Interdependent selves require effortful harmony work precisely because members stay distinct

Evidence

Although this idea is often misunderstood, maintaining an “interdependent” self is different not only from the self represented at the category level (Turner et al., 1987), but also from the self extended to include significant others (Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991). People with an interdependent self believe that individuals are mutually distinct. They are, nonetheless, understood as connected with each other via stable and visible relationships (Hamaguchi, 1977; Ho & Chiu, 1994). It is known that East Asians are particularly concerned with maintaining intragroup cooperation and harmony, and try to inhibit potential conflict among the members (e.g., Ho & Chiu 1994; Kwan, Bond, & Singelis, 1997; Leung & Bond, 1984; Smith & Bond, 1998; Yamagishi, Jin, & Miller, 1998). This would not be necessary if their selves were merged with each other. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1616

Categorization

• XREF: Corrects the common misreading that interdependence means merged selves; complements the distinction between individualist and collectivist cognition in the prejudice thread.
• QUESTION: Implication: if East Asian selves stay distinct within visible relationship networks, does in-group bias function via network monitoring rather than category depersonalization?
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1616