The authors of this article evaluate the theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses related to individualism and collectivism (IND-COL), focusing on whether European Americans are more individualistic and less collectivistic than members of other groups. They summarize the psychological implications of IND-COL, review evidence for effects on self-concept, well-being, cognition, and relationality, and analyze cross-national and within-U.S. differences. European Americans were found to be more individualistic and less collectivistic than others, but not more individualistic than African Americans or Latinos, or less collectivistic than Japanese or Koreans. Among Asians, only Chinese showed large effects, being both less individualistic and more collectivistic. Moderate effects were found on self-concept and relationality, and large effects on attribution and cognitive style. The term individualism has roots outside North America, initially used to describe the negative influence of individual rights on the well-being of the commonwealth. It was feared that individualism would lead to the breakdown of community. Western traditions contrast individual and collective focus, with Durkheim and Weber contrasting mechanical and organic solidarity, and collective and individual-focused religions. Hofstede's work in the 1980s popularized the concept of individualism, influencing cultural research. The authors review research published since 1980, focusing on the psychological implications of IND-COL. They examine the assumptions that European Americans are uniquely high in individualism and low in collectivism, and whether psychological models derived from this cultural frame are universal. The authors find that differences in individualism exist, and that the influence of cultural frame is better documented for relationality and attribution than for other domains. They also discuss the definitions and psychological consequences of individualism and collectivism, and the methods used to study and assess these constructs. The authors highlight the limitations of current data, including the narrow focus on undergraduates, single group contrasts, and heterogeneity in how researchers conceptualize and operationalize IND and COL. They discuss different approaches to measuring IND and COL, including Hofstede's approach, direct assessment, and priming studies. They also review existing IND-COL scales, noting the diversity of terminology and content, and the lack of consensus on the roles of family and hierarchy within the IND-COL framework. The authors present two sets of meta-analyses, comparing European Americans with others on IND and COL. They find that European Americans are not significantly more individualistic than African Americans, Latinos, or other groups, and not significantly less collectivistic than Japanese or Koreans. The meta-analyses show that the effect sizes for IND and COL are moderate, with no significant differences between European Americans and other groups in most cases. The authors conclude that the assumption that European Americans are the gold standard of individualism is not supported by the data, and that the psychological implications of IND-COL are better documented for relationality and attribution than for other domains.The authors of this article evaluate the theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses related to individualism and collectivism (IND-COL), focusing on whether European Americans are more individualistic and less collectivistic than members of other groups. They summarize the psychological implications of IND-COL, review evidence for effects on self-concept, well-being, cognition, and relationality, and analyze cross-national and within-U.S. differences. European Americans were found to be more individualistic and less collectivistic than others, but not more individualistic than African Americans or Latinos, or less collectivistic than Japanese or Koreans. Among Asians, only Chinese showed large effects, being both less individualistic and more collectivistic. Moderate effects were found on self-concept and relationality, and large effects on attribution and cognitive style. The term individualism has roots outside North America, initially used to describe the negative influence of individual rights on the well-being of the commonwealth. It was feared that individualism would lead to the breakdown of community. Western traditions contrast individual and collective focus, with Durkheim and Weber contrasting mechanical and organic solidarity, and collective and individual-focused religions. Hofstede's work in the 1980s popularized the concept of individualism, influencing cultural research. The authors review research published since 1980, focusing on the psychological implications of IND-COL. They examine the assumptions that European Americans are uniquely high in individualism and low in collectivism, and whether psychological models derived from this cultural frame are universal. The authors find that differences in individualism exist, and that the influence of cultural frame is better documented for relationality and attribution than for other domains. They also discuss the definitions and psychological consequences of individualism and collectivism, and the methods used to study and assess these constructs. The authors highlight the limitations of current data, including the narrow focus on undergraduates, single group contrasts, and heterogeneity in how researchers conceptualize and operationalize IND and COL. They discuss different approaches to measuring IND and COL, including Hofstede's approach, direct assessment, and priming studies. They also review existing IND-COL scales, noting the diversity of terminology and content, and the lack of consensus on the roles of family and hierarchy within the IND-COL framework. The authors present two sets of meta-analyses, comparing European Americans with others on IND and COL. They find that European Americans are not significantly more individualistic than African Americans, Latinos, or other groups, and not significantly less collectivistic than Japanese or Koreans. The meta-analyses show that the effect sizes for IND and COL are moderate, with no significant differences between European Americans and other groups in most cases. The authors conclude that the assumption that European Americans are the gold standard of individualism is not supported by the data, and that the psychological implications of IND-COL are better documented for relationality and attribution than for other domains.