For the last several decades research in cross-cultural psychology has focused on the cultural patterning and positioning of values. Unfortunately, values have low predictive power for actual behavior. Researchers at the Chinese University of Hong Kong decided to develop a questionnaire to measure beliefs, i.e., what is believed to be true about the world, to add to the power of values, i.e., what the person believes is valuable, in predicting behavior.
They administered the original Social Axioms Survey (SAS) in five countries and used exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate the individual-level data. Five factors were found: Social cynicism, Social complexity, Reward for application, Religiosity and Fate control. However, analyzing the data on a country-wide level yielded only two factors: Societal cynicism and a combination of the other four factors labeled Dynamic externality. The SAS has proven useful in many research contexts, and eight years later the original researchers developed an updated version, the SAS II, using a more complex methodology to increase the reliability of the various factors. The SAS II is currently being used in research as the more comprehensive and reliable measure of beliefs about the world.
Definition of social axioms and their usefulness
The study of values has a long history in psychological research, for instance, Rokeach's value scale, which has been used widely.[1] That focus has also been transferred to the study of culture in psychology. The anthropologists Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck conducted a large-scale study of values in five Southwestern US cultures in the 1950s.[2] However, it was Geert Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory that really initiated the wave of cross-cultural research on values. His four (later increased to six) dimensions of cultural values have become a major tool in many kinds of cross-cultural research.[3] Values, however, have important limitations for predicting behavior. A value states that, "X is good/desirable/important," but it does not indicate if a person thinks that X is obtainable. A belief, on the other hand, is a statement about how things work in reality. A social axiom, according to Leung and Bond's (2002) definition, describes how the world and society are believed to work. In other words, "...a typical social axiom has the structure – A is related to B. A and B can be any entities, and the relationship can be causal or correlational." The strength of a belief can vary from person to person. Furthermore, a social axiom is different from a normative belief. Normative beliefs tell us what we ought to do, e.g., be polite to everyone. Social axioms are a guide as to what it is "possible" to do.[4]
Leung and Bond (2008) provide a formal definition of social axioms:
"Social axioms are generalized beliefs about people, social groups, social institutions, the physical environment, or the spiritual world as well as about categories of events and phenomena in the social world. These generalized beliefs are encoded in the form of an assertion about the relationship between two entities or concepts."[4]
Social axioms act as a practical guide to human conduct in everyday life. They function in at least four ways. "They facilitate the attainment of important goals (instrumental), help people protect their self-worth (ego-defensive), serve as a manifestation of people's values (value-expressive), and help people understand the world (knowledge)."[3] Leung and Bond (2002) also argue that because people in all cultures face similar challenges in everyday life, these axioms should be universal, even if people in each culture do not believe in them with the same strength.[3]
Development
The Social Axioms Survey (SAS) was developed with the cooperation of researchers in Hong Kong and Venezuela, using materials from local residents along with sources in the psychology literature to develop and screen items for the Survey. The survey was then refined using data from Japan, the US and Germany.[3]
Generating survey items
Three methods were used to generate a list of possible items for the Survey:[3]
Examining the extensive literature already existing on beliefs in the English-language psychology literature
Content analysis of popular literature in Hong Kong and Venezuela, including newspapers, textbooks, language surveys, proverbs, popular songs, etc.
Interviews with adults in Hong Kong and Venezuela, both "on the street" and in-depth. Three sets of interview questions were used: "...(a) the beliefs and principles that guide their interactions with others, and their beliefs about everyday matters, (b) beliefs with regard to the self, other people, social relations, social groups, the environment, and the supernatural, and (c) beliefs with regard to issues on health, love, marriage, society, politics, religion, entertainment/recreation, work, family, sports and life in general".[3]
Screening the items and assembling the Survey
Of the more than four thousand items collected, only about a third came from professional literature, and the other two-thirds from non-academic sources. These items were classified, similar items were eliminated, and the remaining items were rewritten to be clear. The rewritten items were then classified into 33 subcategories, and the subcategories supplemented with newly generated items to give equal coverage.[3]
The first working version contained 182 items. Scoring used a 5-point Likert-type scale, which ranged from "strongly believe" to a neutral midpoint "no opinion", to "strongly disbelieve", A standard English version was used to generate Chinese and Spanish versions.[3]
First administration
The Survey was administered in both Venezuela and Hong Kong, using both university students (100 and 128 respectively), and citizens approached on the street (122 and 230). The adults completing the survey covered a range of ages, both genders and, in Venezuela, both urban and working participants.[3]
Analyzing the results
The data were analyzed separately for Hong Kong and Venezuela using cluster analysis as well as exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis to see if there were patterns of relationship among the beliefs within each culture. The analysis pointed to a five factor solution – five clusters of beliefs that seem to be interrelated. The five factors overlapped substantially between the Hong Kong and Venezuelan samples, indicating that they were valid for both cultures. For a second analysis, the scores from both cultures were combined, and principal components analysis was used. Five factors were again obtained. The survey was shortened by eliminating items that had low factor loadings or were inconsistent with the meaning of their factors, resulting in a final survey of 60 questions.[3]
Expanding the study
Another study was conducted to explore the SAS in three more cultures with differing value orientations on Hofstede's cultural dimensions scale. The questionnaire was given to college students in Germany, Japan and the United States. Confirmatory factor analysis checked by Procrustes rotation was used to analyze the data, and again five factors were found, although some differences between cultures were found, especially for Spirituality (subsequently renamed Religiosity) and Fate control.[3]
Description of the factors
The bulk of social axiom research has revolved around the five factors identified in the original set of studies:
Social cynicism: "...a negative assessment of human nature, a biased view against some groups of people, a mistrust of social institutions, and a belief that people disregard ethical means in achieving their ends."[4]Sample items: "Powerful people tend to exploit others; "Kind-hearted people usually suffer losses;" "It is rare to see a happy ending in real life."[3]
Social complexity: "...there are multiple ways of achieving a given outcome and ...a given person's behavior is inconsistent from situation to situation."[4]Sample items: "Human behavior changes with the social context;" "One has to deal with matters according to the specific circumstances;" "To deal with things in a flexible way leads to success."[3]
Reward for application: "...effort, knowledge, careful planning, and the investment of these and other resources will lead to positive results."[4]Sample items: Hard-working people will achieve more in the end;" "Adversity can be overcome by effort;" "Every problem has a solution."[3]
Religiosity (originally called Spirituality): "...assert[s] the existence of a supernatural being and the beneficial social functions of religious institutions and practices."[4]Sample items: "There is a supreme being controlling the universe." "Belief in a religion helps one understand the meaning of life;" "Religious faith contributes to good mental health."[3]
Fate control: "...a belief that life events are determined by grand external forces, but reassuringly, there are some ways for people to influence the impact of these forces."[4]Sample items: "Fate determines one's successes and failures"; "Good luck follows if one survives a disaster"; "Most disasters can be predicted."[3]
Subsequently, researchers have proposed the addition of a sixth social axiom, belief in a zero-sum game.[5]
Multilevel analysis
Cross-cultural studies have analyzed data at two levels. Analysis can use the scores from individuals as data for statistical analysis, as the original SAS studies did, or it can use the averages of whole countries as data points, as Hofstede's values study did. These two methods can give very different results, since the patterns of scores within a country may be different from the average of the whole country sample.[6]
To determine the factor structure of the SAS at the culture level Bond, Leung et al. (2004) collected and analyzed SAS scores from 41 cultures. The data were analyzed at both the individual and country level. While the individual data yielded the expected five-factor structure, the country-level analysis yielded only a two-factor solution. Almost all items in one factor are contained in the original factor Social cynicism, so the factor was named Societal cynicism. The other factor contains items from the other four original factors. It was named Dynamic externality, combining both the "external" aspects of religiosity and fate control, and the "dynamic" aspects of Reward for application. Only one item from Social complexity appeared.[6]
Development of the Social Axioms Survey II
Eight years after their original construction of the SAS, the researchers developed a revised version (the SAS II) to improve its reliability. The earlier reliabilities of Social complexity and Fate control were lower than they liked, and they hoped to generally improve its performance between cultures.[7]
In developing the SAS II a different strategy was used. The original SAS was deductive – it examined the data and then constructed the axiom categories. The weakness of this method is that some categories may not have been adequately represented in the original group of items. Over the course of eight years, research had shown that the SAS was valid, and could be used in a theory-driven approach to build the SAS II. Another difficulty with the original SAS was that the scale was developed using many Western-influenced items. Those items might not have the same meaning in other cultures, and axioms derived from those items might not be adequately valid. Van de Vijver and Leung (1997) proposed the "culturally decentered" approach, in which items are created by researchers from many cultural groups, and the final questionnaire is analyzed so that items that are answered differently by different groups are changed or eliminated.[8] The culturally-decentered approach was used for the development of the SAS II. The SAS II yielded more reliable measures of Social complexity and Fate Control, and showed that Fate control could be sub-divided into two separate components, Fate determination and Fate alterability.[7]
Representative research using survey
Level of knowledge of a culture's social axioms predicts adjustment levels of immigrants. Kurman and Ronen-Eilon (2004) demonstrated that an immigrant's level of knowledge of the host culture's social axioms is a better predictor of adjustment than whether the immigrant shares the host culture's values or social axioms themselves. This is in agreement with Berry's model of acculturation, which maintains that the best strategy for immigrant success is integration – learning how to operate in the host culture without assimilating one's own values and beliefs completely.[9][10]
Social axioms supplement the predictive power of values. Bond et al. showed that using social axioms added to the power of values to predict vocational choice, style of conflict resolution and style of coping.[11]
↑ Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Cited in Kwok Leung & Michael Harris Bond. (2008)."Psycho-Logic and Eco-Logic: Insights from Social Axioms Dimensions."In Fons J. R. van de Vijver, Dianne A. van Hemert & Ype H. Poortinga (Eds.) Multilevel Analysis of Individuals and Cultures, pp. `99-222. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
↑ Kluckhohn, F. R. & Strodtbeck, F.L. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson, New York.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Leung, Kwok; Bond, Michael Harris; Carrasquel, Sharon Reimel de; Munoz, Carlos; Hernández, Marisela; Murakami, Fumio; Yamaguchi, Susumu; Bierbrauer, Gűnter; & Singelis, Theodore M. (2002). "Social Axioms: The Search for Universal Dimensions of General Beliefs about How the World Functions." Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(3), 286-302.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Leung, Kwok & Bond, Michael Harris. (2008). "Psycho-Logic and Eco-Logic: Insights from Social Axioms Dimensions." In Fons J. R. van de Vijver, Dianne A. van Hemert & Ype H. Poortinga (Eds.) Multilevel Analysis of Individuals and Cultures, pp. `99-222. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
↑ Różycka-Tran, Joanna; Boski, Paweł; Wojciszke, Bogdan (19 March 2015). "Belief in a Zero-Sum Game as a Social Axiom". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 46 (4): 525–548. doi:10.1177/0022022115572226. S2CID145451071.
1 2 Bond, Michael Harris; Leung, Kwok; Au, Al; Tong, Kwot-Kit; Carrasquel, Sharon Reimel de; Murakami, Fumio; Yamaguchi, Susumu; Bierbrauer, Gűnter; Singelis, Theodore M.; Broer, Markus, et al. (2004). Culture-Level Dimensions of Social Axioms and Their Correlates across 41 Cultures.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(5), 548-570.
1 2 Leung, Kwok; Lam, Ben C. P.; Bond, Michael Harris; Conway, Lucian Gideon III; Gornick, Laura Janelle; Amponsah, Benjamin; Boehnke, Klaus; Dragolov, Georgi; et al. (2012). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(5), 833-857.>
↑ Van de Vijver, F. & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
↑ Kurman, Jenny & Ronen-Eilon, Carmel (2004). "Lack of Knowledge of a Culture's Social Axioms and Adaptation difficulties among Immigrants." Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(2), 192-208.
↑ Berry, J.W. (1990). "Psychology of acculturation." In J. Berman (Ed.). Nebraska symposium on Motivation 1989: Cross-cultural Perspectives, (pp. 201-234. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Cited in Kurman, Jenny & Ronen-Eilon, Carmel (2004). "Lack of Knowledge of a Culture's Social Axioms and Adaptation difficulties among Immigrants." Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(2), 192-208.
↑ Bond, Michael Harris; Leung, Kwok; Au, Al; Tong, Kwok-kit; & Chemonges-Nielson, Zoe (2004). "Combining Social Axioms with Values in Predicting Social Behaviors." European Journal of Personality, 18: 177-191.>
Further reading
Leung, Kwok; & Bond, Michael Harris (Eds.) (2010). Psychological Aspects of Social Axioms. New York: Springer Science+Business Media
Related Research Articles
A political spectrum is a system to characterize and classify different political positions in relation to one another. These positions sit upon one or more geometric axes that represent independent political dimensions. The expressions political compass and political map are used to refer to the political spectrum as well, especially to popular two-dimensional models of it.
The World Values Survey (WVS) is a global research project that explores people's values and beliefs, how they change over time, and what social and political impact they have. Since 1981 a worldwide network of social scientists have conducted representative national surveys as part of WVS in almost 100 countries.
Gerard Hendrik (Geert) Hofstede was a Dutch social psychologist, IBM employee, and Professor Emeritus of Organizational Anthropology and International Management at Maastricht University in the Netherlands, well known for his pioneering research on cross-cultural groups and organizations.
Factor analysis is a statistical method used to describe variability among observed, correlated variables in terms of a potentially lower number of unobserved variables called factors. For example, it is possible that variations in six observed variables mainly reflect the variations in two unobserved (underlying) variables. Factor analysis searches for such joint variations in response to unobserved latent variables. The observed variables are modelled as linear combinations of the potential factors plus "error" terms, hence factor analysis can be thought of as a special case of errors-in-variables models.
Cross-cultural studies, sometimes called holocultural studies or comparative studies, is a specialization in anthropology and sister sciences such as sociology, psychology, economics, political science that uses field data from many societies through comparative research to examine the scope of human behavior and test hypotheses about human behavior and culture.
A personality test is a method of assessing human personality constructs. Most personality assessment instruments are in fact introspective self-report questionnaire measures or reports from life records (L-data) such as rating scales. Attempts to construct actual performance tests of personality have been very limited even though Raymond Cattell with his colleague Frank Warburton compiled a list of over 2000 separate objective tests that could be used in constructing objective personality tests. One exception however, was the Objective-Analytic Test Battery, a performance test designed to quantitatively measure 10 factor-analytically discerned personality trait dimensions. A major problem with both L-data and Q-data methods is that because of item transparency, rating scales and self-report questionnaires are highly susceptible to motivational and response distortion ranging all the way from lack of adequate self-insight to downright dissimulation depending on the reason/motivation for the assessment being undertaken.
The Big Five personality traits is a suggested taxonomy, or grouping, for personality traits, developed from the 1980s onward in psychological trait theory.
Power distance refers to the unequal distribution of power between parties, and the level of acceptance of that inequality; whether it is in the family, workplace, or other organizations.
Cultural psychology is the study of how cultures reflect and shape their members' psychological processes.
Cross-cultural psychology is the scientific study of human behavior and mental processes, including both their variability and invariance, under diverse cultural conditions. Through expanding research methodologies to recognize cultural variance in behavior, language, and meaning it seeks to extend and develop psychology. Since psychology as an academic discipline was developed largely in North America and Europe, some psychologists became concerned that constructs and phenomena accepted as universal were not as invariant as previously assumed, especially since many attempts to replicate notable experiments in other cultures had varying success. Since there are questions as to whether theories dealing with central themes, such as affect, cognition, conceptions of the self, and issues such as psychopathology, anxiety, and depression, may lack external validity when "exported" to other cultural contexts, cross-cultural psychology re-examines them using methodologies designed to factor in cultural differences so as to account for cultural variance. Some critics have pointed to methodological flaws in cross-cultural psychological research, and claim that serious shortcomings in the theoretical and methodological bases used impede, rather than help the scientific search for universal principles in psychology. Cross-cultural psychologists are turning more to the study of how differences (variance) occur, rather than searching for universals in the style of physics or chemistry.
Anxiety/Uncertainty Management (AUM) theory is known as the high levels of anxiety one may experience as they come in contact with those of another culture. This concept was first introduced by William B. Gudykunst to further define how humans effectively communicate based on their anxiety and uncertainty in social situations. Gudykunst believed that in order for successful intercultural communication a reduction in anxiety/uncertainty must occur. This is assuming that the individuals within the intercultural encounter are strangers. AUM is a theory based on the Uncertainty Reduction Theory (URT) which was introduced by Berger and Calabrese in 1974. URT provides much of the initial framework for AUM, and much like other theories in the communication field AUM is a constantly developing theory, based on the observations of human behaviour in social situations.
The Revised NEO Personality Inventory is a personality inventory that assesses an individual on five dimensions of personality, the so-called Big Five personality traits. These traits are openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion(-introversion), agreeableness, and neuroticism. In addition, the NEO PI-R also reports on six subcategories of each Big Five personality trait.
Cultural consensus theory is an approach to information pooling which supports a framework for the measurement and evaluation of beliefs as cultural; shared to some extent by a group of individuals. Cultural consensus models guide the aggregation of responses from individuals to estimate (1) the culturally appropriate answers to a series of related questions and (2) individual competence in answering those questions. The theory is applicable when there is sufficient agreement across people to assume that a single set of answers exists. The agreement between pairs of individuals is used to estimate individual cultural competence. Answers are estimated by weighting responses of individuals by their competence and then combining responses.
Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory is a framework for cross-cultural psychology, developed by Geert Hofstede. It shows the effects of a society's culture on the values of its members, and how these values relate to behavior, using a structure derived from factor analysis.
Allocentrism is a collectivistic personality attribute whereby people center their attention and actions on other people rather than themselves. It is a psychological dimension which corresponds to the general cultural dimension of collectivism. In fact, allocentrics "believe, feel, and act very much like collectivists do around the world." Allocentric people tend to be interdependent, define themselves in terms of the group that they are part of, and behave according to that group's cultural norms. They tend to have a sense of duty and share beliefs with other allocentrics among their in-group. Allocentric people appear to see themselves as an extension of their in-group and allow their own goals to be subsumed by the in-group's goals. Additionally, allocentrism has been defined as giving priority to the collective self over the private self, particularly if these two selves happen to come into conflict.
The Big Five personality traits are Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. The Big Five Personality is a test that people can take to learn more about their personality in relation to the five personality traits. Cross-cultural psychology as a discipline examines the way that human behavior is different and/or similar across different cultures. One important and widely studied area in this subfield of psychology is personality, particularly the study of Big Five. The Big Five model of personality has become the most extensively studied model of personality and has broad support, starting in the United States and later in many different cultures. The Big Five model of personality started in the United States, and through the years has been translated into many different languages and has been used in many countries. Some researchers were attempting to determine the differences in how other cultures perceive this model. Some research shows that the Big Five holds up across cultures even with its origin in the English language. However, there is also some evidence which suggests that the Big Five traits may not be sufficient to completely explain personality in other cultures. In countries such as South America and East Asia, the results weren't as accurate because they weren't as open as some people in other countries are.
The New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study (NZAVS) is a longitudinal study conducted in New Zealand. The NZAVS was started in 2009 by Chris Sibley, a professor in psychology at the University of Auckland. The NZAVS was inspired by major social surveys conducted internationally, such as the National Election Studies, the World Values Survey and the General Social Survey, and aims to provide a similar resource for New Zealand. As of November 8, 2016, the NZAVS research team had published 100 peer reviewed publications using data from the study.
Alphonsius Josephus Rachel (Fons) van de Vijver was a Dutch psychologist and Professor of Cross-cultural Psychology at Tilburg University, North-West University, University of Queensland, and National Research University Higher School of Economics. He was known for his work on cross-cultural research and on methods of comparisons.
The Inglehart–Welzel cultural map of the world is a scatter plot created by political scientists Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel based on the World Values Survey and European Values Survey. It depicts closely linked cultural values that vary between societies in two predominant dimensions: traditional versus secular-rational values on the vertical y-axis and survival versus self-expression values on the horizontal x-axis. Moving upward on this map reflects the shift from traditional values to secular-rational ones and moving rightward reflects the shift from survival values to self-expression values.
Trust building is the most influential factor in negotiating between two sides. The stronger this factor appears, the greater the chance will be for negotiators to cooperate. Studies have suggested that religious backgrounds can have a direct impact on the confidence and process of negotiation. Such tendencies generally do not prevent a contract or an agreement from being concluded; however, there are reasons to believe that religious affiliations reduce the negotiation process and give more confidence to decision makers.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
