Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1 Culture, Group, and Identity in North American and East Asian Contexts… and What’s More Masaki Yuki Hokkaido University Hokkaido-Illinois Joint Workshop.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "1 Culture, Group, and Identity in North American and East Asian Contexts… and What’s More Masaki Yuki Hokkaido University Hokkaido-Illinois Joint Workshop."— Presentation transcript:

1 1 Culture, Group, and Identity in North American and East Asian Contexts… and What’s More Masaki Yuki Hokkaido University Hokkaido-Illinois Joint Workshop 2006

2 2 In Collaboration with… My research team on culture, social structure, and group processes at Hokkaido University William W. Maddux Marilynn B. Brewer Marilynn PhotoWill Photo My Research Group Photo

3 3 Roadmap Cultural differences in the types/patterns of group behavior, cognition, and identity: Why do we study this?Cultural differences in the types/patterns of group behavior, cognition, and identity: Why do we study this? Theory and evidenceTheory and evidence Next step: Why different patterns in different areas?Next step: Why different patterns in different areas?

4 4 Why study cultural differences in group processes Between North Americans and East AsiansBetween North Americans and East Asians Why bother studying group behaviors of North Americans = “individualists”?Why bother studying group behaviors of North Americans = “individualists”? In fact, N Americans are highly group-orientedIn fact, N Americans are highly group-oriented Oyserman, et al.’s (2002) meta-analysis:Oyserman, et al.’s (2002) meta-analysis:  N Americans are no less collectivistic than are Japanese and Koreans.  They are sometimes even more collectivistic than are Chinese, depending on scale content

5 5 Why study cultural differences in group processes Reactions to Oyserman et al. 1.Don’t trust it! Methodological problems  e.g. Reference group effect (Heine, Lehman, Peng, & Greenholtz, 2002) 2.I knew it! No such thing as individualism- collectivism, and the whole research was waste 3.They are right. But aren’t there something more important here? Cultural differences in group processes? Cultural differences in group processes?

6 6 Why study cultural differences in group processes A problem of previous studies on indivdiualism and collectivism: compared the levels of group behavior, as contrasted with personal behaviorA problem of previous studies on indivdiualism and collectivism: compared the levels of group behavior, as contrasted with personal behavior  “Are E Asians more collectivistic than are N Americans?” New question: Are there cultural differences in psychological processes underlying group behavior (or patterns)?New question: Are there cultural differences in psychological processes underlying group behavior (or patterns)?  “Is the way E Asians behave and think in a collectivistic manner different from the way N Americans do so?” “If yes, how?”

7 7 After reviewing lots of cultural, anthropological, and sociological literature…

8 8 And, after an adventure to the Kingdom of “individualists” … Ohio Stadium Photo Olympics PhotoUCLA Fans Photo

9 9 Culture, Group, and Identity : The theory (Yuki, 2003) North America = Category-based, intergroup comparison orientation S East Asia = Network-based, intragroup relationship orientation S

10 10 Culture and Two Types of Collectivism: Yuki (2003) East Asian’s intragroup relationship orientation North American’s intergroup comparison orientation Cognitive representation of ingroup Interpersonal network Depersonalized entity, contrasted with outgroups Self-conceptIndividuated/ connected directly or indirectly with ingroup members Depersonalized/ defined in terms of prototypicality MotivationIntragroup reciprocity Intergroup status/competition S

11 11 Related Frameworks Collective vs. relational self (Brewer & Gardner, 1996)Collective vs. relational self (Brewer & Gardner, 1996) Identity-based vs. attraction-based group cohesiveness (Hogg, 1992)Identity-based vs. attraction-based group cohesiveness (Hogg, 1992) Common-identity vs. common-bond groups (Prentice, Miller, & Lightdale, 1994)Common-identity vs. common-bond groups (Prentice, Miller, & Lightdale, 1994) Interdependent self-construal (Markus & Kitayama, 1991)Interdependent self-construal (Markus & Kitayama, 1991) Difference/separateness vs. positional mode of distinctiveness (Vignoles, Chryssochoou, & Breakwell, 2000)Difference/separateness vs. positional mode of distinctiveness (Vignoles, Chryssochoou, & Breakwell, 2000)

12 12 Empirical Evidence

13 13 Literature Review 1 Literature Review 1 Culture and Self-Concept Well-known finding: when asked to describe self-concept (“Who I am”) by the Twenty Statements Test …Well-known finding: when asked to describe self-concept (“Who I am”) by the Twenty Statements Test …  N Americans tend to use internal attributes (e.g. ability, personality, etc.)  E Asians refer to social relations (e.g. groups, relationships, etc.)

14 14 Literature Review 1 Literature Review 1 Culture and Self-Concept However, Watkins (1988) found that when more detailed category-schema was used…However, Watkins (1988) found that when more detailed category-schema was used…  people from “collectivistic countries” used more relationship-based traits or small group memberships  Whereas people from “individualistic countries” referred to more large group memberships

15 15 Literature Review 2 Culture and Ingroup Favoritism When the target group is a large group, abstract social category, and minimal groups, Westerners (incl. N Americans) show stronger ingroup favoritism than do AsiansWhen the target group is a large group, abstract social category, and minimal groups, Westerners (incl. N Americans) show stronger ingroup favoritism than do Asians  Bond & Hewstone, 1988; Buchan et al., 2002; Heine & Lehman, 1997; Wetherell, 1982 When the target is a close relationship, E Asians become ingroup-favoring to the same extent as N Americans (e.g., Endo, et al., 2000)When the target is a close relationship, E Asians become ingroup-favoring to the same extent as N Americans (e.g., Endo, et al., 2000)

16 16 Study 1 Bases of ingroup identity and loyalty (Yuki, 2003) Findings = When correlates of ingroup identity and loyalty were examined, those of …Findings = When correlates of ingroup identity and loyalty were examined, those of …  Americans  Perceived ingroup superiority and intragroup homogeneity  Japanese  Perceived intragroup relationship connection (sense of direct/indirect relatedness) and knowledge of intragroup relational structure

17 17 Study 2 Category- vs. Relationship-Based Trust (Yuki, Maddux, Brewer, & Takemura, 2005) On what basis do people trust someone whom they have never met before?On what basis do people trust someone whom they have never met before?  Depersonalized trust (Brewer, 1981) Why can this be a test of our theory?Why can this be a test of our theory?

18 18 Two Bases of Depersonalized Trust Shared Category Indirect Interpersonal Connection S Brewer (1981) Kramer & Brewer (1984) Coleman (1990) S → Dominant in North America→ Dominant in East Asia

19 19 Three Targets of Trust (Conditions) C Outgroup where one does not have an aq. Ingroup (own univ.) A Ps. Outgroup (another univ.) where one has an acquaintance Aq. B

20 20 Laboratory Study (Yuki et al., 2005, Study 2)

21 21 Experimental Paradigm A version of “Entrustment Game” (Kiyonari & Yamagishi, 1999) $11.0/\1300 a) Allocated amount b) Fixed amount $3.00/\400 Choice between a) or b) Recipient (Ps.) Allocator Experi- menter

22 22 Participants USA: Students at Ohio State University, n = 146USA: Students at Ohio State University, n = 146 Japan: Hokkaido University students, n = 122Japan: Hokkaido University students, n = 122

23 23 Allocator choice (%) (=Trust in Allocator) a b b c c d

24 24 Expectation of Fair Allocation a b b c c d

25 25 Correlates of Trust Rating ingroup identity (ingroup condition) estimated indirect interpersnl connectn with the allocator ingroup condition aq outgrp condition Americans.189* Japanese **.188*

26 26 Discussion American depersonalized trust is based on a categorical distinction between the ingroup and outgroupAmerican depersonalized trust is based on a categorical distinction between the ingroup and outgroup  “Trust ingroup/Distrust outgroup” Japanese depersonalized trust is based on a (possibility of) indirect interpersonal connectionsJapanese depersonalized trust is based on a (possibility of) indirect interpersonal connections  “Trust whom related/Distrust whom unrelated”

27 27 Study 3 Interests in intergroup comparison and/or intragroup relationships (Yuki, Maddux, & Takemura, unpublished) To obtain direct evidence that N Americans are interested in intergroup (ingroup-outgroup) comparison, whereas E Asians are interested in intragroup relationshipsTo obtain direct evidence that N Americans are interested in intergroup (ingroup-outgroup) comparison, whereas E Asians are interested in intragroup relationships

28 28 Scales Intergroup comparison orientation scale: 5 items from Brown et al.’s (1992) “Relational versus autonomous orientations scale.”Intergroup comparison orientation scale: 5 items from Brown et al.’s (1992) “Relational versus autonomous orientations scale.”  “It is important to me about how my group might compare to other groups.”  “I often think about how well my group is doing relative to other groups.” Intragroup relationship orientation scale: a new scale with 5 items (alpha =.64 ~.72).Intragroup relationship orientation scale: a new scale with 5 items (alpha =.64 ~.72).  “It is important to me that the members in my group get along with each other.”  “I want to know which members in my group are not cooperative.”

29 29 Results Interaction: F (1, 187) = 27.57, p <.001Interaction: F (1, 187) = 43.18, p <.001 Target group = University Small Group

30 30 Discussion As predicted, Americans were more interested in intergroup comparison than were Japanese.As predicted, Americans were more interested in intergroup comparison than were Japanese. Contrary to the prediction, both Americans and Japanese were interested in getting to know about intragroup relationships to the similar degree.Contrary to the prediction, both Americans and Japanese were interested in getting to know about intragroup relationships to the similar degree.  Importance of interpersonal connections as human universal? (cf. Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005)

31 31 Conclusion thus far North Americans = Category-based, intergroup comparison orientation S East Asians = Network-based, intragroup relationship orientation S

32 32 Next Step We’ve started to investigate various possibilities why there is such a difference in group processes between culturesWe’ve started to investigate various possibilities why there is such a difference in group processes between cultures First approach: Why intergroup-oriented collectivism in N America = “individualist” society?First approach: Why intergroup-oriented collectivism in N America = “individualist” society?

33 33 Why intergroup-oriented collectivism in the “individualist” society? N America is a typical competitive society, and N Americans are competitive (e.g. Sampson, 1977)N America is a typical competitive society, and N Americans are competitive (e.g. Sampson, 1977) Competitive people are usually the least cooperative in groupsCompetitive people are usually the least cooperative in groups However, competitive people become cooperative, when they find that the relationship between ingroup and outgroup to be competitive (Carnevale, Probst, Hsueh, & Triandis, 1997)However, competitive people become cooperative, when they find that the relationship between ingroup and outgroup to be competitive (Carnevale, Probst, Hsueh, & Triandis, 1997) In this context, ingroup cooperation is an adaptive behavior for them to maximize one’s own interest through formation of ingroup as “allies.”In this context, ingroup cooperation is an adaptive behavior for them to maximize one’s own interest through formation of ingroup as “allies.”

34 34 Study 4: Intergroup Comparison and Interpersonal Comparison Tested hypothesis that the cultural difference in intergroup comparison orientation between US and Japan would be mediated by inter- personal comparison orientation.Tested hypothesis that the cultural difference in intergroup comparison orientation between US and Japan would be mediated by inter- personal comparison orientation.  “Interpersonal comparison orientation scale” was created by substituting “my group” with “I”, and “other groups” with “others” in the items of intergroup comparison orientation scale,  e.g. “It is important to me about how I might compare to others.” Participants: 54 American and 60 Japanese university studentsParticipants: 54 American and 60 Japanese university students

35 35 Results Culture US = 1 Japan = 0 Intergroup Comparison Orientation.39***

36 36 Results Culture US = 1 Japan = 0 Interpersonal Comparison Orientation Intergroup Comparison Orientation.39*** (.24**).57***.26** Sobel test: z = -2.64, p <.01

37 37 Discussion As predicted, the cultural difference on inter- group comparison orientation was mediated (partially) by inter-personal comparison orientation.As predicted, the cultural difference on inter- group comparison orientation was mediated (partially) by inter-personal comparison orientation. In part, Americans are interested in comparing one’s ingroup and ougroups, because they are interested in comparing oneself and others.In part, Americans are interested in comparing one’s ingroup and ougroups, because they are interested in comparing oneself and others. This suggest that Americans’ intergroup comparison orientation is individualists’ coalition formation to win out in the highly competitive societyThis suggest that Americans’ intergroup comparison orientation is individualists’ coalition formation to win out in the highly competitive society

38 38 Trailer More theories to explain why there are such cultural differences in group processes.More theories to explain why there are such cultural differences in group processes. Especially focusing on social structural differences between the two cultural regionsEspecially focusing on social structural differences between the two cultural regions

39 39 Social structural explanation Relationship mobility = Freedom of establishing and choosing one’s ingroup and relationships (cf. opportunity cost: Yamagishi )Relationship mobility = Freedom of establishing and choosing one’s ingroup and relationships (cf. opportunity cost: Yamagishi )  Possibility #1: Being accepted only by an inferior group proves that you are dumb  Possibility #2: High relationship mobility makes relationship-based information less reliable, and instead category-membership more informative for others who judge you (useful as a shortcut) Running a series of studies on thisRunning a series of studies on this

40 40 Implication: Social fluidization and type of collectivism in Asia Increased relationship mobilityIncreased relationship mobility Will make it difficult for one to rely on extended interpersonal networkWill make it difficult for one to rely on extended interpersonal network Will this in turn make …Will this in turn make …  people more serious about choosing prestigious groups?  social category membership more informative and reliable as the basis of, for instance, depersonalized trust? Perhaps so.Perhaps so.

41 41 Acknowledgements Grant-in-Aid for Encouragement of Young Scientists from Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyGrant-in-Aid for Encouragement of Young Scientists from Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology 21st Century Center of Excellence Program at Hokkaido University, “Cultural and Ecological Foundations of the Mind” Toshio Yamagishi and Toko KiyonariToshio Yamagishi and Toko Kiyonari


Download ppt "1 Culture, Group, and Identity in North American and East Asian Contexts… and What’s More Masaki Yuki Hokkaido University Hokkaido-Illinois Joint Workshop."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google