1

Adolescents in Individualistic Cultures

Kevin Ray Bush and Anthony G. James, Jr.
Miami University, USA

This entry provides an overview of adolescence within individualistic cultures, focus-

ing primarily on the concept of autonomy and relatedness and how these outcomes
and their associated socialization goals and practices vary both between and within
individualistic cultures. Adolescence is both a social construction and a biological devel-
opmental stage, whose main goal is to develop into a member of society who is no longer
wholly dependent upon adults/family members for survival. From a biological perspec-
tive, adolescence is stage where humans go through physical and cognitive changes that
support their ability to adapt to their environment. Socially, adolescent development
and associated socialization processes occur within a cultural context (Fuligni & Tsai,
2015; Kagitcibasi, 2013). Together, these biological changes and social influences inter-
act with and influence developmental outcomes. Thus, most parents throughout the
world negotiate a balance between autonomy and relatedness (changing levels of close-
ness and relating to one another within the parent–adolescent relationship and family
overall) with their children during adolescence. However, the particular type of bal-
ance (e.g., leaning more toward independence than interdependence) can vary based
on the social and cultural context (e.g., Greenfield, Keller, Fuligni, & Maynard, 2003;
Kagitcibasi, 2013). In cultures influenced by individualistic value systems, as opposed
to collectivistic ones, peer relationships become more important during adolescence as
youth begin to spend more time with their peers as they are gradually granted more
autonomy from their parents.
Examinations of adolescence are incomplete without considerations of the multiple
ecological contexts within which youth are embedded (Arnett, 2015; Bronfenbrenner,
2005; Bush, 2000; Oyserman, 2017). Cultural context and values are the primary factors
influencing socialization processes, resources, and expectations and goals for adolescent
development. Cultural influences can be conceptualized in a variety of ways, including
focusing on cultural syndromes such as individualism and collectivism. Individualist
cultural orientations emphasize the rights and goals of individuals rather than the goals
and rights of groups (e.g., family, society). Subsequently, adolescents living within indi-
vidualistic contexts tend to be socialized to being self-reliant, autonomous, and inde-
pendent in relation to their social circles (e.g., family, friends), in contrast to adolescents
living in collectivist contexts, in whose self-construals the needs of the social groups

The Encyclopedia of Child and Adolescent Development. Edited by Stephen Hupp and Jeremy D. Jewell.
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI 10.1002/9781119171492.wecad318
2 History, Theory, and Culture in Adolescence

take precedence over individual desires (Bush, 2000; Greenfield et al., 2003; Kagitcibasi,
2013; Oyserman, 2017). A caveat, of course, is that cultural groups are not monolithic
and that variations will exist within them, especially when culture is assigned at a high
level of societal organization, such as an entire country or continent.
The constructs of individualism and collectivism were originally conceptualized as
unidimensional; however, research since the turn of the century has shown that these
two constructs are not mutually exclusive. Both individualism and collectivism are
thought to be present in most (if not all) cultures, but the extent of their salience within
a given cultural group or geographic location varies based on a multitude of factors
(Greenfield et al., 2003; Kagitcibasi, 2013; Oyserman, 2017), such as policies/rules and
ideologies (e.g., political forces) from the macrocontext through to the microcontext
(e.g., parental ethnotheories). Given the importance of context in examinations of
adolescence, systemic and ecological theories serve as appropriate frameworks to guide
research on and a general understanding of this period of human development. A key
issue in adolescent development across cultures is the potentially differing conception
of and emphasis on the extent to which adolescents develop autonomy/independence
and relatedness/connection in relation to parents/family and the resulting balance or
lack thereof (Bush, 2000; Greenfield et al., 2003; Kagitcibasi, 2013).

1 Cultural Context of Adolescence: Individualism

and Collectivism
Two general value systems or cultural syndromes—individualism and collectivism—are
often used to characterize general cultural patterns that lean more toward either indi-
vidualism, fostering an independent self-construal, or collectivism, fostering an inter-
dependent self-construal (Greenfield et al., 2003; Kagitcibasi, 2013; Markus & Kitayama,
1991). In groups characterized as individualistic (e.g., a majority of the European Amer-
ican population in the United States), values that foster independence, individual
freedoms, autonomous decision making, and individually based achievement are
prevalent and are promoted during socialization (Bush, 2000; Kagitcibasi, 2013;
Oyserman, 2017). In contrast, groups characterized as collectivistic are more likely
to foster the development of interdependent self-construal through an emphasis on
achievement and attainment at the group rather than the individual level, and to
encourage cooperation, mutual support, and the maintenance of harmonious relation-
ships (Greenfield et al., 2003; Kagitcibasi, 2013). During adolescence, the influences
of individualism and collectivism are seen through parenting behavior and parent–
adolescent relationships (Bush, 2000; Greenfield et al., 2003; Kagitcibasi, 2013), as
well as through peer relationships (e.g., Ferguson, Kasser, & Jahng, 2011) that reflect
these societal-level value systems. Despite the seemingly mutually exclusive definitions
of individualism and collectivism, in reality these two dimensions of cultural values
coexist within most cultures, with varying degrees of balance (Bush, 2000; Greenfield
et al., 2003; Kagitcibasi, 2013; Oyserman, 2017).
Some scholars have proposed models focused on two distinct developmental path-
ways during adolescence, one emphasizing the development of independence or indi-
viduation and the other interdependence and group membership (e.g., Greenfield et al.,
2003; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). From this perspective, developmental pathways of
 Adolescents in Individualistic Cultures 3

independence focus on personal choice and individual rights toward a developmental

goal of individuation, while interdependent developmental pathways prioritize social
obligations and responsibilities with the goal of conforming to social norms.
Since the early 1980s numerous survey studies have examined and compared levels
of individualism and collectivism across countries and cultures. A large meta-analysis
of studies that included data from 50 countries was conducted by Oyserman, Coon,
and Kemmelmeier (2002), whose findings provide a baseline of how these two cultural
value sets or syndromes are sampled. Oyserman and colleagues found that, overall, par-
ticipants (mostly college student samples) living in the United States scored higher on
measures of individualism and lower on measures of collectivism than people from other
countries. A few exceptions emerged, including that no significant differences on levels
of individualism or collectivism were found between participants in the United States
and those in other English-speaking countries (Australia, New Zealand, white South
Africa). Similarly, although US participants scored lower on collectivism than partici-
pants in South or Latin American countries (e.g., Brazil, Mexico, and Puerto Rico), there
were no significant differences on levels of individualism. These findings highlight the
dangers of labeling members of countries or cultures as individualistic or collectivistic
without considering that both sets of cultural values coexist.
In addition to the international comparisons, Oyserman et al. (2002) also examined
potential differences within US samples. They reported that European Americans were
only slightly higher on individualistic values than Asian Americans, but significantly
lower on collectivistic values than Asian Americans and Latino/Hispanic Americans.
In comparison to African Americans, European Americans scored significantly lower
on levels of individualism, but there were not any significant differences on collectivism
between the two groups. European Americans and Latino/Hispanic Americans did not
score significantly differently on measures of individualism, but European Americans
did score significantly lower on assessments of collectivism. In comparison to Asian
Americans, European Americans’ scores on individualism were slightly higher, but
Asian Americans were significantly higher on measures of collectivism than European
Americans.
Consideration of Oyserman et al.’s findings within the broader context of the United
States seems helpful. The United States is considered to be one of the most individual-
istic countries in the world (Oyserman et al., 2002). Data from the US Department of
Health and Human Services (2017) indicate that in 2014 there were approximately 42
million adolescents (aged 10–19) whose demographic characteristics include 54% White
(22.8% Hispanic, 14% Black, 4.7% Asian, 3.4% multiracial, 0.9% American Indian/Alaska
Native, and 0.2% Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander); 51% male; 18% living in poverty;
and 43.6% living in suburban (26% urban and 14.5% rural) areas. Thus, in addition to
possible cultural differences on the basis of race, ethnicity, culture/country of origin,
there were other potentially influential social contexts including socioeconomic status,
rural/suburban/urban residence, and the extent of acculturation to the larger US society.
The findings from Oyserman and colleagues and similarly focused smaller studies
highlight the variance in both adherence to individualistic values and collectivistic val-
ues. As Oyserman et al. (2002) and others (Bush, 2000; Oyserman, 2017) have pointed
out, findings can vary depending on the items and scales used to operationalize these
constructs. For example, although European Americans have been found to score highly
on measures of collectivism when the assessment is focused on family obligation, the
4 History, Theory, and Culture in Adolescence

conceptualization of family obligation can differ across countries and cultural groups.
European Americans are likely to view obligation to family as related to relationship
quality and closeness to family members, and thus view obligation as a personal choice,
whereas Mexican Americans are likely to view obligation to family as familism and as
being part of their social role of belonging to a family or significant group (Oyserman
et al., 2002; Peterson & Bush, 2013). Moreover, the findings also highlight the variabil-
ity of adherence to individualistic and collectivistic values within countries and cultural
groups.

2 An Ecological Systems Approach

Numerous theories of development emphasize the importance of context on individ-
ual development, such as relational and dynamic systems theories, which focus on
ecological and transactional models that emphasize the interaction between biological
and environmental influences on development across time. Changes in the macro-
environments of adolescents (e.g., the presence of cultural values such as individualism
and collectivism) can influence adolescent development such as through impacting
family policies, parental values/expectations, and related parenting practices. Thus,
adolescent-level variables, as well as family- and parental-level variables, peer relations,
and sociocultural (e.g., community- and/or society-level) variables all play important
roles in adolescent development.
An ecological systems approach provides a useful framework for understanding
adolescence in the context of individualism, as well as other descriptions of cultural
influences (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 2005). Development is seen as occurring across four
interrelated ecosystemic levels consisting of the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem,
and macrosystem, all within the context of time (chronosystem; Bronfenbrenner, 2005).
Following ecological systems theory, no one social context can be fully understood in
isolation from multiple other contexts in which people are embedded.
The microsystem refers to the immediate environment of the adolescent and the pat-
terns of activities, interactions, and interpersonal relations they experience. In the case
of adolescents in individualistic cultures, the microsystem consists of the adolescent,
parents, siblings, peers, and other significant socialization agents, as well as the recipro-
cal patterns of socialization (e.g., the gradual negotiation of autonomy between parents
and adolescents). The proximal processes that occur within the microsystem are pro-
gressively complex reciprocal interactions that evolve over time between adolescents
and their parents, peers, siblings, and other significant socialization agents. The pro-
cesses within the microsystem can either facilitate or inhibit the optimal development
of adolescents.
The mesosystem refers to the various connections between two or more microsys-
tems (each of which includes the adolescent), such as interactions between adolescents’
families and schools, parent–adolescent relationships, and adolescents’ peer relation-
ships. The interaction between parental (e.g., promoting individual achievement) and
peer (e.g., source of autonomy growth in adolescents; Allen & Loeb, 2015; Peterson &
Bush, 2013) contexts provides multiple levels of context in which individualism can be
socialized (Tudge et al., 2016). Adolescents living in individualistic contexts have been
found to expect autonomy at younger ages than their peers in collectivistic cultural
 Adolescents in Individualistic Cultures 5

contexts (Feldman & Rosenthal, 1991; Roche et al., 2014). For adolescents in specific
ecological contexts of both individualistic and collectivistic cultures, peer groups tend
to have a lower age expectation for autonomy than parents/families or schools (Feldman
& Rosenthal, 1991).
The exosystem refers to interactions between two or more settings or interactions (one
of which does not contain the adolescent). These exosystemic interactions indirectly
influence processes within the direct setting or microsystem in which the adolescent is
embedded. For example, the employment opportunities available in the community of
an adolescent will in turn influence his or her parents and their interactions. Similarly,
the effectiveness of local human service agencies, schools, and similar institutions also
influence the microsystems in which adolescents are embedded. Parenting employment
schedules can have a huge impact on parent–adolescent relationships and adolescent
development (Han & Miller, 2009), and parental responses to these situations are
likely to vary across cultural contexts. For example, in individualistic cultures, parental
employment schedules that result in adolescents being left by themselves after school
are likely to be used to foster autonomy development (e.g., adolescents being at home
unsupervised for a few hours after school), whereas the same situation in the context
of a collectivistic culture is likely to foster interdependence, such as through having
children/adolescents spend time with or be supervised by extended family after school,
or through training an older adolescent to be responsible for taking care of younger
siblings until their parents return home.
The macrosystem refers to the outermost level of the ecosystem, which contains gen-
eral societal-level institutions and systems (e.g., cultural values of individualism and
collectivism, and political, economic, and legal systems). Also referred to as the cul-
tural blueprint, the macrosystem can determine the social structures and activities in
the immediate systems levels. For adolescents living in cultures that are generally con-
sidered more individualistic in their cultural values, such as the United States or the
United Kingdom, cultural values and beliefs related to prioritizing individual autonomy
and self-sufficiency can be influential and are thus reflected in policies and structures
(e.g., education systems). The values present in the macrosystem affect the particular
conditions and processes occurring in immediate systems, such as peer relationships
during adolescence and parent–adolescent relationships. One example that is preva-
lent in many individualistic countries is the expectation that once adolescents are 18 (or
postcollege) they should move out of the family home and start building their own lives
in a separate household.

3 Autonomy and Relatedness

Autonomy and relatedness (connectedness) are both coexisting basic needs across
cultures (e.g., Bush, 2000; Kagitcibasi, 2013; Peterson & Bush, 2013). Although
definitions and operationalization of these constructs vary considerably, these two
culturally universal basic needs can be defined and operationalized so that they are
not conflicting (Kagitcibasi, 2013). More specifically, when the definition and opera-
tionalization of autonomy is focused on agency and self-governance, it is compatible
with relatedness/connectedness (Kagitcibasi, 2013; Peterson & Bush, 2013). However,
when the definition of autonomy emphasizes individuation or separation from parents
6 History, Theory, and Culture in Adolescence

without the recognition of continuing support and close relationships, a conflict

exists between these two essential needs and the development tasks of adolescence
(Kagitcibasi, 2013).
A widely accepted finding from research on Western (primarily US) populations dur-
ing most of the 20th century is that adolescents tend to grow emotionally distant from
their parents (e.g., Blos, 1979). Indeed, an examination of the core assumptions of some
developmental theories indicates a bias toward individualistic or independent cultural
orientations, including attachment theory (Greenfield et al., 2003). Until research from
non-Western cultures (e.g., Bush, 2000; Kagitcibasi, 2013) and nonmajority cultural
groups within primarily individualistic countries/populations (e.g., Fuligni & Tsai,
2015) found contrary results, the notion of development leading to separation from
parents (e.g., independence at the expense of close family relationships) was accepted
by many as a universal pattern in adolescent development (Arnett, 2015; Fuligni & Tsai,
2015). Moreover, even within highly individualistic countries, complete separation
from parents is antithetical to optimal and healthy adolescent development (Bush,
2000; Greenfield et al., 2003). Thus, one of the primary influences of individualism and
collectivism is how youth are perceived to develop optimally in regard to developing
autonomy and changing their emotional connection to their parents (e.g., Arnett,
2015; Kagitcibasi, 2013). The current thinking related to adolescent development
and autonomy and relatedness is that a context-specific balance in autonomy and
relatedness appears to lead to optimal adolescent development (Bush, 2000; Greenfield
et al., 2003; Kagitcibasi, 2013).
Recent reviews of findings from studies of immigrant families in Western individual-
istic countries suggest that immigrant adolescents are able to negotiate independence
and autonomy while also remaining emotionally close to their families (Fuligni & Tsai,
2015; Greenfield et al., 2003). Thus these conclusions suggest that immigrant and cul-
tural minority adolescents within host cultures that are dominated by individualistic
cultural values have successfully created hybrid or balanced identities that combine val-
ues and traditions from their culture/country of origin (typically one where collectivistic
values were dominant) and their new host culture/country.
In reality, data from the past few decades indicate that, for most of the world, parent
and adolescent relations continue to be close during adolescence and into adulthood
(Arnett, 2015; Fuligni & Tsai, 2015; Kagitcibasi, 2013), although there are variations
in how autonomy and closeness are maintained and negotiated within cultural and
social contexts, and thus differences exist within countries or larger cultural groups
(Greenfield et al., 2003). This is especially true, for example, of the relationship between
mothers and daughters, whose relationship maintains or even increases its closeness
as youth transition into adolescence, which is in stark contrast to the narrative of
the parent–adolescent relationship becoming more distant as youth transition into
adolescence (Arnett, 2015; Larson, Wilson, & Rickman, 2010).

4 Socialization
In the United States and similar countries, where the majority of the population (e.g.,
European American) adhere mainly to individualistic cultural values, parental ethno-
theories and the resulting parental behaviors/styles focus on socializing their children to
 Adolescents in Individualistic Cultures 7

function independently from infancy (e.g., expecting infants to eventually sleep through
the night in a bed and/or room separate from the parents) through adulthood (expecting
adolescents to gradually become more independent and eventually to live on their own,
without an obligation to take responsibility for their parents in old age, which is seen as
a choice or option at most). While raising adolescents to develop into adults who can
function independently of their family is a common goal within individualistic cultures
(e.g., European Americans), young adults with such characteristics may be viewed as
lacking maturity from the perspective of individuals and groups following collectivistic
cultural values.
Parental ethnotheories refer to beliefs and values about goals of socialization that are
influenced throughout the various levels of the ecosystem, including cultural-level val-
ues at the macro level, such as individualism and collectivism (Peterson & Bush, 2013).
For example, a typical individualistic parental ethnotheory may hold that adolescents
should be taught to develop their own unique identity and sense of self (i.e., indepen-
dent self-construal), which will allow them to develop into self-sufficient adults who are
responsible for themselves. In contrast, a typical parental ethnotheory influenced at the
macro level by collectivistic values may hold to the belief that adolescents need to be
taught that their own well-being and sense of self (i.e., interdependent self-construal) is
largely determined by their contributions to the group. These ethnotheories also lead
parents to engage in culturally appropriate parental behaviors or practices to foster
the most highly valued normative adolescent outcomes. For example, autonomy devel-
opment is fostered by parents through authoritative-type parenting practices, such as
parental support in the context of firm and clear rules, and the use of positive induc-
tion and reasoning to facilitate the gradual granting of autonomy during development
(Peterson & Bush, 2013).
In addition to the direct socialization practices that have been discussed, schools
and other systems are influenced by individualistic and collectivisitic values at the
macrosystem level, which in turn influence adolescents at the microsystem level,
such as the family, school, and peer systems. Interesting research exploring the role
and impact of independence (a component of individualism) compared to interde-
pendence (a component of collectivism) on adolescent development has compared
cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures (e.g., Roseth, Johnson, &
Johnson, 2008). Cooperative goal structures are defined as those that include positive
interdependence such as mutual goals, joint rewards, resource interdependence, and
role interdependence. Competitive goal structures are those where adolescents tend
to focus on goals that benefit them personally but that prevent others from achieving
their goals. Examples of competitive goal structures include those with negative goal
interdependence such as winning versus losing and negative reward interdependence,
where there is only one reward and the winner takes all, where adolescents work
alone with little to no interaction, and where rewards are norm referenced or ranked
from best to worst. In contrast, individualistic goal structures are defined as those
with no interdependence, where adolescents work alone with minimum interaction
for rigid rewards with specific criteria and little room for social comparisons. The
authors of a comprehensive meta-analysis sampling 148 studies of adolescents in 11
countries concluded that cooperative goal structures were associated with higher levels
of adolescent school achievement than competitive or individualistic goal structures,
and that cooperative goal structures were related to higher levels of positive peer
8 History, Theory, and Culture in Adolescence

relationships, which in turn were related to higher school achievement (Roseth et al.,
2008).

5 Adolescent Outcomes
Common positive outcomes among adolescents within individualistic cultural contexts
include well-developed levels of psychological and behavioral autonomy, independent
self-construal (i.e., individualistic self-concept), and outcomes related to these. Adoles-
cents in individualistic cultures tend to expect and to desire autonomy at younger ages
than their counterparts in collectivistic cultures, although family environment and val-
ues are important to autonomy development across cultural groups (e.g., Feldman &
Rosenthal, 1991; Roche et al., 2014). Feldman and colleagues have found this similar
pattern of differential expectations across cultural groups, comparing adolescents from
Hong Kong to adolescents from the United States and Australia, and Asian Americans
to European Americans (e.g., Feldman & Rosenthal, 1991). Similarly, studies examining
age expectations for autonomy among US ethnic-minority groups (e.g., Latino/a Amer-
icans) have reported that teens whose families are more acculturated tend to have lower
age expectations for autonomy (e.g., Roche et al., 2014).
Adolescents in individualistic cultural contexts are more likely to have independent
self-construals, while interdependent self-construals are more common among adoles-
cents living in collectivistic cultural contexts (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). That is, the
self-concept of adolescents is related to culturally relevant content, whereby agency,
autonomy, and independence are valued at the macro level of societies endorsing
individualism and adolescents in turn are socialized at the level of microsystems (e.g.,
in families, at school, and in peer groups). Adolescents in individualistic cultures are
less likely to endorse socially oriented self-concept domains compared to adolescents
living in collectivistic cultural contexts, that is, these domains are less emphasized
than those relating to agency, autonomy, and other individualistic cultural values. For
example, adolescents in individualistic cultures find items on surveys relating to familial
and social relationships less salient than physical attractiveness and other individually
oriented self-concept domains, in contrast to adolescents in collectivistic cultural
contexts.
Several studies have been conducted comparing child and adolescent positive out-
comes across countries. In general, the authors of these studies find that some specific
outcomes (e.g., life satisfaction, school satisfaction) are typically higher in countries
where individualistic cultural orientations are more common (e.g., Ferguson et al., 2011).
Of course, proving the extent to which differences in outcomes across countries are due
to cultural values is difficult, especially when, as in most existing studies, cultural values
are simply assigned on the basis of country of origin or residence, without actually mea-
suring adherence to cultural values (Bush, 2000; Peterson & Bush, 2013). Ferguson et al.
(2011) conducted a study across two individualistic countries (Denmark and the United
States) and one collectivistic country (South Korea) to examine the role of autonomy
support in differences in life satisfaction and school satisfaction across the three coun-
tries. The authors reported that adolescents in individualistic countries had higher levels
of life satisfaction, school satisfaction, and autonomy support and that autonomy sup-
port mediated the relationships between the outcomes and nation of origin (Ferguson
 Adolescents in Individualistic Cultures 9

et al., 2011). In other words, adolescents living in countries with histories of being largely
individualistic in cultural orientation had higher levels of school satisfaction and life
satisfaction because of the support they received for autonomy. A key point to keep in
mind is that the way these particular outcomes were conceptualized and operational-
ized might have resulted in a cultural response bias in measurement. It is also important
to note that research on representative samples and the measurement of cultural values
is needed before such findings can be generalized.

6 Recommendations for Future Research

It is not realistic to expect either individualism or collectivism alone to fully describe
any one entire cultural group (Arnett, 2015). In fact, as more research is conducted,
scholars are finding more limitations than instances of universals (e.g., individualism
and collectivism) across whole cultural groups (Jensen, 2011). The globalization of soci-
ety and the research findings suggesting that collectivistic and individualistic values are
likely to coexist within even strongly traditional collectivistic or individualistic cultures
have implications for both theory and future research. Researchers and theoreticians
should (1) focus on describing behaviors, and perhaps on specific contexts as either col-
lectivistic or individualistic, rather than generalizing to an entire cultural group, ethnic
group, or country, and (2) use such findings to inform and adjust theory to better rep-
resent the role of cultural values or syndromes on development during adolescence. To
help increase understanding of adolescence within individualistic as well as collectivistic
cultures, researchers should assess adherence to one or both of these macrolevel value
systems rather than inferring influence based on membership of a particular cultural
group or country.

SEE ALSO: Adolescence in Collectivistic Cultures; Adolescence in the Contemporary

World; Adolescence in Intercultural Context; Cultural Beliefs About Adolescence;
Culture and Adolescent Development; Ecological Models of Adolescent Development;
Social Constructionist View of Adolescence; Sociocultural Perspective on Adolescence

References
Allen, J. P., & Loeb, E. L. (2015). The autonomy–connection challenge in adolescent–peer
relationships. Child Development Perspectives, 9(2), 101–105.
Arnett, J. J. (2015). Introduction to the special section: Reflections on expanding the
cultural scope of adolescent and emerging adult research. Journal of Social Issues, 68(3),
473–492. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2012.01759.x
Blos, P. (1979). The adolescent passage. New York, NY: International Universities Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on
human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Bush, K. R. (2000). Separatedness and connectedness in the parent–adolescent relationship
as predictors of adolescent self-esteem in US and Chinese samples. Marriage & Family
Review, 30(1/2), 153–178. doi:10.1300/J002v30n01_10
10 History, Theory, and Culture in Adolescence

Feldman, S. S., & Rosenthal, D. A. (1991). Age expectations of behavioural autonomy in

Hong Kong, Australian and American youth: The influence of family variables and
adolescents’ values. International Journal of Psychology, 26(1), 1–23.
Ferguson, Y. L., Kasser, T., & Jahng, S. (2011). Differences in life satisfaction and school
satisfaction among adolescents from three nations: The role of perceived autonomy
support. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(3), 649–661. doi:10.1111/j.1532-
7795.2010.00698.x
Fuligni, A. J., & Tsai, K. M. (2015). Developmental flexibility in the age of globalization:
Autonomy and identity development among immigrant adolescents. Annual Review of
Psychology, 66(1), 411–431.
Greenfield, P. M., Keller, H., Fuligni, A., & Maynard, A. (2003). Cultural pathways through
universal development. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 461–490.
Han, W. J., & Miller, D. P. (2009). Parental work schedules and adolescent depression.
Health Sociology Review, 18(1), 36–49.
Jensen L. A. (Ed.). (2011). Bridging cultural and developmental psychology. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Kagitcibasi, C. (2013). Adolescent autonomy-relatedness and the family in cultural context:
What is optimal? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23(2), 223–235.
Larson R. W., Wilson S., & Rickman A. (2010). Globalization, societal change, and
adolescence across the world. In R. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent
psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 590–622). New York, NY: Wiley.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.
Oyserman, D. (2017). Culture three ways: Culture and subcultures within countries.
Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 435–463.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and
collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological
Bulletin, 128(1), 3–72. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3
Peterson, G. W., & Bush, K. R. (2013). Conceptualizing cultural influences on socialization:
Comparing parent–adolescent relationships in the United States and Mexico. In G. W.
Peterson & K. R. Bush (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (3rd ed.,
pp. 177–208). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3987-5_9
Roche, K. K., Caughy, M., Schuster, M., Bogart, L., Dittus, P., & Franzini, L. (2014). Cultural
orientations, parental beliefs and practices, and Latino adolescents’ autonomy and
independence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(8), 1389–1403.
Roseth, C. J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Promoting early adolescents’
achievement and peer relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and
individualistic goal structures. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 223–246. doi:10.1037/
0033-2909.134.2.223
Tudge, J. R., Payir, A., Merçon-Vargas, E., Cao, H., Liang, Y., Li, J., & O’Brien, L. (2016). Still
misused after all these years? A reevaluation of the uses of Bronfenbrenner’s
bioecological theory of human development. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 8(4),
427–445.
US Department of Health and Human Services. (2017). The changing face of America’s
adolescents. Retrieved June 30, 2019, from https://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/facts-and-
stats/changing-face-of-americas-adolescents/index.html
 Adolescents in Individualistic Cultures 11

Further Reading
Bandura, A. (2005). Adolescent development from an agentic perspective. In F. Pajares & T.
Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 1–44). Greenwich, CT: Information
Age.
Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from
individualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective on
internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84(1), 97–110.
Mascolo, M. E., & Li, J. (Eds.). (2004). Culture and developing selves: Beyond
dichotomization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kevin Ray Bush (PhD, The Ohio State University, 2000) is Associate Dean, Profes-
sor of Family Science and Educational Psychology, and Codirector of the Doris Bergen
Center for Human Development, Learning and Technology at Miami University, USA.
His research focuses on child and adolescent development in the contexts of family,
school, community, and culture; and program evaluation. He has examined the rela-
tions between parents, teachers, and child and adolescent development within diverse
US and international samples. He is a coeditor of the Handbook of Marriage and Family
(with G. W. Peterson, 3rd ed., 2013, Springer) and Families and Change: Coping with
Stressful Events and Transitions (with C. A. Price & S. J. Price, 5th ed., 2016, SAGE).
Anthony G. James, Jr. (PhD, University of Missouri, 2012) is an Associate Professor in
the Department of Family Science and Social Work, and Program Director of the Fam-
ily Science Program at Miami University, USA. His research focuses on positive youth
development, program evaluation, and how to advance the well-being of marginalized
families. He is the editor of the forthcoming book Black Families: A Systems Approach
(in press, Cognella Press).