1. 1 Two Types of Collectivism: Intragroup Relationship Orientation in Japan and Intergroup Comparison Orientation in the United States Kosuke Takemura 1, Masaki Yuki 1, William W. Maddux 2 & Yohsuke Ohtsubo 3 ( 1 Hokkaido University, 2 INSEAD, 3 Nara University)

2. 2 Outline Purpose: Examination of cultural differences in types of collectivism between Japan and the United States. Hypothesis: Japanese are concerned with the relationships within ingroups; Americans are concerned with the relationships between ingroups and outgroups. Study 1: Self-report scale Study 2: Recall task Conclusion: The hypothesis was supported; Relative to each cultural group, Japanese are intragroup relationship-oriented, whereas Americans are intergroup comparison-oriented.

3. 3 Background (1/2) North Americans are also collectivistic Research has shown that Americans are highly individualistic compared with people in other parts of the world. However, accumulating evidence also shows that Americans are collectivistic simultaneously; no less collectivistic than East Asians (see review and meta- analysis by Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002). On the other hand, there is an argument that the types of collectivism are different between North America and East Asia (Brewer & Yuki, in press; Yuki, 2003).

4. 4 Background (2/2) Hypothesis by Yuki (2003; Brewer & Yuki, in press) East Asian Collectivism  Concerned about relationships among ingroup members  Motivated to maintain reciprocal/cooperative relations within ingroup  See group as an interpersonal network among individual members North American Collectivism  Concerned about intergroup comparison  Motivated to attain superior standing of ingroup relative to outgroups  See group as a “depersonalized” entity self Outgroup Ingroup

5. 5 Present Paper Two cross-cultural studies in Japan and the United States Focused on concern in group situations. Is it true that, relative to each cultural group, Japanese are intragroup relationship-oriented whereas Americans are intergroup comparison-oriented? Study 1 assessed the following using self-report scales:  Intragroup Relationship Orientation: Concerns about the relational structure among ingroup members and their cooperative behavior.  Intergroup Comparison Orientation: Concerns about standing of ingroup relative to outgroups. Study 2 tested the same hypothesis using a recall task.

6. 6 Method of Study 1 Participants:  Japan: 198 university students (106 females & 92 males)  US: 173 university students (99 females & 74 males) Questionnaire  Intragroup Relationship Orientation (New scale; 6 items) Sample items:  “It is important to me that I know which of my group members are friends with each other and/or which members don't like each other.”  “I want to know which members of my groups are not cooperative.”

7. 7 Method of Study 1 (cont’d)  Intergroup Comparison Orientation (Brown et al., 1992; 4 items) Sample items:  “It is important to me how my groups compare to other groups.”  “I often think about how well my group is doing relative to other groups.”  2 targets: the large scale groups and the small scale groups they belonged to in daily lives.  7-point scales (1: Strongly disagree ~ 7: Strongly agree)  Alphas >.79

8. 8 Results of Study 1: Large Groups p <.01 p <.001 Culture x Orientation: F (1, 364) = 74.43, p <.001

9. 9 Results of Study 1: Small Groups ns p <.001 Culture x Orientation: F (1, 363) = 111.65, p <.001

10. 10 Summary of Study 1 Assessed two orientations in group situations using self-report scales. The opposite patterns were observed between cultures. As a whole, relative to each cultural group, Japanese were intragroup relationship-oriented whereas Americans were intergroup comparison-oriented.  Study 2: To test the robustness of the findings in Study 1 by another paradigm.

11. 11 Study 2: Recall Task Experiment Method (1/4) Participants:  Japan: 77 students at Nara University (54 females & 23 males)  US: 36 students at Northwestern University (20 females & 16 males) Design: 2 (culture) x 2 (type of information; within-participant factor) Outline: Ps. read scenarios including information about intragroup relationships and intergroup comparisons. Ps. were then asked to recall such information suddenly.

12. 12 Scenario  Ps. read 3 scenarios  Each scenario included information about the relationships within a fictional ingroup (e.g. Member A likes/dislikes Member B) as well as information about the relationships between the ingroup and two outgroups (e.g. how highly ingroup and outgroups are respected).  Example: Scenario about universities in an area; Ps. were students at one of them; Ps. read about status differences between three universities in several aspects (how smart students at each university were, etc.); Ps. also read about the relationships between three other students at their universities, and how cooperative these three students were. Study 2: Recall Task Experiment Method (2/4)

13. 13  Time limit: Ps. read each scenario within 3 minutes.  Each of scenarios was followed by some filler items that were answered within 2 minutes. Scenario 1 Filler Qs Scenario 2 Filler Qs Scenario 3 Filler Qs Recall Quiz Task Flow Study 2: Recall Task Experiment Method (3/4)

14. 14 Recall quiz  36 items about intragroup relationships Example: “How does Lisa Taylor feel about James Davis?”  18 items about intergroup comparison Example: “Which university has smarter students?”  3 options for each question  Conducted as a surprise task  No time limit Study 2: Recall Task Experiment Method (4/4)

15. 15 Results of Study 2: Recall Rate Culture x Info: F (1, 111) = 3.98, p <.05

16. 16 The patterns of group-related concerns were different between Japan and the United States. Relative to each cultural group, Japanese put importance on intragroup relationship whereas Americans are concerned about intergroup comparison. Summary of Findings Study 1 (Small Group) Study 1 (Large Group) Study 2

17. 17 Interpretation of these findings Why Americans are intergroup comparison-oriented whereas Japanese are intragroup relationship-oriented? US = “Winner-take-all” society (Frank & Cook, 1995)  Zero-sum incentive structure. Differences in performance relative to others are more important than absolute performance itself.  Only few top performers can take resources.  Being competitive is adaptive.  Joining or forming strong groups, relative to others, is effective. Groups as “allies” will be formed by competitive individuals (Probst et al., 1999).  The tendency to be concerned with intergroup comparison (i.e. intergroup comparison orientation) may be adaptive in the United States.

18. 18 Interpretation of these findings Why Americans are intergroup comparison-oriented whereas Japanese are intragroup relationship-oriented? US = “Open” society (Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994)  In the US the opportunity cost to commit to the existing relationship is high so that the relationship mobility is high (see also Schug & Yuki, this symposium).  There are many chances to join/form a better “allies” than the current one in such a society.  To join/form a better group, however, you have to be seen as one who have “good quality” and to be chosen as a member.  But people in an “open” society, where people meet strangers very often, may judge you based on your group membership as a quick signal of your quality.  It is important to check the relative standing of the current ingroup and try to improve it if needed.

19. 19 Interpretation of these findings Why Americans are intergroup comparison-oriented whereas Japanese are intragroup relationship-oriented? Japan = “Closed” society (Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994; Yamagishi et al., 1998, 1999)  People tend to interact with people who are familiar with each other (e.g. ingroup member).  The status of ingroup relative to outgroups is not important; People just ignore and/or avoid “outsiders”.  The tendency to be concerned with relationships within ingroup over relative standing of ingroup (i.e. intragroup relationship orientation) may be adaptive in Japan.

20. 20 References Brewer, M.B., & Yuki, M. (in press). Culture and social identity. In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology. Guilford Press. Brown, R., Hinkle, S., Ely, P.G., Fox-Cardamone, D.L., Maras, P., & Taylor, L.A. (1992). Recognizing group diversity: Individualist-collectivist and autonomous-relational social orientations and their implications for intergroup processes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 327-342. Buchan, N.R., Croson, R., & Johnson, E.J. (2003). Let’s get personal: An international examination of the influence of communication, culture, and social distance on trust and trustworthiness. (Working paper). University of Wisconsin, Madison. Frank, R.H. & Cook, P.J. (1995). The Winner-take-all society: How more and more Americans compete for ever fewer and bigger prizes, encouraging economic waste, income inequality, and an impoverished cultural life. New York : Free Press.

21. 21 References Heine, S.J., & Lehman, D.R. (1997). The cultural construction of self- enhancement: An examination of group-serving biases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1268-1283. Oyserman, D., Coon, H.M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72. Probst, T.M., Carnevale, P.J., & Triandis, H.C. (1999). Cultural values in intergroup and single-group social dilemmas. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77, 171-191. Snibbe, A.C., Kitayama, S., Markus, H.R., & Suzuki, T. (2003). They saw a game: A Japanese and American (football) field study. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 34, 581-595. Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. Boulder: Westview Press.

22. 22 References Yuki, M., Maddux, W.W., & Takemura, K. (2005, January). Cross-cultural differences in intergroup versus intragroup orientations. Paper presented at the 6th annual meeting of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology, New Orleans, LA. Yuki, M. (2003). Intergroup comparison versus intragroup relationships: A cross-cultural examination of social identity theory in North American and East Asian cultural contexts. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 166-183. Yuki, M., Maddux, W.W., Brewer, M.B., & Takemura, K. (2005). Cross-cultural differences in relationship- and group-based trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 48-62.