The relationships between collectivist attitudes and elementary forms of human relations: Evidence from Estonia

Abstract

This study examined the extent to which collectivist attitudes predict preference for the basic models of social relations. According to Fiske (1991), all social relations can be reduced to four basic forms – communal sharing (CS), authority ranking (AR), equality matching (EM), and market pricing (MP) – that guide people’s social initiatives and help them to understand and respond appropriately to the social actions of others. The preference for basic forms was studied using a set of questions about everyday hypothetical situations in which the four different models can be alternatively applied. We observed that EM is the dominant principle in distributing (received) benefits: everyone should get equal shares (regardless of their needs or position) and nobody should have an advantage over another. In those situations in which people were asked to contribute, the respondents were inclined to think in terms of cost and benefit, insisting that the contributions should be made according to MP. CS relationships were mostly limited to family-related situations. Although people scoring high on collectivism showed an inclination to use CS and avoid MP relationships more frequently in family situations, the association between the collectivist attitudes and elementary forms of sociality was fairly small. It is concluded that the relationships between the use of the relational models and the collectivist attitudes are modest.

Forms of Social Relationships in Distinct Cultural Settings

“…In section 4, we review previous studies (Realo et al, 2004, Verweij, 2007, Vodosek, 2009, Brito et al, 2011 manifesting ambitions similar to ours and interpret their results in the light of our framework. These considerations lead us to suggest directions for empirical research.…”

“…Vodosek (2009) tests hypotheses expressed by Triandis (1995, 50-1) connecting relational models with Triandis' constructs, but Vodosek's empirical results only partly confirm these hypotheses. Realo et al (2004), for their part, conclude that there is no one-to-one mapping between the typology of RMT and social contexts in general, but do not propose any other model. Verweij (2007) undertakes a reconciliation attempt of PRT and RMT at a theoretical level, which brings out several apparent inconsistencies.…”

“…It is thus no surprise that these other items correlated well with work, and only partly with friendships. 4.4 Realo et al (2004): RMT and collectivism Realo et al (2004) examine associations between RMs and collectivist attitudes, understood in the sense of Triandis (1995Triandis ( , 1996 and Triandis and Gelfand (1998). They look for associations between RMs and different contexts, namely family (familism), peers (companionship) and society (patriotism).…”

“…Second, one may perform survey-based analyses similar to the ones carried out by Vodosek (2009), Brito et al (2011 and Realo et al (2004). That is, survey questions could be aimed at assessing both cultural biases and relational models in given social contexts and relationships, in order to test whether associations correspond to those of table 1.…”

“…These efforts, which we review in section 4, face related issues. Vodosek (2009) and Realo et al (2004) seek associations between RMT's typology and the typology introduced by Triandis (1995Triandis ( , 1996, which can be argued to closely parallel the PRT typology (Verweij et al, 2014, 87-9). Vodosek (2009) tests hypotheses expressed by Triandis (1995, 50-1) connecting relational models with Triandis' constructs, but Vodosek's empirical results only partly confirm these hypotheses.…”