28
Sep 21

Less Competition, More Cooperation for Intergroup Relations

Growing up in the United States, I’ve been exposed to a culture that emphasizes competition. Whether it was in sports, video games, academics, or even band, we are often pressured in some way to be better than everyone else. In my first years of college, I became fascinated with cooperative video and board games. I loved the idea of having everyone work together and, if all goes well, share the feeling of victory. As I learned to play more cooperative games, I began to wonder whether we could use more cooperation in American society. After all, is having a culture so focused on competition good for the relationships between people and groups? The Robber’s Cave experiment by Sherif (1988) seems to suggest otherwise, showing that intergroup relationships suffer in competition but build up in cooperation.

The Robber’s Cave experiment, as summarized by Gaertner et al. (2000), investigated the effects of cooperation and competition on two groups of boys. When the randomly assigned groups engaged in competitive activities against each other, the relationship between their groups became very adversarial. This outcome led to the realistic group conflict theory, which stated that the hostility between the groups resulted from real competition and conflicting goals (Gruman et al., 1988, pg. 407). When groups view each other as obstacles or even enemies in accomplishing a goal, intergroup tensions may increase dramatically and lead to intergroup conflict. It is not difficult to think of social groups in the United States, such as those of political beliefs, that constantly compete and conflict with one another on a national level. Could a national culture of competition be facilitating and possibly even worsening these kinds of intergroup conflicts?

At the same time, the Robber’s Cave experiment also shed light on how to reduce intergroup conflicts: cooperation. When the two groups were instructed to complete tasks that could only be completed through cooperation, intergroup relations improved and both groups had more positive views of one another. One possible reason for this outcome, as discussed by Gaertner et al. (2000), is that the two groups began to view themselves less as two separate groups and more as one larger one. Cooperation helped take down the barriers that previously separated the groups. Members of both groups could now see each other as equals sharing in a common struggle, resulting in positive intergroup bonds. Cooperation between groups of people can create opportunities for them to set aside their differences and build strong intergroup bonds with one another.

There is a lot of emphasis on competition in the United States, with the idea that you should do whatever it takes to get ahead of the others. However, based on previous research on how competition and cooperation affect intergroup relationships, I would argue that society needs less competition and more cooperation. By looking for ways to cooperate rather than compete, we may be able to reduce the hostilities that exist between many groups here today. We may also foster harmonious relationships with one another, opening ourselves to new perspectives and accomplishing greater goals together.

 

References

Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Banker, B. S., Houlette, M., Johnson, K. M., & McGlynn, E. A. (2000). Reducing intergroup conflict: From superordinate goals to decategorization, recategorization, and mutual differentiation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4(1), 98-114. http://dx.doi.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1037/1089-2699.4.1.98

Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., & Coutts, L. M. (2017). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Los Angeles: SAGE.

Sherif, M. (1988). The Robbers Cave experiment: Intergroup conflict and cooperation. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.


08
Oct 16

Culture: Hofstede, Individualism, and Collectivism

Let me start by giving a brief overview of my background. I consider myself a fairly multicultural person: I was born in a city in India, moved to suburban Detroit a year after, lived there for 10 years, then moved back to India, and then went to college in a town near Philadelphia for a couple of years.

In my journey across the world and through life, I have come in touch with the dimensions of Hofstede’s cultural taxonomy—in particular, individualism and collectivism—the worlds of the western, individualistic United States, and the eastern, collectivistic India. In this blog, I’d like to talk a bit about culture and self-identity, as per Hofstede’s dimension of individualism/collectivism, and give some insights from cultural psychology about the pervasive effects of culture.

Culture shapes self-concept, as thoroughly explained in a paper by Markus and Kitayama (1991). In individualistic cultures, the self is independent, with emphasis on individual goals over collective goals, and value placed on self-reliance and distinctiveness. There is importance given to standing out, whereas in collectivistic cultures, where the self is interdependent, there is importance given to fitting in. There is emphasis on collective goals, and close relationships and group membership are valued.

One’s upbringing is thoroughly influenced by the cultural psychology of caregivers, or ethnotheories, as per Super and Harkness (1986). Whereas in western, individualistic cultures, the emphasis is on independence from the parent, in eastern, collectivistic cultures, the emphasis is on the sense of oneness and cohesion, and the promotion of dependence between parent and child. Competence in individualistic cultures is defined in terms of behaviors associated with individuation, such as exploration, autonomy, efficacy, and self-expression. In collectivistic cultures, however, competence is more a question of social harmony, interdependence, emotion monitoring, and control. Expressing yourself in collectivistic cultures is often discouraged.

In individualistic cultures, parenting is a child-led task wherein the goals are autonomy and independence. Parents use praise and promote self-enhancement and place emphasis on happiness and personal satisfaction. In collectivistic cultures, parenting is more traditional, akin to training (jiao xun), with the goal being that of interdependence. Parents use criticism, and emphasize self-improvement and achievement, as personal achievement is a reflection of the family’s investment and effort (Heine, 2011).

Fiske (1991) looked at family structures across the dimension of individualism and collectivism, and found that Western, individualistic families are more egalitarian in nature, with emphasis on equality among all members and individual rights and privileges. In the East, however, collectivistic families are more hierarchical in nature, with emphasis on authority, tradition, prestige, protection, and care. Everyone in the family hierarchy needs to be aware of their roles and obligations. Family members who are higher in rank have more prestige and privileges, but the ones lower in rank are more entitled to protection and care.

Even emotions are affected by the dimension of individualism and collectivism. According to a study by Wang (2001), individualistic Americans see emotions as an important aspect of the self, and are elaborated upon as a way of facilitating individuality. Collectivistic Chinese, however, see emotions as a consequence of social interactions, and emphasize others’ roles in emotional expression. Emotions reinforce proper behavioral conduct and sense of connectedness within groups.

When it comes to love, there are different theories prevalent across cultures. In India, where collectivism is prevalent, marriage is arranged by parents based on socioeconomic class and religion, as opposed to marriage being agreed upon by the individuals based on their personality traits and attributes, as is common in individualistic cultures. Love in India is a duty, a feeling that blooms from the obligations of a familial alliance. In the west, love is more voluntary, and therefore more individualistic, with emphasis on the feelings that come about within each individual (Heine, 2011). The National Healthy Marriage Resource Center observed differences in Eastern collectivistic concepts of love and marriage and Western individualistic concepts, and found that love in the east is seen as an indissoluble bond, whereas in the west, love and marriage are more of a contract.

I could go on and on about how much culture influences us, but I’d like to end with a note on ethnic identity in multicultural individuals. It’s confusing to be brought up one way, and then live in a society that operates in a completely opposite way—there is a lot of psychosocial conflict that takes place, both within the individual and between family members who have conflicting cultural values. As globalization increases, there is more and more need for cultural awareness and acceptance of differences—without this understanding of diversity, relationships in society are going to be very difficult indeed!

References

Fiske, A. P. (1991). Structures of social life: The four elementary forms of human relations: Communal sharing, authority ranking, equality matching, market pricing. Free Press.

Heine, S. J. (2011). Cultural psychology (2nd ed.). New York: W.W. Norton.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological review98(2), 224.

Super, C. M., & Harkness, S. (1986). The developmental niche: A conceptualization at the interface of child and culture. International journal of behavioral development9(4), 545-569.

Wang, Q. (2001). “Did you have fun?”: American and Chinese mother–child conversations about shared emotional experiences. Cognitive Development,16(2), 693-715.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


03
Oct 15

Decisions – Consulting Myself or the Group?

Being employed in a setting that promotes diversity is one of the biggest benefits one can experience.  I realized this firsthand, as I moved from traditionally small companies to larger organizations throughout my career.  Although you may not realize it, interacting with different groups provides an advantage in helping you to develop an appreciation of different cultures and also experience new things as a result. Such exposure can also help you relate to others (co-workers, supervisors, customers, associates, etc.) and aid in instances such this – writing a blog to complete an assignment.  As I share my story with you, I encourage you to think of your own environments and see how it has enriched your cultural experience.

Ehtesham was a very different type of fellow to me at 21-years-old.  Although I grew up in the heart of Washington, D.C., during this time, the area did not offer diversity as you now see it.  “Shawn” as I affectionately called him, was Pakistani and just moved to America about a year before starting employment with my new company.  Since it was a small business, there wasn’t much diversity until he walked through the doors. Being naturally curious, I wanted to know more about him as I observed him eating different foods and exhibiting different attitudes that were a bit foreign to me.  While I would not have considered myself closedminded, my interaction with Shawn showed me how guarded I was.  For example, he offered a chicken samosa to me as a kind gesture and a form of friendship, since I didn’t know what it was, I was uneasy taking it.  I did not want to try anything new as I was fearful for whatever reason.  However, I eventually tried one (a few months later) and fell in love with the tasty meat pastry.  This extension of friendship, actually made me try other things and I am now more willing to see if I like or dislike by testing it first.

Trying new cuisines was just the beginning.  The real learning experience occurred when I begin viewing family interactions – it was then that I saw a different world from what I have come to know.  As we sat around the table eating dinner one day, the topic of marriage arose and Shawn asked me when will my parents select my husband.  I thought to myself, what kind of question is this?  My parents picking my husband?!  With a raised eyebrow, I responded that “I will choose the man I marry after we fall in love.”  Being around Shawn for a while during this time, I understood when his mother asked in Urdu why my parents weren’t arranging my marriage.  I explained that we usually choose our own husbands and it is an individual choice.  His mother seemed stumped by this, as well as the rest of the family, as they could not understand why we would do such a thing.  I then asked Shawn when he will marry and he stated that his parents will choose his bride since that decision will impact his family – “it’s an alliance.” Now I sat there stumped and didn’t know how to recover from the discussion.

Oyserman and Lee, along with Triandis (as cited in Schneider et al., 2012) describe such interactions as being the basis of individualism and collectivism.  With America being an individualized culture, many of the decisions we make will be based on what we think is right, not a decision made collectively.  As the authors note, an “idiocentric” makes decisions on their own despite what others may think or say (Schneider et al., 2012, p. 326).  Conversely, an “allocentric” person makes decisions based on the best interests of the group (Schneider et al., 2012, p. 326) which in Shawn’s case would consider his family.  Their values and structure did not change simply because they came to America, rather they traveled with them and the transition to the United States afford the family an opportunity to amass wealth – not change family traditions.

There were many other moments that I learned about the Pakistani culture from Shawn and I have taken the opportunity to do the same with others and their respective cultures in new environments. So now as I sit here typing this blog, I can reflect on the rich experiences that have followed me throughout both my professional and academic career.  It’s not always easy to break out of your comfort zone, but I guarantee once you do, you will enjoy what you learn along the way.

 

Reference:

Schneider, F., Gruman, J., & Coutts, L. (Eds.). (2012). Applied social psychology: understanding and addressing social and practical problems (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

 


13
Oct 14

Culture in the Workplace

Individuals are complicated.  Varying personal experiences, beliefs, biases, etc., all shape each individual and their social perception (Schneider, Gruman, Coutts, 2012).  That is, how one sees themselves and others is quite subjective.  In order to make sense of others, individuals may group ideas together to form schemas, generalize others based on a single characteristic, or favor those who are similar to themselves (similar-to-me) effect (Schneider, et al., 2012).  Organizations face the problem of attempting to alleviate the problems that can arise from having a myriad of personal biases and perceptions working together.

Just that individuals form perceptions about one another, they also possess varying perceptions of organizations and all of its parts.  From fellow co-workers to job duties, opportunities for development and perhaps most importantly, job satisfaction (Schneider, et al., 2012).  Two methods used by organizations to measure job satisfaction are the global approach and the facet approach -both of which require input from employees via questionnaires (Schneider, et al., 2012).

Culture is one area of job satisfaction that has been changing the workplace.  According to Schneider, et al. (2012) ‘Social influence processes also affect one’s level of job satisfaction. For example, the social information processing model of job satisfaction (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978) is based on the premise that people “ adapt attitudes, behavior, and beliefs to their social context and to the reality of their own past and present behavior and situation” (p. 226)’.  Organizations have been embracing this idea by implementing policies to create an employee favorable atmosphere in the workplace.

Sophie Brown’s recent CNN article titled, “Can disappearing desks improve how we work?” illustrates several companies who are making strides at creating their unique culture.  For example, a Netherlands design studio designed their communal desks with the ability to retract (computers and all) up into the ceiling, allowing for other activities such as yoga to occur in its place.  “’We think that doing activities like this makes it easier for people to work here,” Vincent Stolk, a junior art director at the company, told CNN by email’.

Volkswagen began restricting e-mail to off duty employees and a French technology company has shifted towards removing e-mail use altogether! (Brown, 2014).

Some companies in Asia are making the workplace more fun by including things like miniature golf courses and beds -similar to the approach that major technology companies in the United States has implemented. (Brown, 2014).

While it may be impossible to please every single employee within an organization due to the variety of perspectives, it may be possible to attract individuals who favor the culture that it has created.  Companies are now attempting to find their own culture from which it can cultivate like-minded employees.  Maybe there is hope for pleasing everyone yet?

References

Brown, S. (2014, October 13). Can disappearing desks improve how we work? Retrieved October 13, 2014, from http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/12/business/transformer-office-no-more-long-work-hours/

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., and Coutts, L. M. (Eds.) (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

 


Skip to toolbar