Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for FREE ACCESS to this landmark database

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fiske, A. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Social Errors in Four Cultures: Evidence about Universal Forms of Social Relations

Alan Page Fiske

Bryn Mawr College

To test the cross-cultural generality of relational-models theory, four studies examined the social errors of Bengali, Korean, Chinese, and Vai (from Liberia and Sierra Leone) subjects resident in the United States. Few of the subjects understood or spoke English well or participated substantially in American culture. Subjects reported errors in which they called someone they knew by the wrong name, misremembered with whom they had done something, or mistakenly directed an action at an inappropriate person. As predicted in all four cultures, people making these errors tend to substitute someone with whom they have the same basic kind of relationship. This effect of the four relational models is strongest in the least acculturated subjects. This effect is generally independent of tendencies to confuse people of the same age, gender, or ethnicity, or the tendency to confuse people whom subjects encounter in similar situations or refer to by the same role or kin term. These findings support the hypothesis that four universal relational categories underlie everyday social cognition across cultures.

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 4, 463-494 (1993)
DOI: 10.1177/0022022193244006


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of Social and Personal RelationshipsHome page
A. F. Koerner
Models of relating - not relationship models: Cognitive representations of relating across interpersonal relationship domains
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, August 1, 2006; 23(4): 629 - 653.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Social and Personal RelationshipsHome page
A. Realo, L. Kastik, and J. Allik
The relationships between collectivist attitudes and elementary forms of human relations: Evidence from Estonia
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, December 1, 2004; 21(6): 779 - 794.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Pers Soc Psychol RevHome page
B. Lickel, D. L. Hamilton, and S. J. Sherman
Elements of a Lay Theory of Groups: Types of Groups, Relational Styles, and the Perception of Group Entitativity
Personality and Social Psychology Review, May 1, 2001; 5(2): 129 - 140.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Cross-Cultural ResearchHome page
J. L. Gibbons, M. Lynn, and D. A. Stiles
Cross-National Gender Differences in Adolescents' Preferences for Free-Time Activities
Cross-Cultural Research, February 1, 1997; 31(1): 55 - 69.
[Abstract] [PDF]