VERONICA VYUSHINANADEZHDA LEBEDEVAALEXANDER TATARKO

Relationship between Values and Models of

Socio-Economic Behavior

STATE UNIVERSITY – HIGHER SCHOOL OF

ECONOMICS MOSCOW, RUSSIA

September 1st

Rationality, Behavior, Experiment 2010Moscow

Outline

Introduction Shwartz’s value priorities Social attitudes

Method Behavior scenarios method

Results DiscussionConclusion

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 socio-economic 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 selfConformity: Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or normsTradition: Respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture or religion provideBenevolence: Preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contactUniversalism: Understanding, appreciation, tolerance and protection for the welfare of all people and for natureSelf-Direction: Independent thought and action – choosing, creating, exploringStimulation: Excitement, novelty, and challenge in lifeHedonism: Pleasure or sensuous gratification for oneselfAchievement: Personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standardsPower: 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 data2. Schwartz’s Value Survey

57 nine-point scales ‘-1’ for values that contradict one’s life leading

principles ‘7’ for most important values

3. Behavior Scenarios Block

Behavior Scenarios Method: Development

1. Experts constructed 12 situations representing corrupt practices and hierarchy-related behavior typical for Russia’s socioeconomic context.

2. 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).

3. 4 scenarios proved to have the highest diagnostic ability: ‘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;

4. 3 five-point scales for each of the scenarios to rate: 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

Pairwise scales comparisona

Scale М Мed

Scenario 1. Leaving one’s subordinate with no bonuses.

Willingness > Positivity* Positivity 1,81 2

Typicality > Positivity Willingness 2,2 2

Typicality > Willingness Typicality 3,57 4

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 2aAll 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 non-hierarchical behavior.