Motivation and emotion/Book/2025/Affiliation motivation across cultures

Affiliation motivation across cultures:
How do individualistic versus collectivistic societies shape the expression and satisfaction of affiliation needs?

Overview

Figure 1. Although the need to affiliate is universal, the way it is expressed and satisfied depends heavily on cultural context Imagine this ... Your city has just been bombed and everyone is dashing to the bomb shelter for safety (see Figure 1). You instinctively scan the crowd and feel the pull to stay with the group and help others to preserve collective strength. At the same time, you also feel the need to find like-minded people whom you can trust and form alliances with. Both motivations are in an effort to survive but they reflect different motivational pathways: the collectivistic drive to preserve group harmony and the individualistic drive to secure one’s own survival through selective affiliation.

Throughout human history, humans have been driven by a fundamental need to affiliate with others, whether for survival, belonging, or emotional support (McClelland et al., 1989). Affiliation motivation refers to the desire to form and maintain meaningful social connections, allowing individuals to experience positive emotions and a sense of belonging. These needs are often implicit—rooted in early emotional experiences—and fulfilling them is linked to enhanced well-being and identity development (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Ryan et al., 1996).

While the drive to affiliate is universal, the ways in which it is expressed and satisfied vary across cultural contexts. In individualistic societies, affiliation often involves smaller, self-selected networks that support personal goals, whereas in collectivistic societies, it tends to involve broader networks with a focus on maintaining harmony and fulfilling social roles (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Understanding these cultural differences can help explain why people form, maintain, or disengage from social relationships, and provides a foundation for exploring how affiliation behaviours are shaped by cultural values and norms.

With the world becoming increasingly more connected and disconnected at the same time, and with more people interacting cross-culturally, it has become more important than ever to understand and predict the affiliation behaviours of individuals from different cultures to work on maximising well-being enhancing affiliation experiences. Drawing upon theories of motivation such as self-determination theory, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and terror management theory, as well as characteristics that may influence the strength of our motivation like child-rearing practices, religiosity and personality, we can being to see why affiliation needs are expressed and satisfied differently across the world.

Focus questions How do cultural values influence whether affiliation is pursued for intrinsic satisfaction or extrinsic obligation? How is the understanding of what constitutes affiliation different across cultures? How do cultural and ideological beliefs as well as situational factors promote specific types of affiliation over others? How do child-rearing practices and early socialisation influence an individuals affiliation motives and their expression?

Cultural values and the pursuit of affiliation goals

Figure 2. Maslow's hierarchy of needs states that as humans we have a need to belong

Cultural fit between personal values and societal norms can moderate the satisfaction of affiliation needs and overall well-being, with different implications for individualistic vs. collectivistic contexts (Fuhrmann et al., 2019; Markus & Kitayama, 1991).

Self-determination theory (SDT): intrinsic vs. extrinsic affiliation goals

Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000) identifies relatedness as one of three basic psychological needs (alongside autonomy and competence), which most directly aligns with the human need for affiliation.

In individualistic cultures, affiliation is often pursued intrinsically. People seek relationships that align with their personal interests and values, exercising autonomy in choosing friends or social groups. This self-directed pursuit enhances well-being, as freely chosen connections reinforce personal identity and life satisfaction (Deci & Ryan, 2017). For example, joining a sports team in Australia might be motivated primarily by the enjoyment of shared activity and voluntary social engagement.

In collectivistic cultures, affiliation can be more extrinsically regulated. Social obligations, family ties, and community expectations define how and with whom individuals affiliate. Relatedness is valued highly, but it may come at the cost of autonomy, as maintaining harmony and fulfilling social roles is prioritized. For instance, participation in community gatherings in Zambia may be motivated by the expectation of upholding family honor and social cohesion (Fuhrmann et al., 2019; Oishi & Diener, 2001).

SDT emphasizes that the quality of affiliation motivation—intrinsic versus extrinsic—matters for well-being. Intrinsic affiliation goals generally predict higher life satisfaction, whereas extrinsic or obligation-driven affiliation may sometimes be associated with stress or interpersonal conflict (Ryan et al., 1996). This demonstrates that while the need to affiliate is universal, cultural context shapes the form it takes, how it is regulated, and its psychological consequences.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and cultural adaptation

Maslow (1943) placed “love and belonging” at the centre of his hierarchy, framing affiliation as a bridge between basic survival needs (safety, food, shelter) and higher-order goals (self-actualisation) (see Figure 2).

• In individualistic societies, this belongingness need is often satisfied through self-selected friendships, romantic partners, and professional networks.
• In collectivistic societies, belongingness is fulfilled through extended kinship networks, community rituals, and adherence to social roles.

Maslow’s theory, however, has been critiqued for assuming universality without accounting for cultural variation. Research shows that collectivistic groups may prioritise social stability and harmony before individual safety or self-actualisation (Fuhrmann et al., 2019). Thus, the hierarchy may not be linear across all cultural contexts.

Social identity theory & cultural values

Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) suggests that group membership satisfies both belonging and self-esteem needs. In collectivistic societies, affiliation is often ascribed (e.g., family, clan, religious identity) and serves to maintain group cohesion, with strong social expectations to conform. In contrast, individualistic societies prioritise voluntary affiliations based on personal interests, enabling self-expression (Hofstede, 2001; Yuki, 2003) (See Table 1 for examples).

Across cultures, these patterns are reflected in social values. Collectivistic cultures emphasise tradition, social harmony, and benevolence, supporting broad, obligatory networks (Fuhrmann et al., 2019; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Individualistic cultures value autonomy and self-direction, leading to smaller, self-selected networks aligned with personal goals (Fuhrmann et al., 2019). Alignment between personal and culturally endorsed values predicts life satisfaction and motivates affiliation in culturally congruent ways (Sagiv & Schwartz, 2000; Zalewska & Brandstätter, 2001).

Meta-analytic research confirms that collectivistic individuals are more likely to maintain loyalty to existing groups, whereas individualistic individuals prioritise self-expression in affiliative decisions (Oyserman et al., 2002). Yet these patterns are not fixed. Modernisation, migration, and globalisation have blurred traditional boundaries, producing hybrid forms of affiliation: urban youth in collectivistic societies may engage in more individualistic, interest-based networks, and migrants may navigate bicultural affiliation, connecting with both heritage and host groups (Berry, 2005).

Social comparison theory

Festinger’s (1954) theory of social comparison highlights another powerful situational driver of affiliation: the need to evaluate oneself in relation to others. People rarely assess their abilities, values, or success in isolation—social reference points provide the benchmark.

• In collectivistic cultures, social comparison is often anchored in group norms and collective performance. Individuals look to peers and community standards to gauge whether they are fulfilling obligations and contributing harmoniously.
• In individualistic cultures, comparison tends to centre on personal achievements and self-improvement. Here, people affiliate with others partly to identify models of success and to measure how they are progressing relative to individual goals.

Defining affiliation across cultures

The meaning of affiliation varies culturally, influencing both how it is expressed and how it fulfils psychological needs (Cook et al., 2019).

Implicit vs. explicit affiliation motives

McClelland and colleagues (1989) distinguished between implicit affiliation motives (unconscious emotional needs formed in early caregiving) and explicit motives (conscious cultural expectations).

• Implicit motives: shaped by early preverbal experiences with caregivers; they predict spontaneous affiliation behaviour.
• Explicit motives: shaped by cultural values, norms, and socialisation; they predict deliberate, socially visible choices.

Cultural contexts influence whether implicit and explicit motives align. For example, in Germany, independence training fosters explicit motives for autonomy, which align with implicit needs for personal agency (Keller et al., 2004). In Cameroon, communal caregiving fosters implicit security in belonging, aligning with collectivistic expectations. When implicit and explicit motives are congruent, individuals report higher life satisfaction (Keller et al., 2004). Misalignment can lead to dissatisfaction or conflict between personal desires and social obligations. This distinction helps explain why individuals in the same cultural context may express affiliation differently and experience varying levels of satisfaction.

Cultural coding differences in affiliation

One of the biggest challenges in studying affiliation across cultures lies in how behaviors are coded and interpreted. What counts as affiliative in one cultural context may signal something quite different in another. Cross-cultural research shows that Cameroonian children often express affiliation through providing support or advice. These behaviors are interpreted as signs of loyalty and care, reinforcing the social fabric of the group (Schultheiss et al., 2005). In contrast, German children may engage in similar behaviors—such as helping peers—but the underlying meaning is frequently tied to personal growth or achievement rather than social connection (Schultheiss et al., 2005).

These differences highlight the risk of misclassification when using standard Western-coded measures of motivation. A child offering advice in Cameroon might be scored as “high in affiliation,” while in Germany, the same behavior could be interpreted as “achievement-motivated.” Without cultural sensitivity, researchers risk drawing inaccurate conclusions about underlying motives. Affiliative behavior is therefore not universal in its expression—it is culturally coded. Acts of care, support, or cooperation may be primarily about belonging in collectivistic societies, while in more individualistic settings they may signal competence or self-development. This underscores the need for culturally sensitive tools when measuring implicit motives and reminds us that human behavior cannot be separated from its cultural context.

Quiz

Choose your answer and click "Submit":

As someone from a collectivistic culture, you would be more inclined to affiliate with others in order to pursue personal interests:

	True
	False

Cultural and ideological beliefs, and situational factors as drivers of affiliation

Affiliation is shaped not only by enduring cultural and ideological beliefs but also by immediate situational pressures, which together determine who people connect with, why they connect, and what those connections mean.

Approach-oriented vs. avoidance-oriented affiliation motives

Affiliation motives can also be understood through their orientation: approach or avoidance. Recognising these dimensions has important implications for educators, psychologists, and social planners seeking to design interventions that enhance well-being while respecting cultural norms.

• Approach-Oriented Affiliation: This form of motivation reflects a desire to seek closeness, intimacy, and rewarding social experiences. It is linked to positive affect, curiosity, and intrinsic satisfaction. In individualistic contexts, approach-oriented affiliation is more common because social ties are often pursued voluntarily and framed as opportunities for personal growth, identity expression, and emotional fulfilment (Fuhrmann et al., 2019). Friendships or group memberships are chosen for the enjoyment and self-enhancement they provide, reinforcing autonomy while still satisfying the need for connection.
• Avoidance-Oriented Affiliation: In contrast, avoidance-oriented motives centre on the desire to reduce loneliness, prevent exclusion, or avoid negative judgement from others. This orientation often aligns with collectivistic contexts, where the emphasis lies on maintaining harmony, fulfilling obligations, and preserving social approval. Here, affiliation is not always optional—it is frequently tied to extrinsic expectations and role-based duties, and withdrawing may carry real social costs (Fuhrmann et al., 2019).

Example: A German adolescent might form a friendship group around shared hobbies such as sports or music, pursuing the intrinsic rewards of companionship (approach-oriented). In contrast, a Zambian adolescent might join or remain active in group activities primarily to uphold peer cohesion and avoid disapproval or exclusion, reflecting avoidance-oriented affiliation.

This distinction demonstrates how cultural context shapes not only whether people affiliate, but also the psychological meaning behind these affiliations—whether as a pursuit of positive connection or as a safeguard against rejection.

Religion as an affiliation source

Religion is one of the most enduring and culturally powerful contexts for affiliation. It provides structured social networks, regular opportunities for interaction, and shared norms that reinforce prosocial behaviour and group solidarity. In this way, religiosity functions as both a spiritual and a social glue. Religion tends to reinforce collectivistic affiliation patterns, where obligations to family, congregation, and community are central. Rituals, traditions, and shared beliefs bind people together, providing a sense of continuity and collective identity (Cukur et al., 2004; Epley et al., 2008). For many, these affiliations are not optional but deeply embedded in cultural expectations of loyalty and participation.

Religious individuals are typically more motivated to affiliate with in-group members, where the expectation of trust and mutual support is strong. By contrast, out-group affiliation may be limited, reflecting cultural norms of loyalty, exclusivity, or doctrinal boundaries (Fuhrmann et al., 2019). This selective pattern highlights how religiosity shapes not just the intensity, but also the boundaries of social connection. Importantly, religious participation can satisfy both implicit affiliation motives (the deep, often unconscious desire for connection and security) and explicit motives (conscious commitments to roles, values, and practices). This holds true across both collectivistic and individualistic contexts: while the cultural expression differs, the underlying benefits of belonging, meaning, and emotional support are remarkably consistent.

Case Study: In Zambia, adolescents who are actively involved in religious communities report higher well-being, largely because their participation provides access to broad, reliable social networks that support interdependence and cooperation (Fuhrmann et al., 2019). Religious affiliation here not only fulfils spiritual needs but also anchors people in a stable web of social relationships.

Terror management theory and worldview defence

While baseline affiliation motives are shaped by culture, situational factors can amplify or suppress these tendencies. Terror management theory (TMT) (Greenberg et al., 1997) provides a clear example: awareness of mortality increases affiliation motivation as a protective, anxiety-buffering mechanism.

Experimental evidence shows that when reminded of mortality, both individualistic and collectivistic individuals seek social connection, but the targets and forms of affiliation differ. In collectivistic cultures, people prioritise existing social roles, in-group membership, and traditions, reinforcing continuity and collective meaning. In individualistic cultures, affiliation is more selective, often with friends or partners who align with personal values and affirm identity. Thus, affiliation is both contextually activated and culturally moderated, illustrating its adaptive function (Simon et al., 1995).

From an evolutionary perspective, affiliating under threat increases survival probability by improving protection, cooperation, and mating opportunities (Fuhrmann et al., 2019). Situational factors such as mortality salience demonstrate that the need to affiliate is dynamic, not static, and its expression is guided by cultural norms. In practice, TMT research indicates that under threat, individuals may temporarily set aside worldview defence to maintain social bonds (Simon et al., 1995). The priority of affiliation targets differs: collectivistic individuals reinforce broad community and family ties, whereas individualistic individuals focus on selected close relationships.

This evidence highlights that affiliation serves as a flexible, context-dependent mechanism for coping with existential threats while still being shaped by underlying cultural orientations.

Table 1. Comparison of affiliation motivation across cultures with example case studies

Aspect	Individualistic cultures	Collectivistic cultures	Examples/case studies
Primary focus	Self-chosen, voluntary relationships	Obligation, group harmony	Germany: self-directed friendships (Keller et al., 2004); Zambia: interdependent networks (Fuhrmann et al., 2019)
Social network size	Smaller, selective	Larger, inclusive	Cameroonian children supported by multiple caregivers (McClelland et al., 1989)
Implicit motive formation	Independence, autonomy	Interdependence, social obligation	Costa Rica: strong benevolence values (Fuhrmann et al., 2019)
Response to threat	Affiliates with like-minded others	Affiliates with in-group for survival	Terror management studies across cultures (Greenberg et al., 1997)
Life satisfaction link	Pursuit of autonomous goals	Fulfilment of social roles	SDT findings across Germany vs. Zambia (Fuhrmann et al., 2019)

Developmental and socialisation influences

Affiliation motives are shaped early in life through interactions with caregivers and peers, which influence both implicit and explicit drives to connect with others.

Implicit motive formation

Preverbal experiences with caregivers lay the foundation for lifelong affiliative behaviour. For example, Cameroonian children benefit from extensive caregiver networks, satisfying affiliation needs early and reducing fear of social rejection (McClelland et al., 1989). In contrast, German children raised with independence-focused parenting develop agency-based affiliation, seeking self-directed social engagement that aligns with personal goals and autonomy (Keller et al., 2004).

Parenting styles and cultural emphasis

Parenting practices reflect broader cultural priorities. Independence-focused parenting, common in individualistic cultures, encourages self-selected affiliations and supports autonomy (Fuhrmann et al., 2019; Spence, 1985). Conversely, interdependence-focused parenting, typical of collectivistic contexts, emphasises social obligations, communal roles, and extrinsic affiliation goals (Fuhrmann et al., 2019; Schultheiss et al., 2005).

Peer relationships and adolescent identity

Adolescence is a key period for negotiating cultural expectations and personal preferences. Peer interactions reinforce culturally congruent affiliation motives, offering opportunities to experiment with both approach- and avoidance-oriented strategies (Schultheiss et al., 2005). Adolescents may explore social roles within the framework provided by their cultural environment, learning to navigate the balance between personal choice and social obligation.

General critical review of research

Despite strong evidence for cultural differences, several issues complicate the picture:

• Overgeneralisation: Research often assumes homogeneity within cultures (e.g., “all East Asians are collectivistic”), overlooking within-culture diversity.
• Methodological bias: Many cross-cultural studies use Western-developed instruments that may not capture local meanings of affiliation. For instance, “friendship satisfaction” may not translate directly into languages where kinship terms dominate social life.
• Cultural change: Increasing globalisation means affiliation patterns are shifting. Younger generations may adopt more individualistic styles even within traditionally collectivistic contexts.
• Hybrid motives: Individuals frequently combine collectivistic and individualistic motives simultaneously, especially in multicultural societies.

Thus, while cultural frameworks provide useful heuristics, affiliation is best understood as contextually embedded and dynamic.

Practical implications

Understanding affiliation across cultures has significant real-world relevance:

• Mental health: Culturally sensitive therapy should account for whether clients prioritise group harmony or individual autonomy in relationships (Sue & Sue, 2016).
• Organisations: Multinational workplaces must balance collectivistic teamwork norms with individualistic reward systems to foster effective collaboration.
• Conflict resolution: Cross-cultural negotiations benefit when parties recognise differing affiliation motives (e.g., loyalty vs. autonomy) as drivers of behaviour.
• Policy-making: Public health interventions (e.g., vaccination campaigns) may succeed better if framed around collective duty in collectivistic cultures versus personal choice in individualistic cultures (Kim & Markus, 1999).

Conclusion

Affiliation is universal, but its meaning depends on cultural context. Individualistic cultures are more likely to pursue affiliation for intrinsic satisfaction through self-selecting relationships that are built on aligned personal interests, and serve as a means by which they fulfil their need for social connection. On the other hand, collectivistic cultures are more likely to pursue affiliation for extrinsic obligations and hence value group harmony, social status and often have larger social networks. This demonstrates how different implicit motivations for affiliation, which are likely a result of upbringing, can lead individuals to value and express different aspects of social relationships.

Cultural and ideological beliefs such as religion can provide individuals with more chances to affiliate and push them towards pursuing social connections, more typical of collectivistic culture. When situational factors become more life-threatening, these forces to affiliate become magnified and people can begin to overcome the tendency to only affiliate with like-minded people in order to meet the higher priority need of affiliation that helps to cope and survive.

Psychological theories—including social identity theory, self-determination theory, and evolutionary perspectives—help explain these variations, but critical research underscores the need to move beyond simplistic dichotomies. In a globalising world, individuals increasingly navigate hybrid identities, blending collectivistic and individualistic affiliation motives. Recognising this complexity not only deepens our theoretical understanding but also has tangible implications for mental health, organisational practice, and intercultural relations. To truly understand human connection, psychology must embrace cultural diversity in both theory and practice.

See also

• Affiliation Motivation (Book chapter, 2013)
• Self determination theory (Wikipedia)

References

Adams, G., & Plaut, V. C. (2003). The cultural grounding of personal relationship: Friendship in North American and West African worlds. Personal Relationships, 10(3), 333–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00053

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(6), 697–712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.013

Cukur, C. S., De Guzman, M. R. T., & Carlo, G. (2004). Religiosity, values, and horizontal and vertical individualism–collectivism: A study of Turkey, the United States, and the Philippines. Journal of Social Psychology, 144(6), 613–634. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.144.6.613-634

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.

Dudgeon, P., & Walker, R. (2015). Decolonising Australian psychology: Discourses, strategies, and practice. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3(1), 276–297. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v3i1.126

Dwairy, M. (2002). Foundations of psychosocial dynamic personality theory of collective people. Clinical Psychology Review, 22(3), 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(01)00101-0

Epley, N., Akalis, S., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). Creating social connection through inferential reproduction: Loneliness and perceived agency in gadgets, gods, and greyhounds. Psychological Science, 19(2), 114–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02056.x

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202

Fuhrmann, W., Schüler, J., & Elliot, A. J. (2019). The affiliation motive. In J. Heckhausen & H. Heckhausen (Eds.), Motivation and action (3rd ed., pp. 305–328). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65094-4_8

Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., & Pyszczynski, T. (1997). Terror management theory of self-esteem and cultural worldviews: Empirical assessments and conceptual refinements. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 61–139). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60016-7

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). SAGE.

Keller, H., Yovsi, R. D., Borke, J., Kärtner, J., Jensen, H., & Papaligoura, Z. (2004). Developmental consequences of early parenting experiences: Self-recognition and self-regulation in three cultural communities. Child Development, 75(6), 1745–1760. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00814.x

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346

McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed and implicit motives differ? Psychological Review, 96(4), 690–702. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.690

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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.

Ryan, R. M., Sheldon, K. M., Kasser, T., & Deci, E. L. (1996). All goals are not created equal: An organismic perspective on the nature of goals and their regulation. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 7–26). Guilford Press.

Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2000). Value priorities and subjective well-being: Direct relations and congruity effects. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(2), 177–198. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(200003/04)30:2 <177::AID-EJSP982>3.0.CO;2-Z

Schultheiss, O. C., Wirth, M. M., Waugh, C. E., Stanton, S. J., Meier, E. A., & Reuter-Lorenz, P. (2005). Exploring the motivational brain: Effects of implicit power motivation on brain activation in response to facial expressions of emotion. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 1(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsl001

Simon, L., Greenberg, J., Harmon-Jones, E., Solomon, S., & Pyszczynski, T. (1995). Mortal terror: Proximal and distal defenses in the mortality salience paradigm. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(6), 849–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295218005

Spence, J. T. (1985). Achievement American style: The rewards and costs of individualism. American Psychologist, 40(12), 1285–1295. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.12.1285

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

Yuki, M. (2003). Intergroup comparison versus intragroup relationships: A cross-cultural examination of social identity theory in North American and East Asian cultural contexts. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(2), 166–183. https://doi.org/10.2307/1519846

Zalewska, A. M., & Brandstätter, H. (2001). Value structure and dimensions of well-being. Psychological Reports, 88(2), 653–662. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.2001.88.2.653

External links

• Individual vs Collective Culture (YouTube)
• The secret life of social norms (TED)