The Hierarchical Relationship Between the Relational-Self and the Collective-Self During Attention Processing

Abstract

Background Under the Chinese collectivist cultural system, people emphasize social connections with close others and members of in-groups. Collectivism can be divided into the following two forms: relational collectivism (privileges relational self [RS]) and group collectivism (emphasizes collective self [CS]). Previous researchers have found a hierarchy between the RS and CS, resulting in different degrees of recognition advantages. However, the hierarchy between the RS and CS is unclear and may depend on the specific processing stage. Therefore, this research compared the hierarchy between these two selves during different processing stages using an eye-movement method. Methods The sample consisted of thirty-eight young adults aged between 18 and 24 years old (M = 20.45, SD= 1.62). Each participant finished a dot-probe task featuring high-relevant (HR, ie one’s mother’s name and China) and low-relevant (LR, ie, name of a famous person and USA) information about the RS and CS and neutral information. Further, the eye-movement (EM) indices were collected simultaneously. Results A stronger reaction time bias and longer total gaze duration revealed that young people in China focus more on RS information, indicating that Chinese people prioritize the RS over the CS at late stages of attentional processing. Conclusion Information on interpersonal relationships and information on the in-group both catch people’s attention quickly and easily, but only RS information can maintain attention for longer. Understanding the hierarchy of the RS and the CS may provide more evidence for self-construal in the Chinese collectivist cultural context. The importance of the RS prompting that the interpersonal and close relationships are more important to the development of the self, suggesting that it is necessary to pay more attention to the impact of interpersonal support on people’s mental health in clinical applications.

Content and Characteristics of Self-Identity Among Chinese College Students With Internet Addiction in SNS Use: A Thematic Analysis

“…However, one may also consider how they share similarities and connection through relationships (collectivist perspective; Cohen & Gunz, 2002;Ownsworth, 2014). Empirical studies have shown that Chinese people placed more emphasis on their relational and collective selves, on their identity as a member of their nation, and also prefer to maintain and enhance their collective self-esteem (Ma et al, 2016;Zheng et al, 2017;Zheng et al, 2018). For example, student YJB was very proud to say, "I think China is a country that has done a great job in many ways, ... (I want to) maintain this high sense of identity with my country.…”

Self-Hierarchy in Perceptual Matching: Variations in Different Processing Stages

“…Inconsistent with our results, a study found a primacy of the collective self vs. the IS and relational self when using self-relevant information and asked participants to make subjective judgements on these stimuli ( Wang et al, 2017 ). Researchers also found that at the early stage, especially during implicit processing, the sense of belonging to the group and self-identity as a group member is prominent ( Zheng et al, 2018a ). The difference in results may be due to our perception matching paradigm that excluded the influence of self-related information.…”

“…However, there was no difference between the relational self and collective self. Another study using implicit association tasks found that Chinese people render the collective self as primary compared to the relational self ( Zheng et al, 2017 , 2018a ). Using a priming paradigm, Wang et al (2017) found that during the early (P2) stage, people render their IS as their primary self; their relational self as secondary; and their collective self as tertiary.…”

Discrepancy in ingroup bias among different self‐construal individuals: The moderating role of group types

“…According to self‐categorization theory, the better fit the stimuli is, the more likely a group is to be viewed as similar (Oakes, Turner & Haslam, 1991). According to the tripartite model of self‐construal theory (Sedikides & Brewer, 2002), individual self, collective self, and relational self have different dominance depending on culture and context (Zheng, Xiao, Chen, Hu & Zhou, 2018). Since live groups are usually relational groups (Brewer & Chen, 2007), interdependent self‐construal individuals fit the live group better than the minimal group.…”