WMfim

900?

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

SOCIAL IDENTITY AND lN-GROUP FAVORITISM:
THE EFFECT OF RELATIVE PRESTIGE DIFFERENCES ON SELF-
CONSTRUALS AND lN-GROUP FAVORITISM AMONG JAPANESE
COLLEGE STUDENTS

presented by

CHIHARU KATO

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Master‘s degree in Communication

 

 

7 V / Major Professor’s Signature
8/20/09

Date

 

MSU is an Affinmtlve Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

-.-.-.--o-.v-0-.------.-

no-o------o-v--.--.--—

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 p:/C|RC/DaleDue.indd-p.1

 

SOCIAL IDENTITY AND IN-GROUP FAVORITISM:
THE EFFECT OF RELATIVE PRESTIGE DIFFERENCES ON SELF-CONSTRUALS
AND IN-GROUP FAVORITISM AMONG JAPANESE COLLEGE STUDENTS
By

Chiharu Kato

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of the Communication

2006

ABSTRACT
SOCIAL IDENTITY AND IN-GROUP FAVORITISM:
THE EFFECT OF RELATIVE PRESTIGE DIFFERENCES ON SELF -CONSTRUALS
AND IN-GROUP FAVORITISM AMONG JAPANESE COLLEGE STUDENTS
By
Chiharu Kato
Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) states that people establish

collective identity through membership in a social group. This social identity constitutes
one aspect of their self-concepts. Conceptualizing oneself through memberships is one of
the central features of Markus and Kitayama’s (1991) construct, interdependent self-
construal. Thus, it was hypothesized that the people with high interdependent self-
construal will have higher collective esteem compared to general self-esteem.
Considering the importance of the social order in Japanese culture, it was also
hypothesized that people with higher interdependent self-construal would evaluate their
own school more favorably when their school was relatively higher in status, and would
evaluate their own school less favorably when their school was relatively lower in status
than the other school. The data were consistent with the first hypothesis. People with
higher interdependent self-construal had higher collective self-esteem than those with
lower interdependent self-construal. The result of the second hypothesis test showed a
significant effect of the ranking difference on how people evaluate their own school

regardless of their self-orientations.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION...... 1

METHOD ............................................................................................ 10
Participants ................................................................................ 1 1
Design ..................................................................................... 1 1
Procedure ................................................................................. 12
Instrumentation ........................................................................... 12
Self-Construals ........................................................................... 12
General Self-Esteem ...................................................................... 13
University Self-Esteem .................................................................. 14
In-Group Favoritism ..................................................................... 15
University Evaluations ......................................................................................... 16
RESULTS .......................................................................................................................... 18
Self-Construals, General Self-Esteem, and USE ................................................. 18
Self-Constmals and In-Group Favoritism ............................................................ 19
DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................... 25
APPENDICIES .................................................................................................................. 29
APPENDD( A: Survey—Lower Ranking Condition .......................................... 29
APPENDIX B: Survey—Higher Ranking Condition ......................................... 35
APPENDD( C ...................................................................................................... 40
APPENDIX D ...................................................................................................... 43
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 48

iii

 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Correlation matrix with independent, interdependent score and dtflerence score
of privaUSE ......................................................................................................... 40

Table 2: Correlation matrix with independent, interdependent score and drfierence score
of public USE ....................................................................................................... 40

Table 3: Correlation matrix with independent, interdependent score and drfi’erence score
of identity USE ...................................................................................................... 40

Table 4: Correlation matrix with independent, interdependent score and dlflerence score
of evaluation of independent student characteristics ............................................ 41

Table 5: Correlation matrix with independent, interdependent score and dzflerence score
of evaluation of interdependent student characteristics ....................................... 41

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure] a: The eflect of ranking drflerence on the relationship with independent &
interdependent self-orientations ............................................................................ 43

Figurelb: The eflect of ranking difference on the relationship with independent &
interdependent self-orientations ............................................................................ 43

Figure 2a: The eflect of ranking on the relationship between the university characteristics
evaluation and the independent self-construal ...................................................... 44

Figure 2b: The eflect of ranking on the relationship between the university characteristics
and the interdependent self-orientation ................................................................. 44

Figure 3a: The eflect of ranking on the relationship between interdependent student
characteristics and independent self-orientation ................................................... 45

Figure 3b: The eflect of ranking on the relationship between interdependent student
characteristics and independent self-orientation ................................................... 45

Figure 4a: Efi'ect of ranking on the measure of university serving bias with independent
self-construal .......................................................................................................... 46

Figure 4b: Eflect of ranking on the measure of university serving bias with
interdependent self-constmal ................................................................................. 46

Figure 5: Eflect of ranking on the measure of university serving bias with interdependent
self-construal .......................................................................................................... 47

INTRODUCTION

In contrast to the traditional view of the self in psychological research, cross
cultural scholars maintain that the self is a cultural product in which cultural norms affect
beliefs and behavior (Asai & Barnlund, 1998). Extending this idea, Markus and Kitayama
(1991) posited two dimensions of the self: independent self-construals and interdependent
self-construals. According to Markus and Kitayama (1991), interdependent
self-construals dominate the self concept of East Asian countries, with their cultural
emphasis on harmony and connectedness among group members. Independent self
construals, on the other hand, dominate that of Western countries with their strong
emphasis on individual autonomy.

Social Identity Theory (SIT) claims that people develop social identity through
membership in social groups (Tajfel, 1982; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Seeing oneself
through memberships is one the central feature of Markus and Kitayama’s (1991)
conception of interdependent self-construals. Therefore, integrating Markus and
Kitayama’s (1991) independent and interdependent self-construe] into the SIT, it can be
argued that those high in interdependent self-construal will emphasize social identity, and
consequently may exhibit more in-group favoritism. In fact, anecdotal evidence suggests
that Japanese frequently exhibit in-group favoritism for the school they attend, although
the majority of cross cultural researchers claim the scarcity of self, as well as in-group
favoritism, as an explanation of Japanese behavior. For example, Nakane (1970)
referred to the tendency that Japanese have to classify individuals based on the

institutions to which they belong, and wrote that this tendency is especially evident for

 

university graduates such that, “Among university graduates, what matters most, and
functions the strongest socially, is not whether a man holds or does not hold a Ph.D., but
rather from which university he graduated (p. 3). Also, Takeuchi (1997) reflected on
the competitiveness of the Japanese school entrance examination system as “Examination
hell,” and commented that the competitive nature of the entrance examination is
prompted by the ranking itself rather than the function of education in determining
socio—economic status. He observed that this ranking system is a reflection of the highly
bureaucratic nature of Japanese companies, for their recruitment is based on the school
rankings. Therefore, entering the higher ranking university is the first step toward a
promising future, which in turn assigns more value to ranking itself. For this reason,
Japanese students are encouraged to seek a university that is ranked higher than the one
into which they are confident of being admitted. When the applicants successfully enter
the universities they were striving for, students develop the sense of pride in the
membership. With a socially promised fixture resulting from holding a membership in
the university, students in higher ranking universities show greater self-esteem because of
the membership (Takeuchi, 1997).

In this study, the relationship between self-construals and in-group favoritism
among Japanese will be examined. The relative ranking difl'erence between universities
is predicted to be a moderating factor.

Self-consturals, cultural and individual variation of self-orientation

In contrast to a traditional view of self-concept as a unitary construct,

cross-cultural scholars claim that self is a cultural product, shaped and defined through

communication with other people. That is to say that people learn to think, believe, and

behave according to their cultural norms (Asai & Barnlund, 1998). Therefore, people
may process several different selves depending on the external factors that surround their
lives. One of the most frequently cited studies of such self-conception is Markus and
Kitayama (1991). They introduced two different construals that reflect how people see
themselves in relation to other people. Markus and Kitayama (1991) explained that
such different views of self foster two dimensions of the self: independent self-construals
and interdependent self-construals. Singelis (1994) conceptualized self-construals as
“constellation of thoughts, feelings, and actions concerning one’s relationship to others,
and the self as distinct from others” (Singelis, 1994, p.581). Self-construals are the
aspects of self-knowledge and self-concept that define people as being independent from
others or in relation to others. An independent self-construal is defined as a “bounded,
unitary, and stable” self that is separate from social context (Singelis, 1994, p. 581), and
people with high independent self-construal see themselves as independent and unique
entities. Because people high in independent self-construal perceive themselves as
being autonomous from others, their self representation usually consists of individual
desires, abilities, and dispositional attributes.

An interdependent self-construal is defined as a “flexible and variable” self that
emphasize connectedness with others (Singelis, 1994, p.581). Therefore, people high in
interdependent self-construals see themselves to be a relational and contextual entity.
Membership in social groups and keeping harmony with others within such groups at the
expense of one’s own aspiration is highly valued among people high in interdependent
self-construal. Cousins’s study (1986), for example, illustrates the flexible and variable

nature of the Japanese self (1986). He examined the self-descriptions of American and

Japanese subjects and reported that the self-description of the Japanese was situation
specific, such as “I play tennis on Saturday,” when asked to make a sentence that
describes themselves. American subjects, in contrast showed the tendency to define
themselves in the opposite direction. In other words, they describe themselves with
more trait-like and stable depictions without contextual cues, and when they were asked
to answer within a specific interpersonal context, they qualified their description, such as
“I am sometimes lazy at home.” Cousins (1989) commented that his results exemplified
Japanese selves’ connectedness with their social world, and concluded that in Japan the
self and other are culturally constituted entities. Extending his findings he concluded
that there will be varieties of self concepts among different groups of people. Such
research findings suggest that culture predicts the divergent view of self. In sum, an
individualistic culture (e. g., North America and Europe) nurtures the development of
independent self-construals, and a collectivistic culture (e.g., East Asia, Afiica, and Latin
America) promotes the development of interdependent self-construals.

Although self-construals have been introduced as a predictor of cultural
differences in cross-cultural settings, a recent trend suggests that the self-construals are a
stronger predictor of individual differences within the same culture (Gudykunst, et. al.,
1996; Park and Levine, 1999). For example, Ellis and Wittenbaum (2000) found that
high independent construal was positively associated with self-promotion tactics that
include attributing success to dispositional factors such as hard work and ability.
Interdependent self-construal, on the other hand, was correlated with other promotion
tactics that include attributing one’s success to situational factors (e. g., support from

family, luck, and fiiend’s advice).

Social identity and in-group favoritism

Many research findings indicate that people hold unrealistically positive views
that favor their own group, believing that their group is more productive than out-groups,
attributing their success to internal and dispositional factors (e. g., ability and hard work),
and attributing the success of out-groups to external and situational factors. Social
Identity Theory (SIT) explains such in-group favoritism as the way people promote and
retain their self-esteem as well as the esteem of their fellow group members (Tajfel,
1981). Holding favorable views of their in-group, people develop and maintain their
self-esteem through memberships. Crocker and Luhtanen (1990) defined such
self-esteem as collective self-esteem and suggested that higher collective esteem is
associated with more in-group favoritism. In order to maintain the favorable views of
their in-group, people also engage in out-group derogation by evaluating the out-group
less favorable, or attributing the success of out-groups to situational factors such as luck
and lower task difficulty. In fact, Chatman and von Hippel (2001) showed that people
exhibit in-group favoring biases when evaluating people outside of their social group.
Interestingly, several research findings suggest that people even develop in—group
favoritism for arbitrary assigned groups in experimental settings (Branscombe, Spears,
Ellemer, & Doosje, 2002; Lam, Shaubroeck, & Brown, 2004; Levine, can Laar, &
Sidanius, 2003; Sherman, & Kim, 2002).
Self-construal, group-esteem, and in-group favoritism

SIT explains in—group favoritism as a reflection of our fundamental need for
positive self-regard. The two dimensions of self-construals suggest that people define

themselves differently depending on the predominate dimension of self-construal.

Combining two theoretical assumptions, it is expected that people with high
interdependent self-construals establish their self-concept more through membership than
people with higher independent self-construals, because people who are higher in
interdependent self-construals put more emphasis on their memberships and relationships
with others than people with independent self-construals. Moreover, people who are
higher in interdependent self-construals, who place more value on memberships in groups,
are expected to have higher collective esteem than personal self-esteem. People with
high independent self-construal, on the other hand, are expected to hold similarly high
degrees of personal self esteem and collective self-esteem.

Therefore,

H1) people with high interdependent self-construals exhibit more collective
self-esteem than personal self-esteem, whereas people with high independent
self-construals hold similar degrees of personal self-esteem and collective self-esteem.
Relative difference in prestige and in-group favoritism

Status is a “widely accepted, and socially valued characteristic that forms the
basis for a broad range of attributions and expectations (p. 7)” (Ellyson & Dovidio, 1985).
In any society, one’s relative social status is a driving force of people’s communication
tactics and behavior (Patterson, 1983). If status influences the way we communicate, it
may be expected that the status differences among groups motivates each member to hold
in-group favoritism. In fact, Mullen et al. (1992) examined 137 studies of in-group
favoritism and reported that the in-group bias effect was significantly stronger when the
group classification is realistic, such as when the differences between the groups were

salience, and the in-group bias was highest among people in relatively higher status

groups. They defined the in-group bias to be the test of the difference between the
evaluation of the in-group and evaluation of the out-group. Therefore, their findings
suggest that the members of the relatively higher status groups tend to Show more
in-group bias by evaluating their own group higher than other groups.

According to Markus and Kitayama (1991), interdependent self-construals
represent relational, as well as contextual selves. Considering the situational and
relational sensitivity of interdependent self-construals, it can be predicted that relative
status differences modify the way people with high interdependent self-construals
evaluate themselves, as well as the way they evaluate others. Kowner and Wiseman
(2003) examined how the differences in status affect dyadic interaction patterns in Japan
and in the United States, and showed that Japanese participants’ communication patterns
were altered to a great extent as a function of the relative status differences. The authors
explained that the presence of relative status differences altered Japanese communication
norms, leading higher status individuals to exhibit more dominance over their lower
status counterparts. Nakane (1997) pointed out the significance of the status and
ranking in Japanese society and commented that “Without consciousness of ranking, life
could not be carried on smoothly in Japan, for rank is the social norm on which Japanese
life is based (p.31).”

Given the importance of status and ranking in Japanese society, and the
assumption that the presence of relative status differences alters individual role
expectations of Japanese, it can be expected that the relative rankings will affect Japanese
self-concepts, which alternatively lead individuals to hold higher or lower self, as well as

collective, self-esteem. A society, in which rank and the social order are highly valued

(Doi, 1986), should find their situated identity affected by relative status. Therefore, it

is reasonable to assume that the status ranking becomes a source of one’s self-evaluation.
Holding a higher status will naturally lead one to have higher self-esteem. Moreover, it
is natural to assume that one’s self, as well as collective self, esteem will be elevated
when one holds higher status than lower status. This tendency should be more evident
with people with interdependent self-construal, because people who are high in
interdependent self-construal are more prone to be flexible with their self-conception.
And if this premise is true, it can be expected that the higher one’s interdependent
self-construals, the greater the endorsement of in-group favoritism when one’s group is of
relatively higher status.

For the past several decades, cross cultural scholars have been claiming the
absence of in-group favoritism among Japanese. Moreover, the Japanese are repeatedly
reported to have unrealistically negative views of in-groups (Heine, Lehman, Markus, &
Kitayama, 1999; Heine, Tanaka, & Lehman, 2000). For example, Heine et al. (1997)
maintained that in-group favoritism is not functional in Japan, because holding
unrealistically favorable views of in—groups means detaching from larger collectives in
which cultural norms value sameness. In their study, they examined how the students of
two rival schools evaluated each other, and found that the Japanese students of a lower
ranking school evaluated their own school less favorably than their rival school, whereas
North American students evaluated their own school favorably regardless of the general
reputation of the school. Snibbe and colleagues (2003) commented that Japanese
students are more aware of and sensitive to general standings of their university in a

larger society, and therefore, students, particularly at lower status schools, do not hold

unrealistically favorable views of their schools. Sachdev and Bourhis (1987; 1991)
examined the effect of intergroup status differences on in-group favoritism and found that
the members of high status groups exhibit stronger in-group bias when evaluating
dispositional factors, such as ability and competence. Members of lower status groups,
on the other hand, do not exhibit in-group bias on such dimensions, especially when the
group is divided by ability or competence, because members of lower status groups
consider their lower status as legitimate. If Japanese students are more aware of the
relative standing of their own university, and acknowledge the difference between
schools as legitimate, then it follows that students of lower ranking schools will show no
in-group favoritism. In fact, both the Heine et al. (1997) and Snibbe et al. (2003) studies
showed that students at higher ranking schools evaluated their schools more favorably.
Given Snibbe et al.’s (2003) argument that Japanese students are sensitive to the general
standing of their university, the absence of in-group favoritism may be due to the fact that
Japanese students consider such differences of reputation as legitimate. The question
remains, however, as to how such evaluations will differ when relative school standings
are altered. To the extent that people see themselves as a relational and interdependent
entity, they should be more aware of how other people in society view their in-groups,
and therefore more inclined to evaluate their in-group and out-group based on socially
recognized evaluations, rather than subjective or affective judgments. Conversely,

when people see themselves as a unique entity that exists separately from larger
collectives, their evaluation of the in-group, as well as out-groups, is expected to reflect
such uniqueness, and therefore they are expected to evaluate the in-group favorably

regardless of the standings of the school. Hence,

H2) Those with high interdependent self-construals will evaluate their schools
more favorably when they are relatively higher in ranking and evaluate them less
favorably when they are relatively lower in ranking. Those with high independent
self-construals, on the other hand, show a similar degree of in-group favoritism regardless

of the relative status differences.

10

METHOD

Participants

Participants were students from Mej iro University, Tokyo. The 240 copies
(120 copies for each condition) of the questionnaire booklet were prepared and sent to
Japan, then a teaching assistant at Mejiro University distributed the questionnaire booklet
at the beginning of introductory English classes. The teaching assistant briefly
explained about the nature of the study, and asked the students to read and sign the
consent form. Then she asked potential participants to place completed surveys in a box
situated at the door of her officer. The university is on a semester system, but the
academic year in Japan is from April to March. The spring semester runs from April to
August, and fall semester runs from September to March. The questionnaire was
distributed at the end of December right before the Christmas break, and some
respondents reported that they had lost the questionnaire during the break. Of the 240
participants solicited 59 (24.6%) responded]. The mean age of participants was 19.19
years (SD = .96). Of the 59 respondents, 49 were freshmen, nine were sophomores, one
was a junior, and seven did not respond to the item. Fifty-six of the participants
identified themselves as Japanese, one reported being Chinese, and two did not respond
to this item.
Design

One factor was varied experimentally. Respondents were asked to evaluate a

 

‘ Prior to the data collection, I contacted the department chair of the English deparment at Mejiro
University and had a permission to use class time for data collection. However, the Internal Review Board
at Michigan State University deemed this procedure coercive. Therefore, the questionnaire was distributed
in class and students were asked to answer at home.

11

university ranked higher than their own and a university that ranked lower than their own.
In both conditions, they were asked to evaluate their own school in comparison with the
other school. These instructions are designed to induce respondents to perceive
themselves as having relatively high or low status. Of the 59 students who responded 26
received the higher ranking instruction in which they were asked to evaluate the school of
lower rank, and 33 participants were in lower ranking condition in which they were asked
to evaluate the school of higher rank.

Procedure

The questionnaire was translated from English to Japanese by one bilingual
translator and back translated from Japanese to English by a second bilingual translator.
Subsequently, two translators compared the original and back-translated questionnaire.
Then, discrepancies between the two versions were resolved through discussion.

A teaching assistant was given the questionnaire and asked to distribute it in
class. This teaching assistant explained the nature of the study, and asked those students
who were willing to participate to return the questionnaire in a box located in the
assistant’s office.

Instrumentation
Self-Construals

Self-construals were measured with Kim and Leung’s (1997) Self-Construal
scale. This scale was designed to test for the two dimensions of self: independent
self-construals and interdependent self-construals. The independent factor consists of
16 items such as “It is important for me to act as an independent person,” “I act as a

unique person, being separate from others,” “I don’t like depending on others.” The

12

interdependent factor includes 13 items such as “I feel uncomfortable disagreeing with
my group,” and “My relationship with those in my group is more important than my
personal accomplishments.” ( See Appendix I &II, Q 1 to 29). The scale reliability
analysis indicated that the reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of the independent and
interdependent self-construals scales were .75 and .73, respectively.

For each participant, an independence score was computed by averaging the
5-point agreement ratings (from 1: strongly disagree to 5 =strongly agree) for the 16
independence items, and interdependent score was computed by averaging the 5-point
agreement ratings for the 14 interdependence items. The mean independence score was
3.36 (SD: .51), and the mean interdependence score was 3.19 (SD = .50).

Independence score and interdependence score were not significantly correlated with
each other, r (55) = -.08, n.s., showing that those two dimensions were relatively
independent of one another (Gudykunst, et al. 1996; Oetzel, 1998). A repeated
measures t-test indicated that participants did not differ on their independent and
interdependent dimensions, t (53) = 1.78, n.s.

An analysis of variance revealed that independent and interdependent
self-construal scores did not vary substantially across experimental conditions (F (1, 54) =
.89, n.s. and F (1, 55) = .20, n.s. respectively). In the high rank condition the mean
independence score was 3.43 (SD = .45) and the mean interdependence score was 3.22 (SD
= .44). In the low ranking condition the mean independence score was 3 .30 (SD: .55) and
the mean interdependent score was 3.16 (SD = .55).

General Self-Esteem

13

General self-esteem is a positive or negative evaluation of one’s self-worth. In
this study it was measured with Rosenberg’s (1989) Self-Esteem Scale. This scale has
been shown to be highly reliable (or = .77 to .88, test-retest reliability is reported as .82
to .88). The Rosenberg self-esteem scale consists of 10 statements examining how
people feel about themselves, such as “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself’ (See
Appendix I &11, Q 30 to 39). The reliability of the scale for these data was reasonably
high, Cronbach’s a =. 85. All of the items were used in the analysis. As is instructed by
the author of the instrument, for each participant general self-esteem was calculated by
summing up responses on the four-point response scales. The mean score was 23.11 (SD
= 5.59). There was no difference in means between conditions, t (55) = -.25, ns.

University Self-Esteem

Collective self esteem was measured using Heine and Lehman’s (1997)
University Self-esteem (USE) scale. This scale is a modified version of Luhtanen and
Crocker’s (1992) Collective Self-Esteem Scale, for which Heine and Lehman (1997)
altered the original version from “my social group” to “my university.” The USE scale is
composed of four, four item subscales. They are Membership, Private, Public, and
Identity. Membership USE measures the extent of the individual’s belief in being a
worthy member of their social group. Afier the reliability analysis, one item, “I often
feel I am a useless member of my university,” was deleted and the Cronbach’s a of the
remaining items was .83. Private USE deals with the extent of an individual’s level of
satisfaction with being a member of a university. The Cronbach’s a for this subscale
was .86. The Public USE sub-scale refers to how individuals feel about other people’s

view of their university. The Cronbach’s a for these four items was .71. The identity

14

USE sub-scale measures the importance of the membership in the university to one’ s
self-concept. After eliminating the item, “In general, belonging to my university is an
important part of my self-image,” for the remaining items Cronbach’s a was .67. The
mean score of the summed membershipUSE was 10.75 (SD = 3.98), summed private
USE was 17.50 (SD = 5.63) summed public USE was 12.10 (SD = 4.00), and summed
identity USE was 12.10 (SD = 3.41).

Two items followed that served as additional measures of university-enhancing
tendencies. The first item was “Overall, my university is a better school to go to than
the school listed above.” And the second item was “I think that the most students at my
school are glad that they went to my university than the school listed above.” The mean
score of the first item was 4.16 (SD = 1.88), and the mean of the second item was 3.78
(SD = 1.63). With the second measure, the mean score was significantly different
between conditions, t (56) = 2.14, p < .04. In the higher ranking condition, the mean was
4.27 (SD = 1.49) and in the lower ranking condition, the mean was 3.48 (SD = 1.66).
This outcome implies that people in the higher ranking condition scored slightly higher
on the second university serving bias item than those in the lower ranking condition.

In-group favoritism

Heine and Lehman (1977) examined a self serving bias among college students
by asking participants to evaluate their own universities and to provide a general
impression of the students at each university. In—group favoritism will be analyzed by
comparing the differences of the assessment between participants’ own school and their
target school. In this study, in-group favoritism was measured by subtracting the

response to the other school’s evaluation from that of own school evaluation. (See

15

Appendix A & B, Q 40 — 54 for the evaluation of the other school, and Q 75 — 89 for
participants’ own school.)
University evaluations

Participants were asked to evaluate two universities and the students who attend
both schools. This measure was composed of five statements about the general
characteristics of the university (Appendix A & B, Q 40 - 44 and Q 75 -59) and 10 items
assessing general characteristics of the students, and they were asked to indicate how
accurate the statements were on a 1 (not at all accurate) to 6 (completely accurate) scale.
The 10 item student characteristic scale was composed of two dimensions: independent
student character (i.e. “Students at my university are very creative” and “Students at my
university are highly intelligent.” See also Appendix A & B, Q 45 -54 and Q 80 — 89) and
interdependent character (i.e. “Student at my university are very loyal to our school”, and
“Students at my university are very easy to get along with”)

A reliability analysis for each scale was conducted. All three measures were
shown to be reasonably reliable (Cronbach’s a for the university character evaluation for
the other school was .89, the evaluation scale of the student character for the independent
dimension or = .86, interdependent dimension, or = .85). For the university character
evaluation for one’s own school, Cronbach’s a = .84, for the evaluation scale for own
school student character for the independent dimension, or = .85, and for the
interdependent dimension, or = .78. Therefore, for each participant, each score was
computed by averaging six- point agreement ratings for five university character items,
five independent student characteristics items, and five interdependent student

characteristics items. The mean score of the general university characteristics were 2.76

16

(SD = .87) for own school, and 3.93 (SD = 1.06) for other school, showing that the
participants, when combined, evaluated the other school higher than their own school.
The mean of the independent student character evaluation was 3.31 (SD = .94) for own
school, and 3.69 (SD = 1.05) for other school. The mean of the interdependent student
character evaluation was 3.41 (SD = .78) for their own school, and 3.49 (SD = .97) for
other school. Again, although it is only slight, respondents evaluated the other school

higher than their own school.

17

RESULTS

Self-construals, General self-esteem and USE

Hypothesis 1 predicted that those who have high interdependent self-construal
exhibit more collective self-esteem than personal self-esteem, whereas people with high
independent self construal have similar degrees of personal self esteem and collective self
esteem. To test this hypothesis the difference between the USE sub-scales and personal
self esteem was calculated for each participant, and subsequently, this difference score
was used for correlation analysis with both the independent and interdependent score.
The mean of the difference scores for membership USE, private USE, public USE and
identity USE were -12.39 (SD = 6.29), -5.61 (SD = 7.32), -11.18 (SD = 6.68), and -11.44
(7.45) respectively. The negative score indicates that the respondents scored higher on
the self-esteem scale, but the self-esteem scale is a summed score that ranges from 10-40,
and subscales of USE is 28 at maximum when it is summed (some of the items were
deleted, so some items has only 21 as a maximum. The result showed that one’s
interdependent score was positively correlated with the difference score for private USE,
r (54) = .27, p < .04. This outcome demonstrates that the higher the participants’
interdependent score, the more they are satisfied as a member of their university. The
independent score was negatively correlated with the difference score but the coefficient
was not statistically significant, r (52) = -. 14, n.s., indicating that there is no evidence of a
relationship between these two variables.

The difference score for public USE was also positively correlated with the

interdependent score, r (5 3) = .34, p < .01. The higher their interdependent score, the

18

more respondents are satisfied with their public perception of being identified with the
university. Here again, this direction was reversed with independent score; however, it
was not statistically significant, r (53) = -.25, p = .07

There was also a positive relationship between the difference score for identity
USE and the interdependent score, r (54) = .27, p < .05. The higher the interdependent
score, the more participants perceive their membership in the university as important to
their self-concept. An effect in the opposite direction was observed with the
independent score, but it was not statistically significant, r (52) = -.25, p = .06.

The same trend was observed for membership USE; the interdependent score
was positively correlated with the difference of membership USE and the independent
score was negatively correlated with the difference of membership USE. These
coefficients did not, however, reach conventional levels of statistical significance

(interdependent, r (53) = .06, ns., independent, r (51) = -. 18, n.s., see Tables 1, 2, and 3).

Self-construals and In-group favoritism

Hypothesis 2 predicted that those with high interdependent self-construal will
evaluate their school more favorably when they are relatively higher in ranking and
evaluate their own school less favorably when they are relatively lower in ranking.
Those with high independent self-construal, on the other hand, will show a similar degree
of evaluation of the schools regardless of their relative rankings. As was discussed in the
instrumentation section, the university evaluation was measured with three instruments;
five statements about the general characteristics of the university, 5 statements about the

independent dimension of the student characteristics, and 5 statements about

19

interdependent dimension of the student characteristics.

In order to test this hypothesis, each evaluation difference score was calculated
by subtracting each evaluation score of the higher/lower ranking school from their own
school evaluation. Thus, a positive score indicates that respondents evaluated their
own school more positively than the other school, and a negative score indicates that
respondents evaluated the other school more favorably than their own school.
Correlational analysis was then employed to test the relationship between the difference
score and self-construals.

Evaluation of the general character of the university

The results were inconsistent with the hypothesis. The relationship between
interdependent self-constual and the difference in evaluation appeared to be in the
opposite direction, but the coefficients were not large and they did not reach conventional
levels of Statistical significance, r (16) = -. 19, ns. in the higher ranking condition and r
(26) = .06, ns. in the lower ranking condition. As predicted, the relationship between
independent self—construal and the evaluation difference score did not appeared to be
altered with condition, r (16) = .31, n.s. in the higher ranking condition, and r (26) = .11,
n. s., in the lower ranking condition. The mean of the evaluation difference for
university character was .20 (SD = .90) in the higher ranking condition, and -1.90 (SD =
1.18) in the lower ranking condition. That is, people in the lower ranking condition
evaluated the other school significantly higher than their own school, t (46) = -6.47, p

< .001.

20

Evaluation of the Characteristics of students

There were two dimensions of student characteristics in the student characteristic
evaluation. One was an evaluation of independent characteristics, and the other was an
evaluation of interdependent characteristics. Prior to hypothesis testing, the evaluation
difference score was calculated by subtracting the evaluation scores of student at the
other school’s from that of one’ s own school.

Independent student characteristics

The mean evaluation difference score of the independent characteristics was .68
(SD = .69) in the higher ranking condition, and -1.00 (SD = 1.05) in the lower ranking
condition. This result shows that people in the lower ranking condition evaluate the other
school significantly higher than people in the higher ranking condition on this measure, t
(47) = -3.87, p <.001. The result appeared to be in the opposite direction from the
hypothesis, however, here again, the result did not reach the conventional level of the
statistical significance. In the higher ranking condition, participants’ interdependent
self-construal score was negatively correlated with the evaluation difference score, r (16)
= -.14, n.s., and the direction of the relationship seemed to be reversed in the lower
ranking condition, r (27) = .14, n.s.

Nonetheless in the higher ranking condition, participants’ independent
self-construal score was positively correlated with the difference score, r (16) = .50, p
< .03, and this relationship was reversed in the lower ranking condition, r (17) = -.47, p
< .01. That is, in contrast to the hypothesis, the result suggested that the higher the
respondents’ independent score, the more likely they were to evaluate their own school

favorably when they were in the higher ranking condition, and evaluate their own school

21

less favorably when they were in the lower ranking condition.

Interdependent student characteristics

The mean of the evaluation difference score for the interdependent student
characteristics was .717 (SD = .67) in the higher ranking condition, and -.47 (SD = 1.29)
in the lower ranking condition. This outcome indicates that people in the lower ranking
condition evaluated the other school higher than their own school on this measure, t (45)
= -3.52, p < .001. The result here also appeared to contradict the hypothesis. The
interdependent student characteristics did not appear to be different depending on the
condition, r (15) = -.20, n.s. in the higher ranking condition, and r (26) = -.04, n.s. in the
lower ranking condition. Moreover, as was shown with the evaluation of the independent
student characteristics, the result showed that there was a positive relationship between
independent self-construal and the evaluation difference score in the high ranking
condition, r ( 15) = .54, p < .03. That is, in contrast to the hypothesis, the higher the
participants’ score of the independent self-construal, the more likely they evaluated their
own school favorably in the higher ranking condition. Although the conventional level of
statistical Significance was not obtained, the direction of the relationship appeared to be
reversed in the lower ranking condition, r (26) = -.31, p = .12.

In sum, with all three measures, contrary to the hypothesis 2, the data suggested
that the independent score was positively related with the degree of favorable school
evaluations. Moreover, the result suggested that the relative standings of the university or
at least the perception of the relative standing may affect how people evaluate their own
school and students compared with other school (See the figure 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, and 3a, 3b

for the illustration of the relationship)

22

University Serving Bias

As an additional measure of the university serving bias for their 1997 study,
Heine & Lehman created two items that directly measure university serving bias. The
first item asserted, “Overall, I think that my university is a better school to go to than the
school I wrote above.” The second item stated, “I think that most of my university
students are glad that they went to my university instead of the university I wrote above.”
Again, for each item the correlation analysis was conducted with the independent and
interdependent self-construals scores. The result of this measure was also inconsistent
with the hypothesis. The hypothesis predicted that the participants in the higher ranking
condition would demonstrate higher university serving bias when they are in the higher
ranking condition. The analysis of the first measure indicated that the observed
relationship was contradictory to the hypothesis. That is, there was a positive
relationship between interdependent self-construal and the university serving bias in the
lower ranking condition, r (29) = .37, p < .04. That is, in the lower ranking condition, the
higher the participants’ interdependent self-construal, they are more likely to show
university serving bias. Such a relationship was not observed in the higher ranking
condition, r (23) = -.295, p =. 16. No significant relationship was observed with
independent self-construal, r (23) = .32, p = .12 in the higher ranking condition, and r
(29) = -.06,p = .75.

The second measure of the university serving bias did not indicate any
significant relationship with either interdependent construal, r (24) = -.22, p = ns. in the
higher ranking condition, and r (28) = .29, p = .13 in the lower ranking condition, or

independent self-construal, r (24) = .04, p = .85 in the higher ranking condition, and r

23

(28) = -.04, p = ns. in the lower ranking condition.
Regardless of their self-orientation scores the participants in the higher ranking
condition scored higher on the first item of university serving bias than participants in

lower ranking condition, (M = 4.27, SD = 1.49, and M = 3.38, SD = 1.66, respectively).

24

 

DISCUSSION

Although the study was limited by a small sample size, and the hypotheses were
only partially consistent with the data, there were several major findings. The result of
the study suggested that the difference between collective self-esteem and personal
self-esteem was positively correlated with interdependent self-construal and negatively
correlated with independent self-construal. In other words, the result seemed to indicate
that highly interdependent people have higher collective self-esteem than personal
self-esteem. In contrast, highly independent people have higher personal self-esteem
than collective self-esteem.

This study also examined the group serving bias, measured by the evaluation
difference score between other school and own school. It was found that relative
ranking differences had an impact on how students evaluate schools, regardless of
self-orientation. It appeared, however, that the evaluation difference was larger among
those high in independent self-construal and low-interdependent self-construal than those
of low in independent and high in interdependent self-construal. Given that Japanese
people’s behavior was determined and altered by the relative standings among people of
different status (Kowner &Wiseman, 2003 ), and the fact that Japanese culture
emphasizes social order (Doi, 1986), the findings of this study seemed to fit the cultural
assumption that the rankings do play an important role in determining how persons
evaluate their university affiliations. Consistent with the past research that questioned
the validity of equating Asian culture and interdependent self-construal, this sample

scored slightly higher in independent self-construal than in interdependent self-construal.

25

It should be noted that this sample was only comprised by female participants at a
woman’s university in Tokyo, Japan. Past research has not found significant gender

difference in the group serving biases (Heine & Lehman, 1997; Takata, 2003).

26

CONCLUSION

This study suggested that the ranking system of the Japanese university affects
how female students evaluate their own school and other schools. Takeuchi (1997)
argued that the awareness of the ranking difference among Japanese students is a
reflection of a society in which the school rankings decide how much access one can
have to the future job market. The results of this study are consistent with this
argument, and provide empirical evidence for it. Students who are situated in higher
ranking universities may have more favorable views of themselves and their school
because they perceive their fixture opportunity as better than students at lower ranking
schools. Alternatively, the students who are situated at lower ranking schools may
perceive themselves less favorable because they may not be valued as much as students
in higher ranking schools. AS was mentioned earlier, the study had a low return rate,
which resulted in a limited sample size. The survey was printed and prepared in Japan
in mid-December, and distributed in the following weeks. Some students claimed that
they lost the questionnaire, took another home, and never returned it. Some left the
questionnaire in the classroom. The ranking of the Mejiro University may also be
another factor for the lower response rate. The university was originally a women’ s
junior college, and recently became a four years’ co-ed university. The index of the
difficulty of the entrance exam, “Hensa-chi2, ” indicates Mejiro University is about 43 to

46 depending on the department. This university is not a research institution, and

 

2 Hensa-chi is represented by the deviation score from the mean. The index score of 50 means that the
school is about the average level of difficulty. However, most people regard the score of 55 as being
average. For example, the index for the University of Tokyo, as well as University of Kyoto, is from 69
to 70. Waseda University is from 63 to 66.

27

students have only a limited access to research participation opportunities. Therefore,
they may not value research participation.

Low response rate challenged the conclusion that can be drawn from this
research; however, several future possibilities emerged. A replication study with a
larger sample would provide better understanding of the relationships that this study
attempted to investigate. The data from this study suggest that the ranking difference
does make a difference in how Japanese students evaluate others as well as their own
school; therefore, firrther study can be done to examine the effect of university ranking on
other constructs such as change in self-concept or the difference in self-description. The
findings of such a study can benefit public relations of the universities—by
de-emphasizing the relative rankings of the university, and by promoting group aspects of
the university such as various student activities, students at the lower university may feel

more satisfied with their own school.

28

APPENDIX A

For the following items, please indicate your degree of agreement with each
statement by circling a number that corresponds to a scale below. It may be
helpfirl to think of “groups” as your peer group.

1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. I should be judged on my own merits. 1 2 3 4 5

2. I voice my opinions in group discussions. 1 2 3 4 5

3. I feel comfortable disagreeing with my group. 1 2 3 4 5

4. I conceal my negative emotions so I won’t cause 1 2 3 4 5
unhappiness among the members of my group.

5. My personal identity, independent from others, is very 1 2 3 4 5
important to me.

6. I prefer to be self-reliant rather than dependent on 1 2 3 4 5
others.

7. I act as a unique person, separate from others. 1 2 3 4 5

8. I don’t like depending on others. 1 2 3 4 5

9. My relationships with those in my group are more 1 2 3 4 5
important than my personal accomplishments.

10. My happiness depends on the happiness of those in 1 2 3 4 5
my group.

11. I often consider how I can be helpfirl to specific others 1 2 3 4 5
in my group.

12. I take responsibility for my own actions. 1 2 3 4 5

13. It is important for me to act as an independent person. 1 2 3 4 5

14. I have an Opinion about most things: I know what I 1 2 3 4 5
like and I know what I don’t like.

15. I enjoy being unique and different from others. 1 2 3 4 5

16. Having a lively imagination is important to me. 1 2 3 4 5

17. I don’t change my opinions in conformity with those 1 2 3 4 5
of the majority.

18. Speaking up in a work/task group is not a problem for 1 2 3 4 5
me.

19. Understanding myself is a major goal in my life. 1 2 3 4 5

20. I enjoy being unique and different from others. 1 2 3 4 5

21. I am carefirl to maintain harmony in my group. 1 2 3 4 5

22. When with my group, I watch my words so I won’t I 2 3 4 5
offend anyone.

23. I would sacrifice my self-interests for the benefit of 1 2 3 4 5
my goup.

24. I try to meet the demands of my group, even if it 1 2 3 4 5
means controlling my own desires.

25. It is important to consult close fiiends and get their 1 2 3 4 5

 

29

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ideas before making decisions.

26. I should take into consideration my parents’ advice 1 2 3 4 5
when making education and career plans.

27. I act as fellow group members prefer I act. 1 2 3 4 5

28. The security of being an accepted member of a group 1 2 3 4 5
is very important to me.

29. If my brother or sister fails, I feel responsible. 1 2 3 4 5

II. Below is a list of the statements dealing with your general feelings about yourself.

Please indicate your degree of agreement by circling the number that corresponds
to the scale below.
1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = disagree, 4 = strongly disagree

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

30. I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least on 1 2 3 4
an equal plane with others.
31. I feel that I have a number of good qualities. 1 2 3 4
32. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure. 1 2 3 4
33. I am able to do things as well as good qualities. 1 2 3 4
34. I feel I do not have much to be proud of. 1 2 3 4
35. I take a positive attitude toward myself. 1 2 3 4
36. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. 1 2 3 4
37. I wish I could have more respect for myself 1 2 3 4
38. I certainly feel useless at times. 1 2 3 4
39. All times [think I am no good at all. 1 2 3 4
III. For this section of questionnaire, please think of the university that you think it is

higher in ranking than your current school. The school can be your first choice
school that you wished to attend but were not admitted, or the school that you
know it is highly regarded in society.

Please indicate your choice of school in the space grovided below.

 

 

 

 

Following statements asks your general impression of the school you listed above.

Please indicate your degree of agreement by circling the number that corresponds
to the

scale below.

1 = not at all accurate, 2 = inaccurate, 3 = somewhat inaccurate, 4 = somewhat accurate,
5 = accurate, 6 = completely accurate

 

40.

 

 

This university has an excellent reputation 1 2 3 4 5 6
among universities in the United States.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3O

 

41.

The graduates of this university I
tend to enter the upper ranks of society.

 

42.

This university has top-notch facilities. 1

 

43.

The graduates of this university tend to get 1
good jobs.

 

 

 

This university provides high quality 1
education.

 

 

 

IV.

1 = not at all accurate, 2 = inaccurate, 3 = somewhat inaccurate, 4 = somewhat accurate,

Following questionnaire asks your general impression about the student of the
university you listed above. Your general impression may come from your
personal acquaintances, or from a certain source such as magazines or news
papers. There is no right or wrong response to any of the statements.
Please indicate your degree of agreement to the statements by circling the

number that corresponds to the scale below.

5 = accurate, 6 = completely accurate

 

45.

In general, students of this university are quite
interesting people.

 

46.

In general, students of this university are very
creative.

 

47.

In general, students of this university are highly
intelligent.

 

48.

In general, students of this university are quite
physically attractive.

 

49.

In general, students of this university are athletic.

 

50.

In general, students of this university are very loyal
to their school.

 

51.

In general, students of this university are considerate

 

52.

In general, students of this university are particularly
hard-working.

 

53.

Students of this university are very easy to get along
with.

 

 

54.

 

Students of this university are cooperative.

 

V.

Following statements asks how you feel about your membership to the

university.

Please consider your membership to your current university, and respond to
them on the basis of how you feel about your university and your
membership to it. Please read each statement carefirlly, and respond by using the

following scale from 1 to 7.

31

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1= strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = disagree somewhat, 4 = neutral, 5 = agree
somewhat,
6 = agree, 7 = strongly agree

 

 

 

55. I am a worthy member of my university. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

56. I often regret that I belong to my university. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

57. Overall, my university is considered good by 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
others.

 

58. Overall, my university membership have very 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
little to do with how I feel about my self.

 

59. I feel I don’t have much to offer to my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
university.
60. In general, I am glad to be a member of my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
university.
61. Most people consider my university, on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
average, to be more ineffective than other
universities.

62. My university is an important reflection of who 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am.
63. I am a cooperative participant in my university. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
64. Overall, I often feel that my university of which 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I am a member is not worthwhile.
65. In general, others respect my university that I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
am a member of.
66. The university I belong to is unimportant to my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
sense of what kind of a person I am.
67. I often feel I am a useless member of my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

university.
68. I feel good about the university I belong to. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
69. In general, others think that the university I am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

a member of is unworthy.
70. In general, belonging to my university is an 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
important part of my self-image.
71. I know students fi'om person A’s university 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
very well.
72. The university I belong to was my first choice 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
school.
73. Overall, Ithink my university is a better school 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
to &to than the school person A goes to.
74. Ithink that most of students at my university 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
are glad that they went to my university instead
of person A’s university.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

32

VI. This time, please indicate your degree of agreement about your own opinion
and impression of your current school by circling the number that corresponds
to the scale below.

1 = not at all accurate, 2 = inaccurate, 3 = somewhat inaccurate, 4 = somewhat accurate,
5 = accurate, 6 = completely accurate

 

75. My university has an excellent reputation among 1 2 3 4 5 6
universities in the United States.
76. My university graduates tend to enter the upper 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ranks of society.
77. Mflniversity has top-notch facilities. 1 2 3 4 5 6
78. My university graduates tend to get good jobs. 1 2 3 4 5 6
79. My university provides high quality education. 1 2 3 4 5 6
V. Following question asks your general impression about students of your current

university. Please indicate your degree of agreement by circling the number that
corresponds to the scale below.

1 = not at all accurate, 2 = inaccurate, 3 = somewhat inaccurate, 4 = somewhat accurate,
5 = accurate, 6 = completely accurate

 

80. In general, students at my university are quite 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

 

interesting people.

81. In general, students at my university are very 1 2 3 4 5 6
creative.

82. In general, students at my university are highly 1 2 3 4 5 6
intelligent.

 

83. In general, students at my university are quite 1 2 3 4 5 6
physically attractive.

 

N
w
&
kl!
O\

84. In general, students at my university are athletic. 1

 

N
b)
A
U’t
O\

85. In general, students at my university are very loyal
to their school.

 

N
w
&
LII
O\

86. In general, students at my university are considerate

 

 

87. In general, students at my university are particularly 1 2 3 4 5 6
hard-working.

88. In general, students at my university are very easy to 1 2 3 4 5 6
get along with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

89. In general, students at my university are cooperative. 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

 

VI. Please provide your demographic information.

Age:

Gender: Male_ Female__

Status: Freshman __ Sophomore__ Junior_ Senior_ Other___
Nationality

 

33

Thank you very much for your cooperation!!!

34

APPENDIX B

For the following items, please indicate your degree of agreement with each
statement by circling a number that corresponds to a scale below. It may be
helpfirl to think of “groups” as your peer group.

1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. I should be judged on my own merits. 1 2 3 4 5

2. I voice my opinions in group discussions. 1 2 3 4 5

3. I feel comfortable disagreeing with my group. 1 2 3 4 5

4. I conceal my negative emotions so I won’t cause 1 2 3 4 5
unhappiness among the members of my group.

5. My personal identity, independent from others, is very 1 2 3 4 5
important to me.

6. I prefer to be self-reliant rather than dependent on 1 2 3 4 5
others.

7. I act as a unique person, separate from others. 1 2 3 4 5

8. I don’t like depending on others. 1 2 3 4 5

9. My relationships with those in my group are more 2 3 4 5
important than my personal accomplishments.

10. My happiness depends on the happiness of those in my 1 2 3 4 5
group.

11. I often consider how I can be helpful to specific others 1 2 3 4 5
in my group.

12. I take responsibility for my own actions. 1 2 3 4 5

13. It is important for me to act as an independent person. 1 2 3 4 5

14. I have an opinion about most things: I know what I like 1 2 3 4 5
and I know what I don’t like.

15. I erfioy being unique and different from others. 1 2 3 4 5

16. Having a lively imagination is important to me. 1 2 3 4 5

17. I don’t change my opinions in conformity with those of 1 2 3 4 5
the majority.

18. Speaking up in a work/task group is not a problem for 1 2 3 4 5
me.

19. Understanding myself is a major goal in my life. 1 2 3 4 5

20. I enjoy being unique and different fi'om others. 1 2 3 4 5

21. I am careful to maintain harmony in my group. 1 2 3 4 5

22. When with my group, I watch my words so I won’t I 2 3 4 5
offend anyone.

23. I would sacrifice my self-interests for the benefit of my 1 2 3 4 5
group.

24. I try to meet the demands of my group, even if it means 1 2 3 4 5
controlling my own desires.

25. It is important to consult close friends and get their ideas 1 2 3 4 5
before making decisions.

 

 

35

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

26. I should take into consideration my parents’ advice 1 2 3 4 5
when making education and career plans.
27. I act as fellow group members prefer I act. 2 3 4 5
28. The security of being an accepted member of a group is 2 3 4 5
very important to me.
29. If my brother or sister fails, I feel responsible. 1 2 3 4 5
IV. Below is a list of the statements dealing with your general feelings about yourself.
Please indicate your degree of agreement by circling the number that corresponds
to the scale below.
1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = disagree, 4 = strongly disagree
30. I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least on 1 2 3 4
an equal plane with others.
31. I feel that I have a number of good tnralities. 1 2 3 4
32. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure. 1 2 3 4
33. I am able to do things as well as good qualities. 1 2 3 4
34. I feel I do not have much to be proud of. 1 2 3 4
35. I take a positive attitude toward myself. 1 2 3 4
36. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. 1 2 3 4
37. I wish I could have more respect for myself. 1 2 3 4
38. I certainly feel useless at times. 1 2 3 4
39. All times I think I am no good at all. 1 2 3 4
V. For this section of questionnaire, please think of the university that you think it is

lower in ranking than your current school. The school can be your choice of

school that you applied as your safe guard, or the school that you know it is less

selective.

 

 

 

 

Following statements asks your general impression of the school you listed above.
Please indicate your degree of agreement by circling the number that corresponds

to the
scale below.

. Please indicate your choice of school in the space provided below.

1 = not at all accurate, 2 = inaccurate, 3 = somewhat inaccurate, 4 = somewhat accurate,
5 = accurate, 6 = completely accurate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

40. This university has an excellent reputation among 1 2 3 4 5 6
universities in the United States.

41. The graduates of this university tend to enter the 1 2 3 4 5 6
upper ranks of society.

42. This university has top-notch facilities. 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

36

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

43. The graduates of this university tend to get good 1 2 3 4 5 6
jobs.

44. This university provides high quality education. 1 2 3 4 5 6

IV. Following questionnaire asks your general impression about the student of the

university you listed above. Your general impression may come from your
personal acquaintances, or from a certain source such as magazines or news
papers. There is no right or wrong response to any of the statements.
Please indicate your degree of agreement to the statements by circling the
number that corresponds to the scale below.

1 = not at all accurate, 2 = inaccurate, 3 = somewhat inaccurate, 4 = somewhat accurate,
5 = accurate, 6 = completely accurate

 

 

 

45. In general, students of this university are quite 1 2 3 4 5 6
interesting people.

46. In general, students of this university are very 1 2 3 4 5 6
creative.

47. In general, students of this university are highly 1 2 3 4 5 6

intelligent.

 

 

48. In general, students of this university are quite 1 2 3 4 5 6
physically attractive.
49. In general, students of this universitLare athletic. 2 3 4 5 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50. In general, students of this university are very 2 3 4 5 6
loLal to their school.

51. In general, students of this university are 1 2 3 4 5 6
considerate

52. In general, students of this university are 1 2 3 4 5 6
particularly hard-working.

53. Students of this university are very easy to get 1 2 3 4 5 6
along with.

54. Students of this university are cooperative. 1 2 3 4 5 6

V. Following statements asks how you feel about your membership to the

university.
Please consider your membership to your current university, and respond to
them on the basis of how you feel about your university and your
membership to it. Please read each statement carefiilly, and respond by using the
following scale from 1 to 7.

1: strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = disagree somewhat, 4 = neutral, 5 = agree
somewhat,
6 = agree, 7 = strongly agree

 

55.

N
w
A
kit
0‘
\1

I am a worthy member of my university.

 

 

56.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A
U:
O\
Q

I often regret that I belong to my university. 1 2 3

 

37

 

57. Overall, my university is considered good by 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
others.
58. Overall, my university membership have very 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
little to do with how I feel about my self.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

59. IfeelIdon’t have much to offer to my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
university.

60. Ingeneral,Iamglad to beamember of my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
university.

61. Most people consider my university, on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
average, to be more ineffective than other
universities.

62. My university is an important reflection of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
who I am.

63. Iamacooperative participant in my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
university.

64. Overall,Ioften feel that my university of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

which I am a member is not worthwhile.
65. In general, others respect my university that I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
am a member of.
66. The university I belong to is unimportant to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
my sense of what kind of a person I am.

 

 

 

 

 

67 . I often feel I am a useless member of my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
university.

68. I feel good about the universitLI belog to. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

69. In general, others think that the university I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

am a member of is unworthy.
70. In general, belonging to my university is an 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
important part of my self-image.
71. I know students from person A’s university 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
very well.
72. The university I belong to was my first choice 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
school.
73. Overall, I think my university is a better 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
school to go to than the school person A goes
to.

74. I think that most of students at my university 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
are glad that they went to my university
instead of person A’s university.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VI. This time, please indicate your degree of agreement about your own opinion
and impression of your current school by circling the number that corresponds
to the scale below.

1 = not at all accurate, 2 = inaccurate, 3 = somewhat inaccurate, 4 = somewhat accurate,
5 = accurate, 6 = completely accurate

38

 

75. My university has an excellent reputation among 1 2 3 4 5 6
universities in the United States.
7 6. My university graduates tend to enter the upper 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ranks of society.
77. My university has top-notch facilities. 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8. My university graduates tend to get good jobs. 1 2 3 4 5 6
79. My university provides high quality education. 1 2 3 4 5 6
V. Following question asks your general impression about students of your current

university. Please indicate your degree of agreement by circling the number that
corresponds to the scale below.

1 = not at all accurate, 2 = inaccurate, 3 = somewhat inaccurate, 4 = somewhat accurate,
5 = accurate, 6 = completely accurate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

80. In general, students at my university are quite 1 2 3 4 5 6
interesting pe0ple.

81. In general, students at my university are very 1 2 3 4 5 6
creative.

82. In general, students at my university are highly 1 2 3 4 5 6
intelligent.

83. In general, students at my university are quite l 2 3 4 5 6
physically attractive.

84. In general, students at my university are athletic. 1 2 3 4 5 6

85. In general, students at my university are very loyal 1 2 3 4 5 6
to their school.

86. In general, students at my university are 1 2 3 4 5 6
considerate

87. In general, students at my university are 1 2 3 4 5 6

particularly hard-working.
88. In general, students at my university are very easy 1 2 3 4 5 6
met along with.
89. In general, students at my university are 1 2 3 4 5 6
cooperative.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VI. Please provide your demographic information.

Age:

Gender: Male_ F emale__

Status: Freshman __ Sophomore__ Junior_ Senior_ Other___
Nationality

 

Thank you very much for your cooperation!!!

39

APPENDIX C

Table 1.
Correlation matrix with independent, interdependent score and diflerence score of

private USE

 

1 2 3
1 1.00
2 -.08 1.00
3 -.16 .27* 1.00

 

1 = independent score

2 = interdependent score

3 = private USE score — Rosenberg’s self-esteem score

"‘ = the correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 —tailed)

Table 2.
Correlation matrix with independent, interdependent score and dtflerence score of public
USE

 

 

1 2 3
l 1.00
2 -.08 1.00
3 -.25 .34"I 1.00

1 = independent score

2 = interdependent score

3 = public USE score — Rosenberg’s self-esteem score

* = the correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 —tailed)

Table 3
Correlation matrix with independent, interdependent score and difference score of
identity USE

 

 

1 2 3
1 1.00
2 -.08 1.00
3 -.25 27* 1.00

l = independent score

2 = interdependent score

3 = identity USE score — Rosenberg’s self-esteem score

* = the correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 —tailed)

4O

Table 4.
Correlation matrix with independent, interdependent score and diflerence score of

evaluation of independent student characteristics

 

Lower ranking condition 1 2 3
1 1.00
-. 15 l .00
3 -.47* .10 1.00

 

1 = independent score

2 = interdependent score

3 = own student evaluation - other school evaluation

*= the correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 -tailed)

 

Higher ranking 1 2 3
condition 1 1. 00
-.02 1 .00
3 .50* -.1 1 1 .00

 

l = independent score

2 = interdependent score

3 = own student evaluation — other school evaluation

* = the correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 -tailed)

Table 5.
Correlation matrix with independent, interdependent score and dtjference score of

evaluation of interdependent student characteristics

Lower ranking

 

condition 1 2 3
1 1.00
2 -.15 1.00
3 -.31 .04 1.00

 

1 = independent score
2 = interdependent score
3 = own student evaluation —— other school evaluation

41

Higher ranking condition

 

 

l 2 3
l 1.00
2 .02 1.00
3 .54 -.20 1.00

= independent score

2 = interdependent score
3 = own student evaluation — other school evaluation

* = the correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 -tailed)

42

APPENDIX D

Evaluation difference: university character

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 a , .7. uni—m
-1 . _. _ Inlow independent I
., 7 . . s
_2 - i ' ”i I high independent}
-3 . . .
lower ranking higher ranking
I In low -1.98 0.09
I independent
I high -1.8125 0.5
' independent _ _l

 

 

F igureI a. The effect of ranking difference on the relationship with independent &

interdependent self-orientations

Evaluation difference: university character

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 mmmm
1 , 7 In low interdependent
I high interdependent
.2 , L,
-3 .
lower ranking higher ranking
In low -2.08 0.34
interdependent 7 7 _ _.
I high -2.09 -0.05
interdependent

 

 

 

F igureI b. The effect of ranking difference on the relationship with independent &

interdependent self-orientations

43

evaluation difference

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2
1 a v
0 a low independent
l I high independent
-1
-2
lower ranking higher ranking
In low -0.23 0.33
- “depend?“ , ,_ ,
I high -1.66 1.23
independent

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2a. The effect of ranking on the relationship between the university

characteristics evaluation and the independent self-construal

evaluation difference

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1
** | I“
0 ‘ ' * In] low interdependent
-05 - w .. m--- I high interdependent
-1 - -
-1.5
lower ranking higher ranking
[1] low -1.05 0.74
interdepend
I high -1.15 0.6
interdepend
ent

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2b. The effect of ranking on the relationship between the university

characteristics and the interdependent self-orientation

evaluation difference

 

0.5 -.., -m

0e" _,
0.5-‘vj

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l , ll] low independent

I high independent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lower ranking higher ranking
In low -0.03 0.56
independent 7 _ (H M _
I high -0.75 0.91
independent

 

 

Figure 3a. The effect of ranking on the relationship between interdependent

student characteristics and independent self-orientation

evaluation difference

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In low interdependent
I high interdependent

 

 

 

 

 

 

lower ranking higher ranking
Inlow 0.55 0.97
inte'dePeflief'.‘ , -, , ,
Ihigh -0.6 0.46
interdependent

 

 

Figure 3b. The effect of ranking on the relationship between interdependent

student characteristics and independent self-orientation

45

 

university serving bias1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6
4 d T T A ll] low-independent
2 .L L _ Ihigh-independent
0 . - .
higher ranking lower ranking

In low- 4.73 3.64

'7 indppendent ,, , g g _.

I high- 5.38 3.59

independent

 

 

 

Figure 4a. Effect of ranking on the measure of university serving bias with independent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

self-construal
university serving bias 1
6
4 T T m low-interdependent
2 , i I high-interdependent
0 ,
higher ranking lower ranking

In low- 5.46 2.58

_,‘”}?[d_i°89'lde”‘ , , -, ,

I high- 4.55 4.08

interdependent

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4b. Effect of ranking on the measure of university serving bias with

interdependent self-construal

46

university serving bias 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5
4 , c A , h c
3 ‘ r r - c“ [II low-interdependent
2 - ~ ,--. ~~ « Ihigh-interdependent
1 __ - E
0 . . .
higher ranking lower ranking
In Iow- 4.18 3.46
interdependent , ., , L
I high- 4.36 3.41
interdependent

 

 

 

Figure 5. Effect of ranking on the measure of university serving bias with

interdependent self-construal

47

REFERENCES

Asai, A., & Barnlund, DC. (1998). Boundaries of the unconscious, private, and public
self in Japanese and Americans: A cross-cultural comparison. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22 (4), 431-452.

Branscombe, N.R., Spears, R, Ellemers, N. & Doosje, B. (2002). Intragroup and
intergroup evaluation effecs on group behavior. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28 (6), 744-753.

Chatman, C.M. & von Heppel, W. (2001). Attributional mediation of in—group bias.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37 (3), 267-272.

Cousins, SD. (1989). Culture and Self-Perception in Japan and In the United States.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56 (1), 124-131.

Doi, T. (1986). The anatomy of self: The individual versus society (1”. ed.). Tokyo;
Kodansha International.

Ellis, J.B., & Wittembaum, GM. (2000). Relationships between self-construal and verbal
promotion. Communication Research, 27 (6), 704-722.

Ellyson, S.L., & Dovidio, J .F . (1985). Power, dominance and nonverbal behavior: Basic
concepts and issues. In S.L. Ellyson & J .F. Dovidio (Eds), Power, dominance,
and nonverbal behavior (pp. xiv, 23 2p.). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Gudykunst, W.B., Matsumoto, Y. Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K., & Heyman, S.
(1996). The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self-construals,

and individual values on communication styles across cultures. Human
Communication Research, 22 (4), 510-543.

Heine, S.J., Kitayama, S., & Lehman, DR. (2001). Cultural differences in
self-evaluation: Japanese readily accept negative self-relevant information.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32 (4), 43 4—443.

Heine, S.J., Lehman, DR. (1997). The cultural construction of self-enhancement: An
examination of group-serving biases. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 72 (6),]286—1283.

Heine, S.J., & Lehman, D.R., Markus, HR, & Kitayama, S. (1999) Is there a universal
need of‘r positive self-regard? Psychological Review, 106(4), 766—794.

Heine, S.J., Takata, T., & Lehman, DR. (2000). Beyond self-presentation: Evidence for
self-criticism among Japanese. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

48

26(1), 71-78.

Kowner, R., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Culture and status-related behavior: Japanese and
American perceptions of interaction in asymmetric dyads. Cross-Cultural
Research, 37 (2), 17 8-210.

Lam, S.S.K., Schaubroeck, J ., & Brown, AD. (2004). Esteem maintenance among
groups: Laboratory and field studies of group performance cognitions.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 94 (2), 86- 101.

Levine, S., van Laar, C., & Sidanius, J. (2003). The effects of ingroup and outgroup
fiiendships on ethnic attitudes in college: A longitudinal study. Group Process
& Intergroup Relations, 6 (1), 76-92.

Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of
one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18 (3),
302-318. .

Markus, H.R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Cultural variation in the self-concept. In J. Strauss
& G. R. Goethals (Eds), The Self: Interdiscipliminary Approaches. New York:
Springer-Verlag.

Mullen, B., Brown, R., Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias and a fimction of salience,
relevance, and statsu- an integration. European Journal of Social Psychology,
22(2), 103-122.

Nakane, C. (1970). Japanese Society. London: Weidenfield& Nicolson.

Park, H.S., & Levine, TR. (1999). The theory of reasoned action and self-construal:
Evidence form three cultures. Communication Monographs, 66 (3), 199-218.

Patterson, ML. (1983). Nonverbal Behavior: A functional perspective. New York:
Springer-Verlag.

Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the adolescent self-image (Rev.ed.). Middletown,
Conn: Wesleyan University Press.

Sachdev, I., & Bourhis, KY. (1991). Status differentials and intergroup behavior.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 17 (3), 277-293.

Sachdev, I., & Bourhis, R.Y. (1991). Power and status differentials in minority and
majority group-relations. European Journal of Social Psychology Bulletin, 28
(2), 224-237.

Shearman, D.K., & Kim, HS. (2002). Affective perseverance: The resistance of affect to
cognitive invalidation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28 (2),

49

224-23 7.
Singelis, TM. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent
self-construals. Personality and Social Psychologi Bulletin, 20 (5), 580-591.

Snibbe, A.C., Kitayama, S., Markus, H.R., & Suzuki, T. (2003). They saw a game-A
Japanese and American (football) field study. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 34 (5), 581-595.

Taj fel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: studies in social psychology.
New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of inter-group relations. Annual Review of
Psychology, 33, 1-39.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J .C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W.G.
Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations
(pp.xii, 369). Montrey, CA: Brooks/Cole Pub. Co.

Takeuchi, Y. (1997). The self-activating entrance examination system: its hidden agenda
and its its correspondence with the Japanese “salary man.” Higher Education,
34 (2), 183-198.

50

lllllllllllllllllI