Collectivistic cultures have been characterized as having harmonious, cooperative ingroup relationships. However, we find evidence that people in collectivistic cultures are more vigilant toward ingroup members, mindful of their possible unethical intentions. Study 1 found that Chinese participants were more vigilant than Americans in within-group competitions, anticipating more unethical behaviors from their peers. Study 2 replicated this finding by comparing areas within China, finding that people from China’s collectivistic rice-farming regions exhibit greater ingroup vigilance than people from the less collectivistic wheat-farming regions. The rice/wheat difference was mediated by greater perceived within-group competition. Study 3 found that Chinese participants were more likely than Americans to interpret a peer’s friendly behavior as sabotage in disguise. We also manipulated within-group competition and found that it increased ingroup vigilance in both cultures. Finally, study 3 identified two boundary conditions where cultural differences in ingroup vigilance decrease: an unambiguously competitive win–lose situation where Americans also exhibit vigilance, and an unambiguously cooperative win–win situation where Chinese participants relax their vigilance. This research contributes to a more balanced view of collectivism, revealing its interpersonal tensions in the forms of within-group competition and ingroup vigilance.

How does the cultural construct of collectivism impact social interactions? Two accounts of collectivism offer diverging predictions. The collectivism-as-values account proposes that people in collectivistic cultures prioritize their ingroup relationships; accordingly, this account predicts that collectivistic cultures will have more harmonious ingroup interactions than individualistic cultures. The socioecological account holds that individualistic cultures have high relational mobility, which requires people to invest in their ingroup relationships, whereas collectivistic cultures feature more fixed relationships that do not require positive engagement. To test these competing hypotheses about ingroup relationships across cultures, we sampled the daily interactions of college students in China and the United States. Results revealed that the individualistic culture (United States) had more positive ingroup interactions, more gratitude, and more emotional support than the collectivistic culture (China). The current findings are consistent with the socioecological account of collectivism and the effects of relational mobility on social relationships.

Violence against healthcare professionals is a serious but understudied global problem and one that lacks evidence‐based solutions. The current research offers a novel explanation and intervention for addressing this issue: We propose that low feelings of control among patients and their family members play an important role in shaping doctor‐patient relationships. To regain a sense of control, we suggest that patients attribute responsibility to doctors for their suffering, which may in turn lead to aggressive behavioural intentions against one's doctors. We conducted three studies to understand whether individuals with low perceived control blame doctors more, and whether threats to their sense of control cause participants to attribute more responsibility to doctors. Study 1 found that feelings of lack of control were an important predictor of attributing responsibility for negative illness‐related incidents to doctors in a manner consistent with blame. Study 2 specified that the chaotic and unpredictable nature of illness, and not just its negative valence, is what drives attributions of increased responsibility to doctors. Study 3, which utilized a field setting in hospitals, found that an experimental intervention to increase feelings of control decreased frustration against (Study 3a/3b) and intention to harm doctors (Study 3b). These findings suggest that increasing feelings of control among patients can improve patient‐doctor relationships. We also discuss the role of control and scapegoating during the COVID‐19 pandemic.