In the 1980s and 90s in psychology, many cross-cultural comparisons were made concerning individualism and collectivism with questionnaires and experiments. The largest number of them compared “collectivistic” Japanese with “individualistic” Americans. This chapter reviewed 48 such empirical comparisons and found that Japanese were no different from Americans in the degree of collectivism. Both questionnaire studies and experimental studies showed essentially the same pattern of results. Many researchers who believed in “Japanese collectivism” suspected flaws in those empirical studies. However, none of the suspected flaws was consistent with empirical evidence. For example, although it was suspected that “Japanese collectivism” was not supported because college students provided data as participants, the studies with non-student adults did not support this common view either. It is thus unquestionable that as a whole the empirical studies disproved the reality of “Japanese collectivism.”

Two main forms of well-being are outlined: hedonic and eudemonic happiness as viewed from the perspective of Self-Determination Theory and from narrative psychology. Two limitations of these approaches are discussed: the lack of the other in the self and the neglect of reason. Taking these limitations into account, a model of multiple well-being is presented with four levels of inclusiveness: individual, social, human, and ecological, each with associated forms of well-being and responsibility. For each of these levels, research findings and related theoretical concepts are presented. At the collective level, the chapter summarizes the reflections of colleagues who applied Dialogical Self Theory in their own culture: African, Japanese, Chinese, and indigenous American. A comparison results in the conclusion that all of them show more open boundaries between self and nonself, more intimacy with others and nature, and less emphasis on control and manipulation of the environment.