In-group bias and culture of collectivism*

In this paper I present an argument that culture of collectivism which characterizes Japanese society is to be conceived in terms of an equilibrium between socio-relational and cognitive traits in which people have acquired expectations for generalized reciprocity within, not across, group boundaries. Maintenance of harmony among group members and voluntary cooperation toward group goals – the characteristics of collectivist culture – are often considered to be fundamentally psychological in nature. It is usually considered that members of a collectivist culture like to maintain harmony and cooperate toward group goals, or that “culture” sneaks into the minds of people and drives them to behave in such a manner. According to this view, culture is a fundamentally psychological or subjective matter. This is the view that I want to challenge in this paper.

[1]  M. Brewer,et al.  Effects of group identity on resource use in a simulated commons dilemma. , 1984, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[2]  David R. Karp,et al.  Raising the minimum in the minimal group paradigm. , 1993 .

[3]  H. Triandis Culture and Social Behavior , 2019, Cross-Cultural Explorations.

[4]  B. Cocroft,et al.  Book reviewStructures of social life: the four elementary forms of human relations: Alan Page Fiske New York: Macmillan Inc., 1991, 480 pp., $29.95 (cloth) , 1994 .

[5]  F. Fukuyama Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity Penguin London , 1995 .

[6]  T. Yamagishi,et al.  [Bilateral dependency and the minimal group paradigm]. , 1996, Shinrigaku kenkyu : The Japanese journal of psychology.

[7]  A. Fiske The four elementary forms of sociality: framework for a unified theory of social relations. , 1992, Psychological review.

[8]  P. Ekeh,et al.  Social Exchange Theory: The Two Traditions. , 1975 .

[9]  R. Putnam,et al.  Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. , 1994 .

[10]  R. Putnam,et al.  Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. , 1994 .

[11]  Motoki Watabe,et al.  Uncertainty, Trust, and Commitment Formation in the United States and Japan1 , 1998, American Journal of Sociology.

[12]  H. Triandis Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. , 1989, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.

[13]  P. Kollock The Emergence of Exchange Structures: An Experimental Study of Uncertainty, Commitment, and Trust , 1994, American Journal of Sociology.

[14]  Roderick M. Kramer,et al.  Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing. , 1986 .

[15]  T. Yamagishi,et al.  Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan , 1994 .

[16]  H. Tajfel,et al.  Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behaviour , 1973 .

[17]  Arjaan Wit,et al.  The effect of social categorization on cooperation in three types of social dilemmas. , 1992 .

[18]  H. Tajfel,et al.  Social categorization and intergroup behaviour , 1971 .

[19]  M. Rokeach,et al.  The Open and Closed Mind , 1960 .