Category-Based Collectivism versus Network-Based Collectivism: Identifying Two Types of Individual-Group Relations in the West and East Masaki Yuki Hokkaido University In collaboration with… • • • • Marilynn B. Brewer William W. Maddux Kosuke Takemura Kunihiro Yokota Research Question • • • Are there cultural differences in the dominant psychological processes underlying group behaviors between East Asians and North Americans? Propose Models: Different kinds of collectivism are prevalent • “Category-based intergroup orientation” in North America • “Network-based intragroup orientation” in East Asia Show empirical evidence Research Background Individualism and Collectivism • Hofstede (1980), Triandis (1989, 1994, 1995) • Definition based on values/behavioral/cognitive tendencies – Goal priority: Self vs. Ingroup – Definition of the self: self-based vs. group-based • Representative cultural regions – North America = individualist – East Asia (Japan, Korea, China) = collectivist The Crisis • Oyserman, Coon & Kemmelmeier (2002); Takano & Osaka (1999) – Meta-analysis of past studies – Americans were no less collectivistic than East Asians. – (Note, however, that Americans were in fact more individualistic than East Asians) • So, is it time to stop investigating cross-cultural differences in collectivism? Nope! Why Nope? A problem and direction • Most previous studies compared levels of collectivism. – “Are people in society A more collectivistic than people in society B?” – But it was found that people everywhere more or less put importance on groups • However, what’s been missing is to compare psychological processes underlying collectivism, or group-based behaviors in general • “Is the manner in which people in society A become group-oriented different from the manner in which people in society B do so?” New Agenda Cross-Cultural Comparison of the TYPE of Collectivism across Societies • In order to compare psychological processes underlying collectivism between East Asia and North America, • I (Yuki, 2003) started by examining the validity of a theory of group behavior that is accepted very well in the Western social psychology • Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) – A leading theory of group behavior and cognition in the Western social psychology Social Identity Theory Basic Tenets • Group behavior and ingroup identity as categorybased intergroup-oriented phenomena 1. Attention to intergroup comparison 2. Ingroup-representation as a shared social category, or a depersonalized whole 3. Self-concept depersonalized and defined in terms of how typical one is in the group Ingroup S Outgroup Is Social Identity Theory a Good Descriptive Model of East Asian Collectivism? • Most Theorists consider yes. – Predictions of social identity theory will be more likely supported in the collectivist cultures (Brown, Hinkle, Ely, Fox-Cardamone, Maras & Taylor, 1992) – The self in collectivist cultures is defined as an “appendage of the ingroup” (Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990) • Really? Social Identity Theory Is Possibly NOT a Good Descriptive Model of East Asian Collectivism • HOWEVER, abundance of theories and findings in cultural and indigenous psychologies suggests that social identity theory may not be appropriate to describe East Asian collectivism, because 1. Attention to intragroup relations 2. Ingroup-representation as a web or network of interpersonal relations 3. Self-concept connected with, but also distinguished from other ingroup members (i.e., a “node” in the network) Self-Other Distinction in East Asian Collectivism Paradoxically, self-other distinctiveness is emphasized – Strive to maintain intragroup harmony – Attempt to understand other’s thoughts and feelings – Monitor individual social behaviors of self and others • All these phenomena presuppose that other ingroup members have separate goals and interests from the self East Asian Collectivism as a NetworkBased Intragroup Orientation 1. Attention to intragroup relations 2. Ingroup-representation as a web or network of interpersonal relations 3. Self-concept connected with, but also distinguished from other ingroup members (i.e., a “node” in the network) S So, Where in the World Is Social Identity Theory Supported?? Ingroup S Outgroup • The theory is originated and widely accepted in the Western social psychology (Europe/North America). Does that possibly mean …? That’s exactly right! Ohio Stadium, November, 1997 A Bumper Sticker says … MY TWO FAVORITE TEAMS ARE OHIO STATE AND WHOEVER'S PLAYING MICHIGAN The Number of University Clothing Owned 80 US Japan (%) 60 40 20 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Number 8 9 10 12 14 20 The Frequency of Wearing University Clothing 100 US Japan 80 (%) 60 40 20 0 Almost never Several times a Several times a year month Frequency 2 to 5 times a week Almost everyday The Number of University Goods Privately Displayed 100 US Japan 80 (%) 60 40 20 0 0 1 2 to 5 Number 6 to 10 More! The Number of Times Gone Watching Univ. Sports Match 100 US Japan 80 (%) 60 40 20 0 0 1 2 to 5 6 to 10 Number 11 to 20 More! North American Collectivism as a CategoryBased Intergroup Orientation • Group behavior and identity as category-based intergroup-oriented phenomena 1. Attention to intergroup comparison 2. Self-concept depersonalized and defined in terms of how typical one is in the group 3. Ingroup-representation as a shared social category, or a depersonalized whole Ingroup S Outgroup Two Types of Individual-Group Relations Summary of Hypotheses West = Categorybased intergroup orientation S •Ingroup as a depersonalized entity, defined in comparison with outgroups •Collective self East Asia = Networkbased intragroup orientation S • Ingroup as a personal network among members • Relational self Empirical Tests Study 1: Intergroup vs. intragroup orientation across cultures • • Compared American and Japanese interest in intergroup and intragroup relations Measure of intergroup orientation = “Relational versus autonomous orientations scale” (Brown et al., 1992) – It is important to me how my group compares to other groups. – I often experience a feeling of competitiveness between my group and other groups. – I often think about how well my group is doing relative to other groups. Study 1: Intergroup vs. intragroup orientation across cultures • New scale of intragroup orientation – It is important to me that I know which members in my group are friends with each other and/or which members don’t like each other. – It is important to me that members in my group maintain harmony with each other. – I want to know which members in my group are not cooperative with each other. • Two targets: One’s university (large ingroup) and a small ingroup Results: Target = University (Large group) 5 US Japan 4 3 2 1 Intergroup Intragroup Orientation Results: Target = A small group 5 US Japan 4 3 2 1 Intergroup Intragroup Orientation Study 2 Individual-Group Discontinuity Effect • Tendency for intergroup behaviors to be more competitive than inter-individual behaviors • As shown in Kosuke’s poster – Japanese believed that intergroup relations were no more competitive than inter-individual relations – Japanese belief about intergroup relations was less competitive than that of Americans – Japanese discontinuity effect in PD game was smaller than American counterparts • Supports the idea that East Asian collectivism is not intergroup competition oriented. Study 3 Psychological Correlates of Ingroup Loyalty and Identity • LARGE GROUP (nation) loyalty and identity – US Relative status + Perceived ingroup homogeneity – JP Subjective sociometric knowledge (i.e., the sense of interpersonal connectedness, understanding of intragroup network) • SMALL GROUP loyalty and identity – Both US and JP Subjective sociometric knowledge Study 4 Bases of Depersonalized Trust • A cross-cultural comparison of the bases of depersonalized trust between the US and Japan • Depersonalized Trust = Trust to unknown others (Brewer, 1981) • Why is it useful as a test of present hypothesis? → → → Two Bases of Depersonalized Trust Shared Category Indirect Interpersonal Connection S S Brewer (1981) Kramer & Brewer (1984) Coleman (1990) Yamagishi & Yamagishi (1994) → Dominant in North America? → Dominant in East Asia? Experimental Conditions: Three Targets of Depersonalized Trust Aq. B Outgroup (another univ.) w/ Acquaintance C Outgroup Ps. A Ingroup (my university) (another univ.) Experimental Paradigm “Entrustment Game” (Kiyonari & Yamagishi, 1999) • Involves actual monetary payments, and entails risktaking with real stakes, thus a compelling test of trust. • Ps prescreened for having acquaintances at other area universities • Ps “randomly assigned” the role of an allocator or recipient. (Ps were always recipient) • The fictitious “allocator” was given $11/1300yen and could allocate it between him/herself and the recipient (Ps) anyway he/she wanted. • DV: The recipient (Ps) were asked to choose between (a) receiving whatever amount the allocator would allocate to him/her (trust), or (b) receiving a fixed amount, $3/400yen (no trust) Predictions US Trust Japan Ingroup Aq-outgroup NoAq-outgroup Allocator's university Participants • USA: Students at the Ohio State University, n = 146 • Japan: Hokkaido University students, n = 122 Result: Trust I (Allocator choice %) 1 0.9 a c Trust % c USA 0.8 Japan b 0.7 b d 0.6 0.5 Ingroup Aq outgroup No-Aq outgroup Allocator's university Result: Trust II (Rating) Expected Fairness of allocator’s decision 2.9 a c Trust rating 2.8 c 2.7 US b 2.6 Japan b d 2.5 2.4 2.3 Ingroup Aq outgroup No-Aq outgroup Allocator's university Expected amount/half of total (%) Result: Trust III (Expected Money %) a 45 c 40 c US b b d 35 30 25 Ingroup Aq outgroup Allocator's university No-Aq outgroup Japan Correlates of Trust Rating Ingroup identity w/ ingroup trust Estimated Likelihood of Indirect Connection w/ ingroup target w/ network target Americans .189* .097 .116 Japanese .158 .230** .188* Study 4 Summary • American depersonalized trust was based on a categorical distinction between the ingroup and outgroup – “Trust ingroup/Distrust outgroup” • Japanese depersonalized trust was based on a (possibility of) indirect interpersonal connections – “Trust whom related/Distrust whom unrelated” Conclusion • These findings support the hypothesis of two kinds of collectivism across cultures North America = Category-based intergroup orientation S East Asia = Networkbased intragroup orientation S American Small Groups, too? Remaining Question #1 Mode of Thought and Mode of Group Behavior? • • Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan (2001) argue that – Western mode of thoughts (analytic) is based on categorization: paying attention primarily to the object and the category to which it belongs – East Asian mode of thoughts (holistic) is relationship-based: attending to the entire relational structure in which the objects are embedded and interrelated, and assigning causality based on relationships to other objects Is it just a coincidence, or any substantial association with the difference of group processes found here? Remaining Question #2 Competitiveness of Social Reality and Competitiveness of Group Behavior? • Yuki & Yokota (submitted) showed that, in the minimal group paradigm, – Intergroup discrimination based on categorization, when intergroup hostility was primed – Intergroup discrimination based on intragroup dependence, when irrelevant prime was given • Is it just a coincidence, or any substantial association with the difference of group processes found here? Remaining Question #2 Adaptive Behaviors in Different Social Environments? • It is possible that the two processes found across cultures reflect different degrees of inter-categorical competition between the societies, and thus are adaptive behaviors in each social environment. • If the frequency/strength of inter-categorical competition in East Asia is less than in North America • Adaptive tasks may reside more in intragroup contexts – Maintenance of harmony – Mutual monitoring and sanctioning – Detection of relationship • The network-based intragroup-orientation model applies. Remaining Question #2 Adaptive Behaviors in Different Social Environments? • If the frequency/strength of inter-categorical competition in North America is more than in East Asia, • Adaptive tasks may reside more in intergroup contexts – Monitoring of intergroup status difference – Fight – Defend – Win • The category-based intergroup-orientation model applies.
© Copyright 2019 ExploreDoc