Cooperating with Different Types of Strangers: The Influence of Guanxi Perception, Trust, and Responsibility
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Guanxi Culture and Traditional Personal Relationship
1.2. Types of Strangers
1.3. Guanxi Perception and the Mediation of Trust and Obligation
1.4. Current Study
2. Study 1
2.1. Method
2.1.1. Participants
2.1.2. Procedure and Materials
2.2. Results and Discussion
2.2.1. Estimation of Cooperative Intention between Traditional Types of Guanxi
2.2.2. Pathways to the Estimation of Cooperative Intention
3. Study 2
3.1. Method
3.1.1. Participants
3.1.2. Measures
3.2. Results and Discussion
3.2.1. Estimations of Cooperative Intention between Types of Strangers
3.2.2. Pathways to Cooperative Intention
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Chen, X.P.; Chen, C.C. On the intricacies of the Chinese guanxi: A process model of guanxi development. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2004, 21, 305–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, H.; Wang, T.Y.; Bernardo, A.B.I. Is guanxi belief predicted by system-justifying ideologies? Exploring the relationship of guanxi belief with meritocratic ideology, social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Int. J. Soc. Psychol. 2021, 36, 241–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- King, P.C.; Wei, Z. The role of face in a Chinese context of trust and trust building. Int. J. Cross Cult. Manag. 2018, 18, 149–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chua, R.Y.J.; Morris, M.W.; Ingram, P. Guanxi vs. networking: Distinctive configurations of affect- and cognition-based trust in the networks of Chinese vs. American managers. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2009, 40, 490–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, J.; Sun, X.; Dong, Y.; Wang, Z.; Li, W.; Yuan, B. Compensation or punishment—The effect of social distance on third-party intervention. J. Psychol. Sci. 2017, 40, 1175–1181. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, L.; Zhou, L.; Zeng, L. “Differential Justice” and “Differential Concern”: On the Collective Prejudices of Chinese Moral Orientation. J. Psychol. Sci. 2013, 36, 1168–1175. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, Y.; Ding, F.; Shi, W.; Chen, X. Perspective of cultural differences on the formation mechanism construction and the neural basis of individual cooperative behavior. J. Psychol. Sci. 2018, 41, 1227–1232. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, B.; Zhang, Z.; Shen, Y.; Huang, L.; Li, Y.; Wang, Y. Value orientation and social distance influenced cooperation and aggression in decision making: Evidences from chicken game. J. Psychol. Sci. 2014, 37, 962–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Q.; Deng, Z. Closeness difference: The influence of social distance on implicit cooperative attitude. Psychol. Tech. Appl. 2020, 8, 521–526. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, J.; Cai, M.; Li, Z.; Shao, C. Impacts of decision framing and psychological distance on individual cooperative behavior. Manag. Rev. 2017, 29, 102–109. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ho, D.Y.F. Selfhood and identity in Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism: Contrasts with the West. J. Theory Soc. Behav. 1995, 25, 115–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ho, D.Y.F. Interpersonal relationships and relationship dominance: An analysis based on methodological relationalism. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 1, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, L.; Zhou, T.; Zhang, J.; Liu, Z.; Fan, J.; Zhu, Y. Xunzhao zhongguoren de ziwo: Yixiang fMRI yanjiu [Seeking the self of Chinese people: A fMRI study]. Sci. China Ser. C 2005, 35, 472–478. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, Y.; Wu, X. Xunzhao Zhongguoren De Ziwo [Seeking the Self of Chinese People]; Beijing Normal University Press: Beijing, China, 2017. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Ames, D.L.; Fiske, S.T. Cultural neuroscience. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 2010, 13, 72–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Li, K.; Wang, F. Explore the Chinese interdependent selves: Theories, the challenges and integration. J. Psychol. Sci. 2019, 42, 245–250. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Guo, C. Zijiren or Zijiaren? A Case Study of Relational Communication. J. Commun. 2019, 26, 28–50. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Wang, C.S.; Leung, A.K.Y.; See, Y.H.M.; Gao, X.Y. The effects of culture and friendship on rewarding honesty and punishing deception. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2011, 47, 1295–1299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van de Groep, S.; Zanolie, K.; Crone, E.A. Giving to friends, classmates, and strangers in adolescence. J. Res. Adolesc. 2020, 30, 290–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wu, Y.; Leliveld, M.C.; Zhou, X. Social distance modulates recipient’s fairness consideration in the dictator game: An ERP study. Biol. Psychol. 2011, 88, 253–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hodgetts, D.; Stolte, O. Social Distance. In Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology; Teo, T., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, K. Face and favor: The Chinese power game. Am. J. Sociol. 1987, 92, 944–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, Y. Guanxi and performance of foreign-invested enterprises in China: An empirical inquiry. Manag. Int. Rev. 1997, 37, 51–70. [Google Scholar]
- Zhai, X. Ren shi ruhe bei yushe de? Cong guanxi quxiang duihua xifang [How do people be presupposed? A conversation with the West from relational orientation]. Explor. Free Views 2017, 5, 37–40. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Wang, T.Y.; Bernardo, A.B.I. Exploring Chinese people’s attitudes towards “going through the backdoor”. J. Pac. Rim Psychol. 2021, 15, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mao, Y.; Peng, K.Z.; Wong, C.S. Indigenous research on Asia: In search of the emic components of guanxi. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2012, 29, 1143–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kanagaretnam, K.; Mestelman, S.; Nainar, K.; Shehata, M. The impact of social value orientation and risk attitudes on trust and reciprocity. J. Econ. Psychol. 2009, 30, 368–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yamagishi, T.; Mifune, N.; Li, Y.; Shinada, M.; Hashimoto, H.; Horita, Y.; Miura, A.; Inukai, K.; Tanida, S.; Kiyonari, T.; et al. Is behavioral pro-sociality game-specific? Pro-social preference and expectations of pro-sociality. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2013, 120, 260–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farris, G.F.; Senner, E.E.; Butterfield, D.A. Trust, culture, and organizational behavior. Ind. Relat. J. Econ. Soc. 1973, 12, 144–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhao, N.; Zhou, M.; Chen, S.; Li, Y.; Zhang, J. A review of cultural differences of trust: Perspectives and methods. J. Psychol. Sci. 2014, 37, 1002–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Candelo, N.; Eckel, C.; Johnson, C. Social distance matters in dictator games: Evidence from 11 Mexican villages. Games 2018, 9, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Peysakhovich, A.; Nowak, M.A.; Rand, D.G. Humans display a ‘cooperative phenotype’ that is domain general and temporally stable. Nat. Commun. 2014, 5, 4939–4946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Guanxi between the Doctor and the Patient | Identity of the Patient | The Doctor’s Possible Inner Thoughts | |
---|---|---|---|
Situation a | complete stranger | Just a patient | “The patient/symptom is special, I’m going to be careful.” |
Situation b | acquaintance | A friend of the doctor | “This is my good friend, I’m going to be careful.” |
Situation c | stranger with intermediary | A patient and a friend of the doctor’s friend | “This is XX’s friend, I should be careful.” |
Cooperative Intention Estimation (Max 100) | Trust (Max 30) | Responsibility (Max 50) | Guanxi Perception | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intimation | Duration | Stability | Importance | |||||
Study 1 | Family member | 65.81 (±28.37) | 19.96 (±7.36) | 28.31 (±10.14) | 5.11 (±0.97) | 5.11 (±1.04) | 5.00 (±1.08) | 5.16 (±0.97) |
Classmate | 52.85 (±28.10) | 16.06 (±6.37) | 24.55 (±9.22) | 4.38 (±1.00) | 4.11 (±1.12) | 4.19 (±1.18) | 4.29 (±1.17) | |
Stranger | 36.15 (±27.31) | 12.27 (±7.27) | 20.70 (±10.13) | 2.27 (±1.32) | 2.52 (±1.35) | 2.56 (±1.40) | 2.84 (±1.47) | |
Study 2 | Stranger with intermediary | 51.25 (±28.35) | 15.35 (±6.21) | 24.15 (±8.52) | 3.66 (±1.12) | 3.59 (±1.16) | 3.57 (±1.17) | 3.47 (±1.24) |
Stranger within ingroup | 43.22 (±27.23) | 12.84 (±5.95) | 21.69 (±8.75) | 3.04 (±1.08) | 3.01 (±1.08) | 3.00 (±1.09) | 2.98 (±1.11) | |
Complete stranger | 34.69 (±28.60) | 10.83 (±6.52) | 19.94 (±9.98) | 2.14 (±1.22) | 2.36 (±1.26) | 2.40 (±1.29) | 2.44 (±1.33) |
1 Cooperative Intention Estimation | 2 Trust | 3 Responsibility | 4 Intimation | 5 Duration | 6 Stability | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Family member | 2 | 0.42 *** | ||||||
3 | 0.46 *** | 0.54 *** | ||||||
4 | 0.47 *** | 0.46 *** | 0.39 *** | |||||
5 | 0.39 *** | 0.41 *** | 0.34 *** | 0.68 *** | ||||
6 | 0.39 *** | 0.42 *** | 0.35 *** | 0.73 *** | 0.84 *** | |||
7 | 0.38 *** | 0.43 *** | 0.38 *** | 0.76 *** | 0.76 *** | 0.72 *** | ||
Classmate | 2 | 0.50 *** | ||||||
3 | 0.42 *** | 0.70 *** | ||||||
Study 1 | 4 | 0.28 *** | 0.48 *** | 0.46 *** | ||||
5 | 0.26 *** | 0.47 *** | 0.47 *** | 0.66 *** | ||||
6 | 0.33 *** | 0.50 *** | 0.46 *** | 0.71 *** | 0.77 *** | |||
7 | 0.30 *** | 0.47 *** | 0.42 *** | 0.77 *** | 0.70 *** | 0.69 *** | ||
Stranger | 2 | 0.47 *** | ||||||
3 | 0.51 *** | 0.59 *** | ||||||
4 | 0.25 *** | 0.26 *** | 0.34 *** | |||||
5 | 0.24 ** | 0.26 *** | 0.40 *** | 0.72 *** | ||||
6 | 0.30 *** | 0.25 *** | 0.35 *** | 0.77 *** | 0.77 *** | |||
7 | 0.28 *** | 0.23 ** | 0.35 *** | 0.63 *** | 0.67 *** | 0.67 *** | ||
Study 2 | Stranger with intermediary | 2 | 0.49 ** | |||||
3 | 0.41 ** | 0.52 ** | ||||||
4 | 0.33 ** | 0.35 ** | 0.26 ** | |||||
5 | 0.32 ** | 0.44 ** | 0.25 ** | 0.73 ** | ||||
6 | 0.34 ** | 0.48 ** | 0.31 ** | 0.75 ** | 0.80 ** | |||
7 | 0.33 * | 0.44 ** | 0.29 ** | 0.71 ** | 0.74 ** | 0.81 ** | ||
Stranger within ingroup | 2 | 0.48 ** | ||||||
3 | 0.38 ** | 0.53 ** | ||||||
4 | 0.27 ** | 0.44 ** | 0.33 ** | |||||
5 | 0.32 ** | 0.50 ** | 0.33 ** | 0.76 ** | ||||
6 | 0.32 ** | 0.50 ** | 0.34 ** | 0.73 ** | 0.78 ** | |||
7 | 0.36 ** | 0.47 ** | 0.28 ** | 0.65 ** | 0.65 ** | 0.62 ** | ||
Complete stranger | 2 | 0.42 ** | ||||||
3 | 0.38 ** | 0.52 ** | ||||||
4 | 0.37 ** | 0.42 ** | 0.39 ** | |||||
5 | 0.42 ** | 0.42 ** | 0.41 ** | 0.81 ** | ||||
6 | 0.36 ** | 0.40 ** | 0.40 ** | 0.74 ** | 0.77 ** | |||
7 | 0.32 ** | 0.41 ** | 0.35 ** | 0.72 ** | 0.79 ** | 0.71 ** |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Liu, H.; Wang, T.Y.; Bernardo, A.B.I.; Shen, H. Cooperating with Different Types of Strangers: The Influence of Guanxi Perception, Trust, and Responsibility. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 473. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13060473
Liu H, Wang TY, Bernardo ABI, Shen H. Cooperating with Different Types of Strangers: The Influence of Guanxi Perception, Trust, and Responsibility. Behavioral Sciences. 2023; 13(6):473. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13060473
Chicago/Turabian StyleLiu, Haoxin, Tulips Yiwen Wang, Allan B. I. Bernardo, and Heyong Shen. 2023. "Cooperating with Different Types of Strangers: The Influence of Guanxi Perception, Trust, and Responsibility" Behavioral Sciences 13, no. 6: 473. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13060473