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
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.

Download Report