Abstract
Mental representations of the “self” consist of both individual aspects (i.e., how one differs from other people) and collective aspects (i.e., how one relates to other people), with collective aspects further consisting of interpersonal relations (the “relational” self) and of memberships in social groups (the “group collective” self). Some researchers assume that there is a universal motivational hierarchy in self-representations (with the relational self being more relevant than the group collective self). Other research suggests that the relative importance of self-representations varies across cultures. This paper tests the motivational hierarchy hypothesis in a cross-cultural context. Emotional reactions (anger, outrage, vengeful intentions) to observed victimization of a collective or relational group member were assessed in Germany, Japan, and the USA. In line with the motivational hierarchy hypothesis, we found, across all three countries, evidence for the primacy of the relational self over the group collective self.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The Japanese and American versions of the survey included two bogus questions, and participants who missed either question were excluded from analysis (American sample: N = 123; the Japanese sample number of excluded participants was unreported by the data collection company). The exclusion criteria for the German sample were based on the manipulation check items described below.
The demographic variables did not affect the findings and are not reported on further.
First, all materials were translated by researcher assistants naïve to the materials from English to the target language (German or Japanese) and then back to English by another naïve translator, following the established back translational procedure (Brislin, 1970). The back-translated English and the original English materials were then compared for discrepancies. These instances were then discussed and the entire document was checked for readability by two native speakers familiar with the materials. Next, a second back translation by a naïve translator and a check for any further discrepancies followed. If major changes were still needed, the materials were again discussed by the committee. If the two English translations were deemed equivalent, the translation was ready for use.
The same procedure as above showed non-invariance between cultures for individual self-representation, relational self-representation, collective self-representation, and in-group identification measures. The exception to this was the victim sensitivity measure which was comparable across cultural groups on a level of metric measurement invariance, allowing us to make a meaningful indirect comparison between groups for this measure.
References
Beckes, L., Coan, J. A., & Hasselmo, K. (2013). Familiarity promotes the blurring of self and other in the neural representation of threat. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8(6), 670–677.
Brewer, M. B., & Chen, Y.-R. (2007). Where (who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism. Psychological Review, 114, 133–151.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “We”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83–93.
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185–216.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Chen, Y. R., Chen, X. P., & Portnoy, R. (2009). To whom do positive norm and negative norm of reciprocity apply? Effects of inequitable offer, relationship, and relational-self orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 24–34.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measure-ment invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.
Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37.
Gaertner, L., Sedikides, C., & Graetz, K. (1999). In search of self-definition: Motivational primacy of the individual self, motivational primacy of the collective self, or contextual primacy? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 5–18.
Gaertner, L., Sedikides, C., Luke, M., O’Mara, E. M., Iuzzini, J., Jackson, L. E., et al. (2012). A motivational hierarchy within: Primacy of the individual self, relational self, or collective self? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 997–1013.
Gaertner, L., Sedikides, C., Vevea, J., & Iuzzini, J. (2002). The “I”, the “We”, and the “When”: A meta-analysis of motivational primacy in self-definition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 574–591.
Gollwitzer, M., Schmitt, M., Schalke, R., Maes, J., & Baer, A. (2005). Asymmetrical effects of justice sensitivity perspectives on prosocial and antisocial behavior. Social Justice Research, 18, 183–201.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Leach, C. W., van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L. W., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., et al. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 144–165.
Lee, S., Adair, W. L., Mannix, E. A., & Kim, J. (2012). The relational versus collective “We” and intergroup allocation: The role of nested group categorization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1132–1138.
Leung, A. K. Y., & Cohen, D. (2011). Within-and between-culture variation: Individual differences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 507–526.
Loewenstein, G., & Small, D. A. (2007). The scarecrow and the tin man: The vicissitudes of human sympathy and caring. Review of General Psychology, 11(2), 112.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
McCrea, S. M., Wieber, F., & Myers, A. L. (2012). Construal level mind-sets moderate self-and social stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(1), 51.
Muthén, B. O., & Muthén, L. (2010). Mplus Version 6.1 [Software]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72.
Realo, A., & Allik, J. (2009). On the relationship between social capital and individualism–collectivism. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 871–886.
Schmitt, M., Gollwitzer, M., Maes, J., & Arbach, D. (2005). Justice sensitivity: Assessment and location in the personality space. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21, 202–211.
Sussenbach, P., & Gollwitzer, M. (2014). Us(ed): The role of victim sensitivity in potentially exploitative intergroup relationships. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 18, 241–255.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder: Westview press.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical standards
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Formal consent
Formal consent was acquired from participants.
Additional information
The anonymized raw data and all materials used to collect data (in their original wording/language) can be provided upon request from the corresponding author.
Appendices
Appendix 1
Full Text of All the Vignettes
-
1.
“A member from another team within your large company (let’s call him Mr. Smith) approaches someone from your department that you don’t know personally (let’s call him Jack) and asks to switch shifts with him because he needs to see a doctor. Jack agrees and takes Mr. Smith’s early-morning shift. Later you hear that Mr. Smith actually never saw a doctor (and never intended to do so); he just wanted to sleep in that day because he had been partying the night before.”
-
2.
“Imagine you work for a large company. Your boss (let’s call him Mr. Parris) calls in someone from your department that you know personally (let’s call him John) to his office to discuss their time sheet. There were days in the past month that John worked from home. However, Mr. Parris argues that John didn’t have permission to do so, so he discounts some of John’s work hours. Mr. Parris was aware that many other colleagues also work from home in the past month but they were not reprimanded.”
-
3.
“Imagine you work in a large company. Employees share a person who helps with administrative tasks (let’s call this person Mrs. Park). Mrs. Park is most unhelpful to someone from another department that you don’t know personally (let’s call this person Jessica) because she dislikes Jessica personally. Every time Jessica asks Mrs. Park to complete a task she says she is busy and will attend to it later. However, when colleagues ask for something Pearl attends to it immediately. This affects the quality and efficacy of Jessica’s work.”
-
4.
“Imagine you work in a mid-size company. Your boss asks someone from another department that you know personally (let’s call this person Jane) to work with another employee (let’s call her Mrs. Johnson) on an important report that will raise Jane’s profile at the company. The two spend weeks going back and forth collaborating on the report. Although they worked well together on this report, later Jane learns that Mrs. Johnson is spreading rumors about her and her work ethic, saying she is lazy and combative in hopes Patty will be asked to work on the next report without Jane, further improving Mrs. Johnson’s own reputation within the company.”
Appendix 2
Measures
-
1.
“When I think about what Mr. Smith did, I feel personally angry”*
-
2.
“I have no strong negative emotions in reaction to this situation” (r)*
-
3.
“I feel contempt with Mr. Smith’s behavior”*
-
4.
“Personally, I feel outraged about what Mr. Smith did”*
-
5.
“I am personally relieved I am not in Jack’s position”
-
6.
“I feel personally ashamed for Mr. Smith”
-
7.
“I will ruminate about what happened to Jack for some time now”
-
8.
“If I could, I myself would get back at Mr. Smith for what he did”†
-
9.
“What Mr. Smith did to Jack feels as if he did it to me”
-
10.
“I would not think twice about what Mr. Smith did” (r)
Completely Disagree 123456 Completely Agree
*Items for vicarious anger/moral outrage
†Item for vengeful intentions
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Magraw-Mickelson, Z., Gollwitzer, M. Relational and Group Collective Self Responses to Observed Victimization Across Cultures. Soc Just Res 31, 113–132 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-018-0304-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-018-0304-y