1. REWARD ALLOCATION ACROSS CULTURES PSYC338 Research Project

2. LECTURE OUTLINE I Background: Doing Social Psychology across Cultures (Bond) Being a cross-cultural psychologist Observation and hypothesizing Designing research A cross-cultural study of reward allocation

3. LECTURE OUTLINE II Distributive justice and reward allocation Equity, equality and need Task and maintenance inputs Bond, Leung & Wan (1982) Kim, Park & Suzuki (1990) III Reward allocation across cultures: A Meta- analysis IV Conclusions

4. DOING SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY ACROSS CULTURES

5. Advice to a Young Scientist A great incentive to learning a new skill or supporting discipline is an urgent need to use it. For this reason very many scientists do not learn new skills or master disciplines untl the pressure is upon them to do so.

6. Reward Allocation Equity and equality Individualism and collectivism In-groups and out-groups Hypotheses

7. A Study of Reward Allocation Bond & Leung Aim: To examine reward allocation to a stranger in individualist and collectivist cultures. Task: To copy words from a known and unknown language Manipulation: Own performance either twice as much or half as much as partner Equivalence issues Results What if-fing?

8. Cross-cultural Studies of Reward Allocation American studies and equity preferences Chinese prefer equality with in-group members and equity with out-group (Leung & Bond, 1984) Indians more likely than Americans to allocate resources on a need basis (Murphy- Berman et al., 1984) Group goals affect resource allocation

9. Reward Allocation (Bond, Leung & Wan, 1982) Collectivism and reward allocation Research Design –2 x 2 x 2 design –Task and maintenance inputs –Dependent variables: superordination and intimacy rewards

10. Rewards Domains Factor 1Factor 2 Letter grade.91.05 % grade.84.16 Future task-group member.85.27 Study group partner.82.09 Friend.46.65 Discussion of grade assigned.15-.81

11. Reward Allocation (Bond, Leung & Wan, 1982) Hypotheses: –Chinese would be more egalitarian in assigning rewards based on task inputs than Americans –Chinese would be more equitable in assigning rewards based on maintenance inputs Results –Chinese were more egalitarian in assigning rewards based on both task and maintenance inputs than Americans

12. Reward Allocation (Kim, Park & Suzuki, 1990) Replication and extension with Koreans, Japanese and Americans Design: 3 x 3 x 3 Results: American and Japanese reward patterns more closely approximate equity than Koreans

13. Reward Allocation: A Meta-analysis Fischer & Smith (2003) Studies where –Allocator not a recipient –Participants were adults –Equity and equality 20 studies, 25 comparisons, 4900+ participants, and 14 countries or cultural groups

14. Findings There are cross-cultural differences in preferred reward allocation norms Findings on the differences are mixed, but overall support for the often cited result that collectivists prefer equality over equity and individualists are mote equitable Participants from more masculine cultures allocate rewards more equitably Participants from countries with greater power distance allocate rewards more equitably Hierarchy is associated with equity

15. Interrelationships amongst Dimensions 234 1. Individualism-.68*-.43-.17 2. Masculinity--.94**-.19 3. Power Distance--.12 4. Uncertainty Avoidance -

16. QUESTIONS How would you design a cross-cultural study of reward allocation? How would you select the countries of comparison?

17. YOUR STUDY Effects of task and maintenance inputs on reward allocation across cultures 2 (country) x 2 (task input) x 2 (maintenance input) Attention to dimension of cultural variability New Zealand, India, Taiwan and Turkey