Individualism – “a social pattern that consists of loosely linked individuals who view themselves as independent of collectives” (Triandis, 1995, p. 2) – is one of the most influential “global values” (Pilkington and Johnson, 2003). Importantly, individualism has long been fostered in European American cultural contexts. For instance, previous studies suggested that individualism is fostered over time by economic systems (i.e., the lifestyle of herders compared to those of farmers and fishermen; e.g., Uskul et al., 2008), the Protestant ethic (e.g., Weber, 1920; Quinn and Crocker, 1999), the philosophy of ancient Greece (e.g., Nisbett, 2003), the decreased prevalence of pathogens, and voluntary settlements (e.g., Kitayama et al., 2006).

Individualistic systems or environments are believed to have positive influences on individuals (e.g., Waterman, 1981). For example, individualistic systems enable individuals to act autonomously and choose freely (Triandis, 1995), with high social mobility such as being able to choose desirable persons to interact with (e.g., Schug et al., 2009), which tends to increase happiness (Inglehart et al., 2008; Fischer and Boer, 2011). Furthermore, people in individualistic cultures can have strong sense of self-efficacy (Kitayama et al., 2004).

However, such individualistic systems or environments can also have potentially negative effects. In particular, individualistic systems urge people to pursue personal achievement, which creates competition between individuals (Triandis, 1995). These systems can also result in high social mobility, which lead to high social anxiety (Oishi et al., 2013). In addition, the focused attention on personal achievements can bear a significant cost on interpersonal relationships (Park and Crocker, 2005).

Even though having costs, individualism brings benefits such as enjoying free choice and strong sense of self-efficacy. One strategy to buffer against the negative affects of individualistic systems is developing interpersonal skills, usually employed in European American cultures, contexts, including seeking new interpersonal relationships (Oishi et al., 2013), engaging in self-disclosure (Schug et al., 2010), explicitly seeking social support (Kim et al., 2006) or maintaining a high relational mobility by choosing desirable persons with whom to interact (Schug et al., 2009; Yuki and Schug, 2012). In short, in European American cultures, people are independent from each other (Markus and Kitayama, 1991, 2010) but still actively seek interpersonal relationships. Such interpersonal skills are probably acquired over an extended period through socialization, and allow people in these cultural contexts to enjoy interpersonal relationships while maintaining their independence.

Through globalization, Japanese society has been influenced by European American cultures. This is especially true for the aspects of Japanese society that are adopting the individualistic systems imported from European American cultures. For example, the number of companies introducing pay-per-performance systems in Japan has increased (Institute of Labor Administration, 2004). Moreover, it has been argued that education that fosters children’s autonomy has recently been emphasized in schools (Doi, 2004). With the increase of individualistic environments in Japan, people have also become more individualistic in certain respects¹. For instance, the average family size has decreased, the divorce rate has increased, and independence in child socialization has been increasingly prioritized (Hamamura, 2012).

However, it has been argued that individualism in Japan might be qualitatively different from the individualism in the European American cultural contexts (Kitayama, 2010). Individualism in these cultural contexts means being independent from others but still actively making social relationships. By contrast, to be independent and achieve “individualism,” the Japanese might feel the need to distance themselves from interdependent relationships. Indeed, connotations of individualism in Japan are more negative than are those in the U.S. Specifically, in the U.S. individualism is perceived to be unique or independent, while in Japan individualism is regarded as being selfish and feeling lonely (Ogihara et al., 2013a,b). Unlike in European American cultural contexts, relational mobility is relatively low in East Asian cultural contexts; that is, people tend to interact with others with whom they already have a connection (Yuki and Schug, 2012). Hence, the Japanese are more likely to commit to a long-term relationship rather than to seek new relationships (Yamagishi and Yamagishi, 1994). However, long-term, pre-existing interpersonal relationships can bind and restrict individuals because these relationships are often rule-based, not autonomy-based. Therefore, it might be necessary for Japanese individuals to cut off traditional relationships to be independent. Moreover, once these relationships are cut off, it is difficult for the Japanese to develop new relationships. Even under the motivation to be independent, the Japanese do not actively create new relationships because they are not equipped with appropriate strategies for making and constructing new social relationships, such as actively engaging in self-disclosure (Schug et al., 2010) or explicitly seeking social support (Kim et al., 2006). In European American cultures, individualism has been fostered over a long period, so people have adequate strategies which have been acquired through socialization. In contrast, Japan was not an individualistic culture and the exposure to individualization is comparatively recent. Therefore people in Japan might not have the strategies which are appropriate in an individualistic culture. As a result, under individualistic systems, Japanese tend to cut off interpersonal relationships but do not actively build new close interpersonal relationships. Thus becoming more individualistic might decrease Japanese happiness because interpersonal relations are an important source of happiness in Japan (e.g., Uchida et al., 2008).

We examined the relationship between individualistic values, subjective well-being (SWB), and number of close relationships in Japan and the U.S. Study 1 tested the hypothesis that individualistic values would be associated with a decrease in the number of close friends and SWB in Japan, but not to close friends and SWB in the U.S. Furthermore, to examine the effect of individualistic values and structural systems, Study 2 tested if decreases in the number of close relationships and SWB would be found in a sample of adults working in an individualistic environment in Japan. We predicted that even in a workplace that has individualistic systems and requires individualistic values, individualistic values would be negatively related to the number of close friends and SWB for Japanese workers.

One hundred and fourteen undergraduate students at Kyoto University in Japan (62 male, 52 female; M_age = 19.5, SD_age = 1.77) and 62 undergraduate students at University of Wisconsin-Madison in the U.S. (29 male, 33 female; M_age = 19.3, SD_age = 1.17; 60 White and 2 Hispanic born in the U.S.) participated in this study.

The average raw scores of individualistic and collectivistic orientations are shown in Figure 1. We conducted a 2-way (orientation and culture) ANOVA and found main effects of both orientation [F(1,174) = 11.68, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.06] and culture [F(1,174) = 8.97, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.05]. In addition, the interaction between orientation and culture was significant [F(1,174) = 12.57, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.07]. The individualistic orientation score was significantly higher for the U.S. participants than for Japanese participants [F(1,173) = 17.80, p < 0.001], whereas the collectivistic orientation score was not significantly different across cultures [F(1,173) = 0.26, p = 0.61].

Due to generally consistent results across the four SWB measures, a single SWB index was developed using a principle component analysis (Table 1). Multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine how individualistic and collectivistic orientations affected SWB in each culture³. In Japan, an individualistic orientation negatively affected SWB, whereas a collectivistic orientation did not affect SWB (Figure 2). In contrast, in the U.S., a collectivistic orientation negatively affected SWB, and an individualistic orientation did not affect SWB.

We conducted a mediation analysis to test whether the number of close friends mediated the effect of an individualistic orientation on SWB. The distributions of the numbers of close friends were positively skewed. Thus, we transformed the values by computing their common logarithm (plus 1), which produced an approximately normal distribution (using the same analysis proposed by Kirkpatrick et al., 2002). In Japan, an individualistic orientation was associated with fewer close friends. Moreover, the number of close friends positively predicted SWB, even after orientation was controlled. Therefore, in Japan the number of close friends mediated the effect of an individualistic orientation on SWB (Figure 3). Furthermore, a Sobel test (Sobel, 1982) indicated that the mediating effect of the number of close friends was marginally significant (z = -1.75, p = 0.08). In contrast, we did not find such a relationship in the U.S.

Thirty-four women (M_age = 26.6, SD_age = 6.19, 22–51 years old) who worked for a large insurance company in Japan participated in the study. The data of two participants who reported they had lived abroad for more than 5 years were excluded. In this insurance company, performances and achievement-oriented goals are explicitly displayed on the wall (e.g., how many contracts each individual secured in the past 1 month); such displays are perceived as competitive. Participants answered the same questionnaire used in Study 1; all scales had satisfactory internal consistency (α _{individualistic orientation} = 0.90, α _{collectivistic orientation} = 0.87, 0.79 < α _{SWB scales} < 0.95).

Raw scores for individualistic and collectivistic orientations in the adult and student samples are shown in Figure 4. We conducted a two-way (orientation and group) ANOVA and found a main effect of orientation [F(1,144) = 17.97, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.11]. In contrast, the main effect of group was not significant [F(1,144) = 0.89, p = 0.35, ηp2 = 0.01] nor was the interaction between orientation and group [F(1,144) = 2.07, p = 0.15, ηp2 = 0.01].

The results were consistent with Study 1; an individualistic orientation was negatively associated with both SWB and the number of close friends (Figure 5). Although the number of close friends positively predicted SWB (β = 0.41, p < 0.05), when the effect of individualistic orientation was controlled, the effect of close friends on SWB became weak (β = 0.17, p = 0.42). However, importantly, individualistic orientation had a negative relationship with both SWB and the number of close friends.

The results showed that an individualistic orientation dampened close interpersonal relationships and SWB in Japan, suggesting that individualism has a negative effect in East Asian cultural contexts. Although this study examined individualistic values in Japan, the results may generalize to other East Asian countries (e.g., China and South Korea) since a number of studies have shown that East Asian countries have traditionally interdependent or collectivistic cultural norms (e.g., Choi et al., 1997).

Recently, Japanese systems and environments are becoming more individualistic, but people in Japan may not respond well to these new systems. Why is there a gap between the environments and individual’s psychological tendencies such as personal values? We expect that this gap between environments and individuals’ psychological tendencies is due to unsuccessful attempts to adapt to new environments (i.e., individualistic systems in Japan) without effective behavioral strategies. To be more specific, when individuals in Japan try to be independent, they may cut off their existing relationships, and may not possess strategies to actively build new interpersonal relationships, unlike independent individuals in the European American cultural contexts where actively building new interpersonal relationships is common (e.g., Schug et al., 2010; Oishi et al., 2013).

Individualism in the European American cultural context is based on shared values and the notion that individuals are “independent from each other,” but still “connected with each other.” In European American cultural contexts, this sense of values and behavioral strategies are fostered through long historical periods (e.g., Nisbett, 2003;). In contrast, it is only recently that individualistic systems or environments have been drastically imported to East Asian cultural context. Therefore, these environments are comparatively new, and the Japanese imported individualism might consist only of parts of Western individualism. For example, even though Japanese companies or schools use personal achievement systems, these systems are not backed by the personal values that govern these systems in European American cultural context, such as active interpersonal strategies, religious ideas, or high self-efficacy. Therefore, it remains difficult for East Asians to buffer the negative effects of individualistic systems or environment.

The novelty of this study is that it separetes values and interpersonal strategies, especially as seen in the results of Study 2. Although the Japanese might espouse individualistic values, they might not be able to achieve the same positive consequences of individualism that are observed in European American cultural contexts because they are not equipped with the strategies necessary to buffer the negative interpersonal effects of individualism. Although some researchers have theoretically distinguished social structure from values (e.g., Dimaggio and Markus, 2010), no research has treated values and strategies as separate constructs. Our findings reveal the simplicity of structure versus values distinction by highlighting the importance of the strategies that people use to act out their values. Transplanting both the structure and the values of one culture into another might not work if individuals do not have the strategies to adaptively act out their values in the given structural setting. It is especially important to consider that the recent rapid changes of social structures and values may not be accompanied by behavioral strategies, which take longer to develop through many social training. Although cross-cultural differences in social behavior are well established, much less is known about how cultural change influences individuals. Further research should be conducted to examine the effect of cultural changes on human psychology and behavior.

We explained that in individualistic cultures, such as American culture, people acquire strategies to deal with the negative interpersonal consequences of individualism through long-term socialization. By contrast, in Japan, it is comparatively recent that society has become individualistic and, even when people have individualistic values, they are not well equipped with appropriate strategies to buffer the negative effect of individualism. However, another interpretation is possible; having an individualistic personal orientation might conflict with Japan’s traditional collectivistic values in Japan. In order to conclude which is the better explanation, it may be important to examine the buffering effect against individualism, such as by collecting data from people who appear to have better buffers against the negative effects of competitive working environments.

We examined the relationships between an individualistic orientation, the number of close friends, and SWB in Japan and the U.S., but we did not test the causal relationships directly (i.e., an individualistic orientation decreased the number of close friends and, as a result, SWB decreased). It is possible that having a small number of friends leading to individualism and lower SWB. Investigating the causal associations between an individualistic orientation, social relationships and SWB by longitudinal survey study or using the accumulated archive data could be a focus of future research.

Although not part of our hypothesis, we found that a collectivistic orientation was negatively associated with SWB in the U.S. We could not find evidence to suggest reasons for this decrease (in contrast to finding the connection to the number of close friends in Japan). This point should be explored further.

Our findings provide insight on the effect of globalization in the case of not only individuals but also nations. Of course, globalization has many benefits for individuals and nations. We can get together frequently due to transportation innovations, products that are made in distant locations are readily available, and we can learn almost anything via information technology. However, there are also some negative effects. Globalization may cause maladaptive responses and deviations from mainstream culture, especially outside European American cultures (e.g., Asian or African cultures). It may be that such deviations from the cultural mainstream are linked to current social issues, such as social withdrawal (e.g., hikikomori in Japan who isolate themselves into their own bedrooms from 6 months to decades at a time without interacting with others, sometimes even with their own families; Norasakkunkit and Uchida, 2011). In addition, values and systems that are adaptive in European American cultures may not necessarily be adaptive in other cultures (e.g., Oishi, 2012). Thus, it might be necessary for each nation to select which values and systems to endorse, or introduce new ones in ways that are compatible with their culture. For instance, Bhutan, a small Asian country located between China and India, has gained much attention because of its distinctive policy against globalization (Center for Bhutan Studies, 2012). The Bhutan government explicitly states that not only the physical happiness (Gross National Product) but also the psychological happiness (Gross National Happiness) of citizens are key policies of the country.

In a more globalized world, culture matters more than ever before. Therefore, the effect of globalization (in particular, the effects of individualism) on individuals and nations should be examined from a cultural perspective in more detail in the future.