Advertisement

Exploring Ethnic Group and Geographic Differences in Social Axioms in the USA

Chapter
Part of the International and Cultural Psychology book series (ICUP)

This study investigates the dimensionality of a recently developed measure of social beliefs—the Social Axioms Survey (SAS) for American respondents. Ethnic group and geographical differences in the endorsement of social beliefs were also assessed with the SAS with samples of college and noncollege students in eight locations in the USA (N = 2,164). Results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported the five-factor structure found previously in international samples (Leung & Bond, 2004). Differences among ethnic groups showed that African Americans scored higher on the belief dimension of religiosity than did Asian or Caucasian Americans. Asian Americans were more inclined toward socially cynical beliefs than were other ethnic groups and believed more in fate control than did Caucasian or Hispanic Americans. Differences in social beliefs across locations were limited to religiosity beliefs when only Caucasian American respondents were considered. Implications for comparisons of samples from the USA with other countries are discussed.

A persistent problem in cross-cultural research has been finding ways to describe cultures in ways that allow for comparison among them. The most common cultural comparison uses the individualism—collectivism dimension (IC) (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1995) and self-construal as the individual-level or psychological indicator (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Singelis, 1994). Among all the dimensions available, none has generated the research that has accrued to the IC dimension (see Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002 for a review and critique). In an effort to add to the cultural dimensions available to scholars wishing to compare and understand cultures, an SAS was recently developed (Leung et al., 2002). The dimensions identified in the survey are based on beliefs rather than values or self-construals.

The results of this initial study suggested that five social axioms factors may be universal: Fate Control, Reward for Application, Cynicism, Religiosity, and Social Complexity. The pan-cultural dimensionality was confirmed in a larger, subsequent study (Leung & Bond, 2004). The purpose of the current study was to explore ethnic group and geographical variations in social beliefs with the SAS in a population from the USA. In addition, we sought to assess the dimensionality of the SAS in this population with a large enough sample to ensure the stability of the factor structure obtained.

Keywords

Ethnic Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis Cultural Dimension Geographic Difference Social Complexity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baldwin, J & Hopkins, R. (1990). African American and European-American cultural differences as assessed by the worldviews paradigm: An empirical analysis. Western Journal of Black Studies, 14, 38–52.Google Scholar
  2. Bentler, P. M. (1985–1995). EQS. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.Google Scholar
  3. Bond, M. H., Leung, K., Au. A., Tong, K. K., & Chemonges-Nielson, Z. (2004). Combining social axioms with values in predicting social behaviors. European Journal of Personality, 18, 177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boykin, A. W. (1983). The academic performance of Afro-American children. In J. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  5. Brody, G., & Shaffer, D. (1982). Contributions of parents and peers to children's moral socialization. Developmental Review, 2, 31–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chinese Culture Connection (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 143–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Fraser, C., & Gaskell, G. 1990. The social psychological study of widespread beliefs. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  9. Furnham, A. (1988). Lay theories. London: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  10. Grantham, D. (1994). The South in modern America. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  11. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jones, J. M. (1988). Racism in black and white. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism (pp. 117–135). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  14. Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (2004). Social axioms: A model of social beliefs in multi-cultura lperspective. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  15. Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (2008). Psycho-logic and eco-logic: Insights from social axiom dimensions. In F. van de Vijver, D. van Hemert, & Y. H. Poortinga (Eds.), Individuals and cultures in multilevel analysis (pp. 197–219). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Leung, K., Bond, M. H., Reimel de Carrasquel, S., Muñoz, C., Hernñndez, M., Murakami, F., Yamaguchi, S., Bierbrauer, G., & Singelis, T. (2002). Social axioms: The search for universal dimensions of general beliefs about how the world functions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 286–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Majors, R., & Mancini-Billson, J. (1993). Cool pose: The dilemmas of black manhood in America. New York: Touchstone Books.Google Scholar
  18. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reed, J. (1972). The enduring South: Subcultural persistence in mass society. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  21. Reed, J. (1983). Southerners: The social psychology of sectionalism. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  22. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). The universal content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 25, pp. 1–65). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  23. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New dimensions of values. In Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S. C., & Yoon, G. (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Singelis, T. M., & Brown, W. J. (1995). Culture, self, and collectivist communication: Linking culture to individual behavior. Human Communication Research, 21, 354–389.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Singelis, T. M., Hubbard, C., Her, P., & An, S. (2003). Convergent validation of the Social Axioms Survey. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 269–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H.C. Bhawuk, D., & Gelfand, M. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 240–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Slote, W., & De Vos, G. (Eds.) (1998). Confucianism and the family. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  29. Spector, P. E. (1982). Behavior in organizations as a function of employee's locus of control. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 482–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  31. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  32. Vandello, J., & Cohen, D. (1999). Patterns of individualism and collectivism across the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 279–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wrightsman, L. S. (1992). Assumptions about human nature. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyCalifornia State UniversityChico
  2. 2.University of Hawai'iHonoluluUSA
  3. 3.Florida Institute of TechnologyMelbourneUSA
  4. 4.University of MarylandBaltimoreUSA
  5. 5.University of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  6. 6.Virginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  7. 7.Kwansei Gakuin UniversityNishinomiya-CityJapan
  8. 8.University of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations