Masaki Yuki Hokkaido University

1. Category-Based Collectivism versus Network-Based Collectivism: Identifying Two Types of Individual-Group Relations in the West and East Masaki Yuki Hokkaido University

2. In collaboration with… • Marilynn B. Brewer • William W. Maddux • Kosuke Takemura • Kunihiro Yokota

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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!

6. 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?”

7. New AgendaCross-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

8. 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

9. 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?

10. 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 • 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)

11. 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

12. 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)

13. 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 …?

14. That’s exactly right! Ohio Stadium, November, 1997

15. A Bumper Sticker says … MY TWO FAVORITE TEAMS ARE OHIO STATE AND WHOEVER'S PLAYING MICHIGAN

20. 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

21. 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

22. Empirical Tests

23. 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.

24. 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

25. Results:Target = University (Large group)

26. Results:Target = A small group

27. Study 2Individual-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.

28. Study 3Psychological 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

29. Study 4Bases 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? → → →

30. 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?

31. Aq. Outgroup (another univ.) w/ Acquaintance Ps. B A C Outgroup (another univ.) Ingroup (my university) Experimental Conditions:Three Targets of Depersonalized Trust

32. 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 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)

33. Predictions

34. USA: Students at the Ohio State University, n = 146 Japan: Hokkaido University students, n = 122 Participants

35. Result: Trust I (Allocator choice %) a c c b d b

36. Expected Fairness of allocator’s decision Result: Trust II (Rating) c a c b b d

37. a c c b b d Result: Trust III (Expected Money %)

38. Correlates of Trust Rating

39. 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”

40. 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?

41. 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?

42. Remaining Question #2Competitiveness 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?

43. Remaining Question #2Adaptive 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.

44. Remaining Question #2Adaptive 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.