The importance of history and political changes for freedoms
The main argument of the target article is that climatic demands and monetary resources explain the distribution of fundamental freedoms across the globe. Yet, countries develop, and their histories and current political systems also must be considered to understand individuals' freedoms.
For example, linking climatic demands and monetary resources directly to press repression seems odd when not taking political systems and practices into consideration. Van de Vliert wrote:
Press people were bullied most in poor populations threatened by demanding thermal climates (e.g., China, Sudan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan), to a moderate extent in populations comforted by undemanding climates irrespective of income per head (e.g., Barbados, Honduras, Singapore, and Seychelles), and least in rich populations challenged by demanding thermal climates (e.g., Canada, Estonia, Slovakia, and Sweden). (sect. 4.2, para. 4).
However, political climate is likely to have stronger effect on repercussions against press than “demanding thermal climates.” Venezuela and Cuba do not have demanding thermal climates, yet press repression is high in both countries. Alternately, China, Sudan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, all discussed by Van de Vliert, share characteristics of political repression and human rights violations.
Van de Vliert makes an evolutionary argument about the constraints and influences of climatic demands and monetary resources on several individual freedom variables. However, changes in individual freedoms on the country level can be very recent and very dramatic and mainly influenced by the dominant political system. In Germany, climatic demands have been roughly the same over the last centuries; monetary resources have varied considerably, such as the low point after the Great Depression in the 1930s, culminating in an unemployment rate of about 30% in 1932. Yet the fundamental freedoms of Germans can be undoubtedly attributed to the changes in the political systems from the democratic Weimar Republic (1919–1933) to the totalitarian era of Hitler and National Socialism (1933–1949) to the post-World War II federal parliamentary republic of West Germany (when average individual income was certainly very low). Dramatic changes in the political system are possibly stronger predictors of individual freedoms than climate and monetary resources, and can even influence access to monetary resources. The political system will affect wealth distribution and economic development; for example, in Russia, Spain, Italy, and Japan, especially over the last century, changes in freedoms were affected by changes in sociopolitical history.
Problems with operationalizing and assessing freedoms and needs
The article showed methodological shortcomings when operationalizing and measuring needs referring primarily to Maslow's hierarchy (Reference Maslow1943; Reference Maslow1954; see also Alderfer Reference Alderfer1972). According to Van de Vliert, the first group of needs, existential physiological needs, can be satisfied by freedom from want, defined as “enjoy a decent standard of living.” The only indicator used in this article was infant mortality. In 2011, the United States with an infant mortality rate of 6, i.e. 6 deaths per 1,000 live births, was behind 38 other countries who had lower infant mortality rates such as Portugal, Greece, Cuba, Cyprus, or Poland (United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation 2012). It is questionable whether citizens from these countries enjoy a better standard of living than U.S. citizens. What about other potential indicators of existential needs satisfaction, like access to and affordability of food or related indicators like hunger or poverty rate? What about access to affordable health care and housing?
The second group of needs, safety needs, would be satisfied through freedom from fear, defined as “no threats to personal security.” Freedom from fear was assessed by employee harassment and press repression. However, are these indicators relevant as threats to personal security within society in general? What about crime or murder rates, violence or bullying in schools? What about political instability, fear of war or terrorism or natural disasters? Or unemployment rates, job security, or labor laws and unions?
The third need, to belong and relate to others, would be satisfied by freedom of expression and participation and was assessed through self-expression goals. Self-expression goals emphasize the role of self-realization and would meet growth needs and are the opposite pole of survival goals emphasizing security. Self-expression alone does not adequately reflect the need to belong. What about divorce rates or loneliness, family belongingness or meaningful relationships? What about involvement in professional or vocational organizations or religious groups?
Similarly, the fourth (esteem and being respected) and fifth (self-actualization) groups of needs and freedoms were not adequately operationalized and assessed. One indicator for self-actualization was preference for democratic leadership among managers. But perhaps an Indian or Malayan middle-manager in a rural area fulfills his need for self-actualization more under a “nurturant-task participative leader,” who focuses on tasks, as well as affection and nurturing relationships (Sinha Reference Sinha2008), than under an employer demonstrating a democratic leadership style. To summarize, although it is difficult to operationalize how these five groups of needs can be satisfied – especially the higher-order needs – the needs were assessed with a few variables that do not seem to adequately and validly reflect the breadth and core and, in some instances, the essence of the needs.
Something is missing
Again, the main argument of the article is to relate climate demands and monetary resources to psychological processes. An example sentence highlights this argument: “Greater [climatic] demands in interaction with insufficient resources to meet the demands increase closed-mindedness and risk aversion, whereas greater demands in interaction with sufficient resources increase open-mindedness and risk seeking” (sect. 2, para. 1). I would argue that something is missing between climate, money, and the psychology of people: open-mindedness in this case. People live in societies that have specific histories, cultural norms and rules, values, rituals, political forms, religious ideologies, and so forth. These factors are situated somewhere between climate and individual psychological processes and should be considered to explain behaviors (e.g., Berry Reference Berry1997; Güss et al. Reference Güss, Tuason and Teixeira2007, on decisions of suicide terrorists; Güss Reference Güss2011, on cultural values and decision making). Cultural influences are not adequately considered. Yet, culture is the blood and soul of a nation.
The highly relevant and interesting target article culled an impressive dataset from varied sources. Particularly innovative was the prognostics section relating climatic demands, monetary resources, and freedom for the year 2112.
The importance of history and political changes for freedoms
The main argument of the target article is that climatic demands and monetary resources explain the distribution of fundamental freedoms across the globe. Yet, countries develop, and their histories and current political systems also must be considered to understand individuals' freedoms.
For example, linking climatic demands and monetary resources directly to press repression seems odd when not taking political systems and practices into consideration. Van de Vliert wrote:
Press people were bullied most in poor populations threatened by demanding thermal climates (e.g., China, Sudan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan), to a moderate extent in populations comforted by undemanding climates irrespective of income per head (e.g., Barbados, Honduras, Singapore, and Seychelles), and least in rich populations challenged by demanding thermal climates (e.g., Canada, Estonia, Slovakia, and Sweden). (sect. 4.2, para. 4).
However, political climate is likely to have stronger effect on repercussions against press than “demanding thermal climates.” Venezuela and Cuba do not have demanding thermal climates, yet press repression is high in both countries. Alternately, China, Sudan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, all discussed by Van de Vliert, share characteristics of political repression and human rights violations.
Van de Vliert makes an evolutionary argument about the constraints and influences of climatic demands and monetary resources on several individual freedom variables. However, changes in individual freedoms on the country level can be very recent and very dramatic and mainly influenced by the dominant political system. In Germany, climatic demands have been roughly the same over the last centuries; monetary resources have varied considerably, such as the low point after the Great Depression in the 1930s, culminating in an unemployment rate of about 30% in 1932. Yet the fundamental freedoms of Germans can be undoubtedly attributed to the changes in the political systems from the democratic Weimar Republic (1919–1933) to the totalitarian era of Hitler and National Socialism (1933–1949) to the post-World War II federal parliamentary republic of West Germany (when average individual income was certainly very low). Dramatic changes in the political system are possibly stronger predictors of individual freedoms than climate and monetary resources, and can even influence access to monetary resources. The political system will affect wealth distribution and economic development; for example, in Russia, Spain, Italy, and Japan, especially over the last century, changes in freedoms were affected by changes in sociopolitical history.
Problems with operationalizing and assessing freedoms and needs
The article showed methodological shortcomings when operationalizing and measuring needs referring primarily to Maslow's hierarchy (Reference Maslow1943; Reference Maslow1954; see also Alderfer Reference Alderfer1972). According to Van de Vliert, the first group of needs, existential physiological needs, can be satisfied by freedom from want, defined as “enjoy a decent standard of living.” The only indicator used in this article was infant mortality. In 2011, the United States with an infant mortality rate of 6, i.e. 6 deaths per 1,000 live births, was behind 38 other countries who had lower infant mortality rates such as Portugal, Greece, Cuba, Cyprus, or Poland (United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation 2012). It is questionable whether citizens from these countries enjoy a better standard of living than U.S. citizens. What about other potential indicators of existential needs satisfaction, like access to and affordability of food or related indicators like hunger or poverty rate? What about access to affordable health care and housing?
The second group of needs, safety needs, would be satisfied through freedom from fear, defined as “no threats to personal security.” Freedom from fear was assessed by employee harassment and press repression. However, are these indicators relevant as threats to personal security within society in general? What about crime or murder rates, violence or bullying in schools? What about political instability, fear of war or terrorism or natural disasters? Or unemployment rates, job security, or labor laws and unions?
The third need, to belong and relate to others, would be satisfied by freedom of expression and participation and was assessed through self-expression goals. Self-expression goals emphasize the role of self-realization and would meet growth needs and are the opposite pole of survival goals emphasizing security. Self-expression alone does not adequately reflect the need to belong. What about divorce rates or loneliness, family belongingness or meaningful relationships? What about involvement in professional or vocational organizations or religious groups?
Similarly, the fourth (esteem and being respected) and fifth (self-actualization) groups of needs and freedoms were not adequately operationalized and assessed. One indicator for self-actualization was preference for democratic leadership among managers. But perhaps an Indian or Malayan middle-manager in a rural area fulfills his need for self-actualization more under a “nurturant-task participative leader,” who focuses on tasks, as well as affection and nurturing relationships (Sinha Reference Sinha2008), than under an employer demonstrating a democratic leadership style. To summarize, although it is difficult to operationalize how these five groups of needs can be satisfied – especially the higher-order needs – the needs were assessed with a few variables that do not seem to adequately and validly reflect the breadth and core and, in some instances, the essence of the needs.
Something is missing
Again, the main argument of the article is to relate climate demands and monetary resources to psychological processes. An example sentence highlights this argument: “Greater [climatic] demands in interaction with insufficient resources to meet the demands increase closed-mindedness and risk aversion, whereas greater demands in interaction with sufficient resources increase open-mindedness and risk seeking” (sect. 2, para. 1). I would argue that something is missing between climate, money, and the psychology of people: open-mindedness in this case. People live in societies that have specific histories, cultural norms and rules, values, rituals, political forms, religious ideologies, and so forth. These factors are situated somewhere between climate and individual psychological processes and should be considered to explain behaviors (e.g., Berry Reference Berry1997; Güss et al. Reference Güss, Tuason and Teixeira2007, on decisions of suicide terrorists; Güss Reference Güss2011, on cultural values and decision making). Cultural influences are not adequately considered. Yet, culture is the blood and soul of a nation.