A Comparative Analysis of Subjective Culture

7/23/2019 A Comparative Analysis of Subjective Culture

1/72

Q

R O U P

FFECTIVENESS

E S E R C H

O R T O R Y

E P R T M E N T FSYCHD IDGY

^*NIVERS ITY FLL INO I S

^

RBANA ,

I LL INOI S

A

Ctmparfative

Analyis

of

SubjectiveCulture

HarryC.Triandis

nd

asso

V.ssiliou

University

of

Illinois

thenian

Instituteof

Anthropos

Technical

ReportNo.

5(67-11)

-pj

October,1967

JAN22 9W

Communication,Cooperation

andNegotiation\\

inCulturallyHeterogeneous

Groups

Project

Supported

by

the

Advanced

Research

Projects

Agency,

ARPA

OrderNo.

454

Under

Office

ofNavalResearchContract

HR

177-472,Nonr1834(36)

Fred

E.

FiedlerandHarry

C.

Triandis

Prlncip?'.

Investigatois

DISTRIBUTIONOFTHIS

DOCUMENTIS

UNLIMITED

f i

ftepfcducedbyhe

LE RINGHOUSE

fo rFderalcienfific

t chn ica i

k i io rmal tonSpringfie ld

V a

21tt


2/72

Table

f

Contents

Page

Introduction

Stereotypes

f

Americansnd

Greeks

Geography

ndHistory

Groe National

Character

The

mportance

f

he

Ir.group

TheGreek

Self-Concept 4

Relaons

WithOthers

9

KinrMp 9

Authority

Figures 0

Prejudices

.....

4

Differences

of

the

Perception

of

Social

Behavior

5

GreekWorkHabits 8

Attitudo..Toward

SignificantAspectsof

the

Environment

9

HumanBody

0

LifeandHealth 0

Emotions 1

Religion

4

EthicalConcepts

4

Supernaturals

......

7

InstitutionsandSocialProcesses

.

7

Social

Attitudes 0

Valuesand Disvalues .....7

Freedom 7


3/72

Peace

Truth

Courage

andDefeat

Achlevesoent

Concepts

Death

Relations

With

Others

Summary

Discussion

References

Page

48

49

49

50

53

54

57

58

62


4/72

A

Comparative

Analysis

of

Subjective

Culture

HarryC.Triandls

nd

assoVaasillou

University

of

Illinois

thenian

Instituteof

Anthx-opos

ABSTRACT

Areview

of

the

resultsobtainedwhenavarietyofne wtechniquesfor

v h eanalysis

of

the

wayaperson

perceives

hi ssocialenvironmentisapplied

to

the

comparison

of

two

cultural

groups,

reveals

sone

basic

similarities

inthe

obtained

results.hevarious

methods

give

complementary

information.

Thedatawere

obtained

from

studiesof"thesubjectiveculture"of

AmericansandGreeks.omparableinstruments

were

administeredtothetwo

culturalgroupsandthe

results

are

presented

in

termsof

the

differences

betweenAmericanand

Greek perceptions

of

social

reality.

he

analysis

of

subjective

culture

islikely

to

help

in

theunderstandingo ftranscultural

conflict,aswellasinthedevelopment

of

theory

concerninginterpersonal

attitudes,interpersonalbehavior,

andconflictresolution.


5/72

A

ComparatlvAnalysis

of

Subjective

Culture

Harry C.Triandis

nd

assoVasslliou

University

of

Illinois

Athenian

Institute

ofAnthropos

There

is

ample

evidencethat

a

person's

knowledgeofhisenvironment

isstronglyinfluencedby the

culture

in

which

he

hasbeenbrought

up.

y

culture*emeantheman-madepartof

the

human

environment.hicincludes

the

artifacts(e.g.,

themachines),

the

means

of

communication,

the

buildings,

thelaws,the myths,

theattitudes,

the

values,andtherules

ofsocial

behavior

as

wellasmany other

elements.

InthepastseveralyearsTriandisan dVasslliouhavebeen

analyzing

subjectiveculture, i.e.,the way

subjects

in

differentculturesperceive

and

conceive

significant

aspects

oftheir

environment,subject's

subjective

culture lu

conceived

to

be

his theory ofhowhisenvironmentisstructured.

It

includes

his

perception

ofothers,hi s

prejudices,

attitudes,values,and

dlsvalues.number

of

newtechniqueshavebeen

developedtoanalyze

subjective

culture.hese

Includetheantecedent-consequentmeaning

method

2

(Triandis,Davis,

Kilty,

Shatmugam,Tanaka,and

Vasslliou),hebehavioral

differential

(Triandis,

1964b),

the

role

differential

(Triandis,

Vassilluu,

and

Nassiakou,

1967a),

an d

a

newapproach tostudies

of

stereotypes

(Triandis,

1967a;

Triandis

and

Vasslliou,

1967),

number

of

theoretical

developments

concerned

with

cultural

influences

on

cognition

(Triandis,

1964a),

The

study was

supported

bythe

contract

to

study

Communication,

Cooperation,an d

Negotiation

in

CulturallyHeterogeneous

Groups

between

the

university

. f

Illinoisandthe AdvancedResearch

Projects

Agency,ARPAOrder

No.454,

under

theOffice

of

Naval

Researcl

ContractNR177-472,Nonr

1834(36).

(FredE.

Fiedler

andHarryC.

Triandis,PrincipalInvestigators.)

We

areindebted

to

F.

E.

Fiedlerand

David

Summers

for

helpfulcritical

comments

on an

earlier

version

of

the

paper.

Triandis,

H.C

Davis,

E.E .,

Kilty,

K. ,

Shanmugam,

A.

V. ,Tanaka,

Y.,

an dVasslliou,

Vasso

A

cross-culturalstudy

of

values:

he

use

of

the

antecedsnt-ct-nsequent

meaning

of

words

(in

preparation).


6/72

2 .

oninterpersonalattitudes

(Triandls,

1967b),,andon

the

perception

ot social

behavior

(Triandls,

Vassillou,and

Nasslakou,

1967b;Triandls,

Vasslliou,and

Nasslakou,

1968)havs

also

been

presented.

Inaddition,

wellestablished

techniques,

suchassurveyresearch with

representative

samples

of

the

Greek

population,

intensiveinterviewing,

Osgood'ssemanticdifferential(Osgood,Sucl,andTannenbaum,1957),and

Likert-typeattitudeitems

have

beenemployed

byVassillouandhercollabora-

torsinanalyses

of

the

subjective

culture ofGreek.

The

present

paper

reviewstheabove

studies.

It

is

an

attempt

to

illustratehowIntensive

analyses

of

the

responsesofsubjects

from

different

cultures

canbe

used

to

develop

an

image

of

the

similaritiesa i i d

differer

nes

in

subjective

culture

in

differentpopulations

of

subjects.

he

system

of

cognitions

of

subjects

constitutes

a

map

of

the

way

they

conceive

their

environment.

uch

maps

probablyconstitute

the

basesfordifferent

kinds

ofbehavior,by

subjects

from

different

cultures.

The

majority

ofthereadersofthepresentpaperwillbe

familiar

with

American cultureandwillhave

a subjective

culture

similar

tothatfound

inour

studies

to

be

typicalofAmericans.urfindingsaretherefore

presented

as

explanations

of

Greek

subjectiveculturefrom

an

American

point

of

view.

The

paper willillustrate

consistencies

in

the

responses

of

subjects

to

different

kinds

of

instruments.

heinstrumentsthemselveswillnotbe

described

in

detail,sincesuch

a

presentation

can

be

found

in

the

previously

mentioned

papers.

hus,

thepresentpaperwillbeconcernedwith

substantive

findingsrather

thanthe

methodology

whichledtothe

findJiocs

and

will

attempt


7/72

tosummarizethesesubstantive indinss

ratherthantogivethedetails

discovered

*ith

eachirstrument.

StereotypesasHypothesesofRational

Character

When

members

of

CultureAperceive

members

of

Culture

B,

they

make

judgmentsabout

the

probablecharacteristics

of

membersofCultureB. Sich

judgments

arerelated

to

the

difference

inthemeanvaluesof

the

correspondiug

traits

of

thet*o groups.

pecifically,

on

trait

X,

themean

value

of

this

trait

inCulture

Aisdesignated

by

X

inCulture

B

by 3^.

he

probability

thatmembersofCulture A%illmentiontraitX

when

theygive

their

stereotypesofmembersofCultureBisproportionaltoX X ^(Campbell,

1967),or

example,

if

members

ofCulture Awash

their

handsthree

times

perhourandtheseofCultureB

wash

only

onceperhour,thereisa

high

probability

that

members

of

Culture

A

will

all

members

of

Culture

B

"filthy."

n

fact,

intermsof

the

total

distribution

around

theworldof

thecharacteristic

"filthy"

bothcultures

are

excessively

clean.

Ourviewis

thatwe

can employthestereotypes

of

differentculture

groupsasestimatesoftheprobabledifferences

in

the

mean

values

of

their

traits.

We

can

then

ask

if

the

traitdifferencesare

consistentwithhistorical

and

ecologicalanalysesoftheexperiencesof

subjects

indifferent

cultures.

Followingthis

line

of

thought

we

willfirst

discuss

the

stereotypes

of

Amoricars

andGreeksof

each

other

andwill

thenpresent

a

historical

ecological

analysis.hepointhere

is

thatwhenapersonisstereotypir.ga

group

heisno t

only

responding

to

characteristics

of

the

groupbeing

stereotyped,but

is

also

revealing

the

wa y

he

perceives

himself. Itis

the


8/72


9/72

5 .

verylittle

contact;

Group

2

had

some

contact;Group

n 3

had

considerable

contact

nndGroup #4had

dailycon^ .heperceptionsof

Greeksbythose

four

groups

of

Americans

were

analyzed.

It

was

foundthat

thegreater

the

reportedcontactthemorethe

Americans

consideredthe

Greeksas

emotionally

uncontrolled

,

c

ompetitive

,

suspicious ,

egotistic

,

unsystematic,

inexactia

following

procedures,

undecisive

,

sJLy.and

rigid

.

owever,

thegreaterthe

contactthemoretheyalsosawthem

as

morewitty

,

hnnest.and

obligi

ng.

Americans

seethemselvesas

less

sly

and

more

rational

,

trusting,

modest,

flexible,

ematlonally

controlled,

decisive

,systematic ,exactinfollowing

procedures

.

honest

,

and

unselfish

t h a t ,

theGreeks.

Asacontrast,inastudy

of

eighthundredGreeks,from

arepresentative

sampleof

tho

population

of

Athensand

Salonica,

the

Greekswere

found

to

see

the

Americans

c

t

uitedifferently

fromthe

wa y

the

Americans

sawthemselves

They

saw

the

Americansasarrogant,suspicious

,

sly,a

nd

competitivealthough

also

syatemptic

,

emotionallycontrolled

,and

flexible .heGreeks

inthis

sampleperceivedthemselvesasmodert,honest,

witty

,flexible ,

obliging

and

emotionallycontrolled

buttheyalsosaw

themselvesassuspicious,

competItive,

andgo-getting

.

Whensuchdiscrepanciesinthe

perception

ofsocialgroupsareobserved

it

is

likely

that


10/72

Cur

evidence

sugp^sws

that

there

is

a

kernel

of

truth

in

the

stereotypes

underdiscussion.

ouever,

is*ell

to

reniember

thatthereare inefficient,

competitive, and

uspicious Americans.

urthermore,theGreeksare

eware

that

they

themselves

have

such

traits.

Inany

event

theGreek

traits

under

discussionareconsistentwith

analyses

of

the

ecologyand

history

of

that

country,

as

the

following

argument

will

indicate.urthermore,

after

describingtheecologywe

will

discuss

some

characteristic

patterns

of

thought

concerning

interpersonal

relations

which

constitutethebasesfor

understanding

Greeksubjectiveculture.

GeographyandHistory

Greeceis

a

predominantly mountainouscountry

(80%),

cut

upbythesea,

consisting

ofalarge

peninsula

ard

hundreds

of

scattered

islands.aobasic

geographic

characteristics,

the

mountains

and

the

sea,

have

brought

about

a

considerableIsolation of

manysegmentsofthepopulation.

saresult,

the

social

environment

of

theaverage

Greek

is

limited

and

he

is

most

powerfully

identified

withhisisland,

hisvalley,orhis

small

town.

reece

is

also

low

on

natural

resources.

our-fifths

of

the

countryis

so

mountainousthat

cultivation

is

extremelydifficult.

In

addition

the

ancient

Greeks

undertookaprogram

of

deforestation

which

depletedand

eroded

the

surface

ofa

largepartofthecountry.

he y

were

very

proud

oftheir

destruction

of

the

forests,andPlatoboasted

that

a

largeareaaround

Athenswas

civilized

becauseitnolonger

wa s

wooded.

oday,

it

is

hard

toraisecrops

except

intwo

or

threefertile

valleys,

such

as

Thessaly.

Whilethe

country

lacks

resources

it

has

simultaneouslyexperienced

considerable

pressures

from

an

expandingpopulation.

he

extensiveussof


11/72

7 .

the

s i e u

(fishing,

merchantmarine)

plus

the

emigration

of

alarge

numbei

of Greeks,however,hasprevented

the

standardoflivingfromfalling.ajor

influer^cs

on

modern

Greek

culture

havecomefrom

Byzantium

an dthehree-

hundred-and-fifty^yeax^-long

Turkishoccupation.heByzantines

had

several

Christian

andnationalisticconcepts*hjcn

are

still

foundin

Modern

Greece.

Atthesametimethereareunmistakableremnantsof

Turkish

influencei ? . i

the

popular

music,

the

food,

and

in

certain social

customs.

Withregardto

culture

modern

Greecethereforebelongsto

theMiddle

East

as e l l

asto

Europe.

mongthemostsignificanthistoricalevents%hich

have

protably

been

influential

inmolding

the Greek

nat-'onal

character

is

thefallof

Constantinoplein1453,

which

placed

the

Balkansunderthe

domination

of

the

Turkish

Empire.

heTurksusedthe

G.eekIntellectualsas

their ci^rks.

his

had

thp

effect

of

preserving

someofthevalues

of

Byzantine

culture.

naddition,

the

Greek OrthodoxChurchfacilitated

the

continued

study

ofthe

Greek

language,

and

local

priestsranclandestine

schoolswhere

someofthe

Greek

valuesandtraditions

were

taught.

Duringthe

three

hundred

and

fifty

years

following

the

fall

of

Constantinople,therelationsaipbetween

Greeks

andTurkswas

hostile.

ae

mountainous

environment

allowed autonomousGreekfightingunits

to

operate;

the&o

never

submitted

to

the

Turkish

occupation.

he

Turks

retaliated

against

their

attacks

byexecutingthevillageleaders.

he

threat

ofsuch executiorsconstantly

kept

the

best

of

the

Greeksinthe

mountainsandawayfromthevillages,so

that

the

codern

Greek

view

of

the

i c f . a 3man

is

stro

^lyinfluenced

by

th image

of

the

guerrilla.

Theaboveincomplete

and

sKctcbyanalysisof

earlymod-^n

Greek

ecology

leadsto

the

speculation

thatthisperiodis

characterized

by

child-rearing


12/72

8 .

practices

which

reflect

the

fact

that

wosuen

were

the

only

significant

adults

physically

present

in

thehome.he

father

w aspsych"logically

prrsent,but

themother

wa s

thechief

agent

who

perpetuated

the

values

ofthe

culture.

Themother's

taskwa s

ex tremelydifficult.

n

the

one

handohe

ha d

to

preventassimilation

of

he r

children

into

Turkishculture,and

onthe

other,

she

ha d

to

build

up

the

child

afterthe

image

ofahero.

ucha

difficult

task demandedstrongmaternalcontrolwhichin

turnfosteredgreat

dependency

of

the

child.

Moreover,the Turkish

practice

ofkidnapping

male

chil-enfurther

contributed

tothe

development

of

the

overprotectivenesp

by

Gi^ek

mothers.

Asearly

RS

1330the

Turks

undertook

aprogramo f

recruitinr

an

independent

military

force

by

abducting

seven-tj

eleven-year-old

maleChristian

children

and

placing

them

in

specially

formed

schools

for

soldier^,

theso-called

Janissari3s.

etween

133C

and

1826,

when the

Janlssaiiesweredisbanded,

thethreat

of

Turkic:

abductionofthemale

child

wasrealandrelevant.

This

threatprobably

ha d

a

significant

impact

on

Greek

child-rearing

practices,

whichhave

inturn

determined

certainaspects

of

modern

Greek

nationalcharacter.

An

organized

Revolution

beganagainst

the

Tmksin1821. It

le dto

a

series

of

wars

which

continued

Intermittently

for

the

next

one

hundred

years.

Duringthis

period

the

mod ern

Greek

statewas

formed

by

importing

political

institutions(e.g.,governmentministries,parliaments)from WesternEurope.

ThefirstGreekkingwa sBavarianand

the

second,

a

Danish

prince,

wasthe

founder

of

the

currentdynasty.

ModernGreece(1821-present)

ha s

beencharacterizedbypolitical

instability.everalrevolutionsoccurredduringthisperiod.heSecond


13/72

9.

WorldWa rwa sespeciallydamagingand*o s

follo*ed

byseveralyearsof

conflict.

The

significance

of

these

events,from

apsychological

point

of

view,

isthatinthe

last

onehundredaudfiftyyearstheGreeks

have

ha dvery

littlecontrolovertheirpersonalliio.

Much

oftheirbehavior

ha sbeen

directed

towards

meeting

crisescreatedby war

or

revolution,andsurvivi.1

ha s

often

been

the

njajor

concern.

s

a

result

they have

developed

exceed-

ingly

effective

pi

ceduresfor

meeting

crises,

but

neglectedskillsfor

long-term

planning.

learly

one

cannot

planwhen

one

does

no tknowthe

outcomeofnext

mouth's

events.

In

summary,thisintroductionto

Greekgeographyandhistorysuggests

that

modern

Greek

culturewa sinfluenced

by

si x

important

factors;

(I)scarce

resources

aud

kceu

competitionforthem,(2)reaction

to

the

domination

by

an

autocratic

government,(3)dependence

on

the"malehero"for

survival

of

theculturalvalues,(4)

fear

oflossof

boys

by

abduction withtheresulting

overprotectlveness

ofmothers,

(5)theunadaptedimportation

offoreign

institutions,

and(6 )

lo w

control

over

the environment.

hesecharacter-

istics

provideanex planatory

base

for

our empiricalexploration

ofGreek

"subjectiveculture."

GreekNational

Character

The

Importance

of

the

Ingroup

Thesesi x

factors

have

probablyha d

important

influences

on

the

moldinj

of

Greeknational

character.

hecompetitionfor

scarce

resources

and

the

struggle

for

survivalcreated

an

extremelytightlyknitfamilyandan

"ingroup"

which

providesprotection,

social

insurance,and?w^rmand


14/72

10 .

relaxingenviron'Aent;

Inshort,

a

haven

irom

the

largerworld.hedomlnatinn

ofthe

Turks

forthree

hundredand

fiftyyears

le d

toadivisionbetween

established

authority

(theTurks)

andinformallyacceptedauthority.hus,

thebehaviortowardsa

person

in

authority

dependsonwhetherhe

is

perceived

as

beingamember

of

theIngroupor of

the

outgroup.

If

the

authority

figure

is

accepted,

thenheresponse

is

one

of

submissionand

self-sacrifice,

if

itis

rejected

(i.e.,belongs

toan outgroup)

the

response

isoneof

defiance,

resentment,and

undermining.' u s ,

a

regulation

imposedby

s

policeman

(memberoftheoutgroup)

may

be

violated

"just

for

f u n , 'if

the

3

probabilityof

punishment

for

breaking

thela w

isnot

too

great.

The

definitionof

the

"ingroup"

is

somewhatdifferent

for

Greeks

than

itis

for

Western

Europeans

or

Americans.

he

ingroup

may

be

defined

as

"my

family,

relatives,

friends,

andfriends

of

friends."

naddition,

guests

and

people who

are

perceived

as

"showing

concern

for

me"

are

seen

as

members

of

theingroup.ithin theingroup

the

appropriate

behaviors

are

charac-

terizedby

cooperation,

protection,

and

help.

ot

only

are

these

"warm"

behaviors

appropriate

but

theconceptof

thephilotimo

(whichwill

be

discussed

later)requires

thataperson

sacrifice

himself

in

ordertohelp

members

ofhi singroup.

3

One

aspect

of

the

ingroup

concept

which

is

of

particular

Interest

is

the

fact

that

different

ingroups

have

different

leaders.

threat

from

the

externalenvironment

(as

in

war with neighboringcountries)o f t enmakesthese

leaders

cooperate.n

the

otherhand,when

there

isno

outside

dangerthe

leaders

are

likely

to

pursueIndividualisticgoals,andtobehavecompeti-

tivelytowardseachother.

The

size

of

the

Ingroup

depends

on

the

typeof

thethreat.fa

meraber'slifeisthreatened

by

illness

the

immedldteingroup

will

be

mobilized.

If

thethreat

is

relevant

to

awidelyshared

characteristicsuch

as

nationality

or

religion,

then

the

ingroup

expands

to

includeall

members

having

this

characteristic.

hus,

effectivecooperationcharacterizes

Greek

behaviorduring

wars,

while

internal

competitivenessis

typical

during

peace

time.


15/72

. 1 1 .

The

functionalsignificanceofauch ties,

among

memberscf

the

ingroup,

is

clear.

Itis

easier

to

survive

in

a

highly

competitive

viorldasamember

of

a

group

ofpeople

ho

cooperateand

help

each

other.

In

contrasttothe

ingroap

the"outgroup"

consists

ofanyone

*h ois

no t

perceived

at

least

as

an

acquaintance

oraperson*h o tconcernedwith one'swelfare.cquain-

tancesaresomewhatambiguouslyclassified,morefrequentlyintheingroup

thanintheoutgroup.

The

relationship

1th

memberaof

the

outgroup

is

essentially

competitive.

TheGreeklanguage

ha s

atleastthreesynonymsequivalentto

the

word

competition.mllla

is

"benevolentcompetition"appropriatefor

the

ingroup.

Synagonismosis

equivalent

to

the

American

word.

ntagonismos

means"hostile

competition"

appropriate

for

members

ofthe

outgroup,in

which

success

requiresthe

other's

failure.

The existence

of

& : u c h

cleardistinctions

between

ingroupandoutgroup

makes

Greeksappear extremelyauspiciouswhenthey

first

meetastrange.'.

The newcomer

ha stobe

classified

and

until

this

happens

heremainsin

limbo .

If

he

isdassixied

inthe

outgroup

all

kinds

of

competition

andunfair

play

are

"par

for

thecourse."f

heis

classified

in

the

ingroupail

kindsofhelp

are

likely

tocomehi sway.o rexample,when onecalls

anotherGreeko n

the

phone

the

response

is

likelyto

bevery suspiciousand

uncooperative,

untilsomekindof

a

bond

can

beestablished.

he

bond

may

beamutual

friend,

or

the

same

village

orisland

origin.ncethe

bond

is

establisheditis

possible

to

have

a

cooperativerelationship,

but

if

the

bond

is

no t

establishedthe

relationship

remainsextremelyformal,

to

the

poiut

ofhostility.


16/72

12 .

Difterences

between

the

American

and

Greek

relationship

within

the

iiigrojp

are

substantial.

ne

wayof

describing

these

differences

is

to

discuss

the

percti-tions

ofappropriatebehaviorof

Greeksand

Americans

concerningcertain

roles.

riandis,Vassiliou,and

Nassiakou

(1968)have

shown

tnat

such

perceptions

ca n

be describedIn

terms

of

the

two

dimensions:

(1)

the

degree

of

affectandkind

ofeootion

that

is

porcclved

to

be

appropriate

(for

example,

the

intensity

of

love),

and

(2)

the

degree

of

intimacy

that

isappropriate,

he

basic

instrument

usedin

these

studiesis

theole

differential."It

utilizes

aformatexemplified

f a y

thefollowingitemsJ

fa

ther-son

would

no t uld

hi t

would

no t uld

obey

The

subjectsareaskedtoindicatewhetherintheirculture

it

is

appropriate

for

afatherto

hit,obey,

etc.hi sson. In

atypical

study

onehundred

rolessuch

as

father-son,son-father,etc.,

are

judged

against

a

se t

offifty

behaviordescriptive

scales

selectedthroughfacet

and

factor

analysis.

hs

factors

"associative

vs

dissociative"and

"intimate

vs

formal"

behaviors

are

bothculture

commonandcompletely

independent

of

each

other.

These

studies

hav^

shownsomeratherinteresting

results

whenwe

compared

the

wcyAmericansand

Greeksperceive

relationshipsbetween

people.

For

example,Americansand

Greeks

se e

the

relationship

between

parents

and

childrenandwivesandhusbandsas

involvingaboutthe

sameamount

of

t . j s i i . ' . v e

emotion;

but,

theyare

quitedifferent

inthe

degree

ofintimacy


17/72

13 .

thatthey

consider

appropriate.

mericans

considertheappropriate

intimacy

betweenhusbandsandwivestobe

greater

thantheappropriateintimacy

betweenparents

and

children.

he Greeks

reversethis

perception

so

that

theyse e

less

intimacybetween

husbands

and

wives

thanAmericansse e

between

parents

and

children.hus,the

centralroleinthe

American

family

is

husband-wife;

the

central

rolesinthe Greek

family

areparents-children

(Vasslllou,

1967).

Of

special

Importance

Is

the

mother-son

role.

In

Greece,

4

a

strong bondbetween mother

and

sonIs

considered

highly

commendable.

Turningno wtorelationshipswith

relatives,

friends,andacquaintances

we

findthat

the

Greeks

consideritappropriate

to

show

more

love

and

more

Intimacy

withrelativesor

friends

thando

Americans. Inthe

case

of

acquaintances

they

dono tdifferfrom

Americansonthe

amount

of

love

appropriate

but

they

differ

on

the

amount

of

intimacy:

ere

again

the

Greeks

se e

more

intimacy

as

appropriate

between

acquaintances.

These

resultsdonotsuggestthatGreekscomparedto

Americans

se e

more

intimacyas

appropriate

in

all

humanrelationships.

herearea

number

of

roles

Inwhich

thereverseisthe

case.

roadly

speaking,

roles

in

which

Greeks

perceiveconflict

are

seen

by

themasinvolving

less

Intimacy

than

i s

the

casein

America.orexample,theysee

lessIntimacy

in

the

roles

landlord-to-tenantandboss-to-subordlnate.

4

For

example,

In

an

openingspeach

to

theGreek

parliament,

a

newM.P.

began

hi s

remarks

while

lookingat

the

spectator's

gallery,

- - h e r ehi s

proud

mother

wa s

seated,

with

thewords:Mother,Your

Majesty

;

Distinguished

MembersofthisHouse,LadiesandGentlemen."hi swa smostfavorably

reportedint h -reekpress.


18/72

14 .

To

restate

an

important

point

that

must

always

be

kept

in

mind:

there

is

a

bi gdifference

in

theay

the

Greeks

behave

towards

their

ingroup

as

opposed

to

thewaythey

behave

towards

their

outgroup.

ithin

the

ingroup

they

cooperateandshow

great

intimacy.

ithinthe

outgroup

theycompete

and

behavevery

formally.

ossesbelongtothoutgroup,

unlessvhey

are

extremely

fatherly,warm,

and

helpful,inwhich

case

they

are

classified

as

membersof

the

ingroup.

uests

and

touristsarealso

likely

tobe

classified

as

members

ofthe

ingroup,providingthey

have

behavedin

a

warm

and

accepting

manner.

The

GreekSelf-Concept

Atanearlier

pointwe

referred

to

the

importanceof

the

guerrilla

in

the

formationoftheimageofthe Greek male,

to

the

lesserImportanceof

the

community

as

a

social

milieu

for

the

development

of

child-rearing

standards,

andwe

alsomentioned

thatthe

fear

ofhaving

the

boys

abducted

requiredGreek

mothers

to

become

unusuallycontrolling

and

o f t en

overpro-

tective.hi salsole d

to

tremendous

overevaluation of

boys.

r e ek

parents

oftenreportho wm a i i y childrentheyhave

simply

by

referring

to

the

number

oftheirboys I If

aGreeksays

"lhave

three

children

and

threegirls"

he

meansthathe

ha s

three

of

each.

The

need

forhighcontrol

of

the

child

resultsin

mothers

who

tend

to

(a )be

too

helpful

to

their

sons,taking

every

conceivable

opportunity

to

assist

and

protectthem, (b)confine

them

inanareain

which

they

can

always

se e

them,

and

(c)make

mostofthe

decisions

forboth

boysandgirls.

Example,mothersstudy

with

theirboys

whiletheydo

theirhomework

(help)and

check

the

boy's

memorization

of

thelesson(protectthem

from

criticism

of

teacher).


19/72

15 .

Even

eighteon-year

oldsar e

often

treated

like

small

children.

he

result

is

that

twelve-year

oldGreekchildren

seeachievement

relatedto

the

help

they

receivefrom

others.

The

abovepoint

was

confirmed

by

astudy

of

the

motivational

patterns

ofGreek

adolescents.assiliouand

Kataki

ave

askednormal

adolescents

to

makeup

stories

In

response

to

ambiguous

pictures.

henthese

stories

were

analyzed

the

investigators

found

a

considerable

emphasis

on

the

idea

that

cchievement

requires

both

one's

personal

effortandthehelpof

authority

figures.hey

perceive

ingroupauthority

figuresasmonitoring

their

efforts,

as

givinggood

adviceandassistance,as

restricting

themin

order

toprotect

them

from

others

as

well

as

from

themselves,andas

restricting

them

because

they

love

them.hese

adolescentsarealso

apprehensiveabout deviatingfromtheadvicethattheyreceive.

he y

are

especiallyapprehensive

about

the

futureandtheirefficiency

when

itcomes

to

self-initiated

action.

yage

eighteen

these

young

people

feel

grateful

for

the

helptheyhave

received,express

appreciationforthesacrificesof

authorityfigures,

and

f t

1

the

need

topay

thembackthroughtheirown

achievement.tthesametimethisiy

revealed

a

good

dealofconflict:

onthe

on ehand

theseyoungpeoplerecognizedthat

in

orderto

achieve

they

must

break

away

from

their

dependency

from

their

family,

on

the

other

hand

thisbreakingawaywass?enaspainfulto

the

authorityfigures

as

well

as

tothemselves.he

achievers

amongthemconsidered

breaking

away.he y

felt

thatif

they

didbreak awaytheywould

findsomeone

tohelpthemto

Vassiliou,

VassoandKataki,Harikilia,

Motivational

patternsof

Greek

adolescents.

. I n

preparation^


20/72

1 6 .

achieve,

orifthey

failed,

they

couldreturntotheirfu.iily,wherethey

would

alwaysbe

warmlyconsoled.

Thus,theself-conceptof

even

the

mosteffective,

achievingGreek

adolescents

ischaracterizedby

dependency

onothersandbyinsecurityabout

their

own

effectiveness.e

can

say

that

they

havealo w

self-esteem.

t

the

sametimethe

ideal

ofthe

hero,as

molded

by

theimage

of

the

guerrilla,

requires

achievement,

fame,

and

immortality.

urthermore,

the

social

status

ofthe

Greek

woman

is

very

low,

unlessand

until

she

Is

themother

ofan

achiever.

hus,there

aregreatpressureson motherstotrain

their

sons

to

be

"great

men."s

aresultmostGreekmothers

provide"unrealistic

propaganda"

to

theirsonsapropaganda

line

thatsays"youaregoing

to

be

great,

you

are

going

to

succeed,

no

one

is

as

good

as

you

are,"

reek

mothers

telltheirchildren

that

theyexpect

them tobecomeimportant,

and

that

they

are

unique.

hi s

leads

to

afacade

of

self-confidencewhich

is

further

exaggerated

by

insecurity

andlo w

self-esteem.

This

suggested

formulationallows

us

tounderstand

certain

characteristics

of

Greeknational

characterwhich

Americans

find

difficultto

workwith.

h?

lo wself-esteem

means

that

the

ego ofthe

Greek

isveryeasily hurt. (1)

Greeksareoversensitive

to

criticism;

i.e.,

theslightestcriticalremark

islikely

to

be

reacted

to

as

a

majorthreat,(2 )theytendtoblametheir

ownmistakes

onothers;

this

isbecauseapersonwhoisno t

secure

cannotblamehimself.

ntheotherhandthefacadeofhighself-confidence

can

be

seen

in

characteristicsthat

an

Americanwill

Interpret

asarrogance

,

dogmatism,

and

attempts

to

appear

all-knowing

andall-powerful.

Ina

studyby

Vasslllou

and

Osgood

(inpreparation),anumber

of

concepts

including

MYSELF,

were

rated

on

a

number

of

semantic

differential


21/72

17.

(Csgoo

et

l. ,

1957)

scales.

he

ratings

of

Americans

and

Greeks

ore

compared.

heconcept

myself *as

ratadasstrongerby

theAmericans+ h f i n

bythe

Greeks.n

theother

hand,

the

concept,

my

relatives wasseen

as

strongerbytheGreeksthanbytheAmericans

Inother

words

the

Greeks

attributelessstrength

to

themselvesand

more

strengthtotheirrelativesthan

is

the

case

forAmericans.

The

most

ImportantelementoftheGreek

self-conceptisthephilotimo .

When

a

representative

sample

of

Greeks

was

asked

to

describe

themselves

seventy-four

per

cent

used

thiswordto

describe

themselves.

he

onlyother

chararte*i3ticwhich

they

usedasfrequently

was

theword

diligent.he

meaning

of

philotimoisnotea&yto

define.

person

who

hasthischaracter-

istic

ispolite,virtuous,

reliable,

proud;has agoodsoul, behaves

correctly,

meetshisobligations,

doeshis

duty;

istruthful,generous,

self-sacrificing,

tactful,

respectful,

and

grateful

(/asslliouand

Vassiliou,1966).Thebestwaytosummarlre

what

is

meantbythisconcept

is

tosaythataperson

who

is philotimos behavestowardsmembersofhis

ingroup

the

way

they

expecthim

tobehave.

Asan example,some

Americanscomplained,ininterviewswith

Triandis,

thatthey

getlittle

cooperation

from

their

Greek

maidsand

other

servants.

On

the

other

hand

some

otherAmericans

were

enthusiastic

about

the

coopera-

tion,

honesty, and

devotion of

theirservants.

hat

seemedto

bethe

difference betweenthese

two

kindsof

Americans

was

whether

they

included

the

servants

intheir extended

family

orsimplytreatedthemasbelongingto

another

group.

hen

theservant

was

madepart

ofthe

family

thenthe

philotimoprinciplerequiredsacrificetohelp

thefamily.ndersuch


22/72

18.

conditions

stealingneveroccurred,

although

when

thefamily

was

in

he

servant's

"cutgroup"stealingwas

quite

likely.

A

truestoryfrom

the

experiences

of

anAmerican

archaeologist

will

furtherIllustratethispoint.

e

ha d

accepted

hisservant

and

she

felt

accepted.

uring

a

trip

hi s

boat

ran

aground

on

a

rock.hen

several

American

crews

vith

the

help

o f

heavy

equipment

failedto dislodge

it,

the

servant

onhe r

own

Initiative

mobiliwd

he r

infjroup,

consisting

of

brothers-

Hn-law,cousins,

etc.,

and

thesemen,

abandoned

their

norm;

pursuits

to

help

inthe

rescue

oftheboat,accomplishingthe

task

at

considerable

risk.

Another

way

to

explain

the

philotimo

is

to

think

oftheconceptof

fairness

,

as

usedby

Americans.

mericans

consideritimoortant

tobehave

fairly

towards

other

people.

ut ,note

that,

at

least

in

thecaseof

prejudiced

Americans,

"other

people"doesno t

Include

Negroes,Jews,etc.

In

fact,for

manyAmericansthe

ingroup

is"other

peoplelike

me"(White,

Protestant,

Anglo-Saxon,

Middle

Class,

^tc).

The

concept

of

falme&s

operatesveryintensivelywithinthisingroupand

rather

weakly

with

members

of

the

outgroup.

he

more

a

person

deviates

from

the

White,

Anglo-Saxon

Protestant

characteristicsthe

more

unlikely

it

is

that

theprinciple

of

fairness

will

operate.

With

the

Greeks

theprinciple

of

the

philotimoapplies

to

membersof

the

Ingroup.

ne

must

sacrifice

himself

tohelp

ingroup

members.ut ,

the

lesstheconcernshownby

aperson

the

less

likely

itis

that

the

Gre ek

willusethe

philotimo

principle

in

relating

to

him.

he

principle

of

fairness

and

the

principle

of

the

philotimo

are

equivalent,

although

differentin

the

twocultures.

airnessdoes

no t

requireself-sacrifice.


23/72

19.

ui

-armore,thetwoingroupsare

not

thesame:he

American

ingrcupIs

larg-

r i dless

salient

whiletheGreek

ingroupIs

small

(my

family,

friends,

andguests)and

moreimportant.hus,both

the

wayGreeksclassifyother

people

and

the

principles

thatguidetheiractions

arc

different

fromthe

way

Americansclassifyandbehave,butthe

equivalence

of

theprinciplesof

fairnessandphilotimomayleadtoanunderstanding

of

Greek

behavior.

RelationsWithOthers

Ktmhip

Therelationships

of Greeks

with

members

oftheir extendedfamilyae

muchcloserthanistypicalimongAmericans.

o

providean

intuitive

feeling

for

thisdifference

it

may

be

statedthatroughly

speaking

the

relationship

among

lirst

cousins

inGreece

is

approximately

as

close

as

the

relationships

amongbrothers

in

America.

ith

this

translation it

is

possible

to

look

at

the

total

pattern

of

familyrelationships

in

Greecewith

some

increased

understanding.heword

BROTHER

isseenbythe

Greeks

as

more good and

powerful

thanit

is

seen

byAmericans(Vassiliou

and

0^

1 ) .

here

isc . l s o muchmore

conflict

about

brothersin

Americathanin

Greeceshowing

that

Americans

disagree

in

their

perception

of

thisconcepttoa

larger

extent

than do

the

Greeks.

The

generaltrendin

the

resultsof

the

Triandls,

Vassiliou,and

Nassiakou

(1967)

studies

is

that

Greeks

showmore

positive

affect

(tolov to

help,

tostandup

for)

and

moreintimacy

to

pet,tocaress,tokiss)within

family

rolesthando Americans.heoneexceptioncanbefound

in

thebride-groom

andhusband-wiferelationships.his

is

the

onlyfamilyrelationshipwhere

the

Americans

arecloser

than

the

Greeks,

notso

much

because

Americansare

exceptionally

close

butbecause

Greeks

are

moredistant.

assiliou(1937)

*

In

preparation.


24/72

20.

hasfoundthata

successfulandhappy marriage

isseenby

Greeksasdependent

on

mutual

understanding,

agreement

of

character,

and

mutual

concessions

ratherthanonlove.ithinthis

type

ofmarriagethe

channeling

of

emotions

is

foundmoststronglyin

the

parent-child

relationshipespecially

inthe

mother-son

relationship.he

mother-sonrelationship

ischaracterized

by

extremeinterdependence.urthermore,the

whole

family,

exists

in

an

environment

whichis

difficult,and

makes

success

inthe

present

x e r y

difficult;t h u * ; ,

the

futurelatho

only

bright

spot

for

thefamily,

and

this

futurecanbebrightenedthroughtheachievementoftheson.

utachievement

demands

independence,

thus

there

isaconflict

between

dejondenceand

achievement.

heconflict

can

beresolvedbyunderemphaaizing

oneor

the

other.orthehealthy

majority

whoeventuallyachievesthoreisusually

someevidenceofa

rational

breakindependencethat

has

originatedwith

the

parent,thechild,

orboth(Vassiliou

and

Kataki),

(SeeFootnote

6. )

Authority

F

igures

The

relationshipofGreekswithauthorityfigures

depends

on

whether

the

authority

fig.ire

isseenas

belonging

to

the

ingroup

or

the

outgroup.

In

the

ingroupitisseenasconcernedandasbenevolent.n

the

outgroup

it

is

seen

as

competitive.

Ifit

is

seen

as

benevolent

the

responsesof

subordinates

are

characterizedby

submissiveacceptance

and

warmth. Ifit

i s

seen

as

competitive

the

responses

of

subordinates

are

avoidance

and

hostility.hetypicalresponseofGreekstoauthorityfigurescanbe

characterized

as

authoritarian

-bmission

(and

warm

acceptance)withinthe

ingroup

and

non-acceptanceanddefianceofai.thorityin heoutgroup. If

an

outgroup

memberhas

littlepower,thetypical

Greekresponse

will

be

one

of

indifference.

hegreater

the

power

of

the

outgroup

authority,the

greater s theperceived

threat.


25/72

21.

Thatmeans

if

somebodyhas

powerthis

automaticallymakes

him

a

competitor.orthis

reason

groups

ofGreeks

find

itdifficultto

cooperate

amongthemselves

andgroupleaderswouldratherhavestagnation

or

even

deteriorationofthe

existingsituation

than

see

their

competltois

acquire

morepower.

It

furthermeans

that

thesympathies

oftheGreeks

arewiththe

underdoginanykind

of

intergroup

struggle.hus,

as

long

as

a

particular

group

i t

out

ofpower

it

tends

tobecomemorepopular

but

as

soon

as

it

gets

Into

power

it

tends

tol~se

popularity.

uchfluctuations

of

popular

support

affectftrnggles

between

all

kinds

of

power

groups.

Thesarepatternhasbeenobservedby

Banfield(1958)

in

Southern

Italy.

Banfieldargues

that

SouthernItalianculture

is

characterizedby

amoral

familism. he

basic

principle

of

behavioris:

Maximizethematerinl,

short-runadvantageofthenuclearfamily;

assume

thatal l

others

willdolikewise (Banfield,p.85).

From

this

principlehe

derivedseventeen logical

implications

which

hefound

consistent

with

his

field

observations

in

Southern

Italy.mong

the

implications

arethefollowing:

1. In

a

societyof

amoral

familists,noone

will

further

theinterestof

thegrouporcommunityexcept

asi .

is

tohis

privateadvantage.

7.he

amoral

familist

whois

an

office-holder

will

take

bribes

when

he

can

get

awaywith

it.

utwhether

he

takes

bribes

or

not,

it

will

be

assumed

by

the

society

of

amoral

familiststhathe

does.

9.

In

a

societyofamoral

familists,the

claimof

anypersonor

institution

o

be

inspired

byzeal

forpublicrather

than

private

advantage

will

be

regarded

as

fraud.


26/72

22.

10.

na

societyof

amoral

famlllsts

there

will

beno

connection

between

abstract

principle

(i.e.,

Ideology)

and

concrete

behavior

In

the

ordinary

relationshipsofevery

day

life.

13.heamoralfamilistwillvaluegainsaccruing

to

thecommunity

only

insofaras

he

andhi sare

likely

to

share

them.

Infact,

he

will

vote

againstmeasurcswhichwillhelpthecommunitywithout

helping

him,because

even

though

hi sposition

is

unchanged

inabsolute

terms,

he

considers

himself

worse

off

if

hi s

neighbors'

position

changes

for

the

bettor.

hus,

it

may

happen

thatmeasures

whichare

of

decidedgeneralbenefitwillprovoke

a

protestvote

from

thosewho

feel

that

theyhave

no t

sharedinthemorhave

notsharedin

them

sufficiently.

15 . Inasociety

ofamoralfamlllstsi twillbeassumedthat

whatever

groupis

in

powerisself-servingandcorrupt.

ardly

willan

election

be

over

beforethe

voters

will

conclude

that

the

ne wofficials

are

enriching

themselves

at

theirexpenseand

that

they

have

noIntentionofkeepingthe

promises

they

havemade.

onsequently,the

self-servingvoter

willuse

hi s

ballottopay

theincumbentsno tforbenefitsbut

forirjuries,

i . e . , hewill

useit

to

administer

punishment."

We

notethatthere

are

some

differences

betweenBanfield's

analysis

and

ourown.edefinedtheingroupafterlookingatsomekinds

of

empirical

data,

and

concluded

that

it

is

larger

than

the

nuclear

family.

anfield

arguesthatthe

extended

familyha slittle

importanceinSouth'

. n

Italy,

because

the

sizeof

landholdingsis

too

smalltosupportmanypeople,

and

hi sprincipleofmaximization

appliesonlytothenuclearfamily. Itcould

bethat

thetwo

cultures

differ

in

thesize

of

theiringroups,

or

it

could

bethat

Banfleld

was

undulyrestrictive

inhi s

definition.


27/72

2 3 .

On

the

other

handwe

note

the

considerable

similarit--

between

hi s

7

formulationand

ourown.

The

similarity

of

our

formulation

and

hi s

"implications13and

1 5 is

striking.he

other

four

implications

which

are

reproduced

above

would

also

apply

t o

Greece,although

with

less

certainty

than

they

do

in

Southern

Italy.

Th eworst

thinganyone

can

do

in

Greeceis

to

boast

or

to

show

that

he

ha s

power

before

ho

proves

that

he

ha s

concern;

i.e.,

is

a

member

of

the

ingroup.

hi s

immediatelyproducesa

reaction

of

hostility

whichis

likely

toundermine

his

powera t

theearliestopportunity.hisissouewhat

different

from

the

American"bandwagon"

effect,

which

causes

people

to

Join

and

support

ose

most"successful"

in

politics.

reek

defiance

of

authority

can

also

be

seen

in

thecomplete

distrust

of

Greeks

who

are

"experts."

In

ordertounderstandthis

phenomenon

Iti s

important

to

consider

the

ease

with

which

Greek self-esteemca nbe

threatened.

faconsultant

is

an

expertw hois

trying

to

helpiningroupsituations

his

power

is

welcomed.

owever,

ifthesituation

issuch

that

the

expertisno thelpful

to

the

personinvolved,heisperceived

as

amember

ofthe outgroup,

and

thereforeacompetitor.

n

American

expert

is

more

likelytobeperceived

asaguest;i.e.,anIngroupmember,thenaGreekexpert.

Another

matter

of

relevance

o

the

Greek

relationship

with

authority

figuresconcerns

the

casewith which

Greeksworkinorganizationsmanaged

7

We

thankLe n

Berkowltz

for

bringingBanfield'sbooktoourattention.

Our

formulationswerecompletedmuchbefore

readingBanfleld,

sothat

the

similaritiesbetweenourformulationsare

du e

tothesimilaritiesbetween

Greek

andSouthern

Italian

cultures

rather

thantoanyother

factor.


28/72

2 4 ,

mostlybyingroupmembers.

ycontrast,

theyfind

i tvery difticuitto

adjust

to

large

i m r

jrsonal

organizations.hese

phenomenamay

contribute

to

thesuccessof

small

Greekbusinesses

as

contrasted

totheunderdev^lop-

8

mcnt

oflarge

scale

Industry.

Prejudices

Al lgxoups

have

some

targets

ofprejudice.ustas

the Americansshow

prejudicetowards

Negroes,Jews,

Catholics,

etc.,so

SOTGGreeks

are

prejudicetowardgypsies,Jews,

andTurks.eligiousprejudiceis

manifested

at

thepointof

entranceintothe

Ingroup

(Trlandisand

Triandis,

1962).aturalisticobservations

slowthatnon-christiansare

called

"non-believers"and

areno taccepted

as

intimate

friendsand

as

ki nby

marriage.ntheother

hand,

theyareaccepted

as

acquaintances,business

partners,etc.heseobservationsagreewiththequestionnaire

responses.

ThereactiontowardsTurks

ismorenegativethantowardsothergroups.

he

Greek

stereotypeoftheTurk

issimilarbutmoreextreme

thanthe American

stereotype

of

Turkson

thecharacteristicsunsystematic

,

dull,

and

dishonest

(TrlandlsandVasslliou,inpreparation).

_

Certainkindsofrelationswithothersarelikelyto

be

of

particular

Interest

as

IllustrativeofthedifferencebetweenAmericansandGreeks.

Boss-Secretary

.

oth

cultures

se e

much

positive

affect

in

this

relationshipbut

Americansse e

somewhat

more

than

Greeks.

hereis

no

difference

between

the

two

cultures

on

the

intimacy dimension.

reeks

see

more

superordinatlon

as

being

appropriateIn

thisrelationshipthando

Americans.

Secretary-Boss.he

relationship

between

secretaryand

boss

is

seenas

affectivelyneutral

in

Greecewhileitis

positive

in

America.

reeks

tend

tose ethe

relationshipassomewhatformal

while

Americans

tend

tose eit

as

somewhatintimate.inallybothgroups

se e

subordination

inthis

relation-

ship

bu t

the

Greeks

se e

more

subordinationthan do

the

Americans.

Foreman-Laborer

.

hereis

no

differenceinthe

amountofaffect

seen

bythetwocultures.

o thse esomepositiveaffect.

here

isa

substantial

difference

in

the

amount

of

intimacy.

reeks

expect

more

intimacy

in

this

(Footnotecontinuedonnextpage.)


29/72

24a.

relationship

than do Americans,

ihey

also

expect

considerably

more

superordlnatlon

than

do

Americans.

Laborer-Foreman

.

etweenlaborerand

foreman

the

Greeks

se eaffective

neutrality

while

Americaas

se epositive

affect;

the

Greeks

se eformality

while

Americans

se eslight

intimacy;

and

the

Greeks

se e

moresubordination

thandothe Americans.

Sales

Person-Customer.hereis

no

differencein

the

amount

ofaffect

perceivedbetween

sales

persons

and

customersinthetwocultures.

n

the

other

hand

Greeksperceiveconsiderably

greater

intimacyin

that

relationship

than do Americans.

hey

alsose e

more

superordlnatlonin

thecustomer-sales

personrelationshipthan do Amer icans.hesamepattern

of

greaterintimacy,

inGreece,

is

seen

in

other

relationships

with customers;for

example,

baautician-custoner

involves

createrintimacy

in

Greece.

Inthe

relationship

between clientsandprofessionals,Americansperceive moreaffectthando

Greeks.n

theother

hand

Greeks

perceive

considerably

more

intimacy

than

doAirerlcans.inally,

Greeks

perceiveconsiderably more

superordlnatlon

onthepartoftheprofessional(lawyer,

physician,

etc.)

andmoresubordi-

nationn

the

pait

oftheclient,

than

do

Americans.

Tenant-Lxtidlord.

here

isno

difference

between

thetwoculturesin

the

amount

of

affect

seen

in

this

role.

owever,

the

Greeks

se emore

intimacy

in

thetenant-landlordrelationship andmoreformality

in

thelandlord-tenant

relationship

than

doAmericans.reeks

se e

more

superordlnatloninboth

the

tenant-landlordanathe

landlord-tenant

relatioiishi^s

than

do

Americans.

BusinessPartner-Business

Partner

.

here

is

a

large

difference

in

the

amountof

affect

perceived

as

appropriateby

Americans

andGreeks

in

this

relationship.mericans

consider

itappropriatetoshowa

great

dealof

positive

affect

in

this

relationshipwhileGreeks

are

almostaffectively

neutral.urthermore,

Americans

se emoreintimacyin

thisrelationship

than

isthecasewithGreeks.inceGreeksin

general

tend

tose e

most

relation-

shipsas

being

more

intimate,

xhe

reversalontheintimacydimension

for

this

particular

role

is

especiallysignificant.

hereisno

difference

in

the

amountof

superordJnation-subordination

perceived

in

the

twocultures.

We

will

no w

turnto

a

number

ofgeneral

roles

and

their

perception

in

thetwocultures.

Old

People

versus

Young

People .

hereis

a

slighttendencyforGreeks

to

perceive

greater

affect

on

the

part

of

old

people

towards

younger

people

than

is

thecasefor

Americans

andfor

thereverseto

be

trueforyounger

peopletowardsolder

people.

n

the

other hand,

thereis

moreintimacyseen

intheserelationshipsbyGreeksthanby Amer icans.n thesuperordination-

subordination

dimension

older

peopleareperceivedas

showine

more

superordl-

natloninGreecethan

inAmerlc

andyoungerpeopleareseenasshowing

more

subordinationin

Greecethanin

America.

Both

Americans

and

Greeks

se e

a

CHILDasweakbutAmericansse ehimas

weaker.

DOLESCENCEandMATURITY

areseenas

beingmore

good,

powerful

,and

activeinGreecethaninAmerica.his

isbecauseGreeks

do

no thavethe

horror

o f

oldage

that

characterizes

Americans.

LD

PEOPLEare

seenmuch

(Footnotecontinuedon

nextpage.)


30/72

2 b .

Differences

of

th

ePercepttonof

Social

Behavior

In

theprevious

section

we

have

showndifferences

in

the

wayGreeks

and

Americans

perceiverelationships

between

different

kinds

ofpeople.

Inthe

present

section

wewill

describedifferences

in

the

waytheyperceive

social

behaviors. It

is

afrequentobservationamongpersons

who

haveengagedin

social

relationswithpersons

from

otherculturesthattheirbehaviorsare

sometimes

"misinterpreted"

and

their

intentions"misunderstood."

or

more

negativelyInAmerica

than

inGreece.

hi s

isparticularly

so

onthe

dimensionofpower.

f i uest-Host

.

hereis

no

differenceintheamount

ofaffect

In

either

culture;

however,

the

Greeksse emoreintimacyinthatrelationshipthando

Americans.he

Greeks

also

se emore

subordination

ofthe

guesttothehost

thandoAmericans.

Tourist-Native.othculturesse epositiveaffect

inthisrelationship

butthe Greeks

se e

more

positive

affect

inthe

native

totourist

role

than

do

Americans.

heGreeks

alsose e

more

intimacyas

appropriatein

this

relationship

thandoAmericans.here

is

no differencebetweenthetwo

cultures

on

the

amount

of

perceived

subordination.

President-ClubMember .othcultures

se e

about

the

sameamountof

affect

inthis

relationshipbu tGreeksseemoreintiuacyinthepresident

toclub

member

role

thanisthecasewith Americans.hereisno difference

between

thecultures

on

thesubordinationdimension.

Memberof

the

Audience-Musician

.

reeksse egreaterpositiveaffect

aswellasgreaterintimacyin

thisrelationship

than

do

Americans.

SingingStar-Fan

.

here

are

nosignificantdifferences

on

the

amount

ofaffectseen

by

the

twocultures;butagain,the

Greeksse e

more

intimacy

as

appropriatein

these

relationshipsthand < > Americans.he yalso

se emore

superordlnatlonin

boththe

singing

startox ' a nandfantosingingstar

relationship

than

do

Americans.

In

other

words,

the

singing

star

can

make

demandsonthefansandthefanscanmake

demandsonthesinging

starthat

wouldseem

inappropriate

to

Americans.

Conflict

Roles

.reeksse emore

negative

affect

in

conflict

rolesthan

do

Americans.hi s

is

true

forrolessuchas

Protestant

Minister-Catholic

Priest,Administrator-UniversityStudent,UniversityStudent-Administrator,

diplomat-diplomat,player

of

game-opponent,

andpolitician-fellow

politician.

Insomecases,asinthe

diplomat-opposingdiplomat,the

Greeks

perceive

that

itis

appropriate

toshow

a

greatdealofnegative

affect,

whileinother

casestheyareclosertoaneutralpointon

affect.

ntheotherbandinall

oftheseconflictroles,

Greeks

tendtobehigherinintimacythan

is

trueof

Americans.inally,

Greeks

se emore

superordlnatlon

thando

Americans.


31/72

26 .

example,

apersonfrom oneculturemay

provide

whatheconsidersto

be

"friendly criticism"to

a

person

from

another

culture

only

to

discover

that

the

other

personinterprets

it

as

"hatred."

r,

a

personfromCulture

A

behavesin

a

mannerwhich

he

considersextremely "positive"towarda

person

fromCulture

B.

owever,

the

Individual

fromCulture

Bperceivesthe

behavioras"neutral"

and

in

turnthe

individualfromCultureAfeels

that

hela"given

thecold

shoulder."

is

negative

reaction

isin

turnperceived

as

negative

anda

viciouscircleof

mutual

punishmenttakesplace.ne

possibleexplanationofsuch misinterpretaxionis

that

the meaning of

the

social

behavior

isuo t

the

s a m e

across

cultures.

Wehave

investigatedsuch

d .

rences

in

the

perception

ofsocial

behiiviorthrough

ratherrigorousproceduresinvolvingThurstonescalingof

the

social

behavior

descriptions

(Triandis,

Vassiliou,

and

Nassiakou,

1967b) .

Such differencescanreadilyerelatedtc

thehistoriesofthetwo

countries.

SocialAttitudes

A

sampleofaboutsi x

hundred

American malestudentswa s

comparedwith

.

sample

of

about

four

hundred

maleAthenians.

hey

wereaskedtoindicate

theiragreementwith

anumber

ofstatementsrelevant

toa

variety

ofsocial

attit-idea

(Trlandis,

Davis,

and

Vasslliou) .

The Greeksemphasizedtheneedforsocialcontrolto

a

much

larger

extent

than didthe Americans.he y

also

approved

of

correctivepunishment,

no

matter

he wsevere.

owever,they

disapproved

ofcapitalpunishment

and

hostility

in

exeicising

controlwithin

the

ingroup.he yare Iso

opposed

U

T riandlf?,H .

C

Davis,F .5.,

nd

Vassiliou,Vasso Social

ttitudes

in

ross-culturalperspective

in

preparatior).


48/72

41 .

totheus eof

violence

in

settling

internationaldisputesto

a

larger

extent

than

Americans.

Specifically,the

agreement

onthe

need

for

social

controlis

evident

at

three

levels:hepersonal,the

interpersonal

and

the

governmental.

t

the

personal

levelit

waj

manifested

by

agreement

ontenitemssuchas

I

trytokeep

a

tightreinonmyselfat

all

times"

withwhich

theGreeks

strongly

agreed,

while

America

i s

ere

uncertain.

Atthe

Interpersonal

level

itcanle

seen

in

the Greek

responses

to

statements

suchas

the

following:

As

longas

so ny

of

our

teachers

are

afraid

to

administer

physical

punishment

our

schools

will

probablycontinue

kO

decline."

he

Greeks

agreedwith

this

statement;

the

Americansdisagreed

with

it .n

the matter

of

the

societal

(state)

control

we

se ethe

Greeks

agreeingwithand

the Americans disagree ing

with

the

following statement:

"We

will

prvoably

be

a

lo t

better

off

if

some

of

the

M

- o t s

in

favor

of

racial

and

religiousdiscriminationwere

expelled

from the

country."

n

twenty-two

statements,suchns

theabove,

which

referred

to

social

control,

Greeks

approvedof

control

to

a

larger

extent

thandi dAmericans.articularly

characteristic

was

approval

of

control

onmoralissues.o r

example,

"sex

crimes,

such

asrape

and

attacksonchildren,deserve

more

thanmere

imprisonment;

such

criminals

oughtto

bepubliclywhipped

orworse."

reeks

stronglyagreedwith

thatstatement,

while

Americans

disagreed.

As

a

specific

lllrstratlonof

the Greek

agreement

withitemsinvolving

corrective

punishment,

weca n

mentionthat

Greeks

strongly

agreed

with

the

statement

"itwould

probablyprovide

a

goodexample

for

this

entirenation

if

peoplewho

-efusedto

salute

our

flag

wereimprisoned."mericans

stronglydisagreed.


49/72

4 2 .

Such

resultsstrongly

suggest

that

the

Greeks

are

high

on

the

F-Scale.

EmpiricallythisIs

so .

onever,

itIsn o * ,

certainthat

thetheoryofthe

authoritarian

personality,

as

developedin

f ica,appliesto

them

without

modification.

In

particular,theImportance

ofthe

Ingroup-outgroup

distinction,

and

the

definition

oftheingroup,

*hich

implied

aface-to-face

group,

modifies

thecharacterof

Greek

autnoritarianism. I t

should

be

recalled

that

authoritarian

submission

istypicalwithintheIngroup,

bu t

not

in

response

to

ouigroup

authority

figures.

TheGreeksituation

isin

manyays

similar

to

the

Italian,here

tae

Fascist

influence

penetratedless

in

everyday

lifethantheNazi

influence

did

I n .

Germany.t

may

be

that

the

distinction

between

ingroup

and

outgroup

(*hich

e

are

guessing

is

critical

i

o m

South

ofthe Alps

to

India)

makes

tiaperationof

a

fullfledgedfasciststatequitedifficult.ine

most

T

i e

give

their

devotion

primarily

to

their

families,

it

is

difficult

for

national

leaders

tocontrolmuch

oftheirbehavior.

A

furtherexample

may

clarify

hatis

argued

above.

uring

the1944

Communistrevolution,

many

GreekCommunists

arned

theirrelatives,

ho

ha d

collaborated

ith

the

Germans,that

they

ere

going

to

beliquidated.

hi s

al?r?edtheir

relativestohide

andtheirlives

ere

saved.ereisan

e x a m p ^ v , -

here

the

familybond

Is

more

important

thanbondsof

ideology,

party

discipline, andconceptsofobediencetopartyleaders.ven

in

the

case

of

xanatic

members

ofthe

Concnanist

party,

the

family

is

more

Important

than

theparty.

A

final

point

concerning

those

Greeks

who

agreed

withthestatement

aboutimprisoningthosehorefuse

to

salute

the

flag.tismost

probable

thatthayhave

in

mind

members

oftheiroutgroup. Itis

most

likely

thatthey


50/72

43.

consider

that

members

o . t

theiringroup"wouldbehavecorrectly,"andtherefore

wouldno tbeaffected

by

the

situationdescribed

in

the

statement. Ifa

member

of

theingroupbehaved"incorrectly"hewouldbepressured

to

change

hi sbehavior,

but

ifhewere

imprisonedthe

members

of

the

ingroup

would

be

upsetandwould

considertheimprisonmentunfair. Inother

words,

in

responding

to

such

items,

the Creeks

probably

are

thinking

ofoutTOupmembers

and

inviewofthecompetitiveness

between

ingroupandoutgrouptheirthreshold

for

imprisoning

people

who

dono tbehave

correctly

may

wellbemuch

lower

than

it

is

in

America,

hencethedifferencein

the

Greek

andAmericanresponses.

Finally,

in

order

toillustrateGreekdisapprovaloftheuseofviolence

for

the

settlement

of

internationaldisputes

wemay

examine

their

responses

to

the

item:

Politicians

who

actively

support

the

arms

race

shouldbe

thrown

out

of

office."

reeks

agreed

and

A r n e ,

ans

disagreed.

In

this

studyourdataalsosuggeststhatGreekshave

a

muchclearer

system

of

values.

heyagreeamongthemselvesto

a

muchgreater

extent

than

do

Americans.

urthermore,

on

moral

issues,

Greekstendedtostronglyagree

or

disagreewith

ourstatements,

while

Americans

used

moremoderateresponses,

suchas"slightlyagree."orexample,inresponsestothestatement"We

cannot

know

for

sure

whether

or

no t

there

is

a

God"

Americans

either

slightly

agreedorslightlydisagreed reeks

only

slightly

disagreed.

he

maj ority

ofthe

Greeks

strongly

agreedwhile

Americans

slightly

disagreedwiththe

stetenent

"No

person

whowould

ever

think

ofhurting

hi s

parents

should

be

permittedin

a

societyof

normaldecent

people."

Greeks

values

are

not

only

clearer,

but

are

openly

proclaimedand

expressed

in

unhesitating

action.husGreeksagreed

with

thest

A Comparative Analysis of Subjective Culture

Documents

Transcript of A Comparative Analysis of Subjective Culture