Effects of collectivistic value orientation and individualistic self-construal on group-oriented deviance

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

In the present study, we investigated how the intention to express deviant behavior differs depending on a cultural make-up of individualism and collectivism when group has undesirable custom. Specifically, we expected that the I-C subcomponents' joint function of self-construal and value will predict group member's deviant behaviors in the face of an undesirable group custom: Intention for group-oriented deviance will be higher when collectivistic value orientation is combined with individualistic self-construal, than when it is combined with collectivistic self-construal. In contrast, intention for self-construal will not have a significant effect in individualistic value orientation.
When the group has undesirable custom, individuals not only need to have a collectivistic value orientation in order to be more aware/care about the group's problem because they think the group as a communal relationship (Triandis, 1989) and promote cooperation (Chateman & Jehan, 1994), but also individualistic self-construal in order judge the situation (Haberstroh, Oyserman, Schwarz, Kuhnen, & Ji, 2002; Cho & Choi, 2012) and have more resistance to social pressure if it goes against their own value and preferences (Goncalo & Staw, 2006).
In order to examine the hypothesis, 2(value: collectivistic versus individualistic) x 2 (Self-construal: collectivistic versus individualistic) between-subjects design were used. Participants received an introduction to the experiment, and value orientation and self-construal were manipulated in a form of group norm. After the norm manipulation check, the participants received descriptions of organizational scenarios in which a company has an undesirable group custom. After reading the scenario, participants completed measures of dependent variables.
The results supported our hypothesis. The intention for group-oriented deviant behavior would be higher when a collectivistic value orientation was combined with individualistic as compared to collectivistic self-construal, while individualistic value orientation would not influence group-oriented deviant behavior.
In addition, mediation analysis revealed that participants who expressed deviant behavior had a higher sense of responsibility to speak out concerning the group's affairs and a higher perceived value of that behavior.
Lastly, limitations, future research questions and implications of this research are discussed.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Contents
• Introduction 1
• 1. Background and Purpose 1
• Literature Review 3
• 1. An Overview of Research Trend in Deviance 3
• 2. Culture and Norm 7
• 1) The Influence of Value orientation on Deviant Acts 11
• 2) The Influence of Self-Construal on Deviant Acts 14
• 3) The Interaction Effects of Value Orientation and Self-Construal 16
• 3. Group Level Culture as Descriptive Norm 18
• Study 1 21
• 1. Participants and Experiment Design 22
• 2. Procedure 22
• 1) Introduction of the Experiment & Informed Consent 22
• 2) Manipulation and Inducement Procedure 23
• 3) Manipulation Check 24
• 4) Scenario 24
• 5) Questionnaires 25
• 6) Suspicion Check and Debriefing 26
• 3. Dependent Variables 27
• 1) Intention to Express Dissenting Opinions 27
• 2) Sense of Responsibilities 27
• 3) Perceived Value of Dissenting Opinions 27
• 4) Group Oriented Motivation 28
• 5) Self Oriented Motivation 28
• 6) Justification 29
• 7) Arousal 29
• 8) Pride 29
• 9) Expected Regret 30
• 10) Evaluation 30
• 4. Results 30
• 1) Manipulation Check 31
• 2) Dependent Variable: Behavior intention 31
• 3) Mediators 33
• 4) Subsidiary Measures 36
• (1) Group Oriented Motivation 36
• (2) Self Oriented Motivation 38
• (3) Justification 39
• (4) Arousal 40
• (5) Pride 41
• (6) Expected Regret 41
• (7) Evaluation 43
• 5. Discussion 44
• Study 2 46
• 1. Participants and Experiment Design 47
• 2. Procedure 47
• 1) Manipulation 47
• 2) Scenario 48
• 3) Questionnaires 48
• (1) Perceived Value of Deviance 48
• (2) Identification 49
• 3. Results 50
• 1) Manipulation Check 50
• 2) Dependent Variable: Behavior intention 50
• 3) Mediators 52
• 4) Subsidiary Measures 54
• (1) Group Oriented Motivation 54
• (2) Self Oriented Motivation 55
• (3) Justification 56
• (4) Arousal 57
• (5) Pride 58
• (6) Expected Regret 59
• (7) Evaluation 60
• (8) Identification 60
• 4. Discussion 62
• Study 3 63
• 1. Participants and Experiment Design 63
• 2. Procedure 64
• 1) Manipulation 64
• 2) Scenario 64
• 3. Result 64
• 1) Manipulation Check 64
• 2) Dependent Variable: Behavior intention 65
• 3) Mediators 66
• 4) Subsidiary Measures 71
• (1) Group Oriented Motivation 71
• (2) Self Oriented Motivation 72
• (3) Justification 74
• (4) Arousal 75
• (5) Pride 77
• (6) Expected Regret 77
• (7) Evaluation 77
• (8) Identification 79
• 4. Discussion 80
• General Discussion 81
• 1) Discussion 81
• 2) Limitation and Future Research 82
• 3) Conclusion 85
• Reference 87
• Appendices 94
• [Appendix 1] Informed Consent 94
• [Appendix 2] Introduction of the Experiments 95
• [Appendix 3] Leading into Manipulation Procedure-Study 1,2,3 96
• [Appendix 3-1] Leading into Manipulation Procedure 97
• [Appendix 4] Norm Manipulation 98
• [Appendix 5] Scenario - Study 1 102
• [Appendix 6] Scenario - Study 2 103
• [Appendix 7] Scenario - Study 3 104
• [Appendix 8] Dependent Measure - Study 1 105
• [Appendix 9] Dependent Measure - Study 2 & 3 110
• [Appendix 10] Manipulation Check 116
• [Appendix 11] Suspicion Check 117
• [Appendix 12] Script 118