In-group-out-group cognition is mainly a Western pattern, not universal

Evidence

Drawing on Brewer and Gardener’s (1996) distinction between relational and collective social selves, I have proposed that the predominant characteristics of group cognition and behavior may differ across cultural contexts (Yuki, 2003). According to this framework, processes consistent with social identity theory and self-categorization theory are most applicable to Western intergroup situations emphasizing categorical and in-group–out-group distinctions. In contrast, East Asian groups may be a predominantly intragroup and relationship-based phenomenon, with its collectivism largely promoting cooperation and relational harmony maintenance with specific in-group others. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1614

Categorization

• XREF: Directly contradicts the universalist premise of ingroup/outgroup psychology in the Allport reassessment - group cognition may be bound to categorical Western social structure.
• QUESTION: If East Asian group cognition is relational rather than categorical, does that change how ethnocentrism and outgroup hostility express there too?
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1614