PSYCH 424 blog

A Personal Comparison Between Self and Group Identity within South Korea and the United States

By Jessica McKeon

                Within the realm of intergroup relations is a social psychology principle known as Social Identity Theory. In a nutshell, social identity theory states that we each have two identities. A “self” identity and a “social” identity. This social identity is how our self-identity definition fits or does not fit into an “ingroup” (Hymans, 2002). The key distinctions lie with how an individual identifies their sense of ‘self’ versus how they identify themselves in comparison or conjunction with a ‘group’. Within the United States, we witness the results of this ‘ingroup’ and ‘outgroup’ identification on a daily basis. Within politics, gender identification, marital status, even the way we look plays a factor in who we identify with or who identifies with us.  Is the way in which we identify to our subsequent in-groups a cultural phenomenon within Western individualist-cultures? Or is it also applicable within a more collectivist mindset?

A primary factor that comes into play is how individuals from each culture identify themselves. In a 1995 study, researchers administered a Twenty Statements Test to Euro-Americans living in New York and Korean participants living in Seoul, asking various questions about their self-identity (Rhee et al., 1995). Rhee et al. found that self-descriptions within Euro-American participants contained more autonomous descriptions and trait differences, while Korean self-descriptions were highly-distinctive (1995). What do these findings mean for the layperson interpreting them? It means that Americans will generally identify themselves based on individual values and traits while Koreans will adhere to societal values and trend towards conformity. How does all of this play into the social framework of Social Identity Theory?

Social Identity theory primarily focuses on intergroup comparison, or how ingroups and outgroups compare themselves to one another. Within individualistic cultures, this is the way we self-identify and interact socially (Yuki, 2003). Intragroup comparison, on the other hand, is what is practiced primarily in collectivist cultures. Placing priority on comparisons to those within their cultural ingroup for the sake of cooperation and mutual goals (Yuki, 2003).

Allow me to provide you with a different perspective, through my own experiences as an American living in South Korea. My family and I moved to South Korea during New Years, approximately two-and-a-half years ago.  One of the first things that became apparent after getting off the airplane is that South Korea has a lot of people with very little diversity. To help create a more specific image, the Korean Statistical Information Services states that the population of South Korea in 2015 was approximately 51,629,512 people (KOSIS, 2015). That’s a lot of people. Out of that number only 1,741,919 are foreigners. Let me put that into a percentage for you; 3.4% of the Korean population in 2015 consisted of non-Koreans (KOSIS, 2015). In comparison, the United States Census Bureau stated that in 2015, 76.5% of the U.S. population consisted of the primary ‘Caucasian’ racial in-group (United States Census Bureau, 2018). This number doesn’t even account for the non-American Caucasians. However, even with this lack of diversity and inability to physically fit in, when making an active effort to assimilate to a collectivist culture, the treatment of the out-group becomes significantly more accepting.

Ultimately, I believe that Social Identity Theory does not account for the social processing nuances within collectivist cultures. It is worthwhile to reassess what circumstances Social Identity Theory hold true under, and if the theory is culturally biased.

References

Hymans, J. E. C. (2002, March). Applying Social Identity Theory to the Study of International Politics: A Caution and an Agenda . Retrieved October 3, 2019, from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jacques_Hymans/publication/228956532_Applying_Social_Identity_Theory_to_the_Study_of_International_Politics_A_Caution_and_an_Agenda/links/0a85e535d9708ef4d1000000.pdf.

Korean Statistical Information Service. (2019, August 29). Statistical Database. Retrieved October 3, 2019, from https://kosis.kr/eng/statisticsList/statisticsListIndex.do?menuId=M_01_01&vwcd=MT_ETITLE&parmTabId=M_01_01&statId=1962001&themaId=#SelectStatsBoxDiv.

Rhee, E., Uleman, J. S., Lee, H. K., & Roman, R. J. (1995). Spontaneous self-descriptions and ethnic identities in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(1), 142–152. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.1.142

U.S. Census Bureau. (2018). U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States. Retrieved October 3, 2019, from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045218.

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. Retrieved from https://lynx.let.hokudai.ac.jp/~myuki/paper/Yuki_2003_SPQ.pdf

Are you from Africa?

Imagine moving to a new a country where one of the first questions you get asked when you meet new people is Are you from Africa? To some this may not seem like a big deal, they want to know where you come from they’ve already marked you as something foreign before you’ve even opened your mouth, but why than could they not have simply asked, “Where are you from?”. But it is a big deal, because it usually proceeds actions like  Touching my hair without permission, or the weird looks I get when Germans try to speak a French to me (because it will make communicating with me easier), and I tell them their only options are English and German. And are also proceeded by statements, “Oh your English is so good.” Or “You must be from Ethiopia.” They are always so sure that they know where I originate from when because of Slavery and Colonialism I have no idea where my familial roots come from. It all eventually shapes itself into one of two stereotypes maybe both, I am either an oversexed African refugee woman who will do ANYTHING for money with old men or I am an oversexed African woman using a German only for their money and ability to stay in Germany.

And yet as soon as I say I am African-American, all that goes away (Except the part where I am clearly oversexed or maybe they think it’s undersexed, hard to conclude), and I feel as if my cultural identity is then taken away. I am only referred to I am only referred to as American, my roots are stripped away as if I cannot be someone with African roots and American. I am given a “white card” meaning I’m treated to smiling faces and suddenly a lack of suspicion, I now have a valid reason for being in Germany. My marriage to a German has more meaning, more importance, because it must be love now not money. I get to be apart of the in-group and not regulated to the out-group. Suddenly my residence card is ready in three months along with my work permit before I met all the language requirements, meanwhile I know others still waiting having entered the country over a year earlier than me. Until I leave the current representatives of the in-group and I must ask for my “white card” back from the next set of people belonging to the in-group.

Discrimination and Prejudice are everywhere and it takes many forms. It may not always be actions like suddenly your neighbors are disrespecting your spouse after two years of good relations. Sometimes it’s simply words that make you feel like an other or that you have no right to be there. Sometimes it feels like others have made decisions for you about who you are. And other times it’s being fast tracked for no reason in that for your nationality that makes you one of the good “Africans” and having to prove your worth to every new person. Being looked at a certain way that makes you doubt your own good intentions, your intelligence, or your cleanliness.

References:

Nelson, A. (2018). Lesson 6: Intergroup Relations/Diversity . Retrieved September 29, 2018, from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1942493/modules/items/25002507

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

This subject is very broad because it discusses diversity, and diversity is actually present everywhere we go. United States is a big example of diversity as we can encounter a huge mixture of race, languages and habits all in one country. Or at least, this is what everybody believes, that the diversity here is a positive visible factor of growth and the United States is formed by a great part of influence from other countries and cultures (Schneider, Grumman, & Coutts, 2012, p. 325). It is also known for all of us that this country is considered an individualistic society where most social experiences are focused around the individual and not around the collective group (Pfundmair, Graupmann, Frey, & Nilüfer, 2015). That being said, is United States really diverse? How much cultural influence is really absorbed by this nation?

http://https://youtu.be/5ZQl6XBo64M

Interestingly, many people believe that the influence is actually strong. However, when we approach actual different ethnic and social groups the scenario seems to be a little different. The percentage of interracial and intercultural marriages compared to the actual size of immigration slots is definitely small. Also, the interaction between minority and majority groups and the intergroup contact is definitely limited due to personal and social identity (Bikmen, 2011). Researchers are very interested in understanding how the cultures merge. Tili at al. (2015) have found that conflict in intimate, intercultural relationships is very common due to personal identity. Of course cultural differences are not exclusively the byproduct of culture; however, many people who decided to engage in intercultural marriages face unique challenges trying to adapt to the social context together. The same is applied to interracial marriages and social contact in the multicultural space (Tili, & Barker, 2015). The challenges are often related to diverse values, perspectives, and communication styles.

I personally have been in contact with people from multiple cultures, and it is very clear to me that the merging process can be complicated and frustration can easily arise because of the cultural differences. My own experience also says a lot, as I am a product of both interracial and intercultural marriage. It takes many years to finally be able to understand and cope with the other culture because the cultural values are definitely very different. The diversity conflict is everywhere in my life, from food consumption to social perception. At first it is a struggle to really accept those differences, but with a lot of comprehension, love and a compromising style (Schneider et al., 2012) the process gets smoother with time. The list of cultural shock and conflicts is actually endless, and it takes a lot of determination to get through it. I know for fact that my friends from other cultures, even Europeans, go through the same process and it is a relief to understand that the American diversity is in fact complicated not only for me but for most immigrants or descendants.

One good aspect of the diversity existent in the United States is that it generates social opportunities for everybody no matter the gender, race or social class because functional diversity is supposed to enhance group effectiveness and creativity (Schneider et al., 2012, p. 336). However, there are many other challenges that seems to overcome the good aspects such as prejudice and discrimination that exist and is very often reported (Huang, 1997). The most negative effect in social interactions between groups is perceived by ‘stereotyping’, the belief some people create about others’ behaviors or characteristics can really affect diversity and cultural interactions because those preconceived concepts create bias. This is a real threat to the cultural merging process and may explain why we live under a  social conflict that I call pseudo-diversity (Schneider et al., 2012, pp. 337-338). The stereotyping habit causes social conflict in marriages, schools or colleges, and at the work place.

Due to this scenario, I believe that the contact theory does not have enough effectiveness because cultures from all the world interact between themselves in the United States, although there is still a lot of biases and stereotyping behavior on the social environment. Of course other factors such as personal and social identity (WC, Psych 424, lesson 6) play a role in this scenario, but overall, what we expect is the existence of a cultural unity since the exposure to diversity occurs all the time. Instead, what I perceive all the time is a social dominance orientation among social groups, they develop their own group-based hierarchies’ system and seclude themselves from cultural influences from out-group members (WC, Psych 424, lesson 6). Seems to me that this kind of behavior make themselves feel more comfortable about their group compared to others.

Those intergroup relationships reflect the pseudo-diversity I believe exist in this country, as it is very clear that social interactions processes do not occur naturally for most of the groups. All interactions including cultural, educational, professional and personal are at risk of been biased and can be avoidant of contact with out-groups. It is a sad scenario, but it happens every day and the so believed diversity in this country is actually threatened by stereotype threat (Schneider et al., 2012, p. 338).

Reference

Ahrens, L. (2013, Feb. 26). “The Great American Melting Pot video.” Schoolhouse Rock. Music & lyrics by Lynn Ahrens; vocals by Lori Lieberman. ABC-TV, 1977 educational series. New York; United States. Retrieved from: https://youtu.be/5ZQl6XBo64M

Bikmen, N. (2011). Asymmetrical effects of contact between minority groups: Asian and black students in a small college. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17(2), 186-194. Retrieved from http://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/docview/868623879?accountid=13158

Foner, N. (2009). The American melting pot is a rich stew: Immigrants become attached to their new country, despite fears to the contrary. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 89(2), 7.

Huang, F. (1997). Asian and Hispanic immigrant women in the work force: Implications of the united states immigration policies since 1965. New York: Garland Publishing.

Penn State University, World Campus (Fall, 2016). Psych 424: Lesson 6. Retrieved from: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1802487/discussion_topics/11378499?module_item_id=21233957

Pfundmair, M., Graupmann, V., Frey, D., & Aydin, N. (2015). The different behavioral intentions of collectivists and individualists in response to social exclusion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(3), 363-378. doi:10.1177/0146167214566186 Retrieved from: http://psp.sagepub.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/content/41/3/363

Schneider, F.W., Grumman, J.A., & Coutts, L.M. (2012) Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Tili, T. R., & Barker, G. G. (2015). Communication in intercultural marriages: Managing cultural differences and conflicts. Southern Communication Journal, 80(3), 189. doi:10.1080/1041794X.2015.1023826