The Intersection of Collectivism, Individualism, and Attachment Styles
Jessica Chang, MHC-LP
Attachment styles and collectivistic versus individualistic cultures have entered mainstream discourse, but have you considered how they may be related and how they may interact within interpersonal relationships? In the United States, collectivist and individualistic cultures coexist and meet frequently, in public and group settings as well as in individual relationships, including between friends, family, coworkers, and oneself. As collectivism is often associated with Eastern societies (i.e., Asia and the Middle East) as individualism is associated with Western societies (i.e., North America and Europe), the impact of the intersection of these value-systems often shows up in multicultural interactions, relationships, and identities, maybe even more than you realize.
Collectivism
Collectivist culture prioritizes the needs and goals of the group as a whole over the needs and desires of individuals within the group. A person’s identity encompasses one’s roles within relationships with other group members and the interconnectedness amongst them (e.g., “I am a good sibling, parent, friend, etc.”. Collectivism emphasizes generosity, helpfulness, dependableness, and attentiveness towards others as good, positive traits. Values include unity, selflessness, and altruism. Often, people within collectivist cultures sacrifice their own wants and needs for the greater good of the group.
Relationships and Communication
In collectivistic cultures, common goals are put before individual pursuits, and family and community are prioritized above individuals. Communication within collectivist cultures tends to be indirect and conflict-avoidant. Conformity is commonly practiced. As decisions are made based on what is best for the group’s wellbeing, it is typical for group members to compromise or set aside one’s personal endeavors to promote and maintain peace. It may be difficult for individuals to engage in self-disclosure as group loyalty and support for others is highly valued.
Interpersonal relationships within collectivistic cultures tend to be more stable, constant, and consistent with the expectation and pressure to maintain harmony within the group. As focus is primarily on maintaining the long-term comfort of others, collectivist relationships are difficult to change. There is also less opportunity to form new strong relationships outside of one’s group.
Individualism
Individualistic culture prioritizes personal wellbeing and goals. Personal identity focuses on self-perception including personality traits and characteristics (e.g., “I am funny, kind, smart, athletic, etc.”. Emphasis is placed on individual rights and concerns, and independence and assertiveness are highly valued.
Relationships and Communication
Interpersonal relationships of individualistic cultures tend to be more fraught and fragile. Greater effort and intention is required in maintaining close relationships with the risk of “relationship severance” through “cutting someone off” or implementing boundaries being typically present and exercised routinely. Intimate relationships rely heavily on self-disclosure to experience closeness. Due to emphasis on personal endeavors, one’s social networks tend to be more wide-reaching and in constant flux in individualism.
Cultural Attachment Styles
Collectivism
An overrepresentation of insecure-anxious (anxious-ambivalent) attachment exists within collectivist societies.
Collectivism upholds the core belief that survival requires close connections to others through managing and preserving strong-tie relationships. Social behavior leans heavily towards seeking security, and social capital leans heavily towards bonding (over bridging). Through the promotion of in-group favoritism and harmony, one’s trust radius remains narrow and sharply distinguished between friends and strangers. To receive social support, one is rewarded upon displaying empathy and becoming attuned to signals of approval and disapproval. Due to the values and strategies collectivist cultures engage in, members are more likely to feel an external locus of control, staying vigilant regarding the anticipated needs and approval of those around them, contributing to feelings of anxiety within relationships.
Attachment formation
The insecure-anxious attachment pattern that tends to form within collectivist cultures arises from caretaking behavior that is unpredictably responsive. When a child exhibits safety-seeking behavior, they are sometimes met with a distress-reducing response from the caretaker, and sometimes they are not. Following this unpredictable responsiveness of their caretaker(s), children display a preoccupation with their caretaker(s) and attempt to influence their behavior towards greater predictability, responsiveness, and bonding. This uncertain or variable (not continuous) reward process (termed “variable ratio schedule of negative reinforcement”) and response has also been observed in animal studies. Upon exposure to reward uncertainty, animals respond with greater effort to procure rewards and devote more attention to the stimuli that signal them, similarly exhibiting this insecure-anxious attachment pattern. As one may expect, there are many consequences that can arise with incremental shaping or verbal learning that comes with this style and pattern of insecure attachment.
Individualism
In individualistic societies, there tends to be an overrepresentation of insecure-avoidant attachments.
Individualism holds the core belief that human potential is best fulfilled when people foster engagement with new prospective partners for personal gain, free of strong-tie constraints and characteristic of weak-tie relationships. Social behavior heavily leans towards seeking novelty and social capital heavily leans towards bridging (over bonding). This is seen through typically having a broader trust radius and tendency to engage in less altruistic but more public prosocial behavior. In general, emphasis on self-expression and self-enhancement along with greater attention to internal psychological states of self and others promotes a more frequent sense of having an internal locus of control. As opposed to an anxious disposition, individualists tend to exhibit avoidance.
Attachment formation
The insecure-avoidant attachment style that commonly arises in individualistic cultures often comes from experiencing predictably unresponsive behavior from one’s caretaker(s). Over time as children come to expect a lack of response from their caretaker(s), children come to reject their caretaker(s) as a source of security. Instead, they seek comfort and satisfaction outside of strong-tie relationships. Children begin to engage in the social world without attempting to obtain or coax responsivity from their attachment figures, described by John Bowlby as “compulsive self-sufficiency”.
Conclusion
As it turns out, neither purely collectivistic nor individualistic attachment patterns are secure. Secure attachment is characterized by flexibility and adaptability, and it arises somewhere in between codependence and hyperindependence. Secure attachment may not look a specific way, but may this be a reminder to all that somewhere out there and maybe not too far away, there exists the possibility of relying on oneself and on others to have one’s needs met. There are options in between conforming to the needs of others and removing oneself entirely from potential conflict. Experiencing ruptures within relationships is a natural part of relating to others, and the cycle of relationship ruptures and the opportunity for repairs can be a beautiful process that fosters closeness and intimacy.
Speaking with a therapist who understands these complex layers can be helpful in navigating these processes, conversations, conflicts, relationships, and multicultural experiences.
Sources:
Cherry, K. (2024). Understanding Collectivist Cultures. Verywell Mind.
Strand, P. S., Vossen, J. J., & Savage, E. (2019). Culture and Child Attachment Patterns: a Behavioral Systems Synthesis. Perspectives on behavior science, 42(4), 835–850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-019-00220-3