Running head: SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY
The increment of social axioms over broad personality traits in the prediction of dyadic
adjustment: an investigation across four ethnic groups
Dragoș Iliescu¹, Margareta Dincă², and Michael Harris Bond³
¹Department of Psychology, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania
²Titu Maiorescu University, Bucharest, Romania
³Faculty of Business, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
Corresponding author: Dragos Iliescu, Department of Psychology, University of Bucharest,
Sos. Panduri nr. 90, 050663 Bucharest, Romania. E-mail: [email protected].
SELF-ARCHIVED PREPRINT
Iliescu, D., Dinca, M., & Bond, M. H. (2017). The Increment of Social Axioms over Broad
Personality Traits in the Prediction of Dyadic Adjustment: An Investigation Across Four
Ethnic Groups. European Journal of Personality, 31(6), 630-641. DOI: 10.1002/per.2131
SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY
Abstract
This study investigates the relationship between personality, social axioms, and dyadic adjustment. A sample of 420 participants (210 heterosexual couples), approximately evenly distributed between four ethnic backgrounds (Romanian, Hungarian, German, and
Rroma), was investigated in a cross-sectional approach with the Romanian versions of the
Social Axioms Survey, the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, and the Revised NEO Personality
Inventory. The analyses were based on the actor–partner interdependence model. The results showed that social axioms show incremental validity over personality traits in the prediction of dyadic adjustment, attesting to the usefulness of a worldview measure in predicting interpersonal outcomes over and above that provided by a measure of personality. Three of the five dimensions of social axioms were associated with dyadic adjustment, with either actor or partner effects. A few significant differences have been found between the various ethnic groups on effects of the social axioms on dyadic adjustment: The positive actor effect of reward for application is not visible for German men, the negative partner effect of social cynicism is not detectable for Rroma men, and the negative partner effect of social complexity is not visible for Rroma women. Copyright © 2017 European Association of
Personality Psychology
Keywords: Social axioms; Dyadic adjustment; Ethnicity
2 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY
The increment of social axioms over broad personality traits in the prediction of dyadic
adjustment: an investigation across four ethnic groups
The current study investigates the validity of social axioms as proposed predictors of dyadic adjustment over and above such established predictors as broad personality traits and demographic variables, in a sample of 210 heterosexual couples recruited from Transylvania, an intensely multi-ethnic region in Romania, a country in South-Eastern Europe.
Social axioms are one of the more recent (Leung et al., 2002) constructs that have been proposed in order to explain variance in individual behaviour as a function of culture
(e.g. Leung, Bond, & Schwartz, 1995). Social axioms are defined as generalized beliefs about ourselves, about others, about the social environment, and about the spiritual and physical world (Leung et al., 2002)—and ‘generalized expectancies’ about the material, social, and psychological functioning of the world—and play an important role in various behaviours, especially individual behaviours that are heavily influenced by cultural assumptions and roles
(Leung et al., 2002), such as couple relationships. There is robust evidence for the fact that social axioms are valid variables in the description of groups, communities, and societies
(Leung et al., 2002) and are also applicable to the description of individual behaviours inside such groups, communities, and societies (e.g. Singelis, Hubbard, Her, & An, 2003).
Therefore, social axioms have been researched in relationship with a number of variables, both social cognitions, such as beliefs about learning (Bernardo, 2009), social beliefs (Safdar,
Lewis, & Daneshpour, 2006), moral development (Comunian, 2009), and individual behaviours and behavioural intentions (e.g. Dinca & Iliescu, 2009).
However, many potentially important areas of application for social axioms still remain unstudied. In the conclusions of their review on the past and future of social axioms,
Hui and Hui (2009) decry the fact that most
3 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY research into social axioms so far has involved only a single cultural group, asking for future studies ‘to test the functioning of social axioms in cross-cultural comparisons, to assess their roles in differing cultural contexts’ (p. 27). Indeed, in culturally uniform settings, variation in social axioms may be lower, and their effects may thus be confounded by range restriction. It is likely, however, that in culturally heterogeneous groups, communities, and societies, social axioms come to bear as important predictors of human behaviour, especially in such culturally loaded contexts as family and organizational life. We address this need for within- nation, cross-cultural studies by focusing on a multi-ethnic sample of Romanian, Hungarian,
German, and Rroma participants sampled from southern Transylvania, an intensively multicultural area of Romania, a country in South-Eastern Europe.
Social axioms are assessments of how the world functions; they are separate from personality and individual values (Hui & Hui, 2009) and should have incremental validity over dimensions of personality in predicting the behaviour of individuals in cultures. One of the sharpest differences between social axioms and values is the level of specificity, when
‘the desirability pole of an evaluative belief becomes specific, it turns into a social axiom’
(Leung et al., 2002, p. 289); so, for example, the fact that ‘war is bad’ is a general evaluative belief and the basis for a value (non-belligerence), while the specific form saying that ‘wars will lead to the destruction of civilization’ is a social axiom (Leung et al., 2002). Our current understanding is that social axioms, by being more specific, complement values in guiding individual and group behaviour (e.g. Chen, Bond, & Cheung, 2006). An important point in considering social axioms is that they ‘expand the toolbox for explaining cross-cultural differences’ (Hui & Hui, 2009, p. 27) over and above values, which have been traditionally used in cross-cultural psychology as the primary predictor for cross-cultural variations. We follow this call to research by expanding the nomological network of social axioms into a previously unstudied domain, that of couple relationships.
4 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY
Couples function inside a community, and the cognitions and behaviours of the individuals and of the group (i.e. the couple) will be influenced by the norms, values, and social axioms, which are typical for that community, that is, by culture. Determining those cultural phenomena that have impact on couple relationships will allow for a better understanding of behaviours characterizing the couple. The importance of culture for the functioning of families, or more specifically of couples, and for the dyadic adjustment of their members has been recognized early on and has been addressed by some researchers (e.g.
Santisteban, Muir-Malcolm, Mitrani, & Szapocznik, 2002; Tseng & Hsu, 1991).
Dyadic adjustment captures the degree of satisfaction and functionality characterizing a couple and depends on the behaviour of the partners, in terms of both positive proactive behaviours and negative reactive behaviours (i.e. the way in which the partners cope with the inevitable tensions arising in their relationship). A review of modern research into couple relationships (Bradbury, Fincham, & Beach, 2000) shows that during the past few decades, such studies have focused either on (i) an analysis of interpersonal processes that operate inside the relationship (e.g. cognitions, emotions, and behavioural patterns) or on (ii) an analysis of the social context that influences the relationship. Most research looking into interpersonal processes characterizing the couple has focused on personality as an important predictor (Gattis, Berns, Simpson, & Christensen,
2004). Most research looking into contextual factors has focused on demographic and cultural variables (Buss et al., 1990).
Our paper seeks to combine these two trends, by investigating the combined predictive value for dyadic adjustment of both personality variables and contextual variables.
In terms of contextual variables, we investigate not only demographic predictors but also a category of predictors that has not been so far related to couple adjustment, in spite of its success in cultural psychology, namely, social axioms. We contribute to the literature in
5 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY dyadic studies, by expanding our understanding of how couples function as a result of cultural variables, with a special focus on social axioms.
Personality and dyadic adjustment
Personality is a long-established predictor of marital satisfaction and dyadic adjustment. Some evidence for the validity of personality traits in this context is direct and focuses either on the personality traits of partners as predictors or (less often) on the interplay between the personality traits of the partners (e.g. Karney & Bradbury, 1995). Some other evidence is indirect and focuses on interpersonal behaviours in the couple, which can be construed to stem mainly from personality traits, such as aggressiveness, hostility, or openness to experimentation (e.g. Torgersen, 1995).
The Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality with its five broad personality factors of
Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, has been used during the past few decades as the model of choice for personality research. Much of the direct evidence for personality as a predictor of dyadic adjustment comes directly or can be understood by using the framework of the FFM.
Out of the five broad FFM factors, Neuroticism has been consistently associated with marital dysfunction and marital dissatisfaction in both single studies (e.g. Gattis et al., 2004;
Schaffhuser, Allemand, & Martin, 2014) and metaanalyses (Karney & Bradbury, 1995).
Agreeableness with its components of trust and altruism is a good predictor of positive couple relationships, being associated positively with marital satisfaction (Karney & Bradbury,
1995), and negatively with conflictual behaviours in the couple (Donnellan, Conger, &
Bryant, 2004). Conscientiousness has also been shown to relate positively to marital satisfaction (Bouchard, Lussier, & Sabourin, 1999), to sexual satisfaction, and to a smaller number of conflicts in the couple relationship (Donnellan et al., 2004). The relationship between dyadic adaptation and the two factors of Extraversion and Openness to Experience is
6 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY not as clear. Research seems to suggest either that these two broad personality traits are not associated with dyadic adjustment (Donnellan et al., 2004) or that they have a negative impact on couple stability (Karney & Bradbury, 1995).
Social axioms and dyadic adjustment
Couples function in a complex social and economic environment, which encourages specific behaviours by making them sensible. Certain demographic and social variables have been shown to be reasonable predictors of dyadic adjustment: the existence of children, the behaviours and values of the close family circle, the socio-economic conditions of the neighbours, the employment status and employability of the partners, and living in an urban or rural environment (Bradbury et al., 2000). However, context is not only demographic but also cultural. The beliefs, values, aspirations, and norms of the partners, of their extended family, of their close friends, and, in general, of the group, community, and society where the couple resides are important. For example, how traditional a couple relationship is seems to play a role in its adjustment: In more traditional families, marital satisfaction is more dependent on group norms than in more modern families, where the partners tend to negotiate their obligations inside the couple relationship (Mickelson, Claffey, & Williams, 2006).
Research into such cultural variables and their impact on dyadic adjustment has, however, been erratic. We address this gap by proposing as a framework for such studies an important class of variables that have been proven to be connected to important behaviours and outcomes in cultural studies, that is, social axioms.
Social axioms are formed at the cultural level and are transmitted through socialization; this means that they are cross-generational. As a cultural artefact, social axioms fulfil a number of functional roles, guiding behaviours and ensuring individual integration in a defined culture (Leung & Bond, 2004). First, they are instrumental, as they guide individual behaviour towards important goals. Second, they are ego-defensive, as they guide individual
7 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY cognition and affect in building and protecting self-worth. Third, they are value expressive, as they are both guides for and expressions of people’s values. Fourth, they are knowledge generating, as they help people to make sense of the world (Leung et al., 2002).
Social axioms are organized into five clusters of beliefs, or dimensions (Leung &
Bond, 2004): social cynicism, social complexity, reward for application, religiosity/spirituality, and fate control. Each of the five social axioms has potentially a specific relationship to love relations and dyadic adjustment.
Social cynicism is based on a negative view of human nature, on the belief that society, institutions, and persons are immoral; that power is corrosive to people’s moral standards; and that people are unscrupulous in the pursuit of their goals. Social cynicism may manifest itself in a bias against some social groups, in a general distrust towards social institutions, and in lack of respect regarding others in the pursuit of one’s own goals.
Individuals high on social cynicism are likely to treat their partners instrumentally, take advantage of them, and use them for their own purposes (Boski, Bittas-Henne, &
Wieckowska, 2009). Social cynics are distrustful towards social institutions, such as family and marriage, and opposed to social conventions and social pressure (Keung & Bond, 2002).
They have a more confrontational approach to interdependencies (Bond et al., 2004). Social cynicism is the only social axiom associated with a lower level of life satisfaction (Bond,
2009), which encompasses relationship satisfaction. All in all, the hypothesis emerging from past research is that of a negative association between social cynicism and dyadic satisfaction.
Social complexity refers to the belief that there are many ways to solve a problem and that people change their behaviour to adapt to situations and circumstances; social complexity manifests itself in flexibility regarding behavioural standards, as well as in tolerance towards behavioural diversity across situations. In some cultures, like Romania, or Germany (Leung
8 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY et al., 2002), social complexity carries an interpersonal focus: Social situations are seen as being complex. Bond (1988) has speculated that, ‘Social Complexity has two facets— consistency of external events and singleness of solutions to problems’ (p. 333). This all would mean that people high on social complexity would see social and interpersonal situations, dyadic interactions among them, as being fluid: ‘my view’ is not necessarily the correct view, and openness to compromise in dyadic relations is therefore a given. Research shows a positive link between social complexity and interpersonal interactions: Individuals high on social complexity use collaboration and compromise more frequently as part of their approach to conflict resolution (Bond et al., 2004), and use problem-centred coping styles
(Bond, 2009). Given all these findings, the hypothesis emerging from past research is that of a positive association between social complexity and dyadic satisfaction.
Reward for application refers to the belief that hard work and careful planning are rewarded with positive outcomes; success is based on anticipation, planning, and conscientious effort. People high on reward for application may prefer a task-oriented and instrumental approach in dealing with their partners (Boski et al., 2009). Reward for application shares some common variance with conscientiousness as a personality trait
(Chen, Fok, Bond, & Matsumoto, 2006). People high on reward for application are more likely to have an internal locus of control (Singelis et al., 2003) and are likely to approach tasks in a planned, assertive, and ‘agentic’ way (Bond, 2009). It is likely that in interpersonal relations, people high on reward for application are more likely to expand personal effort in keeping the relationship going. In dyadic relations, they will therefore most likely invest personal resources in a systematic way: Relationships will not be expected to just stay alive, but will be kept alive by continuous, planned efforts. The hypothesis emerging is that of a positive association between reward for application and dyadic satisfaction.
9 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY
Religiosity refers to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and a belief that traditional religious institutions have a positive effect on social stability and on human behaviour. Religiosity as a social axiom is related to an altruistic and self-sacrificing love style (Boski et al., 2009), to moral development (Comunian, 2009), and an accommodating style of conflict resolution (Bond et al., 2004). Research linking religiosity to social interactions, which could be extrapolated to dyadic relationships, is scarce. However, it is very likely that people high on religiosity, who are likely to support not only the idea of a
God but also associated religious institutions, will also support traditional social institutions, such as family, and see them as serving important social functions (Bond, 2009). As a result, the hypothesis emerging is that of a possible positive association between religiosity and dyadic satisfaction.
Fate control is the belief that fate influences life outcomes but that it, in turn, can be predicted and influenced; fate control is connected to sentiments of fatality and efforts to know, control, and modify one’s destiny. In dyadic relationships, fate control is likely associated with strong affects and self abandoning behaviour (Boski et al., 2009). Fate control is related, at least in the Chinese culture, to wishful thinking and distancing as coping styles
(Bond et al., 2004), and is also related to attributional processes that construct reality in self- serving ways (Hui & Hui, 2009). Research linking fate control to dyadic interactions is scarce, but the hypothesis tentatively emerging is that of a possible negative association between fate control and dyadic satisfaction.
In light of the preceding discussion, we advance the following specific hypotheses linking social axioms to dyadic satisfaction:
H1: Dyadic adjustment will have an association with social axioms, exhibiting:
H1a: a negative link with social cynicism,
H1b: a positive link with social complexity,
10 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY
H1c: a positive link with reward for application,
H1d: a positive link with religiosity,
H1e: a negative link with fate control.
Social axioms are important predictors of behaviour in multicultural and cross- cultural settings and have a good association with social cognitions and behaviours. However, their utility is by no means given by their direct prediction for criteria, but also by their incremental validity. Incremental validity refers to the degree to which a variable increases the ability to predict an important phenomenon (Haynes & Lench, 2003). The utility of a new predictor is usually judged in terms of its incremental validity over predictors that are already established and commonly used (e.g. Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). If the new predictor fails to explain supplementary variance over other constructs, the practical need for it is limited.
Extant research suggests that dyadic adjustment is best predicted by personality variables
(Karney & Bradbury, 1995; see also earlier discussion).
In light of the links established from social axioms to dyadic adjustment, and of the conceptual and empirical difference between social axioms and personality traits (e.g. Chen,
Bond, et al., 2006; Hui & Hui, 2009), we assert that social axioms will have not only predictive power but also a predictive increment in the prediction of dyadic adjustment over and above such established predictors as personality traits. We therefore state the following hypothesis:
H2: Social axioms will exhibit incremental validity for the prediction of dyadic
adjustment, over and above the personality traits comprised in the FFM of personality
(Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and
Conscientiousness).
Social axioms develop in societies based on social and historical contexts and have adaptive value for the lives of individuals in these societies (Oceja, 2009). However, different
11 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY ethnic groups have a different construction of historical realities and may have to cope with different social and cultural challenges. We therefore expect that in different ethnic groups, social axioms may not only differ in their level of endorsement, but also that they may have different importance in predicting certain behaviours, that is, a differential effect on outcomes such as dyadic adjustment. In most crosscultural studies where social axioms were used, ethnicity was confounded with nationality (i.e. country differences in social axioms), and very few studies have focused on the manner in which social axioms may differ, based on ethnicity. A notable exception is the study of Singelis et al. (2009), who showed that different ethnic groups in the same country (USA) differ in their mean scores on social axioms.
However, no study has yet, to our knowledge, focused on investigating if social axioms exhibit differential prediction for specific outcomes. While in the absence of previous investigation to this end we cannot establish a hypothesis in this respect, we address this gap by investigating whether the various ethnic groups included in our sample differ in the validity of social axioms. We therefore propose the following research question:
RQ1: Explore the differential prediction of social axioms as predictors of dyadic
adjustment in the four ethnic groups comprised in the sample.
The present study
The present study focuses on four different ethnic groups that are approximately evenly distributed across our sample. Unfortunately, not much research has been undertaken or published on cross-cultural issues for the various ethnic groups in Romania, as also noted by Van de Vijver (2016), who concluded that in light of this absence of empirical studies,
‘the global picture about Romania is rather sketchy and inconsistent’ (p. 8). Nevertheless, a few details about the four ethnic groups included in our analysis are appropriate, because they differ from each other, at least in terms of social perceptions and stereotypes. Hungarians form approximately 6% of the population of Romania, with higher percentages in
12 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY
Transylvania and having a majority in its south-eastern parts. This is also the area where
Germans traditionally settled—while nowadays forming less than 1% of the population of
Romania, Germans have historically had an important civilizational role in this area. Rroma form approximately 3% of the population of Romania. They have historically gone through half a millennium of oppression, having lived in slavery from the 14th to the middle of the
19th century.
The history of each of these ethnic groups reflects on the stereotypes with which they are described in the Romanian culture, some of them possibly having a relationship with social axioms. Germans and Hungarians are perceived in Romania as hard-working and responsible (reward for application). Romanians are perceived, at least by contrast with the other ethnic groups, as religious, and as strong believers in fate. Rroma people have a long history of being abused and discriminated against and may be socially cynical towards institutions and other groups.
Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 420 participants, that is, 210 heterosexual couples. The ages of the participants ranged between 18 and 62 years (M = 40.21, SD = 9.97). The tenure of couple relationship was reported between 1 and 33 years (M = 13.48, SD = 7.98). A number of the 316 participants (i.e. 158 of the couples, 75.2%) were married; the rest were living in consenting relationships.
The participants were members of the ethnic majority and several ethnic minorities living in Romania. Romania is placed in South-Eastern Europe and can be defined as a multi- ethnic society. The total population of the country of around 20 million (INS, 2011) consists of a majority of Romanians (83.46%) but also of a number of ethnic minorities, such as
Hungarian (6.10%), Roma (3.09%), and other ethnicities (e.g. Ukrainian, German, Turk,
13 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY
Russian/ Lippovan, and Tatars—each with percentages <1%). In order to maximize the chance of selecting not only Romanian ethnic participants but also those of other ethnicities, the data for the present study were collected in the multi-ethnic areas of South-East
Transylvania.
A number of 124 participants (29.5%) were of Romanian ethnicity, 108 (25.7%) were of Hungarian ethnicity, 92 (21.9%) were of German ethnicity, and 96 (22.9%) were of Rroma ethnicity. Twenty-three of the couples (11.0%) were ethnically mixed; the rest, that is, 187 of the couples, were ethnically uniform (56 Romanian, 47 Hungarian, 40 German, and 44
Rroma).
The data are freely available upon request from the first author.
Procedure
Data were collected in Spring 2013 by paid field operators, in two major cities of the area. The sampling procedure used was a route sampling procedure, in which an operator started from a random point in a given city, went forward, and turned left at each odd intersection and right at each even intersection; using this route, the operators stopped at each
10th household, asking the household members for participation in the survey, screened for inclusion (existence of a dyadic relationship that had existed for at least 6 months, with at least one of the two members present, with both members of legal age, i.e. 18 years), and proceeded with the survey in case the inclusion criteria were satisfied.
Questionnaires were self-administered by the participants in their home in the
Romanian language, either in the presence of the field operator or being picked up by the operator at a later date (in which case, participants were urged to answer the questionnaires individually and to not compare notes on their answers). The field operator did check on the completion of answers and, in case of missing answers, asked the participants to complete their responses. Before administration, the participants were informed about their rights and
14 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY signed an informed consent form. The procedure is consistent with current ethical standards for data collection in Romania. Completion of the whole survey took a participant up to 40 minutes. Participants were not paid for their participation.
Measures
Dyadic adjustment
Dyadic adjustment was measured with the Romanian form of the Dyadic Adjustment
Scale (DAS; Spanier, 2001; Spanier, Iliescu, & Petre, 2009). The DAS is 32-item, self-report questionnaire, in which members of a couple report on their feelings and behaviours regarding their couple relationship. Different items are assessed in different ways: Some (e.g.
‘Me and my partner have disagreements in the handling of family finances’) on a 6-point agreement scale (1 = always agree, 6 = always disagree); some others (e.g. ‘How often do you or your mate leave the house after a fight?’) on a 6-point frequency scale (1 = all the time, 6 = never); some others (e.g. ‘Do you kiss your mate?’) on a 5-point frequency scale (1
= every day, 5 = never); some others (e.g. ‘In the past few weeks it happened that we were too tired for sex’) on a dichotomous scale (yes/no); and some others (e.g. ‘What is the degree of happiness in your relationship, all things considered?’) on a 7-point scale (1 = extremely unhappy, 7 = extremely happy). The DAS is a robust measure of dyadic adjustment and has been adapted and standardized to the Romanian culture through a careful process (Spanier et al., 2009). The DAS has a four sub-scales (Dyadic consensus, Dyadic satisfaction,
Affectional expression, and Dyadic cohesion), but because of low reliabilities in the latter two, only the DAS total score was used in our study, as a measure of overall dyadic adjustment. Reliability for the DAS total score was .90.
Social axioms
Social axioms were measured with the Romanian translation of the short form of the
Social Axioms Survey, Second Edition (SAS-II; Leung et al., 2012). The short-form SAS-II
15 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY is a 40-item self-report questionnaire in which the test-taker rates the items on a 5-point scale
(1 = strongly disbelieve, 5 = strongly believe). The SAS-II offers scores for 5 dimensions of social axioms: social cynicism (example item, ‘People create hurdles to prevent others from succeeding’), reward for application (example item, ‘One will succeed if he/she really tries’), social complexity (example item, ‘There is usually more than one good way to handle a situation’), fate control (example item, ‘There are certain ways for people to improve their destiny’), and religiosity (example item, ‘Belief in a religion helps one understand the meaning of life’). The Romanian version of the SAS-II was adapted from the original English version based on a process including both an initial forward translation and a blind backtranslation and was previously employed with good results in Romanian participants
(Guan, Bond, Dinca, & Iliescu, 2010). Reliabilities for the current study were .72, .77, .71,
.78, and .77 for social cynicism, reward for application, social complexity, fate control, and religiosity, respectively.
Personality
Personality was measured with the Romanian form of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory
(NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992). The NEO-FFI is the short version of the NEO
Personality Inventory, Revised (NEO PI-R). NEO-FFI consists of 60 items, each of the five broad personality domains being measured by 12 items. Each item is rated by the test taker on a 5-point scale (0 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree). The NEO-FFI was adapted and normed to the Romanian culture (Iliescu, Minulescu, Nedelcea, & Ispas, 2008; Ispas, Iliescu,
Ilie, & Johnson, 2014). Reliabilities for the current study were .82, .73, .71, .74, and .78 for
N, E, O, A, and C, respectively.
Demographics
Several demographic variables were collected, among them gender, age, status of the couple, and length of relationship. The status of the couple was coded as 1 = married or 0 =
16 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY unmarried. The length of relationship was expressed in years (rounded down to full years).
Ethnicity was coded as 1 = Romanian, 2 = Hungarian, 3 = German, and 4 = Rroma. All demographics were based on self-reports.
Statistical approach
In order to test Hypothesis 1, we analysed the data based on the precepts of the actor– partner interdependence model (APIM), isolating actor and partner effects of the various predictors on dyadic adjustment in a structural equation modelling framework. This approach has previously been used in dyadic studies with distinguishable partners, showing good results (e.g. Schaffhuser, Allemand, et al., 2014; Schaffhuser, Wagner, Ludtke, & Allemand,
2014). The main model tested models for both actor and partner effects, for both male and female outcomes (dyadic adjustment), for all five personality traits, and for all five social axioms.
In order to investigate the incremental validity of social axioms over personality
(Hypothesis 2), we compared this main model in terms of R2 for both male and female outcomes, with a model in which only the five personality variables were modelled as predictors. Finally, in order to explore the differential effects of social axioms in the four ethnic groups (research question 1), we have tested, separately for participants in each of the four ethnic groups, a model in which social axioms were modelled as predictors of dyadic adjustment. In order to account for the 23 mixed couples, for each ethnic group, actor and partner effects for men were computed exclusively on men of the respective ethnicity
(irrespective of the female partner’s ethnicity), and vice versa for the actor and partner effects for women.
Data and syntaxes for these analyses are presented as supplementary material.
Results
Descriptive statistics
17 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY
Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics for the variables included in the study, as well as the correlations between all the variables, computed separately for men and women. The zero-order correlation between matched predictor variables is very low for the five personality traits (r’s of .01, -.10, -.17, .04, and .04 for N, E, O, A, and C, respectively), is higher and significant for social axioms (r’s of .38, .44, .49, .38, and .48 for social cynicism, reward for application, social complexity, fate control, and religiosity, respectively), and high also for dyadic adjustment (r = .45, p < .001).
[Insert Table 1 here]
Several variables included in the study exhibited differences based on ethnicity. In the case of personality traits, Rroma participants scored higher than did the other ethnicities on
Neuroticism (F[3, 416] = 13.09, p < .001, f = 0.31), and Hungarians and Germans scored higher than did Romanians and Rroma on Agreeableness (F[3, 416] = 22.07, p < .001, f =
0.40) and Conscientiousness (F[3, 416] = 15.66, p < .001, f = 0.33). In the case of social axioms (Figure 1), Hungarians and Germans scored higher than did Romanians and Rroma on social complexity (F[3, 416] = 10.58, p < .001, f = 0.27), and Rroma participants scored lower than the other ethnicities on reward for application (F[3, 416] = 34.66, p < .001, f =
0.50), fate control (F[3, 416] = 5.07, p < .01, f = 0.20), and religiosity (F[3, 416] = 13.18, p <
.001, f = 0.31). There were no differences on ethnicity on the criterion variable (F[3, 416] =
2.01, p = .11).
[Insert Figure 1 here]
Correlates of dyadic adjustment
In order to investigate Hypothesis 1, we tested a basic, saturated APIM with all five social axioms and dyadic adjustment. When linked to social axioms, male dyadic adjustment has significant relations with both male and female social complexity (B = 0.49, p = .02, and
B = 0.37, p = .04, respectively), with male reward for application (B = 0.66, p < .01) and
18 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY with female fate control (B = -0.31, p < .01). The relations of male dyadic adjustment with social cynicism and religiosity were not significant. Female dyadic adjustment had significant relations only with female religiosity (B = -0.37, p < .01).
These results offer partial support for Hypothesis 1. They fully endorse H1b (the positive link with social complexity) for the male criterion, and partially support H1c (the positive link with reward for application) and H1e (the negative link with fate control), also for the male criterion. H1d (the positive link with religiosity) has received no support for the male criterion and exhibits the inverse relationship for the female criterion: Lack of dyadic adjustment in women is predicted by their high religiosity. H1a (the negative link with social cynicism) must be rejected.
The incremental effect of social axioms over personality
For a test of Hypothesis 2, we compared the R² estimated by two, basic saturated
APIMs, one containing only personality traits (χ2 [21] = 77.96, p < .001, R² male = .11, R2 female = .06) and one containing both personality traits and social axioms (χ2 [41] = 130.14, p < .001, R² male = .24, R² female = .17) as predictors of dyadic adjustment. The results of this comparison (Δχ2 [20] = 52.18, p < .001) support Hypothesis 2, confirming the incremental validity of social axioms for both male (ΔR² = .13) and female (ΔR² = .11) dyadic adjustment.
Table 2 presents the coefficients for both personality traits and social axioms predicting dyadic adjustment, based on the basic saturated APIM (with effects modelled separately for each trait and social axiom). Personality traits that showed a significant effect are Neuroticism (significant actor effect for males, B = 0.19, p = .03), Extraversion
(significant actor effect for women, B = -0.31, p = .03), and Conscientiousness (significant actor effect for men, B = 0.45, p < .001). No personality traits showed a significant partner
19 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY effect. Social axioms that have a significant effect are reward for application (significant actor effect for men, B = 0.65, p < .01), religiosity (significant actor effect for women, B = -
0.36, p < .01), and fate control (significant partner effect for women, B = -0.25, p = .02).
[Insert Table 2 here]
Differential effects by ethnicity
The coefficients for social axioms predicting dyadic adjustment, computed for the various ethnic groups, are shown in Table 3. A number of social axioms show differential effects based on ethnicity. Reward for application has differential actor effects on dyadic adjustment, for men (z = 1.79): It has effects ranging from B = 0.03 (p = .97) for Germans to
B = 1.43 (p < .01) for Romanians. Social cynicism showed differential partner effects for men (z = 2.22), but effects were non-significant, ranging from B = -0.65 (p = .07) for
Hungarians to B = 0.64 (p = .20) for Rroma. Finally, social complexity showed differential partner effects for women (z = 1.92), with effects ranging from B = -0.25 (p = .67) for
Germans to B = 1.06 (p = .02) for Rroma.
[Insert Table 3 here]
Discussion
Summary of findings
Our results showed that social axioms are associated with dyadic adjustment.
Specifically, the social axioms of reward for application, religiosity, and fate control showed significant effects. These effects were, however, limited to a specific actor–partner direction:
Reward for application showed only actor effects and only for men; religiosity showed only actor effects and only for women; and fate control showed only partner effects and only for women. Social cynicism did not emerge as significantly associated with dyadic adjustment in any way.
20 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY
The four ethnic groups hardly differed in their profile of social axioms: While some differences were established, these were low to negligible. A likely explanation of this result is that these four groups are indeed rather similar in terms of their social axioms. There are several reasons for this suggestion. First, the inter-ethnic differences are not exceptionally small, but comparable with the findings of other studies focusing on ethnic groups inside a national culture (e.g. Singelis et al., 2009). Second, ethnic differences failed to be registered inside of Romania in other similar studies, conducted on different samples (Guan et al.,
2010). Third, other authors, focusing on other variables (e.g. David, Iliescu, Matu, & Balaszi,
2015, working with personality traits) also commented on the relative geographical and ethnic uniformity of traits inside Romania. It is likely that living inside the same national culture and being subjected to intense majority-culture acculturation has a uniforming effect on social axioms.
However, ethnicity moderated the effects of some of the social axioms. German men stood forth with a nonsignificant actor effect of reward for application, while the other ethnic groups showed a positive actor effect of reward for application. Rroma women showed a positive partner effect of social complexity, while the other ethnic groups showed a null or negative effect. Social axioms, like values, do not function identically across cultural groups
(e.g. Bond, Leung, & Schwartz, 1992).
Social axioms also showed incremental validity over personality traits for dyadic adjustment. The incremental validity of social axioms was boosted by the fact that personality traits had a low correlation with dyadic adjustment. Table 1 shows in this respect absolute values between .01 and .13, with a median of .07. While small, these results are in line with previous results on this topic; for example, the meta-analysis of Malouff, Thorsteinsson,
Schutte, Bhullar, and Rooke (2010) reported correlations of -.22, .06, .03, .15, and .12 between relationship satisfaction and Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness,
21 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY and Conscientiousness, respectively. Similarly low associations, this time in a similar APIM as our study, were reported by Schaffhuser, Allemand and Martin (2014), who showed that self-assessed personality traits have validities (R2) of between .03 and .06 with relationship satisfaction. In contrast to their study, however, we did not report a generalized (actor and partner, for both sexes) effects of Agreeableness and, in general, were not able to detect any partner effects for any of the five broad personality traits.
The incremental effect of social axioms was further boosted by the low correlations exhibited by social axioms with FFM traits. In this regard, Table 1 shows absolute values between .00 and .19, with a median of .06, which is slightly but not significantly lower than those of previous research. For example, Chen, Bond, et al. (2006) have reported correlations between social axioms and the 28 traits measured by the Chinese Personality Assessment
Inventory (Cheung et al., 1996) of absolute values between .00 and .38, with a median of .10.
Possible mechanisms
Social axioms, an important class of culturally shaped variables, were thus shown to play an important role in the way couples live and experience their relationships. Importantly, as shown by our results, social axioms brought as much predictive variance to the explanation of dyadic adjustment as did the personality traits of the partners and provided an increment over and above the full range of personality traits, thus offering supplementary predictive power. This is consonant with the conclusions of Hui and Hui (2009) who, based on their synthesis of research performed during the past 20 years on the relationship between personality and social axioms, have concluded that there is no causal relationship between personality and social axioms (also Leung et al., 2012). Instead, social axioms function at least in part independent of personality traits and are not simple manifestations of personality, but sensitive, flexible, and changing psychological structures of belief or worldview responsive to ecological realities. This conclusion offers support to the suggestion of Bond
22 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY and Leung (2009) that, ‘personality is about the self, whereas axioms represent people’s perception or apprehension of their social world’ (p. 119). Both may be needed in predicting interpersonal outcomes, just as Lewin’s formula that behaviour is a function of personality and situation contends (Bond, 2013).
We have offered in the Introduction possible explanations for the expected relationship between each social axiom and dyadic adjustment. The tentative relations advanced for social cynicism and social complexity were not confirmed by our data, but the relationships predicted for reward for application, and for fate control, suggested that the mechanisms advanced for these effects may be correct.
Reward for application in men was possibly associated with higher dyadic adjustment owing to a readiness to invest more energy in a relationship, given the fact that a tenet of this social axiom is that good things come to those who try and persevere; relationships will be thus kept alive by continuous and systematic efforts, care, and personal investment. Fate control was advanced as negatively associated with dyadic adjustment; indeed high fate control in men was associated with low dyadic adjustment in women. The mechanism behind this effect may be, as advanced, the fact that high fate control is associated with an external locus of control, and with wishful thinking and distancing as coping styles, all of these in turn leading to low marital satisfaction in the partner. Religiosity, however, was advanced as positively associated with dyadic adjustment, while the data showed that it has a negative actor effect on women. We tentatively advance an explanation for this result, building on empirical findings and theory developed by Gebauer et al. (2015). These authors have built on the sociocultural motives perspective in order to offer a theory-driven explanation for cross-cultural variations in Big Five relationships with their outcomes. According to their explanation, these relationships are waxing or waning with that outcome’s decreasing or increasing sociocultural normativeness. The variation of the actor effect for female religiosity
23 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY is very high among the four ethnic groups investigated, and we tentatively suggest that this variation is based on the normativeness of family relationships in each of the ethnic groups.
Future research will need to confirm this effect of religiosity and, if confirmed, delve into the possible correlates of such an effect. There is also need to investigate if the relations of social cynicism and social complexity with dyadic satisfaction, which were proposed but not confirmed by the data, are further influenced (e.g. the negative effects could be buffered) by other variables, or if their relationship with the criterion is more complex, having both positive and negative links.
Actor and partner effects
We draw attention also to the finding that some social axioms were significantly more influential for the actor’s than for the partner’s dyadic satisfaction; that is, social axioms have in two of three cases only an actor effect. A man’s own high standing on the reward for application axiom shaped his own marital satisfaction positively. A woman’s high standing on the religiosity axiom seemed similarly to shape only her own marital satisfaction, but negatively. These two social axioms were more impactful in perceiving and interpreting the world. By contrast, a man’s high standing on the fate control axiom shaped his partner’s marital satisfaction negatively. This social axiom seemed thus to have an impact on actual behaviour, through which the satisfaction of the other member of the couple was then shaped.
This finding points to the double role of social axioms. On the one hand, social axioms guide behaviour (e.g. Dinca & Iliescu, 2009), and as such, the social axiom of partner
A in a dyad would generate a specific behaviour in that partner, which would then contribute to the dyadic adjustment of partner B, as suggested by the PERSOC orientation (Back et al.,
2011). However, if the social axiom of partner A contributes to the dyadic adjustment of the same partner A, this means that social axioms also play a role in the processing and construction of reality. This is consonant with predictions made by Bond (1988) or Singelis et
24 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY al. (2003) in which social axioms are shown to shape the way in which people explain and help create their daily successes and failures (Leung, Hui, & Bond, 2007). Finally, we need to remark on the high correlations obtained in our sample between the social axiom dimensions, but not among the personality dimensions, of the two members of a couple, which points to the fact that worldview compatibility may be more important than personality compatibility for couple satisfaction.
Practical implications
The practical implications of our results are twofold. First, assessment of intra-couple interaction, which may be performed for various purposes (e.g. counselling), could benefit from inclusion of the social axioms that the partners advocate. Demographic variables and personality traits do not cover enough of the variance of dyadic adjustment, and social axioms bring important supplementary variance to any such assessment. Second, counselling interventions for couples may include considerations of their social axioms, which can be understood as resources for coping (Leung & Bond, 2004) through which members of the couple overcome challenges in their relationship in order to achieve subjective well-being and self-worth (Lai, Bond, & Hui, 2007). Social axioms have already been shown to be directly linked to coping mechanisms related to conflict resolution, collaborative behaviours, and other behavioural correlates, which are important for family satisfaction (Bond et al.,
2004). Social axioms may possibly be more flexible and easier to change through counselling interventions than are personality traits or demographics, being thus potentially better targets in a counselling process. Rational-emotive therapy, for example, works by addressing a person’s dysfunctional worldview. Marital therapy should also be able to accommodate social axioms as a basis for reflection and discussion.
A caveat should be underlined here. Social axioms fluctuate as a function of social dynamics. Leung and Bond (2004) have suggested that at least the values associated with
25 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY social cynicism may evolve in a population as a function of social upheaval and change, and, given their adaptive function, other social axioms probably do, too. This would mean that social axioms may shift in order to offer coping resources that ensure adaptation to unstable and potentially threatening social contexts (Leung & Bond, 2004). The social axioms that have been shown in our study to have a strong predictive value for dyadic adjustment may represent such coping resources in a changing society with high uncertainty.
Limitations and implications for future research
Several limitations of the current research should be mentioned. The research design is cross-sectional in nature, which limits the generalizability of the results. Future longitudinal designs may have a stronger contribution in investigating the way in which dyadic adjustment and other forms of relationship satisfaction develop as a function of the partners’ social axioms. The finding that social axioms have an influence on individual behaviours and an impact on marital satisfaction is important and encouraging. In light of the unexplained effects of some social axioms (religiosity) and of the inconsistent effects of other axioms (reward for application and fate control) based on gender (i.e. only for men or only for women), however, more research is needed on these gender differences. Finally, limited statistical power for the detection of small effect sizes may have played a role in limiting the significance of some of the analyses conducted. A post hoc power analysis revealed that all our analyses have sufficient power to detect medium and large effects, but in order to have a power of .80 (α = .05) with the current sample, effect sizes smaller than f = 0.04 for the associations between social axioms and dyadic adjustment and effect sizes smaller than f
= 0.17 for the mean comparisons on ethnicity may not be detected. Thus, we cannot completely rule out the possibility that some of the non-significant results obtained for some of the associations between social axioms and dyadic adjustment and some of the non- significant comparisons on ethnicity were due to a small sample size.
26 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY
27 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY
References
Back, M. D., Baumert, A., Denissen, J. J. A., Hartung, F.-M., Penke, L., Schmukle, S. C., …
Wrzus, C. (2011). PERSOC: A unified framework for understanding the dynamic
interplay of personality and social relationships. European Journal of Personality, 25,
90–107.
Bernardo, A. B. I. (2009). Exploring the links between social axioms and the epistemological
beliefs about learning held by Filipino students. In K. Leung, & M. H. Bond (Eds.),
Psychological aspects of social axioms: Understanding global belief systems (pp.
163–176). New York: Springer.
Bond, M. H. (1988). Finding universal dimensions of individual variation in multi-cultural
studies of value. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 1009–1015.
Bond, M. H. (2009). Believing in beliefs: A scientific but personal quest. In K. Leung, & M.
H. Bond (Eds.), Psychological aspects of social axioms: Understanding global belief
systems (pp. 319–342). New York: Springer.
Bond, M. H. (2013). A general model for explaining situational influence on individual social
behavior: Refining Lewin’s formula. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 1–15.
Bond, M. H., & Leung, K. (2009). Cultural mapping of beliefs about the world and their
application to a social psychology involving culture: Futurescaping. In R. S. Wyer,
C.-Y. Chiu, & Y.-Y. Hong (Eds.), Understanding culture: Theory, research, and
application (pp. 109–126). New York: Psychology Press.
Bond, M. H., Leung, K., Au, A., Tong, K. K., de Carrasquel, S. R., Murakami, F., … Lewis,
J. R. (2004). Culture-level dimensions of social axioms and their correlates across 41
cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 548–570.
Bond, M. H., Leung, K., & Schwartz, S. (1992). Explaining choices in procedural and
distributive justice across cultures. International Journal of Psychology, 27, 211–225.
28 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY
Boski, P., Bittas-Henne, M., & Wieckowska, J. (2009). Cynicism in love and in politics. In K.
Leung, & M. H. Bond (Eds.), Psychological aspects of social axioms: Understanding
global belief systems (pp. 239–268). New York: Springer.
Bouchard, G., Lussier, Y., & Sabourin, S. (1999). Personality and marital adjustment: Utility
of the Five-Factor Model of personality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61,
651–660.
Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2000).Research on the nature and
determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 62, 964–980.
Buss, D. M., Abbott, M., Angleitner, A., Biaggio, A., BlancoVillasenor, A., Bruchon
Schweitzer, M., … Yan, K.-S. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates: A
study of 37 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 5–47.
Chen, S. X., Bond, M. H., & Cheung, F. M. (2006). Personality correlates of social axioms:
Are beliefs nested within personality? Personality and Individual Differences, 40,
509–519.
Chen, S. X., Fok, H. K., Bond, M. H., & Matsumoto, D. (2006). Personality and beliefs about
the world revisited: Expanding the nomological network of social axioms. Personality
and Individual Differences, 41, 201–211.
Cheung, F. M., Leung, K., Fan, R. M., Song, W. Z., Zhang, J. X., & Zhang, J. P. (1996).
Development of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 27, 181–199.
Comunian, A. L. (2009). Social axioms in Italian culture: Relationship with locus of control
and moral development. In K. Leung, & M. H. Bond (Eds.), Psychological aspects of
social axioms: Understanding global belief systems (pp. 269–282). New York:
Springer.
29 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
David, D., Iliescu, D., Matu, S., & Balaszi, R. (2015). The national psychological/personality
profile of Romanians: An in depth analysis of the regional national
psychological/personality profile of Romanians. Romanian Journal of Applied
Psychology, 17, 34–44.
Dinca, M., & Iliescu, D. (2009). Linking axioms with behavioral indicators and personality in
Romania. In K. Leung, & M. H. Bond (Eds.), Psychological aspects of social axioms:
Understanding global belief systems (pp. 145–162). New York: Springer.
Donnellan, M. B., Conger, R. D., & Bryant, C. M. (2004). The Big Five and enduring
marriages. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 481–504.
Gattis, K. S., Berns, S., Simpson, L. E., & Christensen, A. (2004). Birds of a feather or
strange birds? Ties among personality dimensions, similarity, and marital quality.
Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 564–574.
Gebauer, J. E., Bleidorn, W., Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., Lamb, M. E., & Potter, J.
(2015). Cross-cultural variations in Big Five relationships with religiosity: A
sociocultural motives perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107,
1064–1091.
Guan, Y., Bond, M. H., Dinca, M., & Iliescu, D. (2010). Social axioms among Romanians:
Structure and demographic differences. Romanian Journal of Applied Psychology, 12,
48–53.
Haynes, S. N., & Lench, H. (2003). Incremental validity of new clinical assessment
measures. Psychological Assessment, 15, 456–466.
30 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY
Hui, C. M., & Hui, N. H. H. (2009). The mileage from social axioms: Learning from the past
and looking forward. In K. Leung, & M. H. Bond (Eds.), Psychological aspects of
social axioms (pp. 13–30). New York: Springer.
Hui, V. K. Y., Bond, M. H., & Ng, T. S. W. (2007). General beliefs about the world as
defensive mechanisms against death anxiety. Omega, 54, 199–214.
Iliescu, D., Minulescu, M., Nedelcea, C., & Ispas, D. (2008). Technical manual of NEO PI-R.
Cluj-Napoca: Sinapsis.
Institutul National de Statistica (INS) [National Institute for Statistics]. (2011). Rezultate
definitive ale recensamantului populatiei si al locuintelor 2011 [Definitive results of
the Population and Housing Census 2011]. Retrieved from http://www.
recensamantromania.ro/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/rezultatedefinitive-rpl_2011.pdf.
Ispas, D., Iliescu, D., Ilie, A., & Johnson, R. E. (2014). Exploring the cross-cultural
generalizability of the Five-Factor Model of Personality: The Romanian NEO PI-R.
Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 47, 1074–1088.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and
stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 1, 3–34.
Keung, D. K. Y., & Bond, M. H. (2002). Dimensions of political attitudes and their relations
with beliefs and values in Hong Kong. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, 3,
133–154.
Lai, J. H.-W., Bond, M. H., & Hui, N. H.-H. (2007). The role of social axioms in predicting
life satisfaction: A longitudinal study in Hong Kong. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8,
517–535.
Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (2004). Social axioms: A model for social beliefs in multi-cultural
perspective. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp.
122–199), 36. San Diego, CA: Elsevier/Academic Press.
31 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY
Leung, K., Bond, M. H., de Carrasquel, S. H., Muñoz, C., Hernández, M., Murakami, F.,
Yamaguchi, S., … Singelis, T. M. (2002). Social axioms: The search for universal
dimensions of general beliefs about how the world functions. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 33, 286–302.
Leung, K., Bond, M. H., & Schwartz, S. H. (1995). How to explain cross-cultural differences:
Values, valences and expectancies? Asian Journal of Psychology, 1, 70–75.
Leung, M. C., Hui, C. M., & Bond, M. H. (2007). Does our worldview guide our
explanations for daily success and failures? Linking social axioms to attributional
style. Unpublished manuscript, Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Leung, K., Lam, B. C. P., Bond, M. H., Conway, L. G. III, Gornick, L. J., Amponsah, B., …
Zhou, F. (2012). Developing and evaluating the Social Axioms Survey in eleven
countries: Its relationship with the Five-Factor Model of personality. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 833–857.
Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Schutte, N. S., Bhullar, N., & Rooke, S. E. (2010). The
Five-Factor Model of personality and relationship satisfaction of intimate partners: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 124–127.
Mickelson, K. D., Claffey, S. T., & Williams, S. L. (2006). The moderating role of gender
and gender role attitudes on the link between spousal support and well-being. Sex
Roles, 55, 73–82.
Oceja, L. (2009). Processes of transmission and change of social axioms and their behavioral
influence in Spanish culture. In K. Leung, & M. H. Bond (Eds.), Psychological
aspects of social axioms: Understanding global belief systems (pp. 129–141). New
York: Springer.
32 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY
Safdar, S., Lewis, J. R., & Daneshpour, M. (2006). Social axioms in Iran and Canada:
Intercultural contact, coping and adjustment. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 9,
123–131.
Santisteban, D. A., Muir-Malcolm, J. A., Mitrani, V. B., & Szapocznik, J. (2002). Integrating
the study of ethnic culture and family psychology intervention science. In H. A.
Liddle, D. A. Santisteban, R. F. Levant, F. Ronald, & J. H. Bray (Eds.), Family
psychology: Science-based interventions (pp. 331–351). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Schaffhuser, K., Allemand, M., & Martin, M. (2014). Personality traits and relationship
satisfaction in intimate couples: Three perspectives on personality. European Journal
of Personality, 28, 120–133.
Schaffhuser, K., Wagner, J., Ludtke, O., & Allemand, M. (2014). Dyadic longitudinal
interplay between personality and relationship satisfaction: A focus on neuroticism
and self-esteem. Journal of Research in Personality, 53, 124–133.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in
personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research
findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.
Singelis, T. M., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Gabrenya, W. K., Gelfand, M., Harwood, J., Her, P., …
Vandello, J. (2009). Exploring ethnic group and geographic differences in social
axioms in the USA. In K. Leung, & M. H. Bond (Eds.), Psychological aspects of
social axioms: Understanding global belief systems (pp. 81–93). New York: Springer.
Singelis, T. M., Hubbard, C., Her, P., & An, S. (2003). Convergent validation of the Social
Axioms Survey. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 269–282.
Spanier, G. B. (2001). Dyadic Adjustment Scale, user’s manual. Toronto, ON: Multi-Health
Systems.
33 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY
Spanier, G. B., Iliescu, D., & Petre, L. (2009). Scala de adaptare in cuplu: Manual tehnic
[Dyadic Adjustment Scale: Technical manual]. Cluj-Napoca: Sinapsis.
Torgersen, S. (1995). Personality and personality disorders. Oslo, Norway:
Universitetsforlaget.
Tseng, W. S., & Hsu, J. (1991). Culture and family. Binghampton, NY: Haworth.
Van de Vijver, A. J. R. (2016). The cross-cultural perspective in Romanian psychology.
Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov, 9, 8–14.
34 Running head: SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations for the study's variables (N = 210 dyads)
Descriptive statistics Correlations M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Male 1 Age 40.81 9.85 - 2 Neuroticism 33.92 8.41 -.01 - 3 Extraversion 39.34 4.54 -.16 -.21 - 4 Openness 37.93 5.83 -.06 -.30 .51 - 5 Agreeableness 38.46 5.45 .15 -.41 .03 .09 - 6 Conscientiousness 44.73 6.74 .01 -.63 .17 .21 .61 - 7 Social Cynicism 3.62 0.46 -.18 .09 .13 .14 -.13 -.06 - 8 Reward for Application 3.91 0.50 -.02 -.10 -.04 -.06 .05 .13 .06 - 9 Social Complexity 3.66 0.54 .03 -.12 .01 -.05 .05 .19 .12 .48 - 10 Fate Control 3.13 0.69 .01 .06 -.08 .04 -.06 -.08 .02 .06 .10 - 11 Religiosity 3.18 0.67 .17 -.07 -.01 .01 .04 -.04 -.10 .32 .30 .31 - 12 Dyadic Adjustment 104.45 9.56 -.02 -.06 .02 -.01 .13 .26 .07 .37 .32 .00 .07 - Female 13 Age 39.61 10.07 .94 -.01 -.16 -.07 .13 .01 -.19 .01 .07 .03 .20 -.02 - 14 Neuroticism 34.44 9.01 -.09 .01 .15 .20 -.05 -.01 .07 -.12 -.10 .08 -.10 -.12 -.12 - 15 Extraversion 38.92 4.43 -.01 .08 -.10 -.19 .08 .05 .10 .11 .08 .09 .01 .10 -.04 -.14 - 16 Openness 37.82 5.70 -.03 -.02 -.04 -.15 .04 .10 .08 .02 .00 .07 -.05 .10 -.05 -.16 .42 - 17 Agreeableness 39.12 5.41 .10 .04 -.09 -.10 .04 -.06 -.04 .01 -.13 -.06 .07 .04 .14 -.35 .04 -.04 - 18 Conscientiousness 44.10 6.60 .13 .03 -.08 -.14 .07 .04 -.05 .09 -.02 -.02 .01 .09 .13 -.60 .15 .09 .57 - 19 Social Cynicism 3.55 0.52 .07 .01 .03 .08 -.04 .06 .38 -.04 .05 .18 .01 -.03 .01 .08 .16 .03 -.06 .06 - 20 Reward for Application 3.91 0.49 .04 -.15 .06 .01 .13 .24 .01 .44 .27 .07 .14 .19 .00 .03 .10 .07 .01 .09 .16 - 21 Social Complexity 3.75 0.50 .00 -.03 .02 .01 .01 .06 .18 .41 .49 .01 .23 .19 -.03 -.08 .10 .04 .01 .08 .20 .44 - 22 Fate Control 3.34 0.77 .04 -.06 -.04 .01 .05 .12 .10 .16 .03 .38 .12 .03 -.02 .05 .06 .10 .06 .00 .14 .32 .27 - 23 Religiosity 3.42 0.72 .15 -.17 -.06 -.06 .11 .11 -.04 .26 .30 -.05 .48 .06 .13 -.12 .02 .00 .02 .05 .01 .38 .45 .32 - 24 Dyadic Adjustment 104.29 8.89 .13 -.05 .08 .03 .04 .17 .17 .20 .22 -.07 .03 .45 .08 -.10 -.05 .07 .02 .06 .10 .16 .19 .05 -.01 - Note. For r ≥ |.12| p < .05, for r ≥ |.17| p < .01, for r ≥ |.22| p < .001.
SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY
Table 2. Coefficients for personality traits and social axioms predicting dyadic adjustment based on the actor-partner interdependence model
Actor effects for males Actor effects for females Partner effects for males Partner effects for females B 90% CI B 90% CI B 90% CI B 90% CI Personality Neuroticism .19* [.06, .35] -.10 [-.25, .00] -.05 [-.15, .10] .08 [-.07, .25] Extraversion .04 [-.13, .29] -.31* [-.59, -.10] .01 [-.30, .27] .07 [-.28, .27] Openness .01 [-.19, .17] .14 [-.09, .32] .11 [-.10, .29] -.03 [-.25, .18] Agreeableness -.02 [-.21, .24] .01 [-.27, .23] .10 [-.11, .36] -.05 [-.33, .13] Conscientiousness .45*** [.19, .64] .00 [-.19, .19] -.01 [-.21, .16] .24 [.01, .45] Social axioms Social Cynicism .14 [-.21, .52] .11 [-.24, .33] -.15 [-.45, .16] .31 [-.02, .61] Social Complexity .37* [.03, .67] .16 [-.19, .47] .03 [-.46, .34] .29 [.00, .61] Reward for Application .65** [.11, .88] .20 [-.22, .48] .02 [-.32, .40] .16 [-.18, .48] Religiosity -.02 [-.33, .22] -.36** [-.55, -.16] -.10 [-.35, .29] .17 [-.22, .33] Fate Control .00 [-.22, .20] .11 [-.06, .31] -.05 [-.22, .21] -.25* [-.44, -.05] Note: Table contains unstandardized coefficients.
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
36 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY
Table 3.
Coefficients for social axioms predicting dyadic adjustment, computed for the various ethnic groups
Actor effects for males Actor effects for females Partner effects for males Partner effects for females Ethnicity B 90% CI B 90% CI B 90% CI B 90% CI Romanian Social Cynicism .29 [-0.34, 0.80] .49 [-0.28, 1.15] -.43 [-1.27, 0.21] .17 [-0.59, 0.79] Social Complexity .57 [-0.01, 1.23] 1.25** [0.76, 1.92] .28 [-0.63, 0.88] .02 [-0.47, 0.82] Reward for Application 1.43** [0.71, 2.30] -.13 [-0.93, 0.48] -.20 [-1.17, 0.82] .67 [-0.18, 1.28] Religiosity -.11 [-0.73, 0.50] .04 [-0.57, 0.42] -.10 [-0.65, 0.69] -.18 [-0.86, 0.24] Fate Control -.09 [-0.59, 0.41] .09 [-0.35, 0.41] .05 [-0.25, 0.38] .10 [-0.38, 0.42] Hungarian Social Cynicism .21 [-0.39, 0.83] -.24 [-1.04, 0.46] -.65* [-1.53, -0.22] .63 [-0.14, 1.21] Social Complexity .57 [-0.40, 1.21] .27 [-0.50, 1.12] .25 [-0.88, 1.13] -.11 [-0.66, 0.74] Reward for Application 1.08* [0.45, 1.68] .57 [-0.18, 1.29] -.20 [-0.96, 0.52] .21 [-0.50, 0.83] Religiosity -.37* [-0.77, -0.01] -.60* [-1.13, -0.10] -.14 [-0.95, 0.41] .11 [-0.51, 0.47] Fate Control .27 [-0.08, 0.59] -.06 [-0.36, 0.41] -.18 [-0.61, 0.32] -.28 [-0.58, 0.34] German Social Cynicism .15 [-0.40, 0.97] -.18 [-0.81, 0.84] -.28 [-0.69, 0.17] .59* [0.10, 1.15] Social Complexity -.13 [-1.64, 0.59] -.55 [-1.78, 0.72] .52 [-0.26, 1.65] -.25 [-1.04, 0.80] Reward for Application .03 [-1.16, 0.81] -.15 [-0.84, 0.48] -.12 [-0.70, 0.77] .90 [-0.07, 1.50] Religiosity -.12 [-0.68, 0.36] -.19 [-0.88, 0.29] -.18 [-0.93, 0.41] .28 [-0.11, 1.02] Fate Control .10 [-0.67, 0.48] .43 [-0.08, 1.29] .02 [-0.57, 0.58] -.53* [-1.07, -0.08] Rroma Social Cynicism .44 [-0.21, 1.57] .69* [0.06, 1.45] .64 [-0.18, 1.37] .65 [-0.08, 1.23] Social Complexity .65* [0.02, 1.68] -.12 [-1.09, 0.52] -.09 [-0.93, 0.85] 1.06* [0.55, 1.89] Reward for Application .65 [-0.24, 1.54] .73 [-0.30, 1.74] .32 [-0.39, 1.63] -.01 [-1.09, 0.69] Religiosity .62 [-0.27, 1.18] -.72 [-1.66, 0.28] .24 [-1.25, 0.90] .87* [0.06, 1.47] Fate Control -.11 [-1.12, 0.65] .28 [-0.22, 0.87] -.06 [-0.71, 0.62] -.38 [-1.05, 0.38] Note: Table contains unstandardized coefficients.
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
37 SOCIAL AXIOMS, DYADIC ADJUSTMENT AND ETHNICITY
5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 Social Cynicism Social Reward for Religiosity Fate Control Complexity Application
Romanian Hungarian German Rroma
Figure 1. Mean scores on social axioms for the four ethnic groups (in raw means)
38