PSYCHOLOGY: Social Preferences

Psychology: Social Preferences, solitary guyI read in a recent science paper by Yamagishi, that game theories and analysis can be used to assess individuals that are engaged in daily group activity, in that they can be said to be belonging to a “self-sustaining” institution where they operate according to a shared set of incentives.

In these types of environments it has been shown that individual strategy and behaviour can be based on considering specific outcomes, or the “payout”, not exactly rocket science of course, but let’s dig deeper.

The specific example used two groups of different cultures; Americans and Japanese. Each group were given a set of coloured pens and asked to choose a single colour pen as a reward for completing a survey. The experiment showed that the Japanese were less likely than the Americans to take a coloured pen IF that were the only pen of that colour in the set, indicating that they were not comfortable in reducing the number of options in the set for the remaining group members, therefore not creating a negative impression of themselves.

This is said to reflect that the Japanese are more conforming and less individualistic than their American counterparts. However, there was no discernible difference between the two groups when each group were informed that they were the first or last to receive, therefore instruction plays a part in institutional behaviour here.

You may not find this as fascinating as me, though I am wondering what you may be thinking, do you see parallels here in social network behaviours, can we assume a social network IS a “self-sustaining” institute? And can we predict different behaviours in each, both conforming in nature or the more individualistic approach, and more to the point how can we change that behaviour by instruction… ?


1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

June 6, 2008 | Filed Under Chris Hambly 

Comments

7 Responses to “PSYCHOLOGY: Social Preferences”

  1. Jo on June 6th, 2008 6:54 am

    First, of course the verbal game is to change the words to more considerate and less selfish?

    To the main question about social networks, I think the latest evidence via http://www.bioteams.com is that groups are sustained by hard work. We have to continuously reinforce the links between members. We also have to look at the balance between including new people and maintaining a boundary that encourages the inward flow and reinforcement of the links. Meant to blog on it, so I’m glad you’ve given me the easy route!

    Having worked in internationally diverse environments, I would say that there are so many variations on a theme that it is hard to put cultures into boxes. But it pays to have worked in different places because one group might see you as overly individualistic and the next overly collective. And the next as too much or too litle of both!

    I find it easier just to look at someone, judge their preferred range, and if there is enough overlap, work within it. So I will have a bossy South African, a to do list focused American, a extremely courteous and conscientious Japanese, a Kiwi sloping off and a Zimbo going manyana in one place: fine as long as we have a common activity with some sort of payoff to each of us. It breaks down when we are getting nothing out of the arrangement.

    I think systems break down when they get set to “auto”. We can all connect effectively with just so many others. So the only way to keep a large organization personal and delivering sufficient value to sustain it, is through a network. The minute a steward on a plane is “serving coffee” and not “serving me”, or a GP checking boxes instead of being my family doctor, we are heading towards unhappy staff and customers. Like cars that aren’t serviced, an organization doesn’t break right away, it breaks slowly but surely.

    There is a management conference going on right now at MLab under the leadership of Gary Hamel. Networks or lattices is definitely where it is at. I think getting the experience of running networks down to kid-level is going to be important in the long run. In the short run, there should be gain in showing managers who want to listen.

    So who is ready for networks? I think that is the big question. Which sectors and which competitors within the sectors want to hear about networks and lattices?

  2. spostareduro on June 6th, 2008 8:51 am

    ah..this is interesting indeed.

    lets give it another angle..

    Sadly, the Japanese have an advantage over the majority of us.

    They seem to have more ability to think as a collective.

    e.g. 20 Japanese members - 20 pens - 1 red.
    20 know that 19 of them will intentionally refrain from choosing the red pen. The last to choose will have it.

    e.g. US members - 20 pens - 1 is red.
    20 of them will be thinking, gosh I hope I can choose first. I WANT that red pen. But they’ll giggle and say, “Don’t worry, I’ll share” (if you manage to hunt them down for it)

    The Japanese are empowered by visionaries with collective goals. Seeing the big picture. A determination of the possible domino effects of each decision made. They are made strongest by their unity, not their units.

    The US has too many people who wish to ‘obtain’ first, ask questions later. We are well known for our greedy nature. This mindset is counterproductive and has contributed to much demise as our civilization continues its deterioration.

    We are unhealthy, physically and otherwise as a result.

    SM is also infected by this disease and, if not combated, it will contaminate yet another realm of contacts, leaving us with an entirely new generation of diseased mindsets..ultimately catering to a disastrous equation…

    All in the name of a ‘red pen’.

    My 2 cents..not enough to buy a cup-o-jo..

  3. anarchyintheuk on June 6th, 2008 5:07 pm

    As a Brit, unfortunately I feel there would be a group which would fare even worse. The British, who would probably respond with, Only one pen, why can’t I have them all….

    More seriously, for many years I worked in International Search (commonly known as headhunting) and had clients in both the Far East and US, the striking difference between the cultures, back in the mid ’90s and probably still true today, was the focus on ‘team productivity’ as a skill pre-requisite in Japanese business, where-as the key criteria in US was more about individual achievement.

    I recall meeting with a Japanese client in the City of London, where they had a ’sleep room’ for staff.

    The ethic of work was as high in both cultures, but the focus was markedly different.

    In the world of social networking, I do not have the same spread of network, so can’t provide other than ‘expected behaviour’

    I have however worked with businesses in Virtual worlds on development projects and have found the emphasised starting point from projects from Japanese Clients has been towards ‘how can we enhance the user experience’ whereas US and UK Clients have been far more interested in returning immediate bottom line profitability regardless of the ‘user experience’.

    The most effective and profitable longer term outcome in virtual worlds (which are akin to social networking sites) has always been to work to the ‘user experience’ not the short term corporate gain.

    To counter balance that, I have found the US and UK Clients to be more responsive to consultancy advice, than Far eastern clients.

    Applying that model to social networks, depends on whether you are the ‘platform’ the ‘provider’ (in facebook terms -the group owner, application provider etc.) or the ‘receiver’ of the service.

    Social networks in which the platform ignores the ’sociability’ of the users will fail, the ‘providers’ who fail to appreciate the ’social’ in social networks will fail.

    If you take in isolation the ‘applications’ on Facebook, there are many produced each day, people play with them for a short time and become bored, or disillusioned, typically, because they offer no ‘added sociability value’. They are often competing and rarely provide any ’social building’. Many people join Social networks to ’socialise’ not to compete, but the US competition model (greed is good) is applied to many applications, they are therefore, in my view, unlikely to become highly popular.

    There are exceptions, which prove a point, Poker, Blackjack etc. are highly popular applications, but they work because they are interactive, as opposed to stand alone and win with no social element to it other than a leader board.

    This model would indicate the US attitude is ideal as a user, as the provider has to respond to demand, but the Japanese thought makes for the ideal platform.

    Or is that because I am not involved in Japanese Social networking sites and the model I understand is weighted towards the ’selfish behaviour’ of the user.

  4. Benjamin on June 7th, 2008 5:29 am

    Chris, do you have a link or ref for the research? I’d be interested to understand what the DV and IVs were.

    It matches some other studies about temperament differences across cultures (which seems to be the main driver here), and the prevailing view of reciprocal altruism in action. However the bit about different instructions resulting in the same outcome doesn’t make sense.

  5. The Godfather on June 8th, 2008 4:35 am

    Ben hi,

    No sorry I do not, it is an offline source, though I have contacted the author to see if it is available somewhere.

    When instruction was given it was the same instruction to both groups with the same resulting outcome.

  6. Jo on June 9th, 2008 7:03 am

    I stumbled over a Singaporean expression recently: kiasu. They even have a cartoon character: Mr Kiasu. They guy whose gotta gotta have the red pen.

    In British culture, where do kids learn to run networks?

  7. The Godfather on June 9th, 2008 8:03 am

    Good point, Jo.

    Rugby team, Royal Navy?

    Speaking from experience on both parts there.

Leave a Reply