Taras, V.Sarala, R.Karakitapoğlu-Aygün, Z.Kashima, E. S.Kolstad, A.Milfont, T. L.Oetzel, J.Okazaki, S.Probst, T. M.Sato, T.Shafiro, M.Singelis, T. M.Schwartz, S. J.Sinclair, H. C.Muchinsky, P.Kemmelmeier, M.Avsec, A.Coon, H. M.Dinnel, D. L.Gardner, W.Grace, S.Hsu, S.Johnson, J.Hardin, E. E.2015-07-282015-07-282014-010022-0221http://hdl.handle.net/11693/12980The construct of individualism–collectivism (IND-COL) has become the definitive standard in cross-cultural psychology, management, and related fields. It is also among the most controversial, in particular, with regard to the ambiguity of its dimensionality: Some view IND and COL as the opposites of a single continuum, whereas others argue that the two are independent constructs. We explored the issue through seven different tests using original individual-level data from 50 studies and meta-analytic data from 149 empirical publications yielding a total of 295 samplelevel observations that were collected using six established instruments for assessing IND and COL as separate constructs. Results indicated that the dimensionality of IND-COL may depend on (a) the specific instrument used to collect the data, (b) the sample characteristics and the cultural region from which the data were collected, and (c) the level of analysis. We also review inconsistencies, deficiencies, and challenges of conceptualizing IND-COL and provide guidelines for developing and selecting instruments for measuring the construct, and for reporting and meta-analyzing results from this line of research.EnglishValuesAttitudesBeliefsCultural PsychologyHistory Of PsychArticle10.1177/00220221135091321552-5422