CROSS-CULTURAL ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

CULTURAL REGISTER

Cultural dimensions:

For example:

- Dimensions of the model developed by G. Hofstede (individualism-collectivism variable I / C and related variables: DFP, E, M / F, PTS / L)

- Dimensions of social values model of S. Schwartz (10 categories of value, controlling individually, 7 for collective level)

- Dimensions of A. Fiske model (sharing with "other" and associated variables) - Dimensions of social axioms model - MH Bond & K. Leung (social cynicism and related

variables).

PERSONALITY REGISTER

Personality Traits:

For example:

- Motivational structure of personality;

- Aggressiveness;

- Pro-social behaviour;

- Specific skills;

- Attitude configurations.

ORGANIZATIONAL REGISTER

Organizational variables:

For example::

- Leadership styles;

- Organizational communication networks;

- Intra-organizational power networks.

-

-

-

-

-

-

STRUCTURAL-SOCIETAL REGISTER

Macro-social variables:

For example:

- Demographical factors (life hope, family volume and so on);

- Social mobility factors (migration volume and so on);

- Economic variables (PIB/cl, inflation rate and so on)

- Subjective societal variables (social capital, social hope and so on)

PSYCHOLOGY

PSYCHO SOCIOLOGY OF ORGANIZATIONS

SOCIOLOGY

INTERCULTURAL MANAGEMENT

CULTURAL SOCIOLOGY

OR

GA

NIZ

AT

ION

AL

PS

YC

HO

LOG

Y

OR

GA

NIZ

AT

ION

AL

SOC

IOLO

GY

CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY

CULTURAL

ANTHROPOLOGY

THE MAIN TOPICS

Autarchic individualism and social axioms in the Western part of Romania

Transgenerational transfer of values and attitudes in post-communist Romania

Conceptualization of social autism as a psycho-social degenerative syndrome

Identity motives in the cultural context – the distinctiveness motives

AUTARCHIC INDIVIDUALISM AND SOCIAL AXIOMS IN THE

WESTERN PART OF ROMANIA Study 1 - Diagnosis of Romanian organizations using the Hofstede model

on a representative sample

“Quantitative “= regional representative sample (1058 subjects) for an active population in the Fifth Development Region in Romania (Timiş, Arad, Caraş-Severin and Hunedoara counties)

“Qualitative “ = through 7 focus-groups in organizations of different sizes (small, medium and multinational corporations).

Stake of research: Assessment of cultural specificity impact over value, attitudinal and behavioral patterns in the Romanian organizational environment. (The Fifth Development Region).

1058 subjects (active populations, age: 18-65 / M, 18-60 / F).

52 % man, 48 % women; Age average: 38,2 years.

CENTRAL CONCEPT Cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 1980/2003)

1. Power-distance: expresses the symbolic and operational inequality between superiors and subordinates in an organizations (PD high / low) ;

2. Uncertainty Avoidance : fear of change and need of formal rules or availability concerning change (UA high / low);

3. Individualism - collectivism: the distribution of personal attention, resources and commitment in task towards ones’ self or collectivity belonging, accent laid on self-achievement or on integration in social network perceived as relevant (I / C);

4. Masculinity- feminity: focusing on personal objectives (income, organizational ascension and assertiveness), opposed to the interpersonal ones (friendly atmosphere, cordial cooperation with authority, tolerance) (M / F);

5. Long / short term perspective: option for “now and here”, regressive reminisce / long term option in the achievement of personal in the organizational projects (LTP / STP).

RESULTS OBTAINED ON VSM 94

(CONVENTIONAL SCORE)CULTURAL DIMMENSION

PD Power-distance 51

I-C Individualism - collectivism

50

M/F Masculinity- feminity

25

AU Uncertainty Avoidance

69

L/STP Long / short term perspective

34

MAP OF CULTURAL DIMENSIONS – CROSS-

CULTURAL ASSESSMENT

V ROM

Power distance index

NATIONAL CULTURES GROUPING DEPENDING ON THE UA AND I-C

SPECIFIC SCORES In the bottom rigth corner lies the Latin group

(increased power-distance / high individualism) characterized briefly by G. Hofstede as dependent individualism. The opposite pattern, called independent collectivism is represented by Israel and Austria. The majority of the Third World countries is localized in the top right, described as a dependent collectivism. Most of “occidental” nations (post-industrialized) lie in the bottom left, expressing an independent individualism.

According to our researching results, the score on the Romanian sample position itself at the border between the area of dependent collectivism and that of dependent individualism.

RESULTS COMPARATIVE WITH OTHER RELEVANT RESEARCHES / ROMANIA /

BALKANSResearch referential / cultural dimensions

PD I/C M/F UA S/LTP

Gavreliuc (2009) – representative regional sample, The Fifth Development Region of Romania, 1058 subjects

51 50 25 69 34

Spector et al. (2001), Romania,, national sample, 455 subjects.

26 47 23 50 55

Luca (2005, I), representative national sample, 1076 subjects.

29 49 39 61 42

Luca, (2005, II), representative national sample, 1076 subjects.

33 49 39 61 42

Romania – G. Hofstede estimations

90 30 42 90 -

Bulgaria (2001) 55 41 48 64 33

Bulgaria – G. Hofstede estimations

70 30 40 85 -

Greece, former Iugoslavia Balkans – G. Hofstede estimations

76 27 21 88 -

MAJORITY ORGANIZATIONAL PORTRAIT IN THE WEST OF ROMANIA ACHIEVED

ON THE BASIS OF CULTURAL DIMENSIONS PROPOSED BY G.

HOFSTEDE Retractility and formalism in the relations with the

symbolic over-ordinate (great PD), Moderate collectivism or, as it has been theorized as

along the paper, a specific species of “autarchic individualism”,

Centering on relation to the detriment of organizational performance (strong F),

Fearing attitude towards change (high scores at UA), Preponderant Short term orientation.

“AUTARCHIC INDIVIDUALISM”

Evidencing through turning to account the qualitative results from focus-groups investigations. Typical formulations of subjects in the register of self-

achievement = retractile and lack of commitment identitary description: “anyway everything turns out as they want” (D. M., 34 years old);

“it’s useless to come up with ideas in the firm, as whatever I’d do, they don’t care” (A. R., 22 years old);

“I’d like to be left alone with what I am” (S. T., 48 years old);

“the best rule is how to avoid rules, because bosses, out of this, have made up the rule” (A. G., 37 years old).

PSYCHOMETRIC PROPRIETIES OF VSM 94 (WESTERN

ROMANIA SAMPLE) At the limit of acceptability – 0.60 – in general, a modest internal

reliability.The need of re-elaborating a new test is suggested by conjugating the ethic and emic methodological perspective.

CULTURAL DIMENSION Alpha Crombach

PD (power distance) 0,57

I/C (individualism-collectivism) 0,60

M/F (masculinity-feminity) 0,58

UA (uncertainty avoidance) 0,52

S/LTO (short/long term orientation) 0,78

CONCLUSIONS – STUDY 1

The dominant organizational culture in Romania expresses an axiological, attitudinal and behavioral pattern different from that of the majority national cultures that composed EU.

We can identify similarities in the scores obtained at the cultural dimensions between the research made in the Western part of Romania and those at national level, coordinated by Romanian and foreign specialists (I/C, M/F, UA, S/LTP), but can also identify significant differences (PD).

The managerial practices and the imported organizational interventions probes a modest operational efficiency, on condition they do not associate an emic perspective.

Cultural dimensions plays an important predictive role in generating of specific organizational behaviors, wherefrom the special importance of there knowledge and there turning to account.

Social axioms and relational patterns in the educational

environment – Study 2 The sample grouped 524 subjects (social sciences teachers for public

educational institutions, 260 from universities and 264 from secondary schools) in the Western part of Romania (Timis, Caras-Severin, Arad and Hunedoara counties). Their age varied between 25-38 years (M = 33.4).

Instruments:

Social Axioms Survey – SAS 60, developed by Leung et al. (2002)

Self-monitorization Scale - (Snyder & Swann, 1974)

Machiavellianism – MACH IV Scale (Christie & Geis 1970/1999)

Self-determination Scale (Sheldon, Ryan, & Reis, 1996)

STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INDEPENDENT SAMPLES

Dimensions Sample 1 Secondary Education

Sample 2 Higher Education

independent t samples results

SOCIAL AXIOMS

CNS (social cynicism) 3.26 3.46 t(523) = 4.05. p<0.01

CXS (social complexity) 3.65 3.70 Ns

RA (reward for application) 3.62 3.71 Ns

R (religiosity) 3.40 3.53 Ns

CD (fate control) 3.03 3.24 t(523)= 2.12. p<0.05

Machiavellianism Mach 61.46 70.93 t(523) = 5.23. p<0.01

Self-monitoring SM 15.12 18.47 t(523) = 4.88. p<0.01

Independence-Interdependence INT-IND 0.16 0.45 t(523) = 3.74. p <0.05

Self-determination SD 21.82 19.93 t(523) = 2.55. p <0.05

PC (perceived choice) 10.44 8.86 t(523) = 3.07. p <0.05

AS (awareness of self) 11.38 10.97 Ns

ns = non-significant for p > .05

STUDY 2 - CONCLUSIONS lack of responsibility and cooperation, mistrust in the institutions and their

significant members, fatalism, deficient social hope, public disengagement – all those characteristics of social cynicism – find their outcome in the relationships with “otherness”.

when significant statistical differences occur between the groups of subjects from the pre university and the university areas, it indicates an ‑ attitudinal pattern of disengagement, increasingly duplicitous and manipulative as they “advance” toward a socialized environment involving (quantitatively and qualitatively) “more education”, which is different from the results obtained in other research with a similar design (Kuo et al, 2006).

Despite appearances that would indicate that the university represents prestige, transparency, competence, what this study reveals in the end is an identity pattern of vulnerability (low self-determined, high fate control) and the need to compensate for this deficiency by illusory, duplicitous strategies (high social cynicism, Machiavellianism and self-monitoring).

Culture and personality in the Romanian educational field: relationships between

social axioms and Hofstede’s model – Study 3

522 subjects: 253 professors from high-schools and 269 teachers from universities, from the humanistic and social sciences areas

The instruments applied were:

for cultural dimensions: the Social Axioms Survey (SAS) - which belongs to Michael Harris Bond and Kwok Leung;

the Values Survey Module 94 (VSM94) - drawn-up by Geert Hofstede,

for personal autonomy: the Self-Determination Scale (SDS) - of K. M Sheldon, R. M. Ryan and H. Rice;

Locus of Control Scale (LCS) - performed by J. Rotter

Self-esteem (RSE) - of Morris Rosenberg.

COMPARATIVE SCORES – HOFSTEDE MODEL

Landmark research / cultural dimensions

PD I/C M/F UA L/S TP

(Gavreliuc, Gavreliuc, 2012) - sample formed by made out of teachers (human, social and political sciences area) – Romania, 522 subjects

78 36 34 85 23

Gavreliuc (2009), regional representative sample, Western Region - Romania, 1058 subjects

51 50 25 69 34

Spector, Cooper, Sanchez, et al. (2001), national sample, Romania, 455 subjects,

26 47 23 50 55

Luca (2005), representative national sample, Romania,1076 subjects

29 49 39 61 42

Romania - G. Hofstede estimates 90 30 42 90 -

Bulgaria - G. Hofstede estimates 70 30 40 85 -

Balkans - Hofstede estimates 76 27 21 88 -

Note: PD – power distance, I/C – individualism-collectivism, M/F- masculinity/femininity, UA – uncertainty avoidance, L/S

TP – long/short term perspective.

CULTURAL DIMENSIONS – PORTRAITS

The specific scores on this dimension have been closer to the global assessments of G. Hofstede (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010), but in the results obtained on the Romanian samples (Spector, Cooper, Sanchez et al., 2001, Luca, 2005; Gavreliuc, 2011), the distance from power was significantly lower.

If past cited research evoke relational modernization in the sense of taking over an organizational and interpersonal hierarchical model on a Western pattern, the trend in our study illustrates an important return on the attitudinal level toward non-partnership patterns, characterized by aggression, mutual mistrust, frustration and disengagement.

SOCIAL AXIOMS MODEL

Cultural dimensions of the social axioms model

Dimensions of the social axioms model (n = 522)

Minimum score

Maximum score

M SD

Social cynicism 1.76 4.65 3.2970 .43363

Reward for application 1.75 4.83 3.8064 .44364

Social complexity 2.08 4.33 3.4347 .29657

Fate control 1.00 4.57 2.6902 .57815

Religiosity 1.29 5.00 3.2750 .64114

The score obtained on the most problematic dimension of the social axioms model (social cynicism = 3.30), the Romanian sample consisting of teachers, is placed in the vicinity of countries like those in the Far East (China - 3.03, Hong Kong - 3.13, India - 3.04) or the Islamic area (Pakistan - 3.29) (Bond & Leung 2010). Such a result shows striking duplicitous identity strategies which, beyond the rhetoric honourable interpersonal honest openness, works in an opportunistic and instrumental way (using it on the “other” as a means to achieve their own goals).

SOCIAL AXIOMS/HOFSTEDE

MODEL Hofstede model: establishes that those working in the pre-university field

are involved in hierarchical relations based more on partnership and cooperation than than those working in universities, with a statistically significantly lower score on distance toward power (t (520) =- 4.583, p <0.001). This result suggests an assimilation attitude pattern with a touch of the local educational environment: the more authoritarian and non-partnership they are, the more the subjects “climb” on the ladder of social prestige.

The features depicted above are strengthened by the statistically significantly higher scores in social cynicism for academic teachers, than for those of the pre-university environment (t (520) =- 2.213, p = 0.027), with an average very high for both samples anyway, significantly higher than the national cultures of most large-scale cross cultural research ‑studies coordinated by Kwok Leung and Michael Harris Bond (2010).

INTERGENERATIONAL COMPARISON

Intergenerational Comparison of attributional patterns and cultural dimensions (social axioms and Hofstede’s dimensions) (One-Way ANOVAs)

Generational stratum

Dimensions G(18-29)

M(SD)

G(30-39)

M(SD)

G(40-49)

M(DS)

G(50-59)

M(SD)

G(+60)

M(SD

F-values

LOC 12.7692b

(3.06259)

12.0884ab

(3.35752)

11.5699a

(3.30241)

11.6351ab

(3.40255)

11.9583ab

(11.9583)

2.308*

PD 89.89b

(18.211)

78.78ab

(23.819)

73.60a

(24.773)

74.19a

(24.579)

75.21ab

(23.242)

8.142**

SCnS 3.5734c

(0.38148)

3.4018b

(0.42826)

3.1414a

(0.40122)

3.1335a

(0.36422)

3.3186abc

(0.36422)

23.473**

SCx 3.5403d

(0.29010)

3.4626abcd

(0.26874)

3.3665ab

(0.30772)

3.4516abcd

(0.28835)

3.3403a

(0.28649)

6.610**

FC 2.8823c

(0.48121)

2.7833bc

(0.58266)

2.5476a

(0.58061)

2.6197ab

(0.58318)

2.7143abc

(0.58067)

6.874**

R 3.5196b

(0.54649)

3.2896ab

(0.05222)

3.1767a

(0.04712)

3.1680a

(0.07331)

3.3512ab

(0.16518)

5.187**

Note: LOC = locus of control, PD = power distance, SCnS = social cynicism, SCx = social complexity, FC = fate control, R = religiosity.

* p < .05; ** p < .01. Notes: df = 2, 1478. Means with same letters do not differ significantly.

PORTRAIT OF GENERATIONAL

STRATA Seen as a variable associated with interpersonal and institutional

authoritarianism (Smith et al., 2005), pronounced high scores on power distance indicate the ordinary practices form school based on symbolic force, dogmatism and obedience, as generalized symptoms. Therefore, these kinds of practices become routine strategies in the hierarchical relationships in the Romanian educational environment. The difference between the youngest cohort (age 18-29) and the middle one (age 40-49) is more than 16 conventional points on the PD index, suggesting that the postcommunist period has consolidated the authoritarian patterns acquired in communism.

SOCIAL CYNICISM - COMPARISON

Likewise, the most problematic social identity proved to be the younger one, because the main dimension of the social axioms model – social cynicism – is, statistically, significantly higher than the specific scores for the cohorts with consolidated experience in communism, especially than the cohorts of ages (40-49).

This outcome indicates the similar tendency as a previous research (Gavreliuc, Cimpean, & Gavreliuc, 2009), in which the Romanian younger social strata were more predisposed to an un-honest generalized way of thinking and acting in their interpersonal relationships, as a functional way of solving their own tasks.

The mere fact that social cynicism activates an interpersonal logic in an educational environment testifies to an assimilation of an implicit cognition pattern deeply rooted in the Romanian society, which relies on a lack of social capital, mainly represented by a deficient interpersonal and generalized trust (Sandu, 2003).

TRANSGENERATIONAL PATTERNS OF VALUES AND

ATTITUDES IN POST-COMMUNIST ROMANIA The major area of my own research has focused

over the last decade upon studying the process of the intergenerational transfer of values and attitudes in post-communist Romania, confronting the profiles of different generational strata with radical historical cleavages (Gavreliuc, 2008, 2011a, 2012a). The purpose of this longitudinal investigation was to examine whether a historical great rupture, like the Romanian Revolution of 1989, has changed the Romanian's values/attitudes or not.

PREVIOUS RESEACHES – STUDY 1 + 2

The starting point consisted in a series of tendencies reported in two Romanian studies carried out between 2002–2003 and 2005–2006 (Gavreliuc, 2011).

The samples consisted of small, homogenous lots of subjects: teachers and students from the academic area (n = 179) (STUDY 1) as well as individuals from the private economic environment (n = 181) (STUDY 2), each sample being divided into three age groups (20, 35, and 50 years old).

Criteria of selection:

Subjects from the social stratum that provides :

a consistent rate of social passivity and conservatorism (educational area);

an increasing rate of social and economical commitments (generational groups consist of subjects that are involved in private firms that center on production, from the Western part of Romania;

Comparison of the results obtained in an “economic private sector” subjects sample with “educational sector” subjects sample = on most dimensions we have identified strong similarities.

Relevance for Cross-Cultural Psychology – specific generational profiles in terms of different cultural patterns (grouped in a particular patterns of social attitudes and value

REGISTER OF SOCIAL SUBJECTIVITY ………………………………….

PERSONALITY AS A PSYCHO-SOCIAL CONSTRUCT …………………

VALUES

ATTITUDES(inferate variables)

……………………………………………………………………………

BEHAVIOURS(the level of collecting data about the personality of

subjects)

CONCURRENT THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

Flexibility of values and (fundamental) social attitudes generated by socio-historical dynamics

(Aronson, 1988; Loewenstein, 2007; McGuire, 1985; Perloff, 1993)

Stability of values and (fundamental) social attitudes, despite of socio-historical dynamics la longue durée

(Braudel, 1958/1996)

transgenerational remanent nature of social representations (Flament, 1995/1999)

CONCURRENT HYPOTHESES

Hypothesis la longue durée (the persistence of fundamental social attitudes)

DILEMMA

A specific socialization of subjects, due to a particular generational affiliation, associated with a distinct integration of a historical rupture experience…

…will generate or not a major attitudinal change, reflected in an ensemble of relational personality traits?

METHODOLOGY: SELECTING THE

PSYCHOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS Quantitative methodology:

Psychological traits articulated through the assessment of (fundamental) social attitudes:

Independence-interdependence

Self-esteem

Internalism-externalism

Self-determination

+

Value orientations structure

Qualitative methodology:

28 Oral history interviews with the relevant persons from generation of “decretei”.

PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS APPLIED

Attitudinal register:

Independence-Interdependece Scale (Singelis, 1994)

Self-Esteem (Rosenberg, 1965)

Locus of Control (Rotter, 1964)

Self-Determination Scale (Sheldon, Ryan, Reis, 1996) Awareness of Self

Perceived Choice

Axiological register:

Schwartz Values Survey (Schwartz, 2005) --> cultural level (value orientations)

GENERATIONAL STRATA INVESTIGATED – REPRESENTATIVE

SAMPLES – STUDY 3

The total sample consisted of 1481 subjects (end of 2009), being divided into three cohorts as follows.

G20: n = 472 with M = 26.34 years;

G35: n = 529 with M = 40.92 years, and

G50: n = 480 with M = 56.27 years.

Criteria for distribution of subjects: gender (½ M, ½ F), age (sub-scales +/- 2 years), residential area (urban high, urban medium, urban low, rural).

INTERGENERATIONAL PORTRAITS – ATTITUDINAL REGISTER OF ANALYSIS

Intergenerational Comparison of Attitudes (One-Way ANOVAs)

Generation

G50 M (SD)

G35 M (SD)

G20 M (SD)

F-values

Independence 2.22 (0.32)

2.10 (0.29)

2.18 (0.34)

1.48

Interdependence 2.90a

(0.39) 2.94a

(0.42) 3.13b

(0.44) 2.46*

Self-Esteem 30.18 (4.98)

28.16 (4.79)

31.15 (5.11)

1.67

Locus of Control 14.15ab

(4.11) 12.05a

(3.98) 14.85b

(4.26) 2.12*

Self Determination 22.04b

(4.23) 20.97b

(4.07) 17.70a

(3.93) 3.56**

* p < .05; ** p < .01. Notes: df = 2, 1478. Means with same letters do not differ significantly.

INTERGENERATIONAL PORTRAITS – VALUES REGISTER

OF ANALYSIS:ANY SIGNIFICANT STATISTICALLY DIFFERENCES

BETWEEN EXTREME COHORTS (G50/G20)

Intergenerational Comparisons of Values (One-Way ANOVAs) Generation

Value type G50 M (SD)

G35 M (SD)

G20 M (SD)

F-values

Conservatism 4.06a

(0.15) 4.68b

(0.23) 4.21a (0.18)

2.89*

Hierarchy 2.12a

(0.23) 2.97b

(0.31) 2.29ab

(0.21) 3.32**

Harmony 4.19 (0.34)

4.17 (0.29)

4.08 (0.26)

1.75

Egalitarianism 4.62b

(0.22) 4.23a (0.19)

4.46ab (0.20)

2.69*

Intellectual autonomy 4.78b

(0.41) 4.12a (0.44)

4.43ab (0.38)

2.93*

Affective autonomy 3.56ab

(0.40) 3.21a (0.29)

3.81b (0.33)

2.54*

Mastery 3.96 (0.12)

3.77 (0.17)

3.82 (0.20)

1.57

* p < .05; ** p < .01. Notes: df = 2, 1478. Means with same letters do not differ significantly.

VALUE PORTRAITS - SEVEN CULTURAL VALUE

ORIENTATIONS (SCHWARTZ, 1999-2012)

Conservatism The person is viewed as embedded in a collectivity, finding meaning in life largely through social relationships and identifying with the group. A cultural emphasis on maintenance of the status quo, propriety, and restraint of actions or inclinations that might disrupt the solidarity group or the traditional order. (social order, respect for tradition, family security, wisdom).

Intellectual Autonomy The person is an autonomous, bounded entity and finds meaning in his / her own uniqueness, seeking to express own internal attributes (preferences, traits, feelings) and is encouraged to do so. Intellectual Autonomy has a cultural emphasis on the desirability of individuals independently pursuing their own ideas and intellectual directions (curiosity, broadmindedness, creativity).

Affective Autonomy The person is an autonomous, bounded entity and finds meaning in his / her own uniqueness, seeking to express own internal attributes (preferences, traits, feelings) and is encouraged to do so. Affective Autonomy promote and protect the individual's independent pursuit of own affectively positive experience (pleasure, exciting life, varied life).

Hierarchy A hierarchical, differential allocation of fixed roles and of resources is the legitimate, desirable way to regulate interdependencies. People are socialized to comply with the obligations and rules and sanctioned if they do not. A cultural emphasis on the legitimacy of an unequal distribution of power, roles and resources (social power, authority, humility, wealth).

Egalitarianism Individuals are portrayed as moral equals, who share basic interests and who are socialized to transcend selfish interests, cooperate voluntarily with others, and show concern for everyone's welfare (equality, social justice, freedom, responsibility, honesty). People are socialized to as autonomous rather than interdependent because autonomous persons have no natural commitment to others (equality, social justice, freedom, responsibility, honesty).

Mastery Groups and individuals should master, control, and change the social and natural environment through assertive action in order to further personal or group interests. A cultural emphasis on getting ahead through active self-assertion (ambition, success, daring, competence).

Harmony The world is accepted as it is. Groups and individuals should fit harmoniously into the natural and social world, avoiding change and self-assertion to modify them. (unity with nature, protecting the environment, world of beauty).

Demographical policies in the communist Romania

Source: Anuarul Statistic al României, 199019

60

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

19900

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Abortion number

Birth number

CONCLUSIONS – CONFIRMING LA LONGUE DURÉE” HYPOTHESIS

La longue durée” hypothesis was confirmed, the investigated social strata being characterized by a series of transgenerational patterns.

Thus, high interdependence, modest independence, high self-esteem, dominant externalism, and low self-determination were highlighted at the attitudinal level, whereas conservatism and low affective and intellectual autonomy values were noted at an axiological level.

Young people structure their implicitly assumed values and attitudes in the same way as the older generation, “their parents”, even if children these days sometimes condemn their parents for complicity and ‘shameful disposals’ in the communist times. Such narrative recurrences appear frequently in the oral interviews with individuals who are part of the young cohorts, despite the persistence of transgenerational assistentialistic and fatalistic attitudes (Gavreliuc, 2011).

THE CHILDREN OF DECREE (“DECREȚEII”)

The middle generation (G35), often labelled as the generation of ‘decretei’ (‘decree’), is a distinct social stratum, one that may have internalized a dramatic social destiny: the generation who decisively contributed to the breakdown of the communist regime in Romania.

When drawing the portrait of this particular generation, its instability, ambivalence and vulnerability are evidently sustained (the most pronounced conservatism, favouring the most intense hierarchy, lower average scores for egalitarianism, but especially the most modest average scores for intellectual and affective autonomy across the three cohorts, suggesting internalization of generational insecurity). The results also indicate an achievement in terms of socio-historical traumas, with deep implications in people's identity profile, this vulnerability being reported in other similar studies regarding the ‘legacy of trauma’ (de Mendelssohn, 2008; Kellermann, 2001).

CONCLUSIONS Most frequently, in the qualitative researches realized on “decretei”

samples, their “major problem” has emerged : burden (sometime realized at the maturity period of their biography), through a hurtful anamnesis of an original rejection: Recurrent discourse in the identitary narratives:

“My parents didn’t desire me. Even if they have never told me that, and they have offered me all their love afterwards. I was so hurt. And all my later life has gone with my unending attempt to convince them that their sacrifice was worth it. It’s clear to me now that I didn’t always achieve that. And I’ll never know if it was good that I was born. I’m often followed by that crazy thought: if Ceausescu’s delirium had never existed, I would have never been born. Me and a lot of my peers from my generation are forming an phantomatic people, which does not find our place. And our great problem is that we were condemned to life. A life in which our world wasn't prepared to receive us. We got by as we could. But what will come of this country when it would be in our hands? We are just trying to regroup somewhere. I’m so scared that I’m going to crash again. And like me, my people would return to the darkness.” (M.P, 37 years old)

PHANTASMATIC GENERATION

Imperative of every authentic psychotherapy = the need for any liberating social pedagogy:

To overcome a trauma, we have to assume it, then integrate it. It is just in this way we can cut out the symptoms of social autism that have been disseminated in our society for more than half a century.

CONCEPTUALIZATION OF SOCIAL AUTISM AS A

PSYCHO-SOCIAL DEGENERATIVE SYNDROME

Conducted in western Romania (Timisoara), but also in Bucharest, the studies have attempted to operationalize various species of pro-social behaviour (Levine, Norenzayan, & Philbrick, 2001) in order to assess interpersonal trust-building mechanisms in everyday contexts.

The explicit behavioural scenarios – which entail a non-ambiguous response, directly activated, as a result of a conscious deliberation of the engaged subject, but also certain implicit scenarios, in which the subject’s conduct could have suggested, intercessed by behaviour, the subject’s genuine option (Gavreliuc, 2011a, 2012b).

Behavioural scenarios and “how we know to be

together” – explicit scenarios (1) “the quick-hand passerby” - The behaviour of “the other” (the naive)

was monitored only if the person asked for help was located on an approximately 10 m radium, within approximately 5 seconds as of the “loss”. Otherwise, the bill would be lifted up and returned to the “old accomplice” by another student accomplice. However, in order to avoid the “contamination” of the public scene, the scenario could not be reproduced in the same location, but within a radius of about 200 meters from the first “accident”, with the area gradually widening, and also not earlier than 10 minutes of the first “incident”, or more than 5 times consecutively in the same “session”. In this scenario, the call for help was obvious, explicit. To undertake the task, the accomplice randomly lost different bills (1, 10, 50, 100, 500 RON).

“THE QUICK-HAND PASSERBY” (S1)

Table. 1. Explicit behavioural scenario – “quick hand passerby”

IV (amount “lost” by an accomplice)

No. of naive subjects faced with the task

N

DV (rate of impropriety)

NI

DV (rate of impropriety)

(%)

No. of subjects to “flee from the scene” with the “unexpected earnings”

n

No. of subjects to “flee from the scene” with the “unexpected earnings” (%)

Explanations volume

(words) average

500 RON

51 26 51.0 % 4 7.8 % 33.3

100 RON

56 23 41.1 % 2 3.6 % 22.7

50 RON

54 20 37.0 % 0 0 % 15.5

10 RON

60 20 33.3 % 1 1.7 % 17.4

1 RON 53 14 26.4 % 0 0 % 19.5 TOTAL 274 103 37.6 % 7 2.6 % 21.35

Obs. 4.4 RON = approximately 1 € IV = independent variable, DV = dependent variable

S1-NARRATIVES Absurd explanations abounded with that contradictory behaviour of real

engagement, such as “I was just waiting for you to look back, so I can return the money” (male, approximately 35 years old), or “I knew it’s only a worthless piece of paper, and I wanted to see how well it was copied” (male, 50 years old).

There was almost no trace of shame or guilt: the overwhelming majority described their gesture with cold implacability: “However, if I were the one losing it, the people around me would have done exactly what I did just now” (male, approximately 40 years old).

One subject ”concluded” by revealing that: “If something is given to me, I must grab it right away, because I always lose something, and I don't receive anything” (female, approximately 45 years old).

Snatching “the note” would symbolically convert the strategy of a person who, in a normal world, unremittingly gathers resources, through work, in a loyal completion climate, into a “winning” gesture. If “the note” was more or less “valuable”, then in almost half of the cases, normal people stole it, without feeling any responsibility for their duplicitary behaviour, and this in a city declared to be a model of autochthonous “civism”, and the only thing that mattered was “to cease the moment, because you don’t know what tomorrow brings” <male, approximately 35 years old>.

“THE LUCKY DRIVER” – S2

S2 = has investigated the manner in which drivers who find themselves in a “difficult” situation, forced to take a main road from a secondary one, received the “kindness” of the “lucky ones” who had privileged access, being on the priority road. Although the intersections were similar (in terms of symbolic location in the city, and traffic volume), and the comparison was conducted during the same period of time of the day, the behaviours engaged by those followed by the young psycho-sociologists were very different in the two cities.

Thus, in one case out of twenty in Bucharest (5.07%) and in one case out of six in Timisoara (15.75%), the driver in need is given permission to enter the main road

”THE COMMUNITARIAN SPIT” – S3

Such an indicator quantifies the frequency and expressivity of the gesture in question, carried out in a space shared with peers (such as those we meet while waiting for the tram or bus).

Carried out always during the same time interval and in the same type of areas in terms of “distance from the centre”, the indicator in question measured how many travellers pass through the stop and how many of them spit “without caring” about the others, within a time span of 30 minutes. It is interesting to notice not so much the percentage of those displaying such a disagreeable behaviour, but the manner in which they do it.

”THE COMMUNITARIAN SPIT” – S3

Using a sui-generis observation grid, the operators therefore recorded, “if the citizen spits”, but, especially, “how the citizen spits”.

Moreover, in each of these interaction contexts, the operators would help put together ad-hoc “expert groups” of 2-3 passers by‑ , potential customers of the common means of transportation, who, following a short training conducted by psychosociologists and after assimilating the typology based on behavioural descriptors, agreed to enter this “experimental game”, and they had to spontaneously assess the conduct of “the spitters” at the stop.

TYPOLOGY OF SPITTERS: A COMBINATION OF

MANIFESTED AGGRESSION, EXPLICIT (+) VS. IMPLICIT AGGRESSION, HIDDEN (-) WITH /// FOCUS ON “THE OTHER” IN THE RELATIONAL OPENING (+) VS. SELF-CENTEREDNESS (-),

Table. 3. Default behaviour scenario – “the communitarian spit.”

Typology

Typology Relational aggressiveness

explicit (+) / implicit (-)

Focus on “other” (+) /

self (-)

N

Share Sampl

e

“Uncivil” + + 215 22 % “Passive-aggressive”

+ - 440 45 %

“The intellectual” - + 205 21 % “The shameful one”

- - 127 12 %

TOTAL 978 100%

NARRATIVES – “PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE” (45%)

…who <“spits mechanically, by routine, without even noticing it”>, which is also the most frequent (45% of the spitters). This public behaviour prevails in all the areas of the city, illustrating <a civically idiot, ethically slow and intellectually faded >. <Such a person will never greet you (unless they have a very specific interest to do it)>, <will not give you a hand when you suddenly and urgently need help>, <will not tell you a good word if they feel you are down>. Such a conduct suggests that their implicit retractility <is not the expression of a credo of contempt for their neighbour, because such a character is incapable of having credos>-, but, it’s simply that the unknown passer-by who involuntarily joins them in the public space is not part of their cognitive software, of their relational “flow chart”, <populated by only one character that matters, themselves> (which is why they are self-centered as well).

NARRATIVES - EXPLICIT-AGGRESSIVE (22%)

…who would even <“spit you between the eyes”>, accompanied by abundant and threatening gestures. <You will certainly recognize them among those who “easily push you in the tram”>, <who “listen loudly to manele” until the windows of your apartment tremble>, <who hustle your soul when they swear on holy things in front of your children> or who states, being “qualified” in such matters, after <a meaningful whistle>, <“yo, your wife’s hot!”>

NARRATIVES – “THE SPITTER WITH PRINCIPLES” (21%)

<He spits curtly and aimed>, <for frustration>, <discontent that he has been “cheated” once more>, <that he is a victim of a “conspiration” (of his boss, wife, mother-in-law, masons, Hungarians or all together)>. Since his < “truths” are “threshed around”>, <he can only huffily display his victimization>. Therefore, such a subject is always centred on “the other” and on <“the lesson” he has to give to the “people”> <from their high> symbolic position.

NARRATIVES – “SHY, REMORSEFUL SPITTER” (12%) …who is also embarrassed by the clumsy gesture. Therefore, he can be easily

recognized through his tendency <to first look around, “to make sure”> and, only then, <furtively “go ahead”>. The symbolistic of such behaviour suggests that the subject in question <almost always strikes out, so he is only left, in fact, with sptting on himself>. Therefore, he is also <the one who most focuses on executing the difficult task >, which is why he sometimes even misses the bus (those who monitored the behaviour of the subjects engaged in the scenario have noticed 3 such cases). Among these human types wandering in the crowd, an implicit norm shapes the suite of symbolic expectorations: <life passess us by, we’re all alone, and “everything turns out the way they want anyway”>.

As a matter of fact, an approximately 40 years old man, witnessing the experimental scenario, member in one of the “expert groups” formed to this aim, has very concisely summed up our de facto doomed “natural” state: <“In the end, we spit to forget. To forget something even more shameful: that “they” [those who take care of our life, do not spit, but downright piss on “us”>.

Social autism as a psychosocial degenerative

syndrome theoretical perspective = resembling the social constructivism (Gergen,

1973, 2001; Glasersfeld, 1995; Nystrand, 1996; Grant, 2000, 2007; Kukla, 2000; Poerksen, 2004; Schmidt, 2007) and narrative psychology (Berger & Luckman, 1963; Bruner, 1986, 1987; Gergen, 1989, Gergen & Gergen, 1983; 1986; Crossley, 2000).

underlines the dialogical role of the identitary construction in social networks, where significance is constructed as the interaction with “the other”¸ through a common, contextual negotiation of meaning. The virulence and expressivity of the ad-hoc narrative descriptions evoke the need for purpose and conversational identitary clarification which can be deeper and more authentically clarified by the interpersonal game between the specialized researcher, the naïve researcher and the subject than by standard investigation, with quantitative methodologies.

SOCIAL AUTISM The people sharing a community space and a network of interactions in a

biographical and historical context which generally encourages disengagement, retractility, lack of holding responsible, briefly, it encourages aloneness next to “the other” (alterity is regarded either as a singular actor, or as a group of affiliation, institution or imaginary scenario);

it describes a kind of group process which is not ascribed to an individual life strategy. We are dealing with the collective assumption of helplessness, fatalism, implacability of failure, which enhances an unbalanced behaviour, apparently inexplicable, typical for the clinical autist (= described in individual pathologies as a character on the scene of their own existence which activates repetitive monomaniac actions, maintaining a precarious quality of his relations with his neighbours, proving at the same time incapable of sharing common interests with his life companions (Silverman, 2008; Levy, Mandell, & Schultz, 2009).

SOCIAL AUTISM Therefore, his behavioural register is profoundly defective, his public actions are

disarticulated, in spite of a rich inner life, which he cannot share with his role partner. And, as argumented by clinical studies conducted on singular persons, the causes of autism are predominantly genetical (Abrahams, Geschwind, 2008), only that, in social autism, they come from a “social biology”, through a transgenerational “inheritance” of a set of fundamental attitudes and personality value orientations, tacitly assumed by the “tissue of society” which includes the “sick” person (in our case, as we could notice, the symptomatology includes defective interpersonal and institutional trust, autarchic individualism, assistential values, conservatorism, fatalism and disengagement). Therefore, it is not an individual disease, but it rather results from internalizing a set of inhibiting behavioural prescriptions for the initiatives that exhorts us to assume active and responsible roles on the social scene, and which, if followed, are not symbolically reinforced, but, on the contrary, depreciated.

ANOTHER TOPICS FOLLOWED

A cross-cultural perspective on the relationship between optimistic attributional style and parental behaviour in the educational field

Identity motives in a cultural context – the distinctiveness motives

Cross-cultural research of “Time perspective” construct