Self- and other-orientation in high rank: A cultural psychological approach to social hierarchy

Abstract

Social Hierarchy is one fundamental aspect of social living, structuring interactions in families, teams and entire societies. In this review, we put forward a cultural psychological approach to social hierarchy, positing that rank differences are embedded within larger cultural meaning systems, which shape how higher rank is attained or conferred and how social hierarchy affords behavior and psychology. We then examine manifestations of hierarchy in two cultural meaning systems: Western and East Asian cultures. Accumulating evidence on collective, interpersonal, and individual processes suggests cultural similarities in self-orientation but cultural differences in other-orientation of high-ranking individuals. Such literatures reveal how thought and behavior within social hierarchy and cultural beliefs, values and norms mutually constitute each other. We close with a discussion of how the present review is a stepping stone for future research and of remaining questions to further advance social hierarchy research across cultures.

Research Independence in Academia—‘The holy grail’ and beyond

“…The team is paramount, where each individual understands their role and recognizes the importance of their contribution in sustaining the excellence of the team/the work/the community 3,4 . Maybe unsurprisingly, research shows that hierarchy is important for team cohesion, and the clarity (and unapologetic nature) of the Eastern vertical, hierarchical, but collectivistic approach is appealing 5 . If we draw parallels and combine these concepts into Western research laboratories, would it be beneficial?…”

“…Can a new PI, with a compelling vision and fundable novel idea, truly grow synergistically into their strength alongside their previous and future teams? The East Asian model of interdependence would emphatically say ‘yes’ 5 ! But in many Western laboratories, the onus remains on the lone PI, each competing for funding, visibility and maintaining the uniqueness of their independent niche.…”

A socioecological approach to explaining how economic inequality and psychological tendencies mutually constitute each other.

“…Such mutual constitution of the environment and the human mind has a long tradition in social science (Hedström & Ylikoski, 2010;Lewin, 1939;Shweder, 1991) and in social psychology (H. S. Kim & Markus, 1999; ECONOMIC INEQUALITY AS A DYNAMIC SYSTEM 7 Markus & Kitayama, 2010;Stephens et al, 2014). For example, past research in this tradition has explained multiple phenomena including differences in interpersonal interactions (Thomson et al, 2018;Uskul & Over, 2014), social hierarchies (Gobel & Miyamoto, 2022), and economic decision-making (Henrich et al, 2005). But it is yet to be integrated in the theorizing about the social psychology of economic inequality.…”

The dynamic socioecological model of economic inequality and psychological tendencies: A cycle of mutual constitution

“…Such mutual constitution of the environment and the human mind has a long tradition in social science (Hedström & Ylikoski, 2010; Lewin, 1939; Shweder, 1991) and in social psychology (H. S. Kim & Markus, 1999; Markus & Kitayama, 2010; Stephens et al., 2014). For example, past research from this perspective has explained multiple phenomena including differences in interpersonal interactions (Thomson et al., 2018; Uskul & Over, 2014), social hierarchies (Gobel & Miyamoto, 2023), and economic decision‐making (Henrich et al., 2005). But it has not yet been integrated into the theorizing about the social psychology of economic inequality.…”