Ethnic differences in names in China: A comparison between Chinese Mongolian and Han Chinese cultures in Inner Mongolia

In the Ethnic differences in names in China: A comparison between Chinese Mongolian and Han Chinese cultures in Inner Mongolia—Commentary, the author poses two main questions i.e. the issue of time control in baby names analyses and the issue of the unit level analysis, and a minor question related to inferential statistics. The main central concern of the time control in baby naming practices is subdivided into following questions: control of confounding factors, the true meaning of indicators, past vs. present sustenance styles, and use of different study approaches, i.e. the analysis of data over a period of 60 years vs. 1 year.

1. How was the effect of time controlled?

When discussing the issue of the lack of time control in baby name analyses, it is important to note that it was initially recognized and pointed out in the Limitations section of the published manuscript Historical sustenance style and social orientations in China: Chinese Mongolians are more Independent than Han Chinese, albeit in less detail compared to the arguments raised in this Commentary. The following was stated considering this issue: “… while we followed the recommendation of Twenge’s and Varnum’s method (Twenge et al., 2010; Varnum and Kitayama, 2011), there’s one difference between our approach and theirs. We used the most common names for the population not at 1 year. Nonetheless, since the age did not differ between two ethnic groups, it is quite probable that the age would not moderate the observed tendencies. Future studies should address this issue to further verify our findings and provide more detailed insight into reported tendencies.”¹

Ogihara makes a good point in arguing that analyses performed in Study 3 did not exclude the possibility for observed differences in name giving practices to derive from other confounding factors rather than ethnic differences. Unlike previous studies, which analyzed the respective changes in name practices by decade or per year,²³ we analyzed the baby naming practices for a period of some 60 years, thus blending other potential confounding factors such as age and generation. While our approach fails to provide insight into changes in the naming practices throughout decades, it still gives valuable contribution to the research question we wanted to explore.

Furthermore, the author questions the meaning of the presented indicators, i.e. top 1, 10 and 20 most common names calculated against the period of 60 years, by arguing that common names can drastically change over time and that common names 60 years ago may no longer be considered as common in the present, and the meaning of such indicator may be somewhat ambiguous. While we agree with the author’s statement that names can change over time, and that more precise data would be obtained with analyzing naming practices in one given year, as previously stated, this change in name practices is not usually as drastic as the author suggests. In fact, previous studies have shown that preferences that become quickly popular also tend to lose that same popularity very fast, and this trend has also been observed in naming practices where names that quickly gained popularity, died faster and were less likely to persist.⁴ Further support for this premise comes from baby naming practices in Croatia, where according to available statistical data (see here), the 1st most common male and female names, which were respectively Ivan and Marija, remained unchanged for 4 decades, i.e. since 1929 – 1959, after which they dropped to 3rd and 5th place, respectively, with male name Ivan re-gaining the 1st place in 1980 – 1999. Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that an indicator composed of 60 years of name giving practices still reveals valuable data on behavioral tendencies and orientation toward individualism/collectivism.

Again, related to the use of data roughly covering a period of 60 years, Ogihara suggests that we contradicted ourselves by arguing that past sustenance styles affect “present” independence/interdependence (individualism/collectivism) but then proceed with examining past psychological tendencies from more than 60 years ago. We assume that the author misunderstood what we tried to say, as previous studies have shown that cultural differences based on historical subsistence style continue into the modern era, even in areas where most people no longer engage in the traditional subsistence activity but work in modern industry.⁵ By using data that comprise a period of 60 years, we provide full support for what we argue for, as these data do not cover specific time point 60 years ago but are comprehensive of six decades to the present day, thus reflecting recent and current behaviors. Furthermore, even if for example we solely focused on year 1960, our reasoning would still be correct as historical subsistence style refers to subsistence patterns dating back far beyond the past century.⁶

Finally, we fully support the Ogihara’s suggestion that it would be more precise to analyze only name indicators for recent years as was done in previous studies that used name giving practices as indicators of individualism,⁷² which here was not possible due to lack of available data stratified by year. Nonetheless, when interpreting reported finings, it is also important to consider that examined ethnic groups were in similar age groups and generations, which may somewhat decrease the possibility of confounding during this period. Furthermore, both of these ethnic groups underwent very similar social and political changes, which also ensured certain kind of control over a variety of confounding factors, but naturally not all. In a different study that used the percentage of most common names for the period 1981-2010 to explore the spatial-temporal changes in individualism, the uniqueness among the provinces followed the similar changing pattern along the year, which was also consistent with the results reported for prefectures in Japan and States in US.⁸ These data suggest that the time would not have such a strong effect on provincial differences to reverse the observed direction and differences between groups.

Future studies should investigate the name giving practices within the same year, as this is the most precise and correct approach for calculating the individualism indicator. We are also open to the idea of changing and revising our conclusion and rejecting our hypothesis if new refined evidence, inconsistent with our findings, should emerge. However, the present results that were based on available data seem to suggest that the current hypothesis is the most possible explanation to the subject matter under consideration.

2. Can the name index be used as an individual-level indicator?

When discussing the second main concern raised by Ogihara, it is necessary to clarify few things. First, the phrase “increase the ecological validity” was meant to say that as the results from Study 3 were reflection of real life behavior, they had greater ecological validity compared to the results reported in Study 1 and Study 2. We assume that Ogihara focuses on ecological validity, as he was expecting behavioral tendencies toward individualism/ collectivism to be measured by an indicator in real setting similar to symbolic self-inflation used in Study 1 and 2. In view of this assumption, the Study 3 is not perfectly designed, but is definitely relevant to the overall research. The chosen methodology, i.e. the percentage of most popular name, is undoubtedly an indicator of uniqueness, which is one the facets of individualism.⁹ While uniqueness is not perfect equivalent to self-inflation, some items of the Singelis’ self-construal scale used to measure self-inflation in Study 1 and 2, focus on uniqueness, e.g. “I enjoy being unique and different from others in many respects”. We admit that this is not optimum connection; nonetheless, it is relevant one.

In addition, Ogihara argues that naming practices do not reflect individual psychology or behavior at individual level as they may result from a collective process that includes babies’ parents and extended kinship. We agree with Ogihara’s view to a certain extent, considering that baby naming practices are usually the results of the collective decision between minimally two people. Nonetheless, each one of these individuals participating in such a decision is also motivated to give or suggest a common or unique name him/herself. As stated by Ruth Fulton Benedict "culture is personality writ large".¹⁰ While naming practices provide valuable source of information that mirror parents’ values or orientations, thus making them suitable behavioral measure encompassing important choices and decisions of parents,⁷ they are also a valuable cultural product, which can successfully reveal societal orientation tendencies, as well as cultural change.²³⁷ In fact, even though group differences occur because individuals are motivated to strive for uniqueness, thus lowering the percentage of common names³ as groups are made up of individuals, and as there are reciprocal influence processes between individuals and bigger groups, it is impossible to consider one, without the other.¹¹

We also assume that the author was concerned with the potential issue of ecological fallacy.¹²¹¹ In general, there’s risk of ecological fallacy when differences observed at individual level are simply translated to explain differences at group level, and vice versa. For example, when one takes a relationship that has been established between two or more variables at one level of analysis and then assumes that this proves something at a different level of analysis.¹¹ However, considering the baby name practices, it can be assumed or implied that the same motivation underlies the uniqueness at individual level and group level. If each individual in one cultural group is generally motivated to be unique or stand out from the whole group, this would increase the number of uncommon baby names at individual level, which would eventually result in the low percentage of the common names. Likewise, if each individual in other cultural group is generally motivated to be similar with others and to fit in the group, he/she would be inclined to give the baby a common name at individual level, which would eventually result in high percentage of most common names. In fact, few scholars have also developed alternative indicators of uniqueness related to baby naming practices following the same logic. E.g., in Japan, Chinese characters are used to name babies; however, they can be diversely pronounced. Ogihara constructed the indicator of uniqueness based on uncommon pronunciation of a Chinese character, and used it to explore the changes in uniqueness trends in Japan (Ogihara).⁷¹³ Cai also constructed the indicator of uniqueness based on the frequency of Chinese characters in names and used it to explore the changes in uniqueness trends in China.¹⁴ He also constructed a uniqueness of nickname in Sina weibo based on the use of non-Chinese characters to explore the provincial differences in individualism within China.¹⁵ Ogihara furthermore used dog naming practices to evaluate whether Japanese culture became more individualistic.¹⁶  As our main intent was to explore the Mongolian/Han differences in individualism/ collectivism through different indicators, our research was a combination of three different studies, and more importantly all of our assumptions were based and backed by relevant results.

Finally, with reference to the issue of the use of inferential statistics test, we agree with Ogihara that inferential statistics test is not necessarily required when population is used instead of sample, and as we used the entire population of Inner Mongolia autonomous zone in the present study, it was not necessary to use inferential statistics. In fact, the first draft of the manuscript did not include the inferential statistic, which was subsequently included following the suggestion of one of the reviewers. Nonetheless, as inferential statistics generated consistent results, they were not further discussed.

Conclusion

To sum up, we fully agree with Ogihara’s suggestion that future studies should investigate the name giving practices within the same year so as to further validate reported findings. As previously stated, we are also open to the idea of changing and revising our conclusion and rejecting our hypothesis if new refined evidence, inconsistent with our findings, should emerge. However, the present results that were based on available data seem to suggest that the current hypothesis is the most possible explanation to the subject matter under consideration.