Category-Based Collectivism vs. Network

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)
• 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 crosscultural 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?
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
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…
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
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
Psychological Correlates of
Ingroup Loyalty and Identity
Yuki (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 3
Bases of Depersonalized Trust
with 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? → → →
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 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)
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
Correlates of Trust Rating
Ingroup
identity
w/ ingroup
trust
w/ ingroup
target
w/ network
target
Americans
.189*
.097
.116
Japanese
.158
.230**
.188*
Estimated Likelihood of
Indirect Connection
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”
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?

Download Report