| Two cultural models of relationship were proposed to understand social hierarchy. The equality model is rooted in European American (EA) ideas and practices of individualism and democracy. It constructs hierarchy as problematic and negative and as associated with oppression, injustice, and institutional practices that need to be justified. The propriety model is rooted in East Asian ideas and practices of Confucianism and relational interdependence. It constructs hierarchy as natural and positive, and as associated with family, respect, and roles that need to be maintained. Using social scenarios and a memory recall task, Studies 1a, 1b, and 2 confirmed the existence of the two models. In comparison to EA, Asian Americans (AA) preferred more hierarchy-oriented responses, liked a hierarchy-oriented peer more, rated themselves as more similar to the hierarchy-oriented peer, and were quicker to recall hierarchical relationships. Study 3 showed differences in the meaning space of hierarchy. Consistent with the equality model, EA generated more negative associations (e.g., dominance, discrimination) to hierarchy. Consistent with the propriety model, AA generated more positive associations (e.g., family, respect). Study 5 conducted with participants from Taiwan devised a reliable and valid measure that captured the practice and definition of social hierarchy according to the propriety model. Studies 4 and 6 examined hierarchy in the laboratory using a paradigm developed by Chen, Lee-Chai, and Bargh (2001). Student participants completed a word identification task while seated in a professor's chair (violation of hierarchy condition), a student's chair (hierarchy condition), or a lab chair (control condition). In the professor's chair, AA were more nervous and responded in a respectful manner to a message from the professor. EA showed no difference in their responses regardless of condition. Study 6 used the Social Hierarchy Scale (Study 5) to define a group of Taiwanese students who endorsed hierarchical ideas and practices (high-hierarchy) and a group who did not (low-hierarchy). When seated in the professor chair (violation of hierarchy), high-hierarchy participants were more nervous and performed worse on the identification task than low-hierarchy participants. When seated in the student chair (hierarchy), low-hierarchy participants were more annoyed/disgusted and performed worse than high-hierarchy participants. |
