Intergroup comparison versus intragroup relationships: A cross-cultural examination of social identity theory in North American and East Asian cultural contexts.

By Masaki Yuki. 2003

369 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7b73555bbadfaa7554038562e021da269eb8ed7e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

When Terror Hits Home: Identity Fused Americans Who Saw Boston Bombing Victims as “Family” Provided Aid (2015, background): “More broadly, future work would benefit from examining identity fusion from cultural constructivist perspectives (e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Yuki, 2003).”
A motivational hierarchy within: primacy of the individual self, relational self, or collective self? (2012, background): “…over collectiveself primacy observed in the Chinese samples of Studies 3 and 4 implies that (at least East-Asian) collectivism is orchestrated in regard to networks of close-interpersonal relationships more so than broad and impersonal social groups (Brewer & Chen, 2007; Yuki, 2003).”
Does Shared Group Membership Promote Altruism? (2008, background): “While it has not been clearly demonstrated whether this seeming East–West difference in the way the group is perceived lies in the conception of the group or in the actual group processes, Yuki and colleagues (Yuki 2003; Yuki et al. 2005) provide some evidence that social categories play more import”
Culture, trust, and social networks (2008, background): “According to Yuki and colleagues (Yuki, 2003; Yuki, Maddux, Brewer, & Takemura, 2005), Easterners’ and Westerners’ trust of strangers is generated on the basis of different processes.”
Cross-cultural organizational behavior. (2007, background): “…personal ties with other group members, whereas in the United States, an important basis for trust is having a strong identification based on a shared category membership (e.g., being from the same school) (see also Yuki 2003 and Doney et al. 1998 for additional discussions of culture and trust).”
Consumer Adoption of New Products: Independent versus Interdependent Self-Perspectives (2014, background): “…1547-7185 (electronic) Journal of Marketing Vol. 78 (March 2014), 101 –117101 When designing and introducing new products,firms often focus on the products’ functionality—that is, the specific benefits that the products provide or the specific problems they address (Ziamou and Ratneshwar 2003).”
Blind loyalty? When group loyalty makes us see evil or engage in it (2016, background): “Prior research suggests that Americans may demonstrate greater in-group identification and loyalty than individuals in some Asian countries (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002; Yuki, 2003) but less so than individuals from some European countries (Swann et al.”
A Three-Tier Hierarchy of Self-Potency: Individual Self, Relational Self, Collective Self (2013, background): “On the other hand, Eastern culture is represented mostly by interpersonal relationships internalized as the relational self rather than ingroup-associations internalized as the collective self (Cai et al., in press; Yuki, 2003); this view implies the relative primacy of the relational self.”
Gender Differences in the Relational and Collective Bases for Trust (2005, background): “Since a variety of research has demonstrated that Japanese are more relationally oriented than Americans (e.g. Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Yuki, 2003), the current study sought to explore similar gender effects in this paradigm.”