Van de Vliert's attempt to explain the relationship between fundamental needs and freedoms is a very promising effort, particularly because it emphasizes the role that the acquisition of resources plays in human culture. There is little doubt that climatic conditions and available resources lead to predictable cultural syndromes. Van de Vliert's position is that the resources involved in various cultural syndromes or distinct cultural patterns are monetary. I believe that consideration of a richer context of human social exchange offers a deeper and more rounded view of human values and social meanings. This is acknowledged in the target article, as, for example, in the discussion of the variety of behavioral adaptations to different habitats. However, the emphasis is clearly on the relationship of climate and economic conditions to the rise of various kinds of freedoms, with “psychobehavioral” adaptations conceptualized as links between the two. I propose that these adaptations are reflections of additional resources that define psychologically various cultural habitats.
Human social exchanges involve much more than the transfer of monetary resources. Over the years, research on social resource theory has established that, across cultures, any social interaction involves the exchange of at least one of six major classes of resources: love, services, goods, money, information, and status (Foa & Foa Reference Foa and Foa1974). The six classes vary in concreteness and particularism (the extent to which the relationship between the persons engaged in the exchange is important for its satisfactory completion). Foa (Reference Foa, Foa, Converse, Törnblom and Foa1993) has pointed out that traditional approaches, which separated the economics from the psychology of human exchange, missed the point that any social interaction involves a combination of these resources. Consequently, any attempt to explain fundamental aspects of human social life must take into consideration the range of resources being exchanged. From this perspective, all freedoms studied in the target article can be understood as freedoms to acquire/exchange resources. Thus, for example, freedom from fear may involve the resource of love (affection/affiliation), freedom of expression may involve the resource of information, and freedom from discrimination may involve the resource of status (needs for esteem and respect).
I have incorporated aspects of social resource theory into a model of the emergence of cultural syndromes or patterns (Adamopoulos Reference Adamopoulos, Adamopoulos and Kashima1999; Reference Adamopoulos, Törnblom and Kazemi2012). The fundamental assumptions behind this approach are (a) that all social interaction can be viewed as resource exchange and (b) that constraints operating on human interaction (e.g., whether the exchange is meant to benefit the self or the other, whether the relationship between actor and target is particularistic or universalistic, and whether the resource being exchanged is concrete or symbolic) are integrated into cultural patterns. Thus, for example, patterns that are oriented toward the benefit of generalized others and involve material resources give rise to values associated with benevolence, philanthropy, and altruism. These patterns have been described in individualism-collectivism theory (Triandis Reference Triandis1995), as well as in Schwartz's (Reference Schwartz and Zanna1992) theory of human values.
The processes identified via such a resource-based analysis of interpersonal exchange can help describe in detail the psychological “assessment” mechanisms assumed in the target article, and, more specifically, the “psychobehavioral adaptations” that link climatic conditions and monetary resources to fundamental freedoms. On the basis of such a multiple-resource approach, I would predict that maximal freedom would be found in cultures where typical social interactions involve the exchange of resources – especially material ones – in nonparticularistic (generalized other) relationships meant primarily to benefit the self. I have described such a cultural pattern as ego-sustaining individualism (Adamopoulos Reference Adamopoulos, Adamopoulos and Kashima1999). It is similar to Triandis's (Reference Triandis1995) horizontal individualism and may involve the primacy of values like self-direction and stimulation (Schwartz Reference Schwartz and Zanna1992).
A reexamination of the major predictions of the target article regarding the rise of fundamental freedoms in different climate-economic habitats in the context of such a multiresource model might suggest a set of different, interpersonal processes as links between the two. For example, in demanding climates with high levels of poverty, interdependence would be high. This would necessitate many controls (e.g., social norms) in order to regulate interpersonal relationships, and, hence, lead to low freedom. In temperate climates, the abundance of resources would not warrant great concern and competition for resource acquisition. At the same time, however, temperate climates also encourage ease and frequency of interpersonal exchanges, which most likely implies that at least some norms and regulations must be in place. Finally, in harsh climates many resources probably have been acquired through, and interpersonal interactions (e.g., trading) involve, considerable effort. Demand for limited resources would be high in such a context, along with a rise in advocacy for various freedoms (e.g., protests against high taxation, or the belief in the individual's right to protect self and acquired resources by any means possible).
One related final point: the climato-economic model approaches the rise of fundamental freedoms from a rather individualistic point of view because of its emphasis on the acquisition of monetary resources. Note that in social resource theory money is the resource lowest in particularism (i.e., the other's identity is not terribly important in completing the transaction in a satisfactory manner). I have suggested that there is another perspective, however – that of benefitting the other through one's actions. This perspective is critical in understanding interdependent relationships in much of the world, but is largely ignored in the target article. Consider an example: according to Figure 1 in the target article, the central outcome of harsh climates with low monetary resources is autocratic organizing with low freedom. Yet, there exist numerous communities around the world where communalism emerges in such conditions. Fiske (Reference Fiske1991) describes such a community in Western Africa and makes the point that social organization is motivated by a desire in members of a village to work communally and help each other, rather than to maximize economic benefit. A careful analysis of the role of multiple resources in the organization of culture is, I believe, essential to understanding the emergence of social meanings and values.
You have
Access
Van de Vliert's attempt to explain the relationship between fundamental needs and freedoms is a very promising effort, particularly because it emphasizes the role that the acquisition of resources plays in human culture. There is little doubt that climatic conditions and available resources lead to predictable cultural syndromes. Van de Vliert's position is that the resources involved in various cultural syndromes or distinct cultural patterns are monetary. I believe that consideration of a richer context of human social exchange offers a deeper and more rounded view of human values and social meanings. This is acknowledged in the target article, as, for example, in the discussion of the variety of behavioral adaptations to different habitats. However, the emphasis is clearly on the relationship of climate and economic conditions to the rise of various kinds of freedoms, with “psychobehavioral” adaptations conceptualized as links between the two. I propose that these adaptations are reflections of additional resources that define psychologically various cultural habitats.
Human social exchanges involve much more than the transfer of monetary resources. Over the years, research on social resource theory has established that, across cultures, any social interaction involves the exchange of at least one of six major classes of resources: love, services, goods, money, information, and status (Foa & Foa Reference Foa and Foa1974). The six classes vary in concreteness and particularism (the extent to which the relationship between the persons engaged in the exchange is important for its satisfactory completion). Foa (Reference Foa, Foa, Converse, Törnblom and Foa1993) has pointed out that traditional approaches, which separated the economics from the psychology of human exchange, missed the point that any social interaction involves a combination of these resources. Consequently, any attempt to explain fundamental aspects of human social life must take into consideration the range of resources being exchanged. From this perspective, all freedoms studied in the target article can be understood as freedoms to acquire/exchange resources. Thus, for example, freedom from fear may involve the resource of love (affection/affiliation), freedom of expression may involve the resource of information, and freedom from discrimination may involve the resource of status (needs for esteem and respect).
I have incorporated aspects of social resource theory into a model of the emergence of cultural syndromes or patterns (Adamopoulos Reference Adamopoulos, Adamopoulos and Kashima1999; Reference Adamopoulos, Törnblom and Kazemi2012). The fundamental assumptions behind this approach are (a) that all social interaction can be viewed as resource exchange and (b) that constraints operating on human interaction (e.g., whether the exchange is meant to benefit the self or the other, whether the relationship between actor and target is particularistic or universalistic, and whether the resource being exchanged is concrete or symbolic) are integrated into cultural patterns. Thus, for example, patterns that are oriented toward the benefit of generalized others and involve material resources give rise to values associated with benevolence, philanthropy, and altruism. These patterns have been described in individualism-collectivism theory (Triandis Reference Triandis1995), as well as in Schwartz's (Reference Schwartz and Zanna1992) theory of human values.
The processes identified via such a resource-based analysis of interpersonal exchange can help describe in detail the psychological “assessment” mechanisms assumed in the target article, and, more specifically, the “psychobehavioral adaptations” that link climatic conditions and monetary resources to fundamental freedoms. On the basis of such a multiple-resource approach, I would predict that maximal freedom would be found in cultures where typical social interactions involve the exchange of resources – especially material ones – in nonparticularistic (generalized other) relationships meant primarily to benefit the self. I have described such a cultural pattern as ego-sustaining individualism (Adamopoulos Reference Adamopoulos, Adamopoulos and Kashima1999). It is similar to Triandis's (Reference Triandis1995) horizontal individualism and may involve the primacy of values like self-direction and stimulation (Schwartz Reference Schwartz and Zanna1992).
A reexamination of the major predictions of the target article regarding the rise of fundamental freedoms in different climate-economic habitats in the context of such a multiresource model might suggest a set of different, interpersonal processes as links between the two. For example, in demanding climates with high levels of poverty, interdependence would be high. This would necessitate many controls (e.g., social norms) in order to regulate interpersonal relationships, and, hence, lead to low freedom. In temperate climates, the abundance of resources would not warrant great concern and competition for resource acquisition. At the same time, however, temperate climates also encourage ease and frequency of interpersonal exchanges, which most likely implies that at least some norms and regulations must be in place. Finally, in harsh climates many resources probably have been acquired through, and interpersonal interactions (e.g., trading) involve, considerable effort. Demand for limited resources would be high in such a context, along with a rise in advocacy for various freedoms (e.g., protests against high taxation, or the belief in the individual's right to protect self and acquired resources by any means possible).
One related final point: the climato-economic model approaches the rise of fundamental freedoms from a rather individualistic point of view because of its emphasis on the acquisition of monetary resources. Note that in social resource theory money is the resource lowest in particularism (i.e., the other's identity is not terribly important in completing the transaction in a satisfactory manner). I have suggested that there is another perspective, however – that of benefitting the other through one's actions. This perspective is critical in understanding interdependent relationships in much of the world, but is largely ignored in the target article. Consider an example: according to Figure 1 in the target article, the central outcome of harsh climates with low monetary resources is autocratic organizing with low freedom. Yet, there exist numerous communities around the world where communalism emerges in such conditions. Fiske (Reference Fiske1991) describes such a community in Western Africa and makes the point that social organization is motivated by a desire in members of a village to work communally and help each other, rather than to maximize economic benefit. A careful analysis of the role of multiple resources in the organization of culture is, I believe, essential to understanding the emergence of social meanings and values.