Fülöp, M. (Marta)

Filtering

2018 - 201912020 - 20211

Settings

Author search.filters.isAuthorOfPublication.2705d561-3305-4fa0-a0df-3e04e58a5097

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Relational mobility predicts social behaviors in 39 countries and is tied to historical farming and threat
    (National Academy of Sciences, 2018-06-29) Gul, P. (Pelin); Neto, F. (Félix); Pliskin, R. (Ruthie); Talhelm, T. (Thomas); Marcinkowska, U. M. (Urszula M.); Houghton-Illera, A. M. (Ana Maria); Choi, H. S. (Hoon-Seok); Kito, M. (Mie); Manzi, C. (Claudia); Ferreira, C. M. (Carolina M.); Becker, M. (Maja); Kavanagh, C. M. (Christopher M.); Jong, J. (Jonathan); San-Martín, Á. (Álvaro); Becker, J. C. (Julia C.); Ayanian, A. H. (Arin H.); Schug, J. (Joanna); Oertzen, T. (Timo) von; Fülöp, M. (Marta); Joasoo, M. (Mihkel); Yuki, M. (Masaki); Milfont, T. L. (Taciano L.); Thomson, R. (Robert); Khutkyy, D. (Dmytro); Chiu, C. (Chi-yue); Visserman, M. L. (Mariko L.); Singh, P. (Purnima)
    Biologists and social scientists have long tried to understand why some societies have more fluid and open interpersonal relationships and how those differences influence culture. This study measures relational mobility, a socioecological variable quantifying voluntary (high relational mobility) vs. fixed (low relational mobility) interpersonal relationships. We measure relational mobility in 39 societies and test whether it predicts social behavior. People in societies with higher relational mobility report more proactive interpersonal behaviors (e.g., self-disclosure and social support) and psychological tendencies that help them build and retain relationships (e.g., general trust, intimacy, self-esteem). Finally, we explore ecological factors that could explain relational mobility differences across societies. Relational mobility was lower in societies that practiced settled, interdependent subsistence styles, such as rice farming, and in societies that had stronger ecological and historical threats.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Perceptions of the appropriate response to norm violation in 57 societies
    (Nature research, 2021-03-05) Gelfand, M. (Michele); Bagherian, F. (Fatemeh); Belaus, A. (Anabel); Halama, P. (Peter); Szabo, E. (Erna); Barrera, D. (Davide); Ilisko, D. (Dzintra); Boski, P. (Pawel); Hrebícková, M. (Martina); Fang, X. (Xia); Khachatryan, N. (Narine); Zhang, Q. (Qing-peng); Linh, L.T. (Lê Thuy); Berezina, E; Blumen, S. (Sheyla); Gardarsdottir, R.B. (Ragna B.); Maitner, A.T. (Angela T.); Basnight-Brown, D. (Dana); Thanomkul, N. (Napoj); Growiec, K. (Katarzyna); Barra, M. (Mícheál) de; Costa-Lopes, R. (Rui); Eller, A. (Anja); Mohammed, L. (Linda); Reyna, C. (Cecilia); Özden, S. (Seniha); Perez-Floriano, L.R. (Lorena R.); Nejat, P. (Pegah); Borges-Rodrigues, R. (Ricardo); Aldashev, A. (Alisher); Hartanto, A. (Andree); Kapoor, H. (Hansika); Widodo, S. (Sita); Choi, H. S. (Hoon-Seok); Björnstjerna, M. (Marie); Zirganou-Kazolea, L. (Lina); Gill, C.M.H.D. (C. M. Hew D.); Bou-Zeineddine, F. (Fouad); Pogosyan, M. (Marianna); Li, Z. (Zhuo); Wu, J. (Junhui); Raver, J. (Jana); Engelmann, J.B. (Jan B.); Nussinson, R. (Ravit); Mentser, S. (Sari); Wan, R. (Richard); San-Martín, Á. (Álvaro); Kohút, M. (Michal); Graf, S. (Sylvie); Panagiotopoulou, P. (Penny); Aycan, Z. (Zeynep); Cekrlija, D. (Dorde); Imada, H. (Hirotaka); Strimling, P. (Pontus); Sherbaji, S. (Sara); Anum, A. (Adote); Kiyonari, T. (Toko); Tsirbas, Y. (Yannis); Foster-Gimbel, O.A. (Olivia A.); Pheko, M. (Mpho); Dorrough, A. (Angela); Manley, H. (Harry); Abernathy, J. (Jered); Nipassa, O. (Orlando); Mendes-Teixeira, M.L. (Maria Luisa); Sakki, I. (Inari); Fülöp, M. (Marta); Kharchenko, N. (Natalia); Leslie, L.M. (Lisa M.); Akotia, C. S. (Charity S.); Li, Y. (Yang); Bui, H. T. T. (Huyen Thi Thu); Dvoryanchikov, N. (Nikolay); Liik, K. (Kadi); Romanò, S. (Sara); Gritskov, V. (Vladimir); Zein, R. (Rizqy); Bovina, I. (Inna); Arikan, G. (Gizem); Li, N.P. (Norman P.); Glöckner, A. (Andreas); Pirttilä-Backman, A.M. (Anna-Maija); Hopthrow, T. (Tim); Takemura, K. (Kosuke); Manhique, B. (Bernardo); Euh, H. (Hyun); Shimizu, H. (Hiroshi); Andrighetto, G. (Giulia); Travaglino, G.A. (Giovanni A.); Khoury, N. (Ninetta); Contreras-Ibáñez, C.C. (Carlos C.); Tieffi, H. (Hassan); Simpson, B. (Brent); Onyishi, I.E. (Ike E.); Lange, P.A.M. (Paul A. M.) Van; Medhioub, I. (Imed); Cardenas, J. C. (Juan-Camilo); Zoysa, P. (Piyanjali) de; Andersson, P.A. (Per A.); Persson, M.S. (Minna S.); Kawakami, K. (Kerry); Eriksson, K. (Kimmo); Fiedler, S. (Susann); Batkeyev, B. (Birzhan); Onyedire, N.G. (Nneoma G.); Grigoryan, A. (Ani); Romero, P.P. (Pedro P.); Tiliouine, H. (Habib)
    Norm enforcement may be important for resolving conflicts and promoting cooperation. However, little is known about how preferred responses to norm violations vary across cultures and across domains. In a preregistered study of 57 countries (using convenience samples of 22,863 students and non-students), we measured perceptions of the appropriateness of various responses to a violation of a cooperative norm and to atypical social behaviors. Our findings highlight both cultural universals and cultural variation. We find a universal negative relation between appropriateness ratings of norm violations and appropriateness ratings of responses in the form of confrontation, social ostracism and gossip. Moreover, we find the country variation in the appropriateness of sanctions to be consistent across different norm violations but not across different sanctions. Specifically, in those countries where use of physical confrontation and social ostracism is rated as less appropriate, gossip is rated as more appropriate.