Preferences Versus Strategies as Explanations for Culture-Specific Behavior

Abstract

In this article, we present a new framework for interpreting cultural differences in behavior -- what we call the institutional approach. In this framework, individuals' behaviors are conceptualized as strategies adapted to various incentive structures. Cultural differences in behavior are thus viewed as differences in the default adaptive strategies that individuals come to rely on in unclear situations. Through two studies, we demonstrate that the East Asian "preference" for conformity is actually a default strategy to avoid accrual of negative reputation. When the possibility for negative evaluations in a given situation was clearly defined, cultural differences in the tendency for uniqueness disappeared. This approach carries important implications to psychologists who interpret cultural differences in behavior in terms of preferences, and can serve as a common framework branching out toward other disciplines in the social sciences.

Self-enhancement and self-protection: What they are and what they do

“…Westerners also manifest the same strategic selfenhancement pattern by privately rating themselves as better-than-average on personallyimportant domains (i.e., individualistic attributes such as self-reliant or leader) , 2007a. Crucially, an Eastern public preference for collectivistic attributes (e.g., conformity) can also be a strategic, self-protective attempt to avoid a negative reputation (Yamagichi, Hashimoto, & Schug, 2008).…”

Passion, Relational Mobility, and Proof of Commitment: A Comparative Socio–Ecological Analysis of an Adaptive Emotion in a Sexual Market

“…Although we do not wish to argue that such cultural psychological explanations are wrong, we do contend that these explanations overlook a deeper theoretical question in terms of the societal-level mechanisms, which underpin such variations in values and belief systems (Schug, Yuki, & Maddux, 2010). Recent work by scholars who adopted the socioecological perspective (e.g., Henrich et al, 2001;Nisbett & Cohen, 1996;Oishi, 2010;Uskul, Kitayama, & Nisbett, 2008;Yamagishi et al, 2008;Yuki & Schug, 2012) has effectively demonstrated that socio-ecological factors, including interpersonal, collective, and economic, have pervasive effects on human behavior and psychological tendencies. The comparative socioecological approach can thus serve as a theoretical bridge between evolutionary and cultural psychological sciences.…”

“…Individuals are embedded in a web of social networks that are hard to change, and fewer opportunities are presented to find new (and replace current) relationships (Yamagishi, Hashimoto, & Schug, 2008;Yamagishi, Jin, & Miller, 1998). The necessity of passion as a voluntary commitment device should therefore be smaller in this type of society because the commitment problem is already solved by the surrounding social environment (i.e., stability of social network).…”

Culture and Group Processes

“…As a result of the low relational mobility environment, where there are few options for alternative relationships, individuals need to improve their circumstances in relation to given others. Strategies employed to achieve this include making efforts to mitigate the consequences of bad relationships and avoiding risks that could jeopardize hard to replace relationships (Yamagishi, Hashimoto, & Schug, 2008) This theory accords with traditional findings in cross-cultural psychology that East Asians are primarily focused on maintaining harmony and reciprocal relationships in their intragroup relationships, exemplified by such tendencies as their preference for equality over equity in reward allocation within the ingroup (e.g., Leung & Bond, 1982;Mann, Radford, & Kanagawa, 1985) and prioritization of animosity reduction in conflict resolution (e.g., Kirkbride, Tang, & Westwood, 1991;Leung, 1987;Leung, Au, Fernandez-Dols & Iwawaki, 1992, Ohbuchi & Takahashi, 1994.…”