1. 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

2. 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

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. Social Identity Theory Basic Tenets
Group behavior and ingroup identity as category-based intergroup-oriented phenomena
Attention to intergroup 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 S
Outgroup
Ingroup

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 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

10. 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) S

11. So, Where in the World Is Social Identity Theory Supported??
Outgroup
Ingroup
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

17. North American Collectivism as a Category-Based Intergroup Orientation
Group behavior and identity as category-based intergroup-oriented phenomena
Attention to intergroup 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 S
Outgroup

18. Two Types of Individual-Group Relations Summary of Hypotheses
West = Category-based intergroup orientation
East Asia = Network-based intragroup orientation S S
Ingroup as a depersonalized entity, defined in comparison with outgroups
Collective self
Ingroup as a personal network among members
Relational self

19. Empirical Tests

20. 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.

21. 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

22. Results: Target = University (Large group)

23. Results: Target = A small group

24. Study 2 Psychological Correlates of Ingroup Loyalty and Identity Yuki (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

25. Study 3 Bases of Depersonalized Trust with William W
Study 3 Bases of Depersonalized Trust with 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? → → →

26. Two Bases of Depersonalized Trust
Indirect Interpersonal Connection
Shared Category S S
よって、Yuki (2002)の指摘する文化差を検出するのに使えるわけです。
Coleman (1990)
Yamagishi & Yamagishi (1994)
Brewer (1981)
Kramer & Brewer (1984)
→ Dominant in North America?
→ Dominant in East Asia?

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

28. 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)
Allocator identity unknown, does not know identity of the recipient

29. Predictions U.S. all differences significant
Japan: ING = ACQ > NO ACQ
Overall interaction marginally significant (additional data collection)

30. Participants USA: Students at the Ohio State University, n = 146
Japan: Hokkaido University students, n = 122
Preliminary Study (data collected during last academic year; new fall data collection beginning)

31. Result: Trust I (Allocator choice %)b d b
U.S. all differences significant
Japan: ING = ACQ > NO ACQ
Overall interaction marginally significant (additional data collection)

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

33. 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*

34. 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”

35. 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 S S
American Small Groups, too?

36. 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?