Advertisement

Status Effects on Attributions for Online Knowledge Sharing Failures: A Comparison Between Chinese and Korean Cultures

  • Nan Qie
  • Pei-Luen Patrick Rau
  • Jun Liu
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10911)

Abstract

Social status and culture can affect attributions. In this study, the authors utilized a knowledge-sharing failure scenario to test the effects of status and culture on attributions with a survey conducted among 127 Chinese and 120 Koreans. The results showed that both Chinese and Koreans felt significantly more disappointed when the failure occurred because of the senior’s rather than the junior’s ability-related issues. Chinese participants tended to ascribe the failure significantly more to contexts than ability, while Korean participants had the opposite tendency. Although both Chinese and Korean participants gave lower ratings on motivation attribution when the one who failed to share knowledge was a peer, the gap was markedly larger for Korean participants. Further testing on self-construal revealed that Korean participants rated individualism significantly higher than their Chinese counterparts did. The results indicated that even in two similar cultures the status effects on attribution can differ. Managers of international companies should respond accordingly to group affairs regarding status issue.

Keywords

Attribution Status hierarchy Chinese culture Korean culture Self-construal 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgement

This study was funded by a National Natural Science Foundation China grant 71661167006.

References

  1. Bettencourt, B., Charlton, K., Dorr, N., Hume, D.L.: Status differences and in-group bias: a meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability. Psychol. Bull. 127(4), 520 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bond, M.H., Hewstone, M., Wan, K.-C., Chiu, C.-K.: Group-serving attributions across intergroup contexts: cultural differences in the explanation of sex-typed behaviours. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 15(4), 435–451 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Choi, I., Markus, H.R.: Implicit theories and causal attribution East and West, University of Michigan (1998). Unpublished ManuscriptGoogle Scholar
  4. Enyo, Y.: Exploring Senpai-Koohai Relationships in Club Meetings in a Japanese University. University of Hawai‘i at Manoa (2013). http://www.ling.hawaii.edu/graduate/Dissertations/YumikoEnyoFinal.pdf
  5. Fiske, S.T., Cuddy, A.J., Glick, P., Xu, J.: A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82(6), 878 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hewstone, M., Wagner, U., Machleit, U.: Self-, ingroup, and outgroup achievement attributions of German and Turkish pupils. J. Soc. Psychol. 129(4), 459–470 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hewstone, M., Ward, C.: Ethnocentrism and causal attribution in Southeast Asia. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 48(3), 614 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hofstede, G.: National cultures in four dimensions: a research-based theory of cultural differences among nations. Int. Stud. Manag. Organ. 13(1/2), 46–74 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hunter, J.A., Stringer, M., Coleman, J.T.: Social explanations and self-esteem in Northern Ireland. J. Soc. Psychol. 133(5), 643–650 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jones, E.E., Davis, K.E.: From acts to dispositions the attribution process in person perception. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2, 219–266 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jones, M.C., Cline, M., Ryan, S.: Exploring knowledge sharing in ERP implementation: an organizational culture framework. Decis. Support Syst. 41(2), 411–434 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Khan, S.S., Liu, J.H.: Intergroup attributions and ethnocentrism in the indian subcontinent the ultimate attribution error revisited. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 39(1), 16–36 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mann, J.F., Taylor, D.M.: Attribution of causality. Role of ethnicity and social class. J. Soc. Psychol. 94(1), 3–13 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Menon, T., Morris, M.W., Chiu, C., Hong, Y.: Culture and the construal of agency: attribution to individual versus group dispositions. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 76(5), 701 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Miller, J.G.: Culture and the development of everyday social explanation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 46(5), 961 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Morris, M.W., Peng, K.: Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 67(6), 949 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Reeder, G.D., Brewer, M.B.: A schematic model of dispositional attribution in interpersonal perception. Psychol. Rev. 86(1), 61 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sano, K.: The study of the Senpai-Kouhai culture in junior high schools in Japan. Sociol. Insight 6, 59 (2014)Google Scholar
  19. Stringer, M., Hunter, J.: Attributional bias and identity in a conflict region: the mediating effects of status. Curr. Res. Soc. Psychology 4(9), 160–175 (1999)Google Scholar
  20. Tajfel, H., Turner, J.C.: An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Soc. Psychol. Intergroup Relat. 33(47), 74 (1979)Google Scholar
  21. Tajfel, H., Turner, J.C.: The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior (2004). http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2004-13697-016
  22. Zhang, Y.B., Lin, M.-C., Nonaka, A., Beom, K.: Harmony, hierarchy and conservatism: a cross-cultural comparison of confucian values in China, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. Commun. Res. Rep. 22(2), 107–115 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Human Factors and Ergonomics, Department of Industrial EngineeringTsinghua UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations