Experimental Design Group Size: 8 vs 32 Framing: Conservation dilemma vs Contribution dilemma (public goods) Identity salience: individual vs collective Time (feedback) Phase 1: gradual depletion (14 trials) Phase 2: depletion crisis (6 trials)
Results: Phase 1 First trial: Main effect of group size (M small = 13.15 vs M large = 14.42) Main effect of framing (M cons = 12.13 vs M cont = 15.45) Across trial blocks: Slight decline in take, especially in public goods (contribution) condition
Core Configurations (Caporael, 1997) Configuration SizePrototypeModal Task Dyad 2 Spouses; parent-child Sex; caregiving Work group 5-7 Hunting group; teams Foraging, hunting, crafts Deme 30 VillageFood sharing; migration Macrodeme 300 TribeSeasonal gatherings
Level of Analysis Self- Concept Basis of Self-esteem IndividualPersonalTraits and aptitudes Inter- personal RelationalRoles and relationships GroupCollectiveGroup welfare Levels of Self-Representation (Brewer & Gardner, 1996)
Two Models of Social Control Reciprocal exchange relationships interpersonal trust; internal differentiation Group-based collectivism depersonalized loyalty to group as a whole; entification and boundedness
A Nonintuitive Implication Individualism Collectivism
Some Evidence… Americans score high on individualism but also on ingroup identification, value of belonging to groups (Oyserman et al., 2002; Yuki, 2003) Gender differences in relational versus collective interdependence (Kashima et al., 1995; Gabriel & Gardner, 1999)
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.