to authority, and group solidarity (Flanagan, 1979;
Trommsdorff, 1983). Similar trends were also reported among
Chinese (Yang, 1996).
In sum, the large body of evidence generally supports the
modernization theory: Societies that experienced economic
growth have generally become more individualistic. However,
there are also findings that do not fit this trend: Some
7
Japan
U.S.
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
cross-temporal patterns found in the United States do not fit
the pattern of rising individualism, and findings from East
Asian societies suggest the persistence of traditional collec-
tivistic patterns of culture along with rising individualism.
Current Research. The current research investigates the rela-
tionship between economic development and individualism–
collectivism by cross-temporarily examining two highly
developed societies with distinct cultural heritages: the United
States and Japan. The period under investigation is from 1950
to 2008, which is characterized by steady economic develop-
ment for both countries (see Figure 1). In the United States, per
capita GDP adjusted for inflation increased from $9,561 in
1950 to $31,049 in 2006. Similarly, the Japanese economy
grew significantly, from $1,921 in 1950 to $22,464 in 2006
(Maddison, 2008). The two theories considered above make
diverging predictions. On one hand, the modernization theory
predicts a rise of individualism as both countries have experi-
enced substantial economic development. In contrast, the cul-
tural heritage theory predicts continuity in patterns of American
and Japanese cultures, even during periods marked by signifi-
cant economic growth.
Method
Measure of Individualism–Collectivism. Individualistic and col-
lectivistic cultural syndromes manifest in a variety of social
and psychological processes. As such, its measurement should
8 Personality and Social Psychology Review 16(1)
also tap into a broad array of social and psychological phe-
nomena. Moreover, to carry out cross-temporal analyses,
this research requires indices with data available for decades.
These indices were obtained from two broad sources: demo-
graphics and archives of surveys.
Demographics compiled by various government agencies
were examined. With an interest in cross-temporal analysis,
the search was limited to those indices that were available
for at least a decade.
Similarly, indices were searched from surveys that were
conducted repeatedly for an extended period. Survey data
were searched from relevant literature (e.g., Putnam, 2000) as
well as online resources that archive these surveys (e.g., the
Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research).
Identified surveys included international surveys (the World
Values Survey [WVS] and the World Youth Survey [WYS])
and national surveys (the General Social Survey [GSS], the
American National Election Survey [ANES], the DDB
Lifestyle Survey [DDB], and the National Characteristic
Survey [NCS]; see the appendix also found online at http://
pspr.sagepub.com/supplemental for details). Items in these
surveys cover a variety of issues, such as religion, government
spending, gender relations, race relations, immigration, and
confidence in various public institutions. Although none of the
surveys was designed to measure individualism–collectivism,
some of the items investigated issues pertaining to this dimen-
sion. Prior research guided the identification of these items.
Again, because of the interest in cultural changes, this search
was limited to items with data available for at least a decade.
Validation. Next, the items’ conceptual linkage with
individualism–collectivism was empirically verified. This step
is important for two reasons. First, many of the indices have not
been used in prior research, and the empirical relationships
with individualism–collectivism are unknown. Second,
research in cultural psychology cautions against interpreting
self-report responses on explicit self-beliefs and values, as
these responses not only are confounded with response style
differences (e.g., Heine et al., 2002) but also are poorly cor-
related with other types of measures (Kitayama et al., 2009;
Na et al., 2010). To ensure that the findings from the survey
items extend beyond self-report responses, the items’ linkage
with individualism–collectivism was verified against behav-
ioral indices of individualism–collectivism.
Items were validated either internationally or domestically.
Those indices where data were available for both countries
(i.e., demographics and items from the international surveys)
were validated by international indices of individualism–
collectivism using the following procedure. First, for each
index, the most recent worldwide data were obtained, and
these data were correlated with three independent indices of
individualism–collectivism. The three indices were the index
developed by Hofstede (1984), which is based on self-report
data, as well as two indices that rely on non-self-report
data: the index of pronoun drop, or whether the language of
a society allows pronouns to be dropped (E. Kashima &
Kashima, 1998), and the index of pathogen prevalence, or
the extent to which disease-causing pathogens were prevalent
in a society’s historical environment (Fincher et al., 2008;
Murray & Schaller, 2010). The linguistic practice of pronoun
drop indicates collectivism as the practice reduces the sym-
bolic prominence of an actor and contextualizes the action
(E. Kashima & Kashima, 1998). The pathogen prevalence
indicates collectivism because collectivistic tendencies, such
as conformity, reluctance toward interactions with out-groups,
and adherence to social norms, are an effective defense against
disease-causing pathogens (Fincher et al., 2008).
These three indices are highly correlated (rs > .63).
Nevertheless, they differ in the number and coverage of coun-
tries. For this reason, the three resulting correlations were
averaged, and indices were retained if the average correlation
exceeded |.30| in the theorized direction (see Table 1). For
example, the worldwide data on the percentage of population
living in urban areas (United Nations Statistics Division,
2009) had an average correlation of .32 with individualism (rs
with Hofstede = .30, pathogen prevalence = .43, and pronoun
drop = .23), and thus this item was retained. Of the interna-
tional surveys, the WYS is administered in only five coun-
tries. To increase the reliability of the validation, for the items
obtained from this source, data from the three most recent
administrations were obtained.
For items identified in national surveys, the empirical
relationship to individualism–collectivism was examined at
the regional level within each country. For the items identi-
fied in American surveys, data from the three most recent
administrations were obtained for all states (the ANES and
the DDB) or regions (the GSS) and were correlated with the
scores of individualism–collectivism for American states that
were compiled from a set of demographic indices (Vandello &
Cohen, 1999). Regional scores of individualism–collectivism
were obtained by averaging the scores for the encompassing
states. Indices with a correlation greater than |.30| in the theo-
rized direction were obtained (see Table 1). For example, an
item from the ANES asked, “Generally speaking, would you
say that most people can be trusted, or that you can’t be too
careful in dealing with people?” The percentage of agreement
with the former option across states correlated at .62 with
individualism, and thus the item was retained.
For items from the Japanese survey, data from the three most
recent administrations were obtained for all regions and were
correlated with the scores of individualism–collectivism
(Hitokoto, Murabe, Narita, & Tanaka-Matsumi, 2010). Hitokoto
et al. (2010) developed this index using a method similar to
Vandello and Cohen (1999) to reveal regional variations in
individualism–collectivism within Japan. Regional scores of
individualism–collectivism were obtained by averaging the
scores for the encompassing prefectures. Items with a correla-
tion greater than |.30| in the theorized direction were obtained
(see Table 1). For example, an item from the NCS asked about
important moral principles, with “respect individual rights”
Hamamura 9

Table 1. Obtained Indices and Their Theoretical and Empirical Relations to Individualism–Collectivism

Empirical relation
Index Source Theoretical relation (r)
International indices
1. Household size Government Family relationship −.73
2. Divorce Government Family relationship .35
3. Percentage of population living in urban areas Government Urbanization .32
4. “Regardless of what the qualities and faults of one’s parents are, one must WVS Family relationship −.65
always love and respect them” (% agreement)
5. “Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or WVS General trust .49
that you need to be very careful in dealing with people?” (% choosing
the former)
6. % choosing “independence” as an important quality that children can be WVS Socialization .32
encouraged to learn at home
7. “How important is friend?” (% responding important) WVS Importance of .48
friendship
8. “When do you feel that you are living a fulfilling life?” (% choosing “when WYS Social values −.37
I’m involved with something helpful for society”)
9. “Which two factors on this list do you think are most important for WYS Importance of effort −.53
becoming successful in life?” (% choosing “personal effort”)
American indices
10. “Most people are honest.” (% agreement) DDB General trust .61
11. “Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted, or that ANES General trust .62
you can’t be too careful in dealing with people?” (% choosing the former)
12. “Would you say that most of the time people try to be helpful, or that ANES General trust .43
they are mostly just looking out for themselves?” (% choosing the
former)
13. “Do you think most people would try to take advantage of you if they got ANES General trust .63
a chance, or would they try to be fair?” (% choosing the latter)
14. % choosing “to obey” as most important for a child to learn to prepare GSS Socialization −.66
him or her for life
15. % choosing “to think for himself or herself” as most important for a child GSS Socialization .71
to learn to prepare him or her for life
16. “Spend a social evening with relatives?” (% more than once a month) GSS Family relationship −.49
17. “Would you say that most of the time people try to be helpful, or that they GSS General trust .69
are mostly just looking out for themselves?” (% choosing the former)
18. “Do you think most people would try to take advantage of you if they got GSS General trust .76
a chance, or would they try to be fair?” (% choosing the latter)
19. “Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted, or that GSS General trust .75
you can’t be too careful in dealing with people?” (% choosing the former)
Japanese indices
20.“What are important moral principles?” (% choosing “respect individual right”) NCS Social values .36
21. “Suppose A’s parent is dying, but A has an extremely important business NCS Family relationship −.63
meeting. What should A do?” (% choosing “A should go see parent”)
22. “What are important moral principles?” (% choosing “honoring NCS Social values −.74
obligations”)
23. “Do you think that you should do what you feel is right even if that goes NCS Social values −.79
against tradition or that there is no mistake in following tradition?” (%
choosing following tradition)
24. “Between someone who emphasizes “being logical” and someone who NCS Social values −.33
emphasizes “being harmonious,” which type do you prefer?” (% choosing
“harmonious”)
25. “Do you think people would try to take advantage of you if they got a NCS General trust .38
chance, or not?” (% choosing the latter)
26. “What is most important to you?” (% mentioning “society/nation”) NCS Social values −.35

WVS = World Values Survey; WYS = World Youth Survey; DDB = DDB Lifestyle Survey; ANES = American National Election Survey; GSS = General Social
Survey; NCS = National Characteristic Survey. Correlations are between responses and the index of individualism–collectivism used for validation. A
positive correlation indicates individualism, whereas a negative correlation indicates collectivism.
10 Personality and Social Psychology Review 16(1)
being one of the options. The percentage of participants
choosing this option across regions in Japan correlated at .36
with individualism and thus the item was retained.
Two issues need to be noted concerning the item validation.
First, the validation resulted in many indices that were theo-
retically relevant to individualism–collectivism not being
retained for lack of empirical relationships (e.g., the theoretical
relationship was not verified) or for lack of sufficient data for
validation (e.g., regional data were not available). Second,
because all of the benchmarks of individualism–collectivism
used for validation operationalize the single-dimension struc-
ture, the obtained indices were also analyzed on the single
dimension with individualism and collectivism being two
opposing ends, which is appropriate for the analysis of a culture-
level trend (Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca,
1988; Vandello & Cohen, 1999).
Indices of Individualism–Collectivism. A total of 26 indices met
the above inclusion criteria (see Table 1). These indices fell
into one of the following themes. Some items assessed the
strength of family relationships. Research indicates that
family relationships tend to be stronger and closer in collec-
tivistic societies (Triandis, 1995). Sample items in this cate-
gory are demographic, such as household size and divorce
rates, and survey items on family values (e.g., unconditional
love toward parents) and frequency of social interactions with
family members.
One survey item assessed the importance of friendship.
Research suggests that individualistic societies place greater
value on friendship than collectivistic societies do: For example,
individualists have more positive attitudes toward friends
than collectivists, whose attitudes toward friends tend to be more
ambivalent (Adams & Plaut, 2003).
A demographic on urbanization tracks the proportion of
population living in urban areas. Research suggests that urban-
ization is characterized by social relations that are detached
from traditional collectivistic social relations, and it is regarded
as one of the primary societal forces behind individualism
(Y. Kashima et al., 2004).
A number of survey items assessed social values. A few
of them assessed values in child socialization: independence
and obedience. Research suggests that child socialization
focuses on nurturing independence in individualistic societ-
ies and obedience in collectivistic societies (Triandis, 1995).
Other items assessed values such as social obligation, social
harmony, tradition following, contribution to a collectivistic
goal, and the importance of society or nation: All of these are
characteristic of collectivism (Triandis, 1995). In addition,
one item assessed the importance of individual right, which
is associated with individualism (Triandis, 1995).
A number of survey items assessed general trust of others.
Research finds that individualists are more trusting of general
others (vs. intimate others) than collectivists are. Specifically,
in collectivistic societies, where important social relations
tend to concentrate within in-groups, trust does not generalize
beyond in-group members, whereas in individualistic societ-
ies social relationships tend to be more expansive and trust
is not confined to in-groups: in fact, general trust of others
serves as a lubricant for expansive social interactions (Yamagishi
& Yamagishi, 1994).
Finally, one survey item assessed the importance of per-
sonal effort for success. Research suggests that effort is val-
ued more in collectivistic societies than in individualistic
societies, as it is seen as a key for goals valued in these societ-
ies, such as self-improvement and social harmony (Heine et al.,
1999). For instance, a study asking participants about the
relative contribution of effort and the innate ability for intelli-
gence found that whereas Japanese participants, on average,
attributed 55% of intelligence to effort, that proportion was
only 36% among European American participants (Heine
et al., 2001). This linkage between the importance of effort
and collectivism was confirmed in the validation that collec-
tivistic societies placed relatively greater importance on effort
than individualistic societies did (r = –.53).
Results
Data Analysis. All of the indices except average household size
and the divorce rate were obtained via percentage (see Table
1). Historical changes in the obtained indices were analyzed in
three ways: ecological correlation, annual change, and scatter
plot. First, for each index, a correlation with year was com-
puted (see Table 2). This correlation captured a linear trend of
each index over time. The direction of these correlations was
standardized based on the validated relationship with the
dimension: A positive correlation was set to indicate an
increase of individualism, whereas a negative correlation was
set to indicate an increase of collectivism. These were ecologi-
cal correlations (correlations between group-level values;
Robinson, 1950), which are appropriate for studying culture-
level phenomenon, but they could not be used to infer individ-
ual-level phenomena. The sample size of these correlations
corresponded to the number of years in which a particular item
was administered; thus, they were small, especially for the
survey indices, despite the fact that the items were adminis-
tered to thousands of participants over the years. For this rea-
son, analyses of the correlations focused on their direction and
magnitude and not on significance tests.
There is no established convention for interpreting the size
of ecological correlations, partly because ecological correla-
tions are known to produce a larger magnitude compared to
individual-level correlations (Robinson, 1950). Furthermore,
correlations that are large in magnitude could be obtained from
changes that are relatively small in absolute magnitude (i.e., a
linear trend for a small change). For these reasons, analyses
of absolute magnitude accompanied the correlations. For each
index, the difference between the two earliest and the two
latest values was obtained, and the difference was divided by
the number of years the index was available (see Table 2).
For example, an item from the GSS assessed the importance
Hamamura 11

Table 2. Patterns of Cultural Change: Ecological Correlations and Annual Changes

Ecological
Item Source correlation (r) Annual change (%)
International indices
1. Household size Government USA: .96
Japan: .94
2. Divorce Government USA: .52
Japan: .90
3. Urban population Government USA: .96 USA: .26
Japan: .97 Japan: .52
4. Love and respect for parents WVS USA: –.78 USA: .21
Japan: –.22 Japan: –.05
5. Most people can be trusted WVS USA: –.35 USA: –.33
Japan: –.30 Japan: –.02
6. Independence important for child socialization WVS USA: .77 USA: .64
Japan: .96 Japan: 1.07
7. Friend important WVS USA: .43 USA: .03
Japan: .47 Japan: .04
8. Social contribution important for fulfilling life WYS USA: .89 USA: –.80
Japan: –.71 Japan: .45
9. Effort important for successful life WYS USA: –.65 USA: .16
Japan: –.76 Japan: .20
American indices
10. Most people are honest. DDB −.88 −.60
11. Most people can be trusted ANES −.42 −.01
12. Most people try to be helpful ANES .81 .35
13. Most people would try to be fair ANES .16 .14
14. Obedience important for child socialization GSS .73 −.24
15. Thinking for oneself important for child socialization GSS −.86 −.31
16. Socialize with relatives at least once a month GSS −.13 .01
17. Most people try to be helpful GSS −.35 −.06
18. Most people would try to be fair GSS −.82 −.23
19. Most people can be trusted GSS −.80 −.39
Japanese indices
20. Respecting individual right is an important moral principle NCS −.81 −.26
21. Family life more important than business engagement NCS .36 −.11
22. Honoring obligation is an important moral principle NCS −.55 .16
23. Following tradition is important NCS .19 −.12
24. Social harmony is important NCS −.39 .03
25. Most people would not take advantage of you even if they got a chance NCS .71 .20
26. Most important: society/nation NCS −.77 −.06

WVS = World Values Survey; WYS = World Youth Survey; DDB = DDB Lifestyle Survey; ANES = American National Election Survey; GSS = General Social
Survey; NCS = National Characteristic Survey. Numbers next to the items correspond to numbers in Table 1. For change, a positive correlation indicates
the rise of individualism, whereas a negative correlation indicates the rise of collectivism.

of obedience in child socialization. In 1986, 23.4% of the
participants thought obedience was important, and in 1987,
19.9% of the respondents had the same response. In contrast,
in 2006 and 2008 only 17.0% and 15.7% of the participants
thought obedience was important, respectively. This index
had an average annual change rate of 0.24% (or a 5.3% differ-
ence over a 22-year period). Given the average population of
more than 110 million in Japan and 230 million in the United
States, for the past several decades, a 1% change roughly cor-
responds to annual changes in more than 1.1 million Japanese
and 2.3 million Americans.
Indices with correlations below |.10| or annual rates less
than 0.1% (or changes that are less than 1% per decade) were
operationalized as not showing changes. This conservative
criterion was selected to conduct analyses that are sensitive
to cultural changes. In addition, all of the indices were plotted
against year and visually inspected for nonlinear trends.
Changes in the United States. In the United States, average
household size decreased over time (r = .96), whereas the
proportion of people living in urban areas (r = .96) and the
divorce rate (r = .52) increased over time (see Table 2,
12 Personality and Social Psychology Review 16(1)
3 Divorce: US (2)
2 Urban: JP (3)
0
1950 1960 1970 1980
Year
Figure 2. Changes in divorce rate, household size, and urban population
Figure 2). These are dramatic changes. In 1950, the average
American household consisted of 3.4 people, but in 2006 the
average was 2.6 people. Urban population increased at an
average annual rate of 0.3%, which equates to about 700,000
Americans migrating to urban areas every year since 1950.
Similarly, in 1950, only 2.6 out of every 1,000 Americans
experienced divorce, whereas the rate was 3.8 in 2003. These
findings are consistent with the modernization theory: During
a period of steady economic growth, individualism increased.
In the scatter plot, one nonlinear trend was apparent: The
divorce rate in the United States peaked around 1980 and has
gradually decreased since then (r = –.98 since 1980 vs. .52 over-
all). In past research, this trend has been attributed to factors
such as an aging population and the rise of cohabitation in
the United States (Goldstein, 1999).
Next, findings from the survey indices were examined
(see Table 2, Figures 3 through 6). The importance of obedience
in child socialization decreased (r = .73). The percentage of
young adults feeling that social contribution is important for
a fulfilling life also decreased over time (r = .89). These find-
ings also indicate a rise in individualism.
However, this pattern did not emerge in the other indices.
Over the years, agreement with unconditional love and respect
for parents increased (r = –.78), and, among young adults,
the perceived importance of effort for success increased (r =
–.65). To the extent that strong family relations and importance
of personal effort for success are associated with collectivism,
increases in these indices suggest a rise in collectivism. Furthermore,
the importance of friendship (r = .43, annual change = .03%)
Household: US (1)
Household: JP (1)
Divorce: JP (2)
Urban: US (3)
1990 2000 2010
and the frequency of interactions with relatives have not changed
over time (r = –.13, annual change = .01%).
Two items assessed the importance of independence in
child socialization. The item from the WVS (importance of
“independence”) indicated a rising importance of independence
(r = .77). In contrast, a similar item from the GSS (impor-
tance of “think for oneself”) showed the opposite pattern (r =
–.86). The divergence between these two items is surprising,
as the two items not only are similar in content and time cov-
erage but also are correlated with individualism in the valida-
tion (r with individualism was .32 for the WVS item and .71
for the GSS item).
Several indices assessed Americans’ trust of other people.
Three indices asked participants whether most people in soci-
ety could be trusted (see Figure 5). Findings across these three
items converged in showing the decline of trust in American
society (rs < –.35). In terms of annual changes, the item from
the ANES showed no change (annual change = –.01%),
whereas two other indices showed a decline (the GSS: -.39%;
the WVS: -.33%). Hence, a discrepancy among surveys was
found. The decline of trust was also found in a decreasing
percentage of Americans feeling that most people are honest
(r = –.88). These findings generally replicate prior research
documenting the decline of trust in American society
(Putnam, 2000).
There were four additional items on trust. Two items asked
whether most people would try to be helpful or just look out
for themselves (from the ANES and the GSS), and two items
asked whether most people would try to be fair or try to take
Hamamura
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
1950 1960 1970 1980
Year
Figure 3. Indices from international surveys
The U.S. Numbers inside the parentheses correspond to numbers in Table 1.
advantage of another if they got the chance (also from the
ANES and the GSS; see Figure 6). However, for both of these
items, the findings from the GSS and the ANES diverged.
Although items from the GSS showed that Americans have
developed a less benevolent view of others over time (rs <
–.35), items from the ANES showed the opposite pattern
(rs > .16). With an inspection of scatter plots, one trend that
was common to all of the ANES items (but not to items from
other sources) was that they showed a rise in trust since 2000.
Nevertheless, the source of the discrepancy is not clear: These
items not only are very similar in item content and time cov-
erage but also have a similar empirical relationship to individu-
alism in the validation process (rs with individualism > .43).
Findings Summary. Diverging patterns were observed across
indices. The rise of individualism was observed in both the
residential and the family environment: Over the years, urban
population increased, household size became smaller, and
divorce became more prevalent. These changes were accom-
panied by changes in some attitudes and values: A smaller
percentage of Americans today value social contribution and
obedience in children. However, other indices did not fit this
pattern. Relationships with family and friends have been largely
stable or have even strengthened over time, as indicated by
the continuing importance of friendship and interactions with
relatives and an increase in unconditional love and respect
for parents. Moreover, young adults in the United States today
perceive a greater importance of effort for success. In addition,
Americans have become less trusting of others over the years.
13
Respect parents (4)
Trust (5)
Independence (6)
Friend (7)
Social contribution (8)
Effort (9)
1990 2000 2010
Changes in Japan. Similar to in the United States, in Japan the
average household size decreased (r = .94), whereas the
proportion of people living in urban areas (r = .97) and the
divorce rate (r = .90) increased (see Table 2, Figure 2). These
changes are even more pronounced than the American pattern:
In 1950, the average household consisted of 5 people, but
in 2006 the average was 2.7 people. The urban population
increased at a rate of 0.6% per year, equivalent to about
600,000 Japanese migrating to urban areas every year since
1950. In 1950, only 1 out of every 1,000 Japanese experienced
divorce, whereas the rate was 2.3 out of every 1,000 in 2004.
The corresponding trend was found in some but not all sur-
vey indices (see Table 2, Figures 7 and 8). The importance of
independence in child socialization increased (r = .96), and
following tradition is seen as less important today (r = .19).
When family life is pitted against business engagement, a
greater proportion of Japanese today would choose business
over family (r = .36). These trends suggest a rise of individual-
ism in Japan over the past several decades, a period character-
ized by steady economic growth (see Figure 1).
However, this pattern did not apply to other indices. The
importance of social obligation increased (r = –.55), whereas
the importance of individual rights decreased (r = –.81).
Among young adults, the perceived importance of effort for
success increased (r = –.76). Furthermore, the percentage of
young adults feeling that making a positive contribution to
society is important for a fulfilling life has increased over time
(r = –.71). These trends suggest a rise of collectivism in Japan.
Some indices indicated no changes over time. For example,
14 Personality and Social Psychology Review 16(1)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
1950 1960 1970 1980
Year
Figure 4. Indices from U.S. national surveys (excluding items related to trust)
Numbers inside the parentheses correspond to numbers in Table 1.
Japanese’s feelings of unconditional love and respect for parents
were unchanged over time (r = –.22, annual change = –.05%), as
were the importance of friendship (r = .47, annual change =
.04%), social harmony (r = –.39, annual change = .03%), and
society or nation (r = –.77, annual change = –.06%).
Two items assessed trust among the Japanese. The item
asking whether most people can be trusted showed no change
(r = –.30, annual change -.02%). In contrast, when asked
whether people would try to take advantage of another if
they got the chance, the percentage of Japanese disagreeing
with this item actually increased over time (r = .71), indicating
an increase in the benevolent view of others in society.
Findings Summary. In Japan, the rise of individualism was
observed in both the residential and family environments:
Over the years, Japanese migrated to urban areas, household
size became smaller, and divorce became more prevalent.
These changes were accompanied by changes in attitudes
and values: Following tradition has become less important
over time, and independence is seen as more important in
child socialization today. Furthermore, when given a choice
between seeing a dying parent and attending an important busi-
ness meeting, more Japanese today would go to the business
meeting. However, this pattern did not apply to other indices.
The importance of unconditional love toward parents, friend-
ship, and social harmony has not changed over time. Moreover,
the importance of social obligations has increased, whereas
respect for individual rights has become less important. In
Obedience (14)
Think for self (15)
Relative (16)
1990 2000 2010
addition, an increasing number of young adults perceived a
greater importance of effort for success and felt that social
contribution is important for a fulfilling life. Concerning trust
of others, the available indices do not indicate a decline of
trust in Japan.
Discussion
The modernization theory has been enormously influential
as a theory of cultural change and has also shaped our every-
day thinking (Y. Kashima et al., 2009). The current research
examined an empirical foundation to this theory in the context
of cross-temporal changes in individualism–collectivism in
the United States and Japan. Diverging patterns of changes
emerged across indices.
Modernization. Some findings from this research clearly
support the modernization theory. In both countries, the aver-
age household has become smaller, urban population has
increased, and divorce has become more prevalent. In addi-
tion to these changes in living and family environments,
corresponding changes were observed in attitudes and val-
ues. In the United States, obedience is less important in child
socialization today and a smaller proportion of young adults
value social contribution. Similarly, in Japan, following
tradition has become less important over time and indepen-
dence in child socialization is valued more. To the extent that
these changes occurred in a period characterized by steady
Hamamura
100%
80%
Most people can be trusted
60%
40%
20%
0%
1950 1960 1970
Figure 5. “Most people can be trusted or you need to be very careful in dealing with people?”
Numbers inside the parentheses correspond to numbers in Table 1.
economic growth, these findings are consistent with the
modernization theory.
One pattern that is also consistent with the modernization
theory is the rising importance of effort for success observed
in both countries. One of the implications of modernization is
labor specialization, which would require employees to have
specialized training. Moreover, with the constant advances in
technology, the competency of a modern workforce demands
constant updating of skills and knowledgebase. In other words,
the success of a modern workforce necessitates hard work and
an achievement-oriented mind-set in employees (McClelland,
1961). In fact, rapid modernization of East Asian societies
has been attributed to cultural systems that sanction hard
work and effort (Dore, 1973). This rationale suggests that the
increasing importance of effort for a successful life felt among
young adults may reflect the continuing growth of the American
and Japanese economies.
In sum, the modernization theory successfully affirms some
of the cultural changes observed in the United States and Japan
for the past several decades. At the same time, however,
other changes observed in this research are inconsistent with
the modernization theory. In fact, these findings highlight its
limitations as a theory of cultural change. In the following
sections, findings that did not fit the modernization theory
are considered.
Changes in Family, Friendship, and Trust of Others. Findings on
family life, friendship, and general social trust did not fit with
15
WVS (5)
ANES (11)
GSS (19)
1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
the modernization theory. First, findings on the importance
of family and friends diverged across indices. On one hand,
demographic indices of family relations (i.e., household size
and divorce rates) indicate a weakened family relationship in
both countries. On the other hand, findings from survey
items suggest continuing importance of family and friends.
Specifically among Americans, the strength of relationships
with relatives was unchanged, and the proportion of people
feeling unconditional respect and love toward their parents
actually increased over time. Similarly, among Japanese uncon-
ditional love toward parents has not changed over time. In
both countries, the importance of friends was unchanged.
The continuing importance of family among Americans
has been reported before (Thornton & Young-DeMarco, 2001).
It has been argued that these patterns highlight changes in the
meaning of family life: Although Americans continue to value
family life, these relationships are much less obligatory (e.g.,
more aged people needing support live independently of their
children today compared to previous decades) and more voluntary
in nature today than in the past (Thornton & Young-DeMarco,
2001). Current findings suggest that a similar process might
be occurring in Japan. Hence, one interpretation of these find-
ings is that although modernization processes transformed
the physical environment surrounding relationships with fam-
ily and friends, Americans and Japanese continue to value
family and friends, probably in a less obligatory and more vol-
untary fashion today compared to previous decades. However,
these patterns await further research. The current data set had
16 Personality and Social Psychology Review 16(1)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
1950 1960 1970 1980
Year
Figure 6. Indices from U.S. national surveys: other items related to trust
Numbers inside the parentheses correspond to numbers in Table 1.
just two demographic indices, a few attitudinal items of family
relations, and a single attitudinal item on friendship. Moreover,
one Japanese survey item that pitted the importance of family
against business engagement showed that more Japanese
today would choose business over family, showing a conflict-
ing pattern, although this item does not necessarily suggest the
declining importance of family irrespective of the importance
of business. Clearly, more research, for example through a cre-
ative analysis of archival data as discussed below, is warranted.
Unlike relationships with family and friends, trust of others
showed a diverging pattern between the two countries: Although
the level of trust declined among Americans (replicating
Putnam, 2000) the same pattern did not emerge in Japan. The
finding that the decline of trust observed in American society
may not generalize to Japan was suggested in the past (Inoguchi,
2000) but to my knowledge this is the first documentation of
such a pattern.
Research on declining trust in American society has attrib-
uted the trend to such factors as increased pressure for time
and money, more time spent in private, and a rise of electronic
entertainment (Putnam, 2000). However, in Japanese society,
where these changes seem to have occurred as well, trust has
largely been stable. This consideration casts some doubt on
the generality of Putnam’s theory of declining trust in cross-
cultural examinations (Inoguchi, 2000). An alternative possi-
bility for the diverging pattern is racial and cultural diversity
Honest (10)
Helpful: ANES (12)
Fair: ANES (13)
Helpful: GSS (17)
Fair: GSS (18)
1990 2000 2010
in a society. Research suggests that racial and cultural diver-
sity is one of the predictors of trust at the community level,
presumably because it is more difficult to trust others who are
racially and culturally dissimilar (Alesina & La Ferrara, 2002).
This suggests that trust of others might have decreased in
American society because of increased racial and cultural
heterogeneity in American society, whereas trust has remained
unchanged in Japan because of its continuing racial and cul-
tural homogeneity. This rationale is consistent with the statis-
tics on immigration: Although in the United States the proportion
of foreign-born citizens increased in the past several decades,
in Japan such a proportion has remained small and largely
unchanged over time (World Bank, 2010). Hence, the rise of
racial and cultural diversity in the United States and continuing
racial and cultural homogeneity in Japan may account for the
diverging pattern of trust.
Collectivism in Modern Japan. Perhaps the most intriguing
aspect of this research is the persistence of collectivism in
Japan: In several indices, there were signs of persisting,
even rising, collectivism. One commonality in these indices
is that they assessed the importance of collectivistic living
(increased importance in social obligation, social harmony, and
social contribution and decreased importance in individual
rights). In fact, these findings confirm prior cross-temporal anal-
yses of Japanese society that reported continuing emphasis on
Hamamura
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
1950 1960 1970 1980
Year
Figure 7. Indices from international surveys: Japan
Numbers inside the parentheses correspond to numbers in Table 1.
group orientation, social harmony, and obligation (Caudill,
1973; Flanagan, 1979; Trommsdorff, 1983). These findings
are consistent with the cultural heritage theory and show that
the importance of collectivistic living has continued in Japa-
nese society even during a period of significant economic
development.
Other research has also suggested the role of cultural heri-
tage in continuing cultural tradition (Inglehart & Baker, 2000).
However, the processes through which heritage sustains cul-
tural tradition has not received much systematic attention. In
the following sections, the mechanism of cultural continuity
is considered.
Cultural Heritage and the Persistence of Cultural Tradition. One
way in which cultural heritage sustains a pattern of culture is
by shaping the effects of modernization. There are a number of
examples of this process in prior research. One of the conse-
quences of modernization is mass education, as modernized
societies require a workforce that is trained for a socially and
technologically complex environment. Across societies,
there is commonality in the contents of education (i.e., skills
taught in school), but research suggests that societies vary
greatly in how these contents are taught. For example, Tweed
and Lehman (2002) argued that although the Western
approach to learning is influenced by the Socratic method
characterized by habits of questioning, expressing personal
17
Respect parents (4)
Trust (5)
Independence (6)
Friend (7)
Social contribution (8)
Effort (9)
1990 2000 2010
hypotheses, and esteeming self-directed learning, the East
Asian approach to learning is influenced by the Confucian tra-
dition characterized by habits of hard work, self-improve-
ment, and pragmatic orientation to learning. Hence, even
though greater accessibility of education is one of the conse-
quences of modernization, societies’ educational philosophy
is profoundly influenced by their cultural heritage, and
schooling actually serves to reinforce cultural heritage.
Another example of a pattern of culture shaping the effect of
modernization can be found in mass advertisement. Although
the rise of mass advertisement is another consequence of
modernization (Inkeles, 1975), the ways in which advertise-
ments are designed differ across cultures, as successful adver-
tisements accommodate the tastes of local consumers. For
example, Kim and Markus (1999) found that advertisements
in American and Korean magazines differ in that American
ads tended to focus more on the theme of the pursuit of unique-
ness, whereas Korean ads focused more on the theme of
social harmony. To the extent that advertisements are sources
of social influence, this example also suggests that mass
advertisements may reinforce cultural heritage, in that exposure
to advertisements portraying conformity may reinforce con-
formity among Koreans.
One difficult question regarding the idea of cultural heri-
tage is its origin. That is, how is it that American society came
to value uniqueness, whereas Korean society came to value
18 Personality and Social Psychology Review 16(1)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
1950 1960 1970 1980
Year
Figure 8. Indices from Japanese national surveys
Numbers inside the parentheses correspond to numbers in Table 1.
conformity? More broadly, how is it that Western societies
came to become individualistic and East Asian societies
collectivistic?
Research has examined this question from a number of per-
spectives. Some theorists have sought the origin to intellec-
tual and religious traditions, such as the tradition of Greek
civilization (Nisbett, 2003) or the Protestant Reformation
in the West (Weber, 1904/1992) and the tradition of
Buddhism and Confucianism in East Asia (Collcutt, 1991;
Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Nisbett, 2003).
Others have focused on ecological factors. Barry, Child,
and Bacon (1959) focused on the schedule of food accumula-
tion. In this framework, an agriculture-based community repre-
sents one end of the continuum, a high-food-accumulation
community. In such a community, food is harvested in large
quantities infrequently, and the processes of food production
are managed carefully to ensure the availability of enough
food for the community. Adherence to social norms and con-
formity are encouraged, and risk taking is discouraged, as
the potential benefit from innovation is outweighed by the
danger of a food shortage in the case of failure. On the other
hand, hunting represents a low level of food accumulation.
Obtaining food is largely dependent on one’s skill. Moreover,
as food is obtained more frequently, the benefit of innovation
outweighs its cost: Successful innovation could bring an abun-
dant accumulation of food, whereas a failure is not necessar-
ily life threatening. These predictions have empirical support:
Frequency of food accumulation was indeed found to predict
societies’ orientation toward individualism–collectivism
Individual right (20)
Family over business (21)
Obligation (22)
Tradition (23)
Harmony (24)
Not take advantage (25)
Society most important (26)
1990 2000 2010
in worldwide studies of ethnographies (Barry et al., 1959)
as well as in cross-cultural experiments (Berry, 1967).
Another possible socioecological cause of individualism–
collectivism is the historical prevalence of disease-causing
pathogens in the environment (Fincher et al., 2008). According
to this theory, collectivism works as a defense mechanism
against pathogens. For example, a reluctance to interact with
members of an out-group can protect individuals from poten-
tial exposure to novel pathogens. Similarly, the norm of con-
formity, to the extent that it helps preserve rituals and customs
that buffer against the risk of infectious disease, is an effec-
tive defense against pathogens. Supporting this idea, Fincher
et al. found that the historical prevalence of pathogens was
positively correlated with collectivism (also see Hamamura
& Park, 2010; Schaller & Murray, 2008).
Another socioecological theory of individualism–collectivism
has focused on the role of mobility. For example, Kitayama,
Ishii, et al. (2006) focused on the role of voluntary settlement.
They theorized that voluntary migrants are a self-selected
group of highly autonomous, independent, and goal-oriented
individuals. Moreover, to the extent that settlements are
occupied by these individuals, a highly individualistic ethos
develops in these areas, which further reinforces individualistic
mentality in a mutually reinforcing fashion. Supporting this
hypothesis, in a series of experiments, Japanese living in
the northern island of Hokkaido, which was the destination
for many voluntary migrants in the late 19th century, exhibited
psychological processes of individualism (e.g., internal
attribution, dissonance reduction for personal choices,
Hamamura
happiness predicted by socially disengaging emotions)
more so than Japanese living outside Hokkaido. Recent
research has also identified other forms of mobility (e.g., resi-
dential, employment, social relationships) in predicting indi-
vidualistic psychological processes (Chen, Chiu, & Chan,
2009; Oishi, Lun, & Sherman, 2007; Schug, Yuki, & Maddux,
2010). In sum, this line of research suggests historical and
ecological factors that presumably gave rise to cross-cul-
tural variations in individualism–collectivism.
Functional Autonomy: Subjective Representation in Continuing
Culture. Another important question is the process by which
the influence of distal factors continues into contemporary
environments, where at times these original factors are no
longer present. On this question, research introduced the
idea of “functional autonomy,” a mechanism in which cul-
ture, once evoked, can have a life of its own (Cohen, 2001).
The persistence of the culture of honor in contemporary the
southern United States, which began with a herding economy
that is no longer prevalent, provides one illuminating case of
functional autonomy (Nisbett & Cohen, 1996).
When applied to the individualism–collectivism research,
the theory of functional autonomy suggests that the individ-
ualism–collectivism differences of today may be legacies
of historically evoked patterns of culture that have been car-
ried forward by a subjective representation of that culture
(Yamagishi, Hashimoto, & Schug, 2008). That is, cross-cultural
variations in individualism–collectivism today may reflect
differences in individuals’ representation of culture that are
maintained independently of the external environment that
gave rise to such differences in the first place.
Research has located processes in which individuals’ rep-
resentation of culture are maintained culturally in socializa-
tion practices (Ng, Pomerantz, & Lam, 2007), communication
(E. Kashima & Kashima, 1998), media (Kim & Markus, 1999),
and legal institutions (Nisbett & Cohen, 1996). Similarly,
Nisbett and colleagues have maintained that the heritage of
Greek civilization in the West and Buddhism and Confucianism
in East Asia are maintained today by social norms, socializa-
tion, communication practices, aesthetic preferences (Masuda,
Gonzalez, Kwan, & Nisbett, 2008), architecture and landscape
(Miyamoto, Nisbett, & Masuda, 2006), and social and legal
institutions (Nisbett et al., 2001).
Recent research has started to examine directly the role of
subjective representation in shaping psychological processes.
In a series of studies, Zou et al. (2009) found that individual-
istic and collectivistic psychological processes are predicted
by people’s representations of culture. In these studies, Hong
Kong Chinese who believed Hong Kong was a collectivistic
society were more collectivistic in their behaviors (e.g., showed
more compliance and situational attribution) compared to oth-
ers (also see Yamagishi et al., 2008, for similar findings among
Japanese). In sum, people’s representation of their culture and
their cultural environment reinforce each other in a mutually
constitutive way (Markus & Kitayama, 1991): Exposure to
social and cultural institutions shapes people’s representation
19
of culture, which in turn shapes their cultural environment.
This process of mutual reinforcement continues in a function-
ally autonomous fashion, independently of the external fac-
tor that gave rise to cultural differences in the first place.
To summarize, research has identified several distal fac-
tors of cross-cultural variations in individualism–collectivism.
Influence of these factors can be carried across generations by
subjective representation in a functionally autonomous fash-
ion. When viewed under this framework, the persistence of
collectivism in modern Japan is not surprising. Collectivism
in Japan today is likely reflecting legacies of historical and
ecological conditions that evoked collectivism in the first
place, and such a legacy has been carried forward via
Japanese’s representations of their culture. Thus, findings
from the current research underscore the importance of
research examining the role of societies’ cultural heritage and
its persistence within the population.
Implications and Limitations. The current findings showed
diverging patterns across different aspects of individualism–
collectivism. Previous sections have illustrated the factors and
processes behind the diversion.
However, one alternative explanation of this pattern is the
process of cultural lag, or the idea that aspects of individualism–
collectivism differ in the speed in which they are modernized.
That is, this theory would suggest that even those aspects of
Japanese culture that remain collectivistic today will eventu-
ally modernize and will shift toward greater individualism.
Such an account is plausible, although there are at least two
problems. First, it is unclear how much time is needed for
modernization effects to take place: Without the specifica-
tion of time, the theory of cultural lag is unfalsifiable. Second,
even if cultural lag is taking place and the rise of individualism
will be observed eventually in all aspects of individualism–
collectivism, why some of these changes lag others needs to
be explained. In turn, it seems inevitable that such an expla-
nation incorporates the role of cultural heritage. Hence, even
if the cultural lag theory were made falsifiable, and the changes
it predicted were observed eventually, it seems that such a
theory would still require the role of cultural heritage in
accounting for patterns of cultural changes.
Methodologically, this research’s reliance on survey indices
has implications. A large majority of the indices in this research
were self-report items of beliefs and values. Research suggests
not only that self-report items are compromised by method-
ological issues (e.g., Heine et al., 2002) but also that the
abstract beliefs and values assessed by these items are poorly
correlated with behavioral measures (Kitayama et al., 2009;
Na et al., 2010). In the current research, the process of vali-
dation, in which these indices were validated against behav-
ioral indices of individualism–collectivism, ensures that the
findings extend beyond self-reported responses. Nevertheless,
some ambiguous patterns in the findings may be attributable
to the self-report method. For example, there were cases in
which similarly worded items (e.g., items on the importance
of independence in child socialization in the United States
20 Personality and Social Psychology Review 16(1)

and different indices of trust showing diverging patterns among
Americans) administered for comparable time period showed
diverging patterns despite having the same validated relation-
ship with individualism–collectivism. In both cases, it is
unclear what factor accounts for the discrepancy. Research
in cultural psychology has overcome the limitations of
self-report data by employing a diversified methodological
approach. Researchers gain confidence in their findings when
a converging pattern emerges, for example, from a self-report
measure, an experiment, and an analysis of cultural product.
Similarly, alternative methodological approaches to cross-
temporal analysis of culture seeking data outside self-report
data should help overcome some of the ambiguities in the
current findings. One promising approach is to analyze cul-
tural product. Recent research in cultural psychology suggests
that patterns of culture can be measured reliably and accu-
rately in analyzing proverbs, news articles, magazine adver-
tisements, children’s storybooks, song lyrics, and landscapes,
among others (for a review, see Morling & Lamoreaux, 2008).
These techniques could be applied to cross-temporal research.
Finally, one challenge to studies of cross-temporal changes
is that the investigations are necessarily confined to preexisting
data: Unlike with other topic areas, it would be impossible to
administer a new measure to study psychological processes in
the past. There are a few issues implicated by this limitation,
one of which is the issue of validation. Although the indices in
this research were validated against independent indices of indi-
vidualism–collectivism, the validated relationships apply only
to contemporary data. In other words, whether the validated
relationships remain across time requires further examination.
However, carrying out such an examination is a challenge, as
there are no clear benchmarks of individualism–collectivism
across different periods. An example of the divorce rate in Japan
illustrates the nature of this challenge. In the beginning of the
20th century, divorce rates in Japan were among the highest in
the world, much higher than today’s level (Fuess, 2004). Fuess
(2004) maintained that prior to Japan’s encounter with modern
Western cultures in the late 19th century, the idea of marriage as
a sacred and eternal union was largely foreign in Japan. In sub-
sequent years, however, with increased exposure to Western
cultures, and with the government’s policy to stabilize marriage
as one of the key institutions for modernization, the longevity of
marriage has increased and the divorce rate has declined gradu-
ally, reaching its lowest level in the 1960s. This example sug-
gests that if one were to compare individualism–collectivism of
1900 and 2000 in Japan, using the divorce rate would be prob-
lematic, as marriage and its relationship to individualism–col-
lectivism were quite different between these two periods. More
generally, this example highlights the difficulty of establishing
indices’ validity across different periods.
To remedy this issue, in this research, cultural changes were
analyzed in a data-driven, bottom-up manner. This approach
was fruitful in identifying discrepant patterns across indices:
Identification of these patterns would have been difficult if
the data analysis had imposed a single dimension. Nevertheless,
the limitation posed by the validity issue is best addressed by
future research that examines the patterns identified here.
For example, analyses of cultural products such as individu-
alistic and collectivistic themes in magazine advertisements
or song lyrics would be important not only in extending this
research but also in providing a more comprehensive and
richer picture of cultural change.
Conclusion
One common belief inside and outside the field of cultural
psychology has been that cultures are becoming more indi-
vidualistic over time, especially in those parts of the world
where the economy is growing. Findings from this research
showed that the modernization theory is applicable to some,
but not all, changes in individualism–collectivism over time. A
comprehensive theory of cultural change requires consideration

Appendix
Characteristics of the surveys examined
Survey Country Time coverage Sample characteristic Reference
American National Election Studies United States Conducted every 2 About 1,000– American National Election
years since 1948 2,000, nationally Studies (2009)
representative sample
DDB Lifestyle Survey United States Conducted every About 3,500–4,000 Putnam (2000)
year between 1975 participants recruited by
and 1999 commercial polling firms
General Social Survey United States Conducted every 1 to About 1,500, nationally Davis, Smith, and Marsden
2 years since 1972 representative sample (2009)
National Characteristic Survey Japan Conducted every 5 About 2,000– Institutes of Statistical
years since 1953 3,000, nationally Mathematics (2009)
representative sample
World Values Survey International Conducted 5 times About 1,000– World Values Survey
since 1981 (as of 2,000, nationally Association (2009)
2009) representative sample
World Youth Survey International Conducted every 5 About 1,000, nationally Government of Japan Cabinet
years since 1972 representative sample, Office (2009)
ages 18–24
Hamamura
of modernization effects as well as the role of cultural heri-
tage, considering questions such as how a pattern of culture
emerges and how such a pattern continues over time, even in
the face of a changing environment.
Acknowledgments
I thank Izumi Hori and Li Man Wi for data collection help and Emma
Buchtel, Julian Dierkes, Steve Heine, Darrin Lehman, and Ara
Norenzayan for helpful comments.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This
research was supported by the Direct Allocation Grant from the
Chinese University of Hong Kong.
References
Adams, G., & Plaut, V. C. (2003). The cultural grounding of personal
relationship: Friendship in North American and West African
worlds. Personal Relationships, 10, 333-347.
Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2002). Who trusts others? Journal of
Public Economics, 85, 207-234.
Allen, M. W., Ng, S. H., Ikeda, K., Jawan, J. A., Sufi, A. H., Wilson, M., &
Yang, K.-S. (2007). Two decades of change in cultural values and
economic development in eight East Asian and Pacific Island
nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 247-269.
Alwin, D. (1989). Changes in qualities valued in children in the United
States, 1964 to 1984. Social Science Research, 18, 195-236.
American National Election Studies. (2009). American National
Election Studies. Retrieved from http://www.electionstudies.org/
Barry, H., III, Child, I., & Bacon, M. (1959). Relation of child train-
ing to subsistence economy. American Anthropologist, 61, 51-63.
Berry, J. W. (1967). Independence and conformity in subsistence-
level societies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
7, 415-418.
Bond, R., & Smith, P. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis
of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 119, 111-137.
Brewer, M., & Chen, Y. (2007). Where (who) are collectives in
collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism
and collectivism. Psychological Review, 114, 133-151.
Caudill, W. (1973). The influence of social structure and culture on
human behavior in modern Japan. Ethos, 1, 343-382.
Chen, J., Chiu, C.-Y., & Chan, F. S.-F. (2009). The cultural effect of
job mobility and the belief in a fixed world. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 97, 851-865.
Cohen, D. (2001). Cultural variation: Considerations and implica-
tions. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 451-471.
Collcutt, M. (1991). The legacy of Confucianism in Japan. In
G. Rozman (Ed.), The East Asian region: Confucian heritage and its
modern adaptation (pp. 111-154). Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer-
sity Press.
21
Davis, J., Smith, T., & Marsden, P. (2009). General Social Surveys,
1972–2008 [Machine-readable data file]. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago, National Opinion Research Center.
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. (2003). Personality, culture, and
subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of
life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 403-425.
Dore, R. (1973). British factory, Japanese factory: The origins of
national diversity in industrial relations. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Durkheim, E. (1964). The division of labor in society. New York,
NY: Free Press. (Original work published 1893)
Elliot, A. J., Chirkov, V. I., Kim, Y., & Sheldon, K. M. (2001). A
cross-cultural analysis of avoidance (relative to approach) per-
sonal goals. Psychological Science, 12, 505-510.
Fincher, C. L., Thornhill, R., Murray, D. R., & Schaller, M. (2008).
Pathogen prevalence predicts human cross-cultural variability
in individualism/collectivism. Proceedings of the Royal Society
B: Biological Sciences, 275, 1279-1285.
Flanagan, S. (1979). Value change and partisan change in Japan: The
silent revolution revisited. Comparative Politics, 11, 253-278.
Fuess, H. (2004). Divorce in Japan: family, gender, and the state,
1600–2000. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Glenn, N. (1987). Social trends in the United States: Evidence from
sample surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 109-126.
Goldstein, J. (1999). The leveling of divorce in the United States.
Demography, 36, 409-414.
Government of Japan Cabinet Office. (2009). The world youth
survey. Retrieved from http://www8.cao.go.jp/youth/english/
worldyouth7-e/html/mokuji-e.html
Greenfield, P. (2009). Linking social change and developmental
change: Shifting pathways of human development. Developmental
Psychology, 45, 401-418.
Gusfield, J. (1967). Tradition and modernity: Misplaced polarities
in the study of social change. American Journal of Sociology,
72, 351-362.
Guthrie, G. (1977). A social-psychological analysis of modernization in the
Philippines. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 8, 177-206.
Hamamura, T., Meijer, Z., Heine, S., Kamaya, K., & Hori, I. (2009).
Approach-avoidance motivation and information processing:
A cross-cultural analysis. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 35, 454-462.
Hamamura, T., & Park, J. H. (2010). Regional differences in pathogen
prevalence and defensive reactions to the “swine flu” outbreak
among East Asians and Westerners. Evolutionary Psychology, 8,
506-515.
Hamamura, T., Xu, Q., & Du, Y. (2011). Social class and indepen-
dence and interdependence among Chinese adolescents. Manu-
script submitted for publication.
Heine, S. J., Kitayama, S., Lehman, D. R., Takata, T., Ide, E., Leung, C.,
& Matsumoto, H. (2001). Divergent consequences of success
and failure in Japan and North America: An investigation of self-
improving motivations and malleable selves. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 81, 599-615.
Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999).
Is there a universal need for positive self-regard. Psychological
Review, 106, 766-794.
22 Personality and Social Psychology Review 16(1)
Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Peng, K., & Greenholtz, J. (2002).
What’s wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective
Likert scales? The reference-group effect. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 82, 903-918.
Hirakawa, S. (1989). Japan’s turn to the West. In M. B. Jansen
(Ed.), The Cambridge history of Japan: Volume 5, The nine-
teenth century (pp. 432-498). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Hitokoto, H., Murabe, T., Narita, K., & Tanaka-Matsumi, J. (2010,
January). Through time and space: Regional variation of individ-
ualism–collectivism in Japan. Poster presented at the 11th annual
meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Las
Vegas, NV.
Hofstede, G. H. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International dif-
ferences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Huntington, S. P. (1996). The clash of civilizations and the remaking
of world order. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, globalization
and the persistence of tradition: Empirical evidence from 65 soci-
eties. American Sociological Review, 65, 19-55.
Inglehart, R., & Oyserman, D. (2004). Individualism, autonomy, self-
expression. The human development syndrome. In H. Vinken,
J. Soeters, & P. Ester (Eds.), Comparing cultures, dimensions of
culture in a comparative perspective (pp. 74-96). Leiden, Neth-
erlands: Brill.
Inkeles, A. (1975). Becoming modern: Individual change in six
developing countries. Ethos, 3, 323-342.
Inkeles, A. (1983). Exploring individual modernity. New York, NY:
Columbia University Press.
Inoguchi, T. (2000). Social capital in Japan. Japanese Journal of
Political Science, 1, 73-112.
Institutes of Statistical Mathematics. (2009). national character study
of Japanese and International comparisons. Retrieved from http://
www.ism.ac.jp/kokuminsei/index.html
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the value of
choice: A cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 349-366.
Kagitcibasi, C. (1994). A critical appraisal of individualism and col-
lectivism: Toward a new formulation. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis,
C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Chol, & S. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and
collectivism (pp. 52-65). London, UK: Sage.
Kagitcibasi, C. (2005). Modernization does not mean Western-
ization: Emergence of a different pattern. In W. Friedlmeier,
. Chakkarath, & B. Shwarz (Eds.), Culture and human develop-
ment: The importance of cross-cultural research for the social sci-
ences (pp. 255-272). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Kameda, T., Takezawa, M., & Hastie, R. (2005). Where do social
norms come from? The example of communal sharing. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 331-334.
Kashima, E., & Kashima, Y. (1998). Culture and language: The case
of cultural dimensions and personal pronoun use. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 461-486.
Kashima, Y., Bain, P., Haslam, N., Peters, K., Laham, S., Whelan, J., . .
. Fernando, J. (2009). Folk theory of social change. Asian Journal
of Social Psychology, 12, 227-246.
Kashima, Y., & Kashima, E. (2003). Individualism, GNP, climate,
and pronoun drop: Is individualism determined by affluence and
climate, or does language use play a role? Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 34, 125-134.
Kashima, Y., Kokubo, T., Kashima, E., Boxall, D., Yamaguchi, S., &
Macrae, K. (2004). Culture and self: Are there within-culture dif-
ferences in self between metropolitan areas and regional cities?
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 816-823.
Kim, H., & Markus, H. R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony
or conformity? A cultural analysis. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 77, 785-800.
Kitayama, S., & Cohen, D. (2007). Handbook of cultural psychology.
New York, NY: Guilford.
Kitayama, S., Ishii, K., Imada, T., Takemura, K., & Ramaswamy, J.
(2006). Voluntary settlement and the spirit of independence:
Evidence from Japan’s “northern frontier.” Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 91, 369-384.
Kitayama, S., Mesquita, B., & Karasawa, M. (2006). Cultural affor-
dances and emotional experience: Socially engaging and dis-
engaging emotions in Japan and the United States. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 890-903.
Kitayama, S., Park, H., Sevincer, T. A., Karasawa, M., & Uskul, A. K.
(2009). A cultural task analysis of implicit independence: Com-
paring North America, Western Europe, and East Asia. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 236-255.
Kraus, M., Piff, P., & Keltner, D. (2009). Social class, the sense
of control, and social explanation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 97, 992-1004.
Lee, A. Y., Aaker, J. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). The pleasures and
pains of distinct self-construals: The role of interdependence in
regulatory focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
78, 1122-1134.
Ma, V., & Schoeneman, T. (1997). Individualism versus collectivism:
A comparison of Kenyan and American self-concepts. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 19, 261-273.
Maddison, A. (2008). Statistics on world population, GDP and per
capita GDP, 1-2006 AD. Retrieved from http://www.ggdc.net/
maddison/
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Impli-
cations for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological
Review, 98, 224-253.
Masuda, T., Gonzalez, R., Kwan, L., & Nisbett, R. (2008). Culture
and aesthetic preference: Comparing the attention to context of
East Asians and Americans. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 34, 1260-1275.
McClelland, D. (1961). The achieving society. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Miyamoto, Y., Nisbett, R., & Masuda, T. (2006). Culture and the
physical environment. Psychological Science, 17, 113-119.
Morling, B., & Lamoreaux, M. (2008). Measuring culture outside
the head: A meta-analysis of individualism–collectivism in cul-
tural products. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12,
199-221.
Murray, D. R., & Schaller, M. (2010). Historical prevalence of
infectious diseases within 230 geopolitical regions: A tool for
Hamamura
investigating origins of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy-
chology, 41, 99-108.
Na, J., Grossmann, I., Varnum, M., Kitayama, S., Gonzalez, R., &
Nisbett, R. (2010). Cultural differences are not always reducible
to individual differences. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, 107, 6192-6197.
National Institute of Population and Social Security Research.
(2009). Syussei doukou kihonchousa [Birth tendency research].
Tokyo, Japan: Author.
Newson, L., Postmes, T., Lea, S., & Webley, P. (2005). Why are mod-
ern families small? Toward an evolutionary and cultural explana-
tion for the demographic transition. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 9, 360-375.
Ng, F. F.-Y., Pomerantz, E. M., & Lam, S.-F. (2007). European
American and Chinese parents’ responses to children’s success
and failure: Implications for children’s responses. Developmental
Psychology, 43, 1239-1255.
Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: Why we think the
way we do. New York, NY: Free Press.
Nisbett, R. E., & Cohen, D. (1996). Culture of honor: The psychology
of violence in the South. Denver, CO: Westview.
Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture
and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psy-
chological Review, 108, 291-310.
Oishi, S. (2010). The psychology of residential mobility: Implica-
tions for the self, social relationships, and well-being. Perspec-
tives on Psychological Science, 5, 5-21.
Oishi, S., Lun, J., & Sherman, G. (2007). Residential mobility, self-
concept, and positive affect in social interactions. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 131-141.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking
individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assump-
tions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American
community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Roberts, B., & Helson, R. (1997). Changes in culture, changes in per-
sonality: The influence of individualism in a longitudinal study
of women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72,
641-651.
Robinson, W. (1950). Ecological correlations and the behavior of
individuals. American Sociological Review, 15, 351-357.
Rozman, G. (1991). The East Asian region in comparative perspec-
tive. In G. Rozman (Ed.), The East Asian region: Confucian
heritage and its modern adaptation (pp. 3-42). Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Sachs, J. (2005). The end of poverty: How can we make it happen in
our lifetime. London, UK: Penguin.
Schaller, M., & Murray, D. R. (2008). Pathogens, personality, and
culture: Disease prevalence predicts worldwide variability in
sociosexuality, extraversion, and openness to experience.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 212-221.
Schug, J., Yuki, M., & Maddux, W. W. (2010). Relational mobility
explains between- and within-culture differences in self-disclosure
toward close friends. Psychological Science, 21, 1471-1478.
Snibbe, A., & Markus, H. (2005). You can’t always get what you
want: educational attainment, agency, and choice. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 88, 703-720.
23
Stephens, N., Markus, H., & Townsend, S. (2007). Choice as an act
of meaning: The case of social class. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 93, 814-830.
Thornton, A., & Young-DeMarco, L. (2001). Four decades of trends
in attitudes toward family issues in the United States: The 1960s
through the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1009-1037.
Tonnies, F. (1957). Community and society. New York, NY: Harper
& Row. (Original work published 1887)
Triandis, H. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. Boulder, CO:
Westview.
Triandis, H., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M., Asai, M., & Lucca, N.
(1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspec-
tives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54, 323-338.
Trommsdorff, G. (1983). Value change in Japan. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7, 337-360.
Trzesniewski, K., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). Rethinking “genera-
tion me”: A study of cohort effects from 1976–2006. Perspec-
tives on Psychological Science, 5, 58-75.
Tweed, R., & Lehman, D. (2002). Learning considered within a
cultural context: Confucian and Socratic approaches. American
Psychologist, 57, 89-99.
Twenge, J. M., Abebe, E. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2010). Fitting in or
standing out: Trends in American parents’ choices for children’s
names, 1880–2007. Social Psychological and Personality
Science, 1, 19-25.
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2001). Age and birth cohort dif-
ferences in self-esteem: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Person-
ality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 321-344.
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Increases in positive
self-views among high school students: Birth cohort changes in
anticipated performance, self-satisfaction, self-liking, and self-
competence. Psychological Science, 19, 1082-1086.
Twenge, J. M., & Im, C. (2007). Changes in the need for social approval,
1958–2001. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 171-189.
Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Campbell, W. K., &
Bushman, B. J. (2008). Egos inflating over time: A cross-temporal
meta-analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal
of Personality, 76, 875-902.
Twenge, J. M., Zhang, L., & Im, C. (2004). It’s beyond my control: A cross-
temporal meta-analysis of increasing externality in locus of control,
1960–2002. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 308-319.
United Nations Statistics Division. (2009). Social indicators. Retrieved from
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/socind/default.htm
Vandello, J. A., & Cohen, D. (1999). Patterns of individualism and
collectivism across the United States. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 77, 279-292.
Weber, M. (1904/1992). The Protestant ethic and the “spirit” of capi-
talism and other writings. London, UK: Routledge. (Original
work published 1904)
World Bank. (2010). International migration stock. Retrieved from
http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog
World Values Survey Association. (2009). World Values Survey.
Retrieved from http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/
Yamagishi, T. (1999). From assurance based society to trust based
society: Where is the Japanese system heading [In Japanese].
Tokyo, Japan: Chuo Koron Shinsha.
24 Personality and Social Psychology Review 16(1)
Yamagishi, T., Hashimoto, H., & Schug, J. (2008). Preferences
versus strategies as explanations for culture-specific behavior.
Psychological Science, 19, 579-584.
Yamagishi, T., & Yamagishi, M. (1994). Trust and commitment in the
United States and Japan. Motivation and Emotion, 18, 129-166.
Yang, K. (1988). Will societal modernization eventually eliminate
cross-cultural psychological differences. In M. H. Bond (Ed.),
The cross-cultural challenge to social psychology (pp. 67-85).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
View publication stats
Yang, K. (1996). Chinese personality and its change. In M. H. Bond
(Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 106-170).
Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Zou, X., Tam, K., Morris, M., Lee, L., Lau, I. Y., & Chiu, C. Y.
(2009). Culture as common sense: Perceived consensus vs. per-
sonal beliefs as mechanisms of cultural influence. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 579-597.