Let's split this into two different questions: 1) should citations of a "collection" book count as citations of an individual chapter in said book, and 2) will these citations count in any particular database.
Considering the first question, I can see an argument for and an argument against whether such citations should count. In favor of counting, your work clearly is part of the collection, and if the collection has "citable quality" then your work is likely to contribute to that in some way. Opposing this is the fact that "collection" books where each group writes a chapter independently are generally completely lacking in unity as a scientific work. From what I have seen, citing such a book is tantamount to saying, "a bunch of people are working in this area." I thus view a citation of the book as essentially equivalent to citing the ubiquitous "introductory review" chapter where the editors explain their vision of the field, then try to map that onto the collection of chapters they ended up with. In short, I think it typically should not count as a citation of individual chapters.
For the second question: will citation databases agree with me, or will they count a citation of the book as a citation of you? Well, that depends on just what sort of secretive sausage-making happens to be going on inside a particular database at a particular time. From my personal experiences, though, I've seen chapters being treated separately, and the book as a whole being treated as a separate creation by the editors. Take heart, though, that often means the editor's introduction will count as a citation for you!