Culture, Group, and Identity in North American and East Asian Contexts

1
Culture, Group, and Identity in North American
and East Asian Contexts and Whats More

• Masaki Yuki
• Hokkaido University

Hokkaido-Illinois Joint Workshop 2006
2
In Collaboration with
Marilynn Photo
Will Photo
William W. Maddux
Marilynn B. Brewer
My research team on culture, social structure,
and group processes at Hokkaido University
My Research Group Photo
3
Roadmap

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

4
Why study cultural differences in group processes

• Between North Americans and East Asians
• Why bother studying group behaviors of North
  Americans individualists?
• In fact, N Americans are highly group-oriented
• 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
Why study cultural differences in group processes

• Reactions to Oyserman et al.
• Dont trust it! Methodological problems
• e.g. Reference group effect (Heine, Lehman, Peng,
  Greenholtz, 2002)
• I knew it! No such thing as individualism-collecti
  vism, and the whole research was waste
• They are right. But arent there something more
  important here?
• Cultural differences in group processes?

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 behavior
• Are E Asians more collectivistic than are N
  Americans?
• 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
After reviewing lots of cultural,anthropological
,and sociologicalliterature
8
And, after an adventure to the Kingdom of
individualists
Ohio Stadium Photo
Olympics Photo
UCLA Fans Photo
9
Culture, Group, and Identity The theory (Yuki,
2003)
10
Culture and Two Types of CollectivismYuki (2003)
East Asians intragroup relationship orientation North Americans intergroup comparison orientation
Cognitive representation of ingroup Interpersonal network Depersonalized entity, contrasted with outgroups
Self-concept Individuated/ connected directly or indirectly with ingroup members Depersonalized/ defined in terms of prototypicality
Motivation Intragroup reciprocity Intergroup status/competition
11
Related Frameworks

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

12
Empirical Evidence
13
Literature Review 1Culture and Self-Concept

• 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
Literature Review 1Culture and Self-Concept

• 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
Literature Review 2Culture 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 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)

16
Study 1Bases of ingroup identity and
loyalty(Yuki, 2003)

• 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
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?
• Depersonalized trust (Brewer, 1981)
• Why can this be a test of our theory?

18
Two Bases of Depersonalized Trust
Indirect Interpersonal Connection
Shared Category
Brewer (1981) Kramer Brewer (1984)
Coleman (1990)
? Dominant in North America
? Dominant in East Asia
19
Three Targets of Trust (Conditions)
20
Laboratory Study (Yuki et al., 2005, Study 2)
21
Experimental Paradigm
A version of Entrustment Game (Kiyonari
Yamagishi, 1999)
Choice between a) or b)
11.0/\1300
TRUST
a) Allocated amount
b) Fixed amount 3.00/\400
22
Participants

• USA Students at Ohio State University, n 146
• Japan Hokkaido University students, n 122

23
Allocator choice ()(Trust in Allocator)
a
c
c
b
d
b
24
Expectation of Fair Allocation
c
a
c
b
b
d
25
Correlates of Trust Rating

ingroup identity (ingroup condition) estimated indirect interpersnl connectn with the allocator estimated indirect interpersnl connectn with the allocator
ingroup identity (ingroup condition) ingroup condition aq outgrp condition
Americans .189 .097 .116
Japanese .158 .230 .188

26
Discussion

• American 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
  connections
• Trust whom related/Distrust whom unrelated

27
Study 3Interests 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 relationships

28
Scales

• 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).
• 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
Results
Target group University
Small Group
Interaction F (1, 187) 27.57, p lt .001
Interaction F (1, 187) 43.18, p lt .001
30
Discussion

• 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.
• Importance of interpersonal connections as human
  universal? (cf. Cottrell Neuberg, 2005)

31
Conclusion thus far
North Americans Category-based, intergroup
comparison orientation
East Asians Network-based, intragroup
relationship orientation
32
Next Step

• Weve 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?

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)
• Competitive 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)
• In this context, ingroup cooperation is an
  adaptive behavior for them to maximize ones own
  interest through formation of ingroup as
  allies.

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.
• 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 students

35
Results
Culture US 1 Japan 0
Intergroup Comparison Orientation
.39
36
Results
Interpersonal Comparison Orientation
.57
.26
Culture US 1 Japan 0
Intergroup Comparison Orientation
.39 (.24)
Sobel test z -2.64, p lt .01
37
Discussion

• 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
  ones 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 society

38
Trailer

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

39
Social structural explanation

• Relationship mobility Freedom of establishing
  and choosing ones 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 this

40
Implication Social fluidization and type of
collectivism in Asia

• Increased relationship mobility
• Will make it difficult for one to rely on
  extended interpersonal network
• 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.

41
Acknowledgements

• Grant-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 Kiyonari