Transcript Slide 1
September 1st Rationality, Behavior, Experiment 2010 Moscow Relationship between Values and Models of Socio-Economic Behavior VERONICA VYUSHINA NADEZHDA LEBEDEVA ALEXANDER TATARKO STATE UNIVERSITY – HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS MOSCOW, RUSSIA Outline Introduction Shwartz’s value priorities Social attitudes Method Behavior scenarios method Results Discussion Conclusion Motivation: Culture Matters, but How It Does So? Culture is associated with economic progress Evidence: culture and indicators of socio-economic development of societies are strongly related (Hofstede, 2001; Inglehart, 1997; Bond et al., 2004) However, the mechanisms are unclear We know little about how this relationship works on individual level. We need to determine socio-psychological mechanisms through which culture influences socioeconomic behavior. Individuals’ values? Introduction: Values “Core of a culture”. Stable representations of what is good and desired in a culture. Schwartz’s theory of values One of the leading approaches to value measurement. Values not only at cultural, but also at individual level 10 distinct types of individuals’ values Introduction: Definitions of individual values Security: Safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships, and of self Conformity: Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms Tradition: Respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture or religion provide Benevolence: Preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact Universalism: Understanding, appreciation, tolerance and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature Self-Direction: Independent thought and action – choosing, creating, exploring Stimulation: Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life Hedonism: Pleasure or sensuous gratification for oneself Achievement: Personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards Power: Social status and prestige; control or dominance over people and resources (Adapted from Prince-Gibson, Schwartz, 1997) Introduction: Social Attitudes Classic definition “an organized predisposition to respond in a favorable or unfavorable manner towards specified class of objects”(Shaver, 1987) Related with behavior and can predict it Numerous studies (Ajzen, Fishbein,1980; Tesser, Shaffer, 1990; Shavitt, Fazio, 1991) ABC-model: 3 components of an attitude Affective: predisposition to a certain emotional reaction Behavioral: predisposition to certain behavior Cognitive: predisposition to hold certain beliefs and perceptons Introduction: Study Pilot study. Approbation of behavior scenario method (attempt to measure all three components of an attitude) Purpose – discover relationship between values and components of attitudes towards certain behavioral models Corruption and hierarchy related behavior were chosen as a basis because: Typical for Russia; Tend to provoke ambiguous attitudes towards themselves. Method Participants: 424 respondents Different regions of Russia 3 questionnaire blocks: 1. Demographic data 2. Schwartz’s Value Survey 3. 57 nine-point scales ‘-1’ for values that contradict one’s life leading principles ‘7’ for most important values Behavior Scenarios Block Behavior Scenarios Method: Development Experts constructed 12 situations representing corrupt practices and hierarchy-related behavior typical for Russia’s socioeconomic context. Half of scenarios: ‘pro-hierarchical’ and ‘pro-corrupt’ outcomes (involving actors’ decisions to bribe or act in reliance on a hierarchy). Half of scenarios: ‘contra-hierarchical’ and ‘contra-corrupt’ outcomes (describing a person’s refusal to bribe or follow the rules implied by the hierarchy). 4 scenarios proved to have the highest diagnostic ability: 1. 2. 3. ‘pro-hierarchical’ – leaving one’s subordinate with no bonuses; ‘contra-hierarchical’ – distributing air conditioners on a basis of need, not status. ‘pro-corrupt’ - bribing a road inspector; ‘contra-corrupt’ – refusal to bribe one’s professor to pass an exam easily; 3 five-point scales for each of the scenarios to rate: 4. positivity of emotional perception (affective component) willingness to behave as the actor (behavioral component) typicality of the behavior (cognitive component) Behavior Scenarios Method: Questionnaire Results: Mean Comparison Scale Pairwise scales М Мed 1,81 2 2,2 2 3,57 4 comparisona Scenario 1. Leaving one’s subordinate with no bonuses. Willingness > Positivity* Positivity Typicality > Positivity Willingness Typicality > Willingness Typicality Scenario 2. Providing air conditioners for those who needed them most. Willingness < Positivity Positivity 4,39 5 Typicality < Positivity Willingness 3,33 4 Typicality < Willingness Typicality 2,53 2 Scenario 3. Bribing a road inspector. Willingness > Positivity Positivity 3,24 3 Typicality > Positivity Willingness 3,64 4 Typicality > Willingness Typicality 4,25 5 Scenario 4. Refusal to pay for passing an exam easily. Willingness < Positivity Positivity 4,63 5 Typicality < Positivity Willingness 3,63 4 Typicality < Willingness Typicality 2,48 2 aAll significant for p< .05 (Wilcoxon criterion) Results: Positivity Ratings Correlations Results: Willingness Ratings Correlations What We Got ‘Pro’-scenarios: positivity lower than willingness to behave as described; rated very typical. ‘Contra’-scenarios: percieved very positively; willingness lower than positivity ratings; typicality rating below the midpoint. Values of Tradition and Power: More positive perceptions of ‘pro’-scenarios; more willingness to follow hierarchy; Less positive perceptions of ‘contra’-scenarios; less willingness to confront corruption and hierarchy. Values of Tradition and Conformity have correlations of opposite signs with ratings of hierarchical behavior. Discussion: What Can This Mean Corrupt and hierarchic behavior is perceived negatively. Nonetheless, people are ready to follow these models of behavior presumably because they are functional and are being reproduced by existing social institutes. Contra-corrupt and egalitarian behavior is emotionally supported by respondents, though the behavior may not be rewarded. Low trust. Respondents rated typicality of the scenarios higher than their willingness to behave as described for the scenarios that they disapprove, and vice versa for the scenarios that they approve. Tradition and Power appear to be the values that support hierarchical behavior and acceptance of corruption. Traditional and destructive. Since Tradition refers to “respect, commitment and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture or religion provide” (Ibid, p.53) and Conformity is defined as “restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations” (Ibid, p.53), it may well be that hierarchical behavior can be considered by respondents as traditional in Russia and at the same time destructive. Conclusion 1. Successful approbation of a new method. The behavior scenarios method developed for this pilot study has been shown to identify disagreement between emotional, cognitive and behavioral components of socio-economic attitudes. 2. Potential basis for socio-economic changes. Scenarios that describe corrupt or hierarchical behavior were perceived as very typical. Despite the fact that these behavior models are disapproved, respondents are ready to behave in this manner. On the contrary, scenarios that describe confrontation with corruption or hierarchy were not evaluated as typical, although they were perceived very positively. However, willingness to incorporate this behavior is less salient than its emotional perception. Under favorable circumstances, this disagreement may be a basis for socio-economic changes. 3. Values that encourage corruption and hierarchy. The relationship between value priorities and scenario ratings was demonstrated. Tradition and Power appear to be the values that support hierarchical behavior and acceptance of corruption. Values of Conformity, on the contrary, support nonhierarchical behavior.