1 / 36

Masaki Yuki Hokkaido University

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)

dani
Télécharger la présentation

Masaki Yuki Hokkaido University

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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. 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

  3. 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!

  4. 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?

  5. 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

  6. 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?

  7. 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

  8. 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)

  9. 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

  10. 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)

  11. 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 …?

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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. Empirical Tests

  16. 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.

  17. 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

  18. Results:Target = University (Large group)

  19. Results:Target = A small group

  20. 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

  21. 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? → → →

  22. 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?

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

  24. 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)

  25. Predictions

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

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

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

  29. Correlates of Trust Rating

  30. 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”

  31. 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?

  32. 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?

More Related