C ROSS - CULTURAL
PSYCHOLOGY
ORGANIZATIONAL
CULTURAL REGISTER
Cultural dimensions:
CULTURAL
For example:
CULTURAL
PSYCHOLOGY
-
ANTHROPOLOGY
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).
CULTURAL
SOCIOLOGY
PERSONALITY
REGISTER
ORGANIZATIONAL
REGISTER
STRUCTURAL-SOCIETAL
REGISTER
Personality Traits:
Organizational
variables:
Macro-social variables:
For example:
For example:
For example::
- Motivational structure
of personality;
- Specific skills;
- Attitude
configurations.
PSYCHOLOGY
- Organizational
communication
networks;
- Intra-organizational
power networks.
-
-
ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIOLOGY
- Pro-social behaviour;
ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
- Aggressiveness;
- Leadership styles;
PSYCHO SOCIOLOGY
OF ORGANIZATIONS
INTERCULTURAL
MANAGEMENT
-
- 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)
SOCIOLOGY
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
A UTARCHIC INDIVIDUALISM AND SOCIAL
AXIOMS IN THE W ESTERN PART OF
R OMANIA

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.
C ENTRAL

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).
R ESULTS
OBTAINED ON
VSM 94
( C ONVENTIO N A L
CULTURAL DIMMENSION
PD
Power-distance
Individualism collectivism
M/F Masculinityfeminity
AU Uncertainty
Avoidance
L/STP Long / short term
perspective
I-C
51
50
25
69
34
SC ORE )
Individualism index
M AP OF CULTURAL DIMENSIONS –
CROSS - CULTURAL ASSESSMENT
V ROM
Power distance index
N ATIONAL 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 (postindustrialized) 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.
R ESULTS
COMPARATIVE WITH OTHER RELEVANT
RESEARCHES
/ R OMANIA / B ALKANS
/
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
-
Research
referential
cultural dimensions
M AJORITY ORGANIZATIONAL
W EST OF R OMANIA ACHIEVED
PORTRAIT IN THE
ON THE BASIS OF
CULTURAL DIMENSIONS PROPOSED BY

G.
H OFSTEDE
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.
“A UTARCHIC INDIVIDUALISM ”

Evidencing through turning to account the qualitative
results from focus-groups investigations.

Typical formulations of subjects in the register of selfachievement = 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).
P SYCHOMETRIC PROPRIETIES OF VSM
94 (W ESTERN R OMANIA 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
C ONCLUSIONS –
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)
S TATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN INDEPENDENT SAMPLES
Dimensions
Sample 1
Secondary
Education
Sample 2
Higher Education
independent t
samples results
t(523) = 4.05. p<0.01
SOCIAL AXIOMS
CNS (social cynicism)
3.26
3.46
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
S TUDY 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.
C OMPARATIVE SCORES –
H OFSTEDE MODEL
Landmark
dimensions
research
/
cultural
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
Gavreliuc
(2009),
regional
representative
sample,
Western
Region - Romania, 1058 subjects
Spector, Cooper, Sanchez, et al.
(2001), national sample, Romania,
455 subjects,
Luca (2005), representative national
sample, Romania,1076 subjects
78
36
34
85
23
51
50
25
69
34
26
47
23
50
55
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.
C ULTURAL 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.
S OCIAL A XIOMS
MODEL
Cultural dimensions of the social axioms model
Dimensions of the social Minimum Maximum
axioms model
score
score
(n = 522)
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).
S OCIAL A XIOMS / 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).
I NTERGENERATIONAL
COMPARISON
Intergenerational Comparison of attributional patterns and cultural dimensions (social axioms and Hofstede’s
dimensions) (One-Way ANOVAs)
Generational
Dimensions
G(18-29)
M(SD)
LOC
PD
SCx
FC
G(50-59)
G(+60)
M(DS)
M(SD)
M(SD
12.0884ab
11.5699a
11.6351ab
11.9583ab
(3.06259)
(3.35752)
(3.30241)
(3.40255)
(11.9583)
b
89.89
78.78
3.5734
c
ab
(23.819)
b
3.4018
73.60
a
74.19
(24.773)
3.1414
a
a
75.21ab
(24.579)
3.1335
a
3.3186abc
(0.42826)
(0.40122)
(0.36422)
(0.36422)
3.5403d
3.4626abcd
3.3665ab
3.4516abcd
3.3403a
(0.29010)
(0.26874)
(0.30772)
(0.28835)
(0.28649)
2.5476a
2.6197ab
2.7143abc
(0.58061)
(0.58318)
(0.58067)
3.1767a
3.1680a
3.3512ab
(0.04712)
(0.07331)
(0.16518)
2.8823c
3.5196b
(0.54649)
2.7833bc
(0.58266)
3.2896ab
(0.05222)
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.
F-values
2.308*
8.142**
(23.242)
(0.38148)
(0.48121)
R
M(SD)
G(40-49)
12.7692b
(18.211)
SCnS
G(30-39)
stratum
23.473**
6.610**
6.874**
5.187**
P ORTRAIT 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.
S OCIAL 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).
T RANSGENERATIONAL PATTERNS OF
VALUES AND ATTITUDES IN POST COMMUNIST R OMANIA

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
R E G IS T E R O F S O C IA L S UB J E C T IV IT Y
………………………………….
P E R S O N A LIT Y A S A P S YC H O - S O C IA L C O N S T R UC T
…………………
 VALUES
 ATTITUDES
(inferate variables)
……………………………………………………………………………
 BEHAVIOURS
(the level of collecting data about the personality
of subjects)
C ONCURRENT 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 sociohistorical dynamics
 la longue durée
(Braudel, 1958/1996)
 transgenerational
remanent nature of
social representations
(Flament, 1995/1999)
C ONCURRENT
HYPOTHESES
Hypothesis of attitudinal Hypothesis la
changing (changing of
fundamental social
attitudes)
longue durée (the
persistence of
fundamental social
attitudes)
D ILEMMA

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?
M ETHODOLOGY: 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”.
P SYCHOLOGICAL 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)
G ENERATIONAL STRATA INVESTIGATED –
REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLES – S TUDY 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).
I NTERGENERATIONAL 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.
I NTERGENERATIONAL PORTRAITS –
VALUES REGISTER OF ANALYSIS :
ANY SIGNIF IC ANT STATISTI C AL LY DIF F ERENCES BE TW E E N EXTREME
CO HO RTS
(G 5 0 / G 2 0 )
Intergenerational Comparisons of Values (One-Way ANOVAs)
Generation
Value type
Conservatism
Hierarchy
Harmony
Egalitarianism
Intellectual autonomy
Affective autonomy
Mastery
G50
M (SD)
4.06a
(0.15)
2.12a
(0.23)
4.19
(0.34)
4.62b
(0.22)
4.78b
(0.41)
3.56ab
(0.40)
3.96
(0.12)
G35
M (SD)
4.68b
(0.23)
2.97b
(0.31)
4.17
(0.29)
4.23a
(0.19)
4.12a
(0.44)
3.21a
(0.29)
3.77
(0.17)
G20
M (SD)
4.21a
(0.18)
2.29ab
(0.21)
4.08
(0.26)
4.46ab
(0.20)
4.43ab
(0.38)
3.81b
(0.33)
3.82
(0.20)
* p < .05; ** p < .01. Notes: df = 2, 1478. Means with same letters do not differ significantly.
F-values
2.89*
3.32**
1.75
2.69*
2.93*
2.54*
1.57
VALUE PORTRAITS
S EVEN C ULTURAL
Demographical
policies in the -communist
VALUERomania
O RIENTATIONS (S CHWARTZ ,
Source: Anuarul Statistic al Rom âniei, 1990


1999-2012)
1200000
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
number
inclinations that might disruptAbortion
the solidarity
group or the traditional order. (social order, respect for tradition, family security,
wisdom).
1000000
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).
800000


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 Birth
pursuit
of own affectively positive experience (pleasure, exciting life, varied life).
number
600000
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).
 400000
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).
 200000
Mastery
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
31
1987
1988
1989
1990
1984
1985
1986
1981
1982
1983
1978
1979
1980
1975
1976
1977
1973
1974
1970
1971
1972
1967
1968
1969
1964
1965
1966
1961
1962
1963
2
Harmony
The world is accepted as it is. Groups and individuals should fit harmoniously into the natural and social world,
0
avoiding change and self-assertion to modify them. (unity with nature, protecting the environment, world of beauty).
1

1960
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).
C ONCLUSIONS – CONFIRMING L A 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).
T HE 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).

C ONCLUSIONS
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)
P HANTASMATIC 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.
C ONCEPTUALIZATION 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 ”
( S 1)
Table. 1. Explicit behavioural scenario – “quick hand passerby”
IV
(amount
“lost” by an
accomplice)
No.
of
naive
subjects
faced with
the task
DV
DV
(rate
of
impropriety)
(rate
of
impropriety)
N
NI
(%)
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”
(%)
500
51
26
51.0 %
4
RON
100
56
23
41.1 %
2
RON
50
54
20
37.0 %
0
RON
10
60
20
33.3 %
1
RON
1 RON
53
14
26.4 %
0
TOTAL
274
103
37.6 %
7
Obs. 4.4 RON = approximately 1 €
IV = independent variable, DV = dependent variable
Explanations
volume
(words)
average
7.8 %
33.3
3.6 %
22.7
0%
15.5
1.7 %
17.4
0%
2.6 %
19.5
21.35

S1NARRATIVES
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
“ 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.
T YPOLOGY OF SPITTERS :
WITH
///
FOCUS ON
A
C O M B I N AT I O N O F
MANIFESTED AGGRESSION, EXPLICIT ( + ) VS. IMPLICIT AGGRESSION, HIDDEN ( - )
“ T H E O T H E R ” I N T H E R E L AT I O N A L O P E N I N G ( + ) V S . S E L F - C E N T E R E D N E S S ( - ) ,
Table. 3. Default behaviour scenario – “the communitarian spit.”
Typology
Typology
“Uncivil”
“Passiveaggressive”
“The intellectual”
“The
shameful
one”
TOTAL
Relational
aggressiveness
explicit (+) /
implicit (-)
+
+
Focus on
“other” (+) /
self (-)
N
Share
Sampl
e
+
-
215
440
22 %
45 %
-
+
-
205
127
21 %
12 %
978
100%
N ARRATIVES – “ 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 passerby 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 selfcentered as well).
N ARRATIVES - 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!”>
N ARRATIVES – “ 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.

N ARRATIVES – “ 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.
S OCIAL
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).
S OCIAL A UTISM

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.
A NOTHER 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