Communal Sharing and Market Pricing
Psychology Lab Report
Abstract
We compared two social relations which are part of the “Framework for a Unified Theory of Social Relations” developed by Fiske (1992). The concepts of Communal Sharing (CS) and Market Pricing (MP) were compared. These appeared to be the most interesting to compare because they demonstrate an almost opposite perspective for assessing values. The first is based on sharing within a community while the second is based on a type of “pricing” or ‘keeping score.’ So in a CS situation the neediest will be given the most while in the MP everyone is determined to have an equal amount.
We hypothesized that the “right thing to do” is determined by the social situation and how each party relates towards the others in a particular grouping. We also theorized that CS and MP would show very different preferences when compared to each other.
The data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. We found that within the Communal Sharing social design Neigbours/Employers displayed the same preferences while the rest had different preferences. In the Market Pricing scenario each pairing displayed different preferences.
Introduction
Fiske (1992) offered a new framework in which to understand why people make the decisions and choices they do. He proposed that the group within which a group is interacting has an effect on making every day decisions and moral decisions. His framework offers four elementary interaction examples.
1. Communal Sharing (CS) describes people in a group that feel they are equal footing with each other and have something in common which demonstrates that they are bound together such as family or religion (Fiske, 1992).
2. Authority Ranking (AR) is a group with acts within some type of hierarchal relationship with some people in the group dominant and the others submissive. An example is the parent/child dynamic (Fiske, 1992).
3. Equality Matching (EM) has group dynamics like “one for one correspondence, a tit for tat and an eye for an eye” (Fiske, 1992).
4. Market Pricing (MP) is a social relationship where give and take are calculated as to their worth or value. So the “market value” of interactions is judged in proportion to everyone else (Fiske, 1992).
Fiske (1992) proposes that these are four “elementary” relations because they are universal. He theorizes that understanding these for social models will be a “powerful” predictor in three ways: they mimic human development, they cross cultural boundaries so they are useful in all cultures, and when strangers are randomly thrown together in a situation where decisions need to be made they “will naturally tend to adopt one or another of these models to organize these joint activities” (Fiske, 1992).
Rusbult and van Lange (2003) discuss the importance of the theory of interdependence being important in psychology due to the “potential for integrating such diverse subfields as close relationships, pro-social behavior and intergroup behavior. They use Fiske’s work to help describe how groups display positive interaction within joint control dynamics by adapting to each other, coordinating decision making actions and “tend to be governed by rules of conventional behavior rather than morality” (Rusbult & van Lange, 2003). They also point out that their interdependence model is backed up by Fiske because, for example, some relationships are “need-based” not contribution-based, such as parent/child (Rusbult & van Lange, 2003).
Mellers, Schwartz and Cook (1998) address using the four social interaction relations to help understand “Judgment and decision making.” If they have no rule to follow people will use reasons or emotions to guide them. They describe the four social relations as rules. CS is found between families and nations; AR is based on ranking from higher to lower prestige within the group; EM is found in “babysitting cooperatives and car pooling;” and MP bases decisions on “supply and demand” (Mellers, Schwartz and Cook, 1998).
Bugental and Johnston (2000) describe the elementary interaction between for example parent/child as an implicit process. A person is so used to acting within the structure of the relationship they don’t even notice or as explicit processes where maybe a special family event has motivated the interactions. (Bugental & Johnston, 2000).
The literature which has built upon the Framework Model presented by Fiske (1992) gives reason to assume results using his assumptions will be reliable.
We hypothesized that the “right thing to do” is determined by the social situation and how each party behaves towards the others. We theorized that CS and MP would show very different preferences when compared to each other. We expected their results to be the opposite of each other. Based on the discussion above which describes the differences between CS and MP we felt this was a good theory.
225 part-time psychology students in our tutorial classes from Murdoch University participated in a social model questionnaire (B Psych Groups, 2009). We used their answers to gauge how they would react to different situations within paired relationships. The data will answer the question whether there are differences in the preferences on "the right thing to do" between the groups compared. For example, the data will give information as to which groups share similar preferences and which do not.
Method
We distributed a social model questionnaire to students in our tutorial classes. We used their answers to gauge how they would react to different situations within paired relationships. The sampling size numbered 225 people; all of them part-time psychology students from Murdoch University. They participated by answering written questions in an original social model questionnaire developed by two Murdoch 4th year B Psych Groups (2009).
Each of the questionnaire stories is written about one of four situations focusing on either distribution of resources, decision-making, division of work, or managing conflict. The four relationships used are between parent/child, employer/employee, housemate peers or neighbors. The data will give information as to which groups share similar preferences or if they do not share preferences.
The portion of the questionnaire titled, “What is the right thing to do?” consists of three to four sentence stories about situations which happen in real life that require a decision to be made. Each story has four choices.
The participants were directed to pretend they were in each story’s scenario. They should base their choice on what seems the most fair and not to worry because there are no “right or wrong” answers. If more than one answer seems to have merit, they were told to prioritize the most attractive to them as being #1 as first best, # 2 as second best and so on as they see fit.
The data was analyzed using descriptive statistics (including the mean, minimum, maximum, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis) after being pooled across classes and semesters. The normality of the sample was examined based on the deviation of the values of skewness and kurtosis from zero.
Two models were selected, communal sharing and market pricing and their preference data recorded. The preference of the participants for each model is presented as a percentage
The ranking scale is from 0 to 100. It is presented as a per cent. 100% is the highest possible preference.
We used the t-test to determine whether or not the difference observed in the means of the data is statistically significant.1 The sampling size consisted of 225 participants.
Results
The social relation questionnaire data from semesters 1 and 2 are pooled. Some students did not report responses to some of the measures so N varies across different analysis. The Skewness equals 2.989 and the Kurtosis equals 8.556 but if the data was normally distributed both should be equal to zero. Therefore data results should be used with caution since the data is not exactly normally distributed. (Lab Hand out, p. 5)
Tables 1 and 2 present the descriptive statistics of the Communal Sharing and Market Pricing preference data results. From the data on Tables 1 and 2 we can calculate if the data is valid or if the data is an outlier.
In general outliers can be considered values that are outside ±2 Standard Deviations from the Mean. First we determined if there were outliers in the Communal Sharing preference in the Parent Preference Group.
Mean ±2 times Standard Deviation (S.D.) gives a range because ± requires two calculations. One will give a positive value and one will give a negative value. Rule: if the negative value is less than zero (a minus number) it will be considered as equal to zero.
29.3 = the mean and * = the symbol for multiplication
±2 *17.26 requires two calculations: -2*17.26 = 0 (due to the rule) and +2 *17.26 = 34.52
The range equals 0 and 63.82. Values above 63.82 are considered outliers.
We used the calculation above for each of the mean values and their corresponding S.D in Tables 1 and 2. O the sampling pool2 of 224 people we found only a small number
____________________________________________________________________
1 In APA style, it is written p (for probability) instead of Sig. (for significance). They both refer to the same value. 2 The number that gave answers.
are outliers. Since we don’t have the original data we will not consider the number to be significant. We use the data as provided without outlier correction for the histogram graphs.
At the beginning of the lab we assumed that the perception of the “right thing to do” is determined by the social situation and how each party relates towards the others in a particular grouping. Based on that assumption we hypothesized that Communal Sharing (CS) and Market Pricing (MP) would show different preferences when compared to each other.
The data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. We found that within the Communal Sharing social design Neigbours/Employers displayed the same preferences while the rest had different preferences. In the Market Pricing scenario each pairing displayed different preferences.
Although the only section that displayed an instance of the same preference; we do not have enough data to make any concrete assumptions.
A social model questionnaire was to students in our tutorial classes who agreed to participate. We used their answers to gauge how they would react to different situations within paired relationships. The sampling size numbered 225 people; all of them part-time psychology students from Murdoch University. They participated by answering written questions in an original social model questionnaire developed by two Murdoch 4th year B Psych Groups (2009).
Each of the questionnaire stories is written about one of four situations focusing on either distribution of resources, decision-making, division of work, or managing conflict. The four relationships used are between parent/child, employer/employee, housemate peers or neighbors. The “do the right thing” questions in the questionnaire are based on the Framework of Sociality from Fiske (1992).
There are several weaknesses in the study. Not all of the questions were answered by every single one of the participants which does not allow for good normalcy of the data. The age group of the participants was generally the same; it would be better to have a range of ages participating. All the participants are psychology students which may or may not have an effect on how the questions were answered similar to a confounded limitation.
The error introduced could be from the time of day the tests were administered, how hungry some of the participants or how tired they may have felt. Some of the students may not have understood the directions and/or the questions well, for example, if English is their second language. Many errors are difficult to control and add to the statistical error of the results. That is why any variables that can be controlled need to be.
The external validity of the results can be judged by comparing the results with data from other studies such as from Fiske (1992).
The basis of CS is a community type of sharing attitude that can usually be found between families. The Market Pricing bases decision-making on proportionality and "supply and demand" perceptions. The Lab demonstrated that in the Communal Sharing social design, neighbours shared similar preferences only with employers. In the Market Pricing social design part the employers had different preferences from the other three groups which is expected since decision are based on "supply and demand" type thinking.
I think that given more controlled lab circumstances we would see more shared preferences between family and friends; not necessarily with employers. In the Market Pricing portion I would expect to see different preferences more often than same preferences for results.
As we have mentioned Fiske (1992) suggests that these four social relations are a universal set across cultures. Common sense tells us that this is a reasonable assumption but much more research needs to be done. Sampling of people of different ages and with different types of employment for example might give a lot different results. Cross cultural research of Fiske’s framework needs to be done and could give interesting information on some of the problems and advantages of how people perceive immigration.
References
B Psych groups, Two Murdoch 4th year. 2009. Social Models Questionnaire. Unpublished.
Bugental, D. B. and Johnston, C. 2000. Parental and Child Cognitions in the Context of the Family Annual Review of Psychology. p. 315+. Retrieved from
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001215807.
Fiske, A. P. 1992. The Four Elementary Forms of Sociality: Framework for a Unified Theory of Social Relations. Psychological Review. 99: 4. p. 689-783. Retrieved from <http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/Teaching%20407/psych407%20readings/Fiske1992.pdf>.
Mellers, B.A., Schwartz, A. and, Cooke, A.D.J. 1998. A Judgment and Decision Making. Annual Review of Psychology. 49. p. 447+. Retrieved from
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001362787.
NIST SEMATECH. Measures of Skewness and Kurtosis. Engineering Statistics Handbook.
n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2011 Retrieved from
<http://itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda35b.htm>.
PSY173. Introduction to Psychological Research Methods 2011-T3 Laboratory Report Topics. Hand out.
Rusbult, C. E. and Van Lange, P. A. M. 2003. Interdependence, Interaction and Relationships. Annual Review of Psychology. p.351+. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5002051917.
