370 likes | 1.87k Views
Category-Based Collectivism versus Network-Based Collectivism: Identifying Two Types of Individual-Group Relations in the West and East. Masaki Yuki Hokkaido University. Research Background Individualism and Collectivism. Hofstede (1980), Triandis (1989, 1994, 1995)
E N D
Category-Based Collectivism versus Network-Based Collectivism: Identifying Two Types of Individual-Group Relations in the West and East Masaki Yuki Hokkaido University
Research BackgroundIndividualism 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. • So, is it time for us to stop investigating cross-cultural differences in collectivism? Nope!
Why Nope?A problem and direction • Most previous studies compared the level of collectivism. • e.g., “Culture A is higher in collectivism than in culture B.” • However, what’s been missing is to look closely at the psychological process that leads people to collectivism (group-based behaviors). • Cross-cultural difference?
Aim of This Talk:A Cross-Cultural Comparison of the Process of individual-group relations • Are there cross-cultural differences in the psychological processes underlying individual-group relations between the Western and East Asian cultures? • Yes! • Category-based, intergroup orientation in the West • Network-Based, intragroup orientation in East Asia
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?
Ingroup Outgroup S Social Identity TheoryBasic Tenets • Group behavior and ingroup identity as category-based intergroup-oriented phenomena • Attention tointergroup comparison • Ingroup-representation as a shared social category, or a depersonalized whole • Self-concept depersonalized and defined in terms of how typical one is in the group
Why Social Identity Theory Is Possibly NOT a Good Descriptive Model of East Asian Collectivism • Theories and findings in cultural and indigenous psychologies suggest that East Asian collectivism is instead characterized by… • Attention to intragroup relations • Ingroup-representation as a web or network of interpersonal relations • 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 distinctivenessis 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
S East Asian Collectivism as a Network-Based Intragroup Orientation • Attention to intragroup relations • Ingroup-representation as a web or network of interpersonal relations • Self-concept connected with, but also distinguished from other ingroup members (i.e., a “node” in the network)
Ingroup Outgroup S So, Where in the World Is Social Identity Theory Supported?? • 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
Outgroup S North American Collectivism as a Category-Based Intergroup Orientation • Group behavior and identity as category-based intergroup-oriented phenomena • Attention tointergroup comparison • Self-concept depersonalized and defined in terms of how typical one is in the group • Ingroup-representation as a shared social category, or a depersonalized whole Ingroup
S S Two Types of Individual-Group RelationsSummary of Hypotheses West = Category-based intergroup orientation East Asia = Network-based intragroup orientation • Ingroup as a depersonalized entity, defined in comparison with outgroups • Collective self • Ingroup as a personal network among members • Relational self
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 intragrouporientation • 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
Study 2Psychological Correlates of Ingroup Loyalty and IdentityYuki (2003) • 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 3Bases of Depersonalized Trustwith William W. Maddux, Marilynn B. Brewer, and Kosuke Takemura • 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? → → →
S S Two Bases of Depersonalized Trust Indirect Interpersonal Connection Shared Category Coleman (1990) Yamagishi & Yamagishi (1994) Brewer (1981) Kramer & Brewer (1984) → Dominant in North America? → Dominant in East Asia?
Aq. Outgroup (another univ.) w/ Acquaintance Ps. B A C Outgroup (another univ.) Ingroup (my university) Experimental Conditions:Three Targets of Depersonalized Trust
Experimental Paradigm“Entrustment Game”(Kiyonari & Yamagishi, 1999) • Involves actual monetary payments, and entails risk-taking with real stakes, thus a compelling test of trust. • Ps were prescreened for having acquaintances at other 10 famous universities • Ps were “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)
USA: Students at the Ohio State University, n = 146 Japan: Hokkaido University students, n = 122 Participants
Result: Trust I (Allocator choice %) a c c b d b
Expected Fairness of allocator’s decision Result: Trust II (Rating) c a c b b d
Study 3 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”
S S Conclusion • These findings support the hypothesis of two kinds of collectivism across cultures North America = Category-based intergroup orientation East Asia = Network-based intragroup orientation American Small Groups, too?
Remaining Question #1Mode 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?