- Email: [email protected]
Hong Kong Chinese explanations for wealth
447
Journal of Economic Psychology 7 (1986) 447460 North-Holland
HONG KONG CHINESE EXPLANATIONS FOR WEALTH * Adrian FURNHAM University College London, UK
Michael BOND Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Received August 19,1985; accepted March 3,1986
This study set out to replicate and extend studies done on attributions for athuence in Western, industrialized countries to a country famous for its wealth and economic growth. Over 100 subjects in Hong Kong rated explanations for wealth according to importance. Results showed that overall the subjects tended to endorse individualistic explanations for wealth while negating the relative importance of societal or fatalistic factors. There were few sex or income effects no doubt due to the sample tested. A factor analysis revealed two clear factors: internal-external (individualistic-collectivistic). The results are discussed in terms of the unique position of Hong Kong.
‘While great wealth is from Providence,
moderate wealth comes from diligence.’
Introduction Whereas there has been a plethora of psychological studies on poverty - its causes, consequences, definition and explanations - there has been a comparative paucity of psychological studies on wealth and affluence (Furnham and Lewis 1986). Some studies have been done on the rich primarily by sociologists (Abrahamson 1980; Rubinstein 1974) and economists (Carter 1971; Galbraith 1977). There have also been countless popular books on the rich or manuals on how to become rich (Biggart 1983), some more analytic than others (e.g., Veblen 1953), but Requests for reprints should be sent to A. Fumham, Dept. of Psychology, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London WCI, UK, or to M. Bond, Dept. of Psychology, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong. l
448
A. Furnham, M. Bond / Explanations for wealth
there is surprisingly almost no psychological, and particularly social psychological, research in this area. Even economic psychologists (Katona 1975) have devoted very little attention to the rich (top asset holders). The few psychologists who have ventured into this area have been early psychoanalysts who have been intrigued by the desire to amass wealth (Fenichel 1944). However, there have been some more recent studies on attitudes to the rich (Lewis et al. 1979) and the relationship between wealth and .happiness (Lane 1983; Simon and Gagnon 1976). Despite the general paucity of psychological research into wealth and the wealthy there have been a number of studies on lay perceptions of the causes of financial success in industrialized, Western countries: America, Australia, Britain and Canada. Although these have been done in different but clearly related countries and with very different populations the results are remarkably similar in two respects. Firstly, these explanations appeared to have the same dimensional structure with the internal (individualistic) and external (societal) being the major dimension. Secondly, what nearly all of these studies showed was that subjects tended to attribute wealth to external (societal, structure) factors rather than internal factors. This is perhaps paradoxical given the stress on internal, individual, determinants of success in the West. Younger et al. (1977), for example, asked a group of Canadian undergraduates to account for how a financially successful, average and failed person ‘got to be who and what he is’. The subjects believed the financially successful person to be least responsible and the failed person as most responsible for their condition, yet the successful person was seen as luckier than either the average or failed person but not more hardworking than the average person. The subjects did, however, believe that if the ‘target’ persons themselves were asked to account for their own success or failure, the successful would attribute their achievement to personal and/or situational (internal) factors while failures would attribute their circumstances primarily to situational (external) factors. In a large British study, Lewis (1981) looked at the relationship between political beliefs/voting patterns and attributions for wealth and found once again evidence of the belief that external factors played an important part. Overall the respondents felt that the wealthy have been luckier than others (54% agreement), received more help from others (60% agreement) rather than having worked harder (26% agreement) although they generally made more skillful use of their opportunities
A. Furnham, M. Bond / Explanaiions for wealth
449
(52% agreement). In a similar study on a group of British subjects, Furnham (1983) hypothesized and found that Conservative (capitalist) voters would evaluate individualistic (effort and ability) explanations for wealth across the general population as more important than Labour (socialist) voters, who would find societal (tax system, economic opportunities) factors more important. The 172 subjects rated ‘Inheriting wealth from parents and relatives’ as the most important explanation followed by ‘Very high wages in some businesses and trades’. Though there were various differences in each of the three categories of explanation (individualistic, societal, fatalistic), subjects appeared to believe societal and fatalistic (external) more important than individualistic factors. Forgas et al. (1982) based their Australian study on a content analysis of a free-response question: ‘Indicate the six most important reasons, in order of importance, why you think some people are better off financially than others’. They found that by far the most important explanatory category used by subjects were family background variables (inheritance, good schooling), social factors (economic system, taxation), individual effort (hard work, savings) and luck (gambling). It is interesting that attributions to internal/individual causes, such as thrift, hard work, and business sense, were significantly more likely to be made when the target was a migrant, rather than a native-born Australian. This tends to confirm the common Australian stereotype of migrants as being particularly hard-working and motivated, in contrast with the easygoing, attitude of native-born Australians. They noted: ‘Information about a person’s social and ethnic background, and the judge’s own demographic characteristics play a role in attribution judgements only because they stand as significant symbols of cultural values’ (1982: 395). Previous studies on adult explanations for wealth have nearly all been conducted in Western, English-speaking countries some of which appear to be declining in national wealth. An exception is a study by Waines (1984) who studied Egyptian children’s explanations for social differentiation and inequality (including wealth distribution) in their society. However, explaining the causes of wealth and poverty are so popular in Britain that all sorts of people (academics, commentators and lay people) have become intrigued by, and fond of explaining the ‘British disease’ or the relative economic decline of Britain, and pari passu have become equally intrigued by the East Asian economic miracle (Hicks and Redding 1983a, b). By 1981, Hong Kong, whose per capita income
450
A. Furnham, M. Bond / Explanations for wealth
was US$4,600, had not only overtaken all the Latin American countries, but had passed Greece, Israel and Spain, while Singapore, whose 1981 per capita income was US$4,850 had surpassed Ireland. Taiwan, along with Korea, starting from well behind, had left the Latin American countries and, at the other end of the spectrum, China had grown faster than India. The average annual growth of GNP per capita from 1960 to 1979 for Hong Kong was 7.0; Singapore was 7.4 compared to the U.S.A. (2.4) and the U.S.S.R. (4.1). The East Asian group has outperformed the rest of the world in GDP annual average growth rate for two decades and it has dramatically out-stripped other areas in export growth. For instance, the average annual GDP growth rate from 1970 to 1979 for Hong Kong was 9.4, Singapore was 8.4 while the U.S.A. was 3.1 and the U.S.S.R. was 5.1. Various organizational theories have been proposed to explain this impressive East Asian financial growth. For instance, Ouchi (1981) has isolated key organization features (e.g., lifetime employment, slow evaluation and promotion, non-specialized career paths, consensual decision making, collective responsibility, wholistic concern for the employee) that account for extraordinary levels of success and economic growth. Others have attempted to compare managerial traits or style in an attempt to find discriminating differences, such as value patterns which emphasise autonomy (K&itcibaSi 1984). Evans and Sculli (198 1) and Hicks and Redding (1983b) have argued that traditional economic theory is inadequate in explaining this growth and that religious beliefs (e.g., Confucianism) and culture values (collectivism) must also be employed in explaining this economic growth in the Five Dragons of Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore. This study set out to determine explanations for wealth in Hong Kong: which explanations for wealth are rated as most important, and the way in which various demographic factors (e.g., sex, income) are related to wealth. Firstly, from previous work (Forgas et al. 1982; Furnham 1983) it was hypothesized that naive explanations by-and-large would reflect the causal dimensions of individualistic, societal and fatalistic factors proposed in the economic psychology literature (Fumham and Lewis 1986). Secondly, it was hypothesized that explanations of wealth would be significantly related to the income of the subjects. That is, it was expected that lower income people would find societal and fatalistic explanations more important than individualistic explanations while the reverse pattern would be true for higher income people. This hypothesis comes from
A. Fumham, M. Bond 1 Explanations for wealth
451
Forgas et al. (1982) who found that a subject’s income related to various attributions of the causes of wealth, especially luck and risk. Thirdly, and more importantly, it was predicted that overall the subjects would endorse more individualistic than societal or fatalistic explanations, as these more closely reflect the predominant social, cultural and economic ethos prevailing in Hong Kong. Government exercises only minimal interventions, the population is largely refugee in origin, and inter-group harmony makes possible a climate of energetic, material pursuit (Bond 1985). That is, because of its unique history, people in Hong Kong are likely to be more internal or individualistic in their beliefs concerning the causes of wealth than many other studies reported above coming out of the West. This is probably one of the first reports of this kind from the ‘Five Dragons’. It is not a direct cross-cultural comparison, but an indirect comparison with other studies in this field. The focus of the study is on cultural differences in explanations for wealth.
Method Subjects One hundred and thirty subjects from Hong Kong University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong served as subjects. The sample consisted of approximately equal numbers of males and females from families with a monthly family income of, on average, HK$1,200. Subjects came from all faculties (arts, science, social science and medicine) and while sampling was not random, every effort was made to obtain a large heterogenous and representative population of university students. Questionnaire Subjects were given a three-part questionnaire based on Forgas et al. (1982) and Furnham (1983). On the first part subjects were asked to describe rich people. On the second part subjects were asked to rate 22 explanations for wealth, derived from Furnham (1983) as well as those added from pilot interviews reflecting explanations particular to Chinese culture and the special situation of Hong Kong. The third part required subjects to rate the six most important explanations - which acted as a simple check of the consistency of ratings by subjects. In order to avoid
452
A. Fumham, M. Bond 1 Explanationsjor
wealth
misunderstanding of the concepts caused by the language barrier, the questionnaires were written in Chinese (though back translations were done) to ensure linguistic equivalence of items. Procedure
Subjects were approached personally on campus and asked to complete the questionnaire anonymously. The questionnaire took approximately 10 minutes to complete. Of the 130 questionnaires distributed 117 were returned but nine of these were incomplete. By discarding a further eight questionnaires, each of the remaining could be placed in one of four cells of 25 respondents based on sex (male, female) and income level (higher, lower).
Results Free descriptions of the rich
The descriptions of the rich fell broadly into two categories: descriptions of the living pattern or the personality traits of the rich. As regards the former the rich are those living in large apartments or villas, owning large cars, or successful businesses, being well-dressed and leading a luxurious life style. These descriptions are, of course mainly tautological and tell us nothing of how the rich came to be wealthy. The personal attributes of the rich included being sociable, careful, achievementoriented, cunning and utilitarian. No clear patterns emerged from this data though it did serve as a useful manipulation check for the explanations that were offered to the subjects in the second part of the study. Univariate analyses on explanations
Firstly, a series of two-way ANOVAs were computed on each of the 22 explanations. As can be seen from table 1 there were six significant sex differences ( p < 0.05). Females more than males believed the following explanations important: (3) The taxation system favours the rich (F = 2.82; M = 2.46); (7) A favourable
economic environment provides many projit-making
-
15 16 17 18
19 20 21
22
@
t
: t
@
@
With good business sense Skillful in social interactions The taxation system favours the rich Careful money management Being knowledgeable Having high risk-taking propensity Favourable economic environment Being very intelligent Being creative Good luck in winning money The economic system automatically creates inequalities Able to grasp opportunities Better educational training and job opportunities for people from certain families Government policies benefit certain parties Inheriting wealth from parents and relatives High wages in some trades or professions Hard work and great effort Being at the right place at the right time with the right person Societal values promote money-making Being honest Graduated from famous schools or higher institutions The rich are ruthless
Explanations of wealth
-.._
__.__~
0.91 1.11
0.76 4.79 b
4.11b 6.71 c 0.90
0.94 0.95 0.94
4.15 (2) 2.48 (19) 2.25 (21) 2.44 (20) 2.78 (15)
0.00 0.01 0.06 3.158 0.88 0.88 0.81 0.86
0.10
0.14 0.38
1.73 1.17
2.98 ’ 0.57
0.04 2.25 0.55
0.50 0.09 0.76 2.56
0.30
1.65 2.59 2.32 0.75 3.54” 0.04 0.01 2.31
0.04 3.25 ’
_
Income
0.25 0.33 3.08 a 0.23 0.29 0.94 7.54c 0.07 0.05 0.25
Sex
F levels
2.96 (13) 2.95 (14) 3.14 (12) 3.81 (7)
0.93
1.06 0.64
2.76 (16) 4.37 (1)
3.23 (11)
0.79 0.87 1.04 0.83 0.92 0.92 1.02 0.77 0.85 1.01
4.04 (3) 3.83 (6) 2.64 (17) 3.92 (4) 2.63 (18) 3.63 (9) 3.43 (10) 3.70 (8) 3.88 (5) 1.97(22)
SD
Means & SD’s Mean
Nore: Scale: 1 no importance-5 great importance. @ Items from Furnham (1983); t Items from Forgas et al. (1982). =p < 0.09; bp.zO.05; ‘p
14
@
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II
1
No.
12 13
t @
@
t
:
t
Item
Table 1 Means, standard deviations, F levels from the 2-way ANOVA and factor analytic (Varimax) results.
0.22 0.21
0.00 0.37 0.07
1.32 2.27 2.788 3.27 a
1.78
0.55 1.21
1.44 1.21 1.40 1.50 0.85 0.23 0.00 0.15 0.29 0.00
Sex x Income
0.21 -0.17
Q.32 0.14 fU.4
0.20 -0.02 0.25 QS
E 0.03
g 0.21 0.26
!I!,.48 0.28 0.16
0.25 Q&I
-g
0.10
Q& -0.02
0.20 0.01
0.26 Q&l 0.23 0.03 0.32
0.15
Factor 2
Factor loadings Factor 1
; S
2
6
$
a
454
A. Fur&am, M. Bond / Explanations for wealth
opportunities (F= 3.70, M = 3.16); while males believed more than females in (I 7) Hard work and great effort (F = 3.66, M = 3.96); (18) Being at the right place at the right time with the right person (F = 3.96; M = 4.34); (19) S ocietal values promote money-making (F = 2.24; M = 2.72); and (22) The rich are ruthless (F = 2.54, M = 3.02). Fewer items, however, yielded a significant income effect. In fact, only three reached significance (p < 0.05). Higher income groups rated explanations (2) Ski&Z in social interactions (L = 3.66, H = 3.99), and (7) Favourable economic environment (L = 3.27, H = 3.61), and (21) Graduatedfrom famous schools or higher institutions (L = 2.29, H = 2.60) more than lower income groups. Similarly, only two interactions between sex and income reached significance. Females from lower income groups and males from higher income groups tended to rate explanation (16) High wages in some trades andprofessions less highly than females from higher income groups and males from lower income groups. Males from both income groups rated explanation (I 7) Hard work and great eflort as more important than females but low income females tended to do so less than low income males. Factor analysis Performing 21 2-way ANOVAs is likely to increase the possibility of type II errors particularly as it has been shown that these explanations usually group into a limited number of interpretable factors. A VARIMAX analysis was done and a two- and three-factor structure considered. The loadings on the first two factors are given in table 1. The first factor (with an eigenvalue of 3.85) is clearly internal or individualistic, while the second (with an eigenvalue of 2.29) is a mixture of external/structural and luck/fatalistic items. A 2-way (sex x income) ANOVA was then performed on the factor scores derived from this analysis. However, none of the main effects or interactions was significant. The whole process was repeated on a 3-factor solution, but, although the factors seemed clearly interpretable, no significant ANOVA results emerged. Although not comparable to other studies, because they used different items, this factor analysis has revealed much’ the same factors as other studies.
455
A. Furnham, M. Bond / Explanations for wealth
Comparisons with British data Although cross-cultural comparisons are notoriously difficult particularly as it is not easy to ensure equivalent groups these results were compared to those from Furnham (1983) who used a large group of British subjects. In all, thirteen explanations were identical (or very similar) in the two studies. Table 2 shows the rank ordering of the thirteen different explanations for the British (Furnham 1983) and the Hong Kong (this study) group. Because they were rated on a different scale only the rank order scores are shown in table 2. Overall the correlation between the two groups was 0.69 which is significant at the p < 0.05 level. There was no clear pattern in either group of the rating of individualistic, above societal or fatalistic explanations. However, what is most interesting between the two groups are the four explanations which showed the greatest differences in ranking. The British ranked inheritance second while it was ranked eighth by the Hong Kong respondents, no doubt, because so many wealthy people in Hong Kong are self-made compared to Great Britain. On the other hand, the Hong Kong respondents ranked a lucky break and hard work and effort as more important than the British who believed being sent to certain universities and schools to be important. Table 2 Comparisons between the explanations for wealth in a British (Fumham 1983) and a Hong Kong sample. Number represents the rank order from important (1) to unimportant (13).
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. I. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
Being born with good business sense Inheriting wealth from parents and relatives Careful money management throughout life Being very intelligent Having a luck break Very high wages in some businesses and industry Being sent to certain schools and universities Better opportunities for people from certain families Hard work and great effort among the rich The rich are ruthless and determined The economic system automatically creates inequalities The taxation system favours the rich Good luck in winning money at gambling
Note: Rank order correlation = 0.69. p Items where there is a rank order difference of greater than 4.
GB
HK
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
2 8” 3 5 1s 7 12” 6 48 9 10 11 13
456
A. Furnham, M. Bond / Explanations for wealth
Discussion Despite the overall lack of significant internal differences the results are particularly interesting compared to others in this area. What is most striking about these results is the extent to which subjects endorse individualistic explanations. Consider some of the most highly rated: able to grasp opportunities, good business sense, careful money management, being creative, etc. Compared to respondents in other cultures - Forgas et al. (1982) in Australia, Furnham (1983) in Britain, Younger et al. (1977) in Canada - these Hong Kong students believed that wealth (and presumably its converse poverty) is very strongly the result of their own skill, effort, creativity and timing. They appear not to believe that it is the preserve of certain social political or economic groups acting to deny them access to fair competition. However, it is quite possible that while internal explanations are given for wealth, external ones are given for poverty. Certainly other work in this field would suggest that there is consistency in explanations (tendency for individualistic vs societal explanations) but this has clearly not been tested in this group (Furnham and Lewis 1986). The explanations considered most important can probably be explained in terms of the unique social, political and economic climate of Hong Kong. The explanation rated as most important ‘Able to grasp opportunities’ reflects the free-trade policy of the government which fosters speculation and opportunism. ‘Good business sense’ was rated third and ‘Careful money management’ fourth, both of which refer to the importance of adaptability to the changing economic climate. ‘Being creative’ or innovative is undoubtedly important and was rated fifth. The sixth most important factor was ‘Skillful in social interaction’ which probably reflects the traditional Chinese belief that work success is dependent on good relations with others, particularly those at work (Jacobs 1979). The seventh most importantly rated factor was hard work and great effort. Chinese people are widely regarded as diligent and hard working and it is generally believed that effort is rewarded with material success, as the introductory proverb suggests. All these strongly held internal beliefs differ somewhat from other studies. For instance, Furnham (1983) found that his British subjects believed ‘Inheriting wealth from parents or relatives’ the most important explanation, while this Chinese sample placed it 14th. Along with hard work and great effort the British rated very high wages in some businesses
A. Furnham, M. Bond / Explanations for wealth
451
and industry very important which the Chinese placed 12th of 22. However, like the Chinese the British did emphasize good business sense and careful money management. The role of luck did not seem very important. Although attribution to the external/fatalistic cause ‘Having a lucky break - being at the right place at the right time with the right person’ was ranked as the second most important explanation, it complements rather than opposes ‘Able to grasp opportunities’ (ranked 1) and ‘Having good business sense’ (ranked 3). It may be argued that it takes a certain amount of skill, ingenuity and planning to indeed be at the right place and time as well as take advantage of it. In other words, the role of luck is secondary to that of foresight. Indeed all the factor analytic results showed that this item loaded on the individualistic factor along with other ‘internal’ items. Other luck/fatalistic factors were rated as unimportant. Like the British subjects (Furnham 1983) this sample rated ‘Good luck in winning money’ as least important. Curiously, ‘Being honest’ was rated as penultimately least important which may reflect the Chinese proverb, ‘Honesty makes one become a beggar’. That is, whereas honesty may be valued in interpersonal relationships, it is not seen as important in the business world. Other societal explanations-taxation, the economic system-were not highly ranked by these subjects. As predicted the Chinese subjects rated internal factors as more important than external factors. These results may be explained thus: traditional Chinese society was essentially collectivistic in nature (King and Bond 1986). People tended to emphasize attitudes, needs and goals of the group rather than the self in order to satisfy the integrity and advancement of the group. In exchange for this compliance and loyalty, in-group members worked to promote one another’s interests. People therefore needed to depend less on individual abilities in order to find a job, achieve financial security or gain high status. Their chance of their gaining wealth greatly depended on whether they were born in rich families or had good social relationships with others. In addition, the traditional Chinese were somewhat superstitious. It followed that their explanations for wealth were mainly attributed to external factors such as familial background or luck. However, the modernization of Hong Kong was accompanied by the infiltration of Western culture and industrialization has led to reformation of family structure (Wang 1975). In order to survive in the increasingly competitive world, people have had to rely more on their own abilities. Moreover, the Western economic dynamic encourages
458
A. Furnham, M. Bond / Explanations for wealth
self-orientation and emphasizes individual responsibility. As a result, the new generation of people in Hong Kong (such as the university students) tend to attribute wealth mainly to certain internal factors such as possessing good business sense and social skills. Besides this sociocultural change, the Hong Kong educational system may also contribute to such internal attribution trends. University students have ‘survived’ numbers of stressful examinations before they can get to the top of the ‘pyramid’. Thus, they are likely to be more confident in their own abilities and, in turn, believe more in internal factors than external ones. Overall there were few sex or income differences. By and large it seemed that males favoured more internal explanations than females. However, as in many non-Western societies, male-female differences from university students are always suspect because the women are very special relative to the men. Nearly always the women are more internal (compared to other women) as they have had more barriers to overcome in achieving what they have against a background of traditional prejudice. It should, however, also be pointed out that previous studies in this area also found little or no evidence of sex differences (Furnham 1983; Forgas et al. 1982). Similarly, income differences revealed few significant differences either as a main effect or in interaction with sex. This may be due to the fact that the prevailing cultural influences and fairly homogenous educational experiences of the subjects are more important than income in explaining wealth. But it is more probably a function of sampling - the subjects in this study were not themselves breadwinners or full-time employees and thus not actively engaged in making money. One’s actual relative income as a wage-earner may be a much better predictor of wealth explanations than one’s family income level. The factor analysis made perfect sense and is comparable to that of Furnham (1983). However unlike the latter, the fatalistic explanations tended to load on the same factor as the societal/external items. Thus it seems that, with some differences, the factor structure of explanations for wealth appear to be cross-culturally invariant. However, what does appear to differ is the relative importance attributed to the different factors. A question of central importance, but one which cannot be answered by this study concerns whether explanations for wealth are a cause or consequence of the distribution of wealth in the society. That is, does the
A. Furnham, M. Bond / Explanations
for wealth
459
predominance of internal/individualistic explanations for wealth in Hong Kong reflect the free-trade capitalism of Hong Kong or do these beliefs account for Hong Kong’s meteoric rise? To some extent both are probably true, and it is difficult to see how experimental studies could tease them apart. Nevertheless, as Furnham (1983) has pointed out, explanations for wealth are important in their own right as they relate closely to such things as a person’s political views, locus of control and need for achievement. This study did have its limitations which were primarily associated with the non-random sampling. University students are more homogenous, younger, better educated, probably more internal in their beliefs than the population as a whole. University students may represent different demographic and socio-economic backgrounds, but one of the main purposes of academic training is to make people more international in their outlook. Similarly, the comparison between the British and Hong Kong sample was weak because the studies were done at different times and the groups were not carefully matched. Further it was not possible to investigate many individual differences or demographic variables and those considered revealed few differences. Nevertheless, it revealed some probably generalizable findings on the preference for internal-individualistic explanations for wealth in South East Asia.
References Abrahamson, A., 1980. Sudden wealth, gratification and attainment: Durkheim’s anomie of affluence reconsidered. American Sociological Review 45,49-57. Biggart, N., 1983. Rationality, meaning and self-management: success manuals, 195&1980. Social Problems 30,298-3 I 1. Bond, M., 1985. Inter-group relations in Hong Kong. Paper given at the Interethnic Conflict and Aggression Conference. East-West Centre, Honolulu, HI. Carter, C., 197 1. Wealth: an essay on the purpose of economics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Evans, W. and D. Sculli, 1981. A comparison of managerial traits in Hong Kong and the U.S.A. Journal of Occupational Psychology 54,183-186. Fenichel, O., 1944. The drive to amass wealth. Collected papers. Forgas, J., S. Morris and A. Furnham, 1982. Lay explanations ofwealth. Attributions for economic success. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 12.381-397. Furnham, A., 1983. Attributions for affluence. Personality andIndividual Differences 4,31-40. Fumham, A., 1985. The economic decline of Britain: an attributional analysis. Unpublished manuscript. Fumham, A. and A. Lewis, 1986. The economic mind: the social psychology of economic behaviour. Brighton: Wheatsheaf. Galbraith, J., 1977. The age of uncertainty. London: BBC.
460
A. Furnham, M. Bond / Explanations for wealth
Hicks, G. and S. Redding, 1983a. The story of the East Asian economic miracle: I. Economic theory be damned. Euro Asian Business Review 2,24-32. Hicks, G. and S. Redding, 1983b. The story of the East Asian economic miracle: II. The culture connection. Euro Asian Business Review 2, 18-22. Jacobs, J., 1979. A preliminary model of particularistic ties in Chinese political alliances: ‘Kan-ching’ and ‘Kuan-hsi’ in a rural Taiwanese township. China Quarterly 78,232-273. Kagitcibagi, C., 1984. Socialization in traditional society: a challenge to psychology. International Journal of Psychology 19,145157. Katona, G., 1975. Psychological economics. New York: Elsevier. King, A. and M. Bond, 1986. ‘The confusion paradigm of men: a sociological view’. In: W. Tseng and D. Wu (eds.), Chinese culture and mental health: an overview. New York: Academic Press. (In press.) Lane, R., 1983. Money and the varieties ofhappiness. Paper presented at Oxford ISPP (International Society for Political Psychology) Meeting. Lewis, A., 1981. Attributions and politics. Personality and Individual Differences 2,14. Lewis, A., C. Sandford and C. Pleming, 1979. A survey of attitudes towards wealth, the wealthy, and the proposed annual wealth tax. Bath University Report, Bath, Bath University. Ouchi, W., 1981. Theory 2: how American business can meet the Japanese challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Rubinstein, W., 1974, ‘Men of property: some aspects of accommodation, inheritance and power among top British wealth holders’. In: P. Stanworth and A Giddens (ed.), Elites and power in British society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Simon, W., and J. Gagnon, 1976. The anomie of affluence: a post-Mertonian conception. American Journal of Sociology 82.356377. Vecchio, R., 1981. Workers’ beliefs in internal versus external determinants of success. Journal of Social Psychology 114, 199-207. Veblen, T., 1953. The theory of the leisure class. New York: Mentor Books. Waines, N., 1984. Development of economic concepts among Egyptian children. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology 1547-64. Wong, F., 1975. Industrialization and family structure in Hong Kong. Journal of Marriage and Family 37,9851000. Younger J., A. Arrowood and G. Hemsley, 1977. And the lucky shall inherit the earth: perceiving the causes of financial success and failure. European Journal of Social Psychology 7,509-515.
Journal of Economic Psychology 7 (1986) 447460 North-Holland
HONG KONG CHINESE EXPLANATIONS FOR WEALTH * Adrian FURNHAM University College London, UK
Michael BOND Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Received August 19,1985; accepted March 3,1986
This study set out to replicate and extend studies done on attributions for athuence in Western, industrialized countries to a country famous for its wealth and economic growth. Over 100 subjects in Hong Kong rated explanations for wealth according to importance. Results showed that overall the subjects tended to endorse individualistic explanations for wealth while negating the relative importance of societal or fatalistic factors. There were few sex or income effects no doubt due to the sample tested. A factor analysis revealed two clear factors: internal-external (individualistic-collectivistic). The results are discussed in terms of the unique position of Hong Kong.
‘While great wealth is from Providence,
moderate wealth comes from diligence.’
Introduction Whereas there has been a plethora of psychological studies on poverty - its causes, consequences, definition and explanations - there has been a comparative paucity of psychological studies on wealth and affluence (Furnham and Lewis 1986). Some studies have been done on the rich primarily by sociologists (Abrahamson 1980; Rubinstein 1974) and economists (Carter 1971; Galbraith 1977). There have also been countless popular books on the rich or manuals on how to become rich (Biggart 1983), some more analytic than others (e.g., Veblen 1953), but Requests for reprints should be sent to A. Fumham, Dept. of Psychology, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London WCI, UK, or to M. Bond, Dept. of Psychology, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong. l
448
A. Furnham, M. Bond / Explanations for wealth
there is surprisingly almost no psychological, and particularly social psychological, research in this area. Even economic psychologists (Katona 1975) have devoted very little attention to the rich (top asset holders). The few psychologists who have ventured into this area have been early psychoanalysts who have been intrigued by the desire to amass wealth (Fenichel 1944). However, there have been some more recent studies on attitudes to the rich (Lewis et al. 1979) and the relationship between wealth and .happiness (Lane 1983; Simon and Gagnon 1976). Despite the general paucity of psychological research into wealth and the wealthy there have been a number of studies on lay perceptions of the causes of financial success in industrialized, Western countries: America, Australia, Britain and Canada. Although these have been done in different but clearly related countries and with very different populations the results are remarkably similar in two respects. Firstly, these explanations appeared to have the same dimensional structure with the internal (individualistic) and external (societal) being the major dimension. Secondly, what nearly all of these studies showed was that subjects tended to attribute wealth to external (societal, structure) factors rather than internal factors. This is perhaps paradoxical given the stress on internal, individual, determinants of success in the West. Younger et al. (1977), for example, asked a group of Canadian undergraduates to account for how a financially successful, average and failed person ‘got to be who and what he is’. The subjects believed the financially successful person to be least responsible and the failed person as most responsible for their condition, yet the successful person was seen as luckier than either the average or failed person but not more hardworking than the average person. The subjects did, however, believe that if the ‘target’ persons themselves were asked to account for their own success or failure, the successful would attribute their achievement to personal and/or situational (internal) factors while failures would attribute their circumstances primarily to situational (external) factors. In a large British study, Lewis (1981) looked at the relationship between political beliefs/voting patterns and attributions for wealth and found once again evidence of the belief that external factors played an important part. Overall the respondents felt that the wealthy have been luckier than others (54% agreement), received more help from others (60% agreement) rather than having worked harder (26% agreement) although they generally made more skillful use of their opportunities
A. Furnham, M. Bond / Explanaiions for wealth
449
(52% agreement). In a similar study on a group of British subjects, Furnham (1983) hypothesized and found that Conservative (capitalist) voters would evaluate individualistic (effort and ability) explanations for wealth across the general population as more important than Labour (socialist) voters, who would find societal (tax system, economic opportunities) factors more important. The 172 subjects rated ‘Inheriting wealth from parents and relatives’ as the most important explanation followed by ‘Very high wages in some businesses and trades’. Though there were various differences in each of the three categories of explanation (individualistic, societal, fatalistic), subjects appeared to believe societal and fatalistic (external) more important than individualistic factors. Forgas et al. (1982) based their Australian study on a content analysis of a free-response question: ‘Indicate the six most important reasons, in order of importance, why you think some people are better off financially than others’. They found that by far the most important explanatory category used by subjects were family background variables (inheritance, good schooling), social factors (economic system, taxation), individual effort (hard work, savings) and luck (gambling). It is interesting that attributions to internal/individual causes, such as thrift, hard work, and business sense, were significantly more likely to be made when the target was a migrant, rather than a native-born Australian. This tends to confirm the common Australian stereotype of migrants as being particularly hard-working and motivated, in contrast with the easygoing, attitude of native-born Australians. They noted: ‘Information about a person’s social and ethnic background, and the judge’s own demographic characteristics play a role in attribution judgements only because they stand as significant symbols of cultural values’ (1982: 395). Previous studies on adult explanations for wealth have nearly all been conducted in Western, English-speaking countries some of which appear to be declining in national wealth. An exception is a study by Waines (1984) who studied Egyptian children’s explanations for social differentiation and inequality (including wealth distribution) in their society. However, explaining the causes of wealth and poverty are so popular in Britain that all sorts of people (academics, commentators and lay people) have become intrigued by, and fond of explaining the ‘British disease’ or the relative economic decline of Britain, and pari passu have become equally intrigued by the East Asian economic miracle (Hicks and Redding 1983a, b). By 1981, Hong Kong, whose per capita income
450
A. Furnham, M. Bond / Explanations for wealth
was US$4,600, had not only overtaken all the Latin American countries, but had passed Greece, Israel and Spain, while Singapore, whose 1981 per capita income was US$4,850 had surpassed Ireland. Taiwan, along with Korea, starting from well behind, had left the Latin American countries and, at the other end of the spectrum, China had grown faster than India. The average annual growth of GNP per capita from 1960 to 1979 for Hong Kong was 7.0; Singapore was 7.4 compared to the U.S.A. (2.4) and the U.S.S.R. (4.1). The East Asian group has outperformed the rest of the world in GDP annual average growth rate for two decades and it has dramatically out-stripped other areas in export growth. For instance, the average annual GDP growth rate from 1970 to 1979 for Hong Kong was 9.4, Singapore was 8.4 while the U.S.A. was 3.1 and the U.S.S.R. was 5.1. Various organizational theories have been proposed to explain this impressive East Asian financial growth. For instance, Ouchi (1981) has isolated key organization features (e.g., lifetime employment, slow evaluation and promotion, non-specialized career paths, consensual decision making, collective responsibility, wholistic concern for the employee) that account for extraordinary levels of success and economic growth. Others have attempted to compare managerial traits or style in an attempt to find discriminating differences, such as value patterns which emphasise autonomy (K&itcibaSi 1984). Evans and Sculli (198 1) and Hicks and Redding (1983b) have argued that traditional economic theory is inadequate in explaining this growth and that religious beliefs (e.g., Confucianism) and culture values (collectivism) must also be employed in explaining this economic growth in the Five Dragons of Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore. This study set out to determine explanations for wealth in Hong Kong: which explanations for wealth are rated as most important, and the way in which various demographic factors (e.g., sex, income) are related to wealth. Firstly, from previous work (Forgas et al. 1982; Furnham 1983) it was hypothesized that naive explanations by-and-large would reflect the causal dimensions of individualistic, societal and fatalistic factors proposed in the economic psychology literature (Fumham and Lewis 1986). Secondly, it was hypothesized that explanations of wealth would be significantly related to the income of the subjects. That is, it was expected that lower income people would find societal and fatalistic explanations more important than individualistic explanations while the reverse pattern would be true for higher income people. This hypothesis comes from
A. Fumham, M. Bond 1 Explanations for wealth
451
Forgas et al. (1982) who found that a subject’s income related to various attributions of the causes of wealth, especially luck and risk. Thirdly, and more importantly, it was predicted that overall the subjects would endorse more individualistic than societal or fatalistic explanations, as these more closely reflect the predominant social, cultural and economic ethos prevailing in Hong Kong. Government exercises only minimal interventions, the population is largely refugee in origin, and inter-group harmony makes possible a climate of energetic, material pursuit (Bond 1985). That is, because of its unique history, people in Hong Kong are likely to be more internal or individualistic in their beliefs concerning the causes of wealth than many other studies reported above coming out of the West. This is probably one of the first reports of this kind from the ‘Five Dragons’. It is not a direct cross-cultural comparison, but an indirect comparison with other studies in this field. The focus of the study is on cultural differences in explanations for wealth.
Method Subjects One hundred and thirty subjects from Hong Kong University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong served as subjects. The sample consisted of approximately equal numbers of males and females from families with a monthly family income of, on average, HK$1,200. Subjects came from all faculties (arts, science, social science and medicine) and while sampling was not random, every effort was made to obtain a large heterogenous and representative population of university students. Questionnaire Subjects were given a three-part questionnaire based on Forgas et al. (1982) and Furnham (1983). On the first part subjects were asked to describe rich people. On the second part subjects were asked to rate 22 explanations for wealth, derived from Furnham (1983) as well as those added from pilot interviews reflecting explanations particular to Chinese culture and the special situation of Hong Kong. The third part required subjects to rate the six most important explanations - which acted as a simple check of the consistency of ratings by subjects. In order to avoid
452
A. Fumham, M. Bond 1 Explanationsjor
wealth
misunderstanding of the concepts caused by the language barrier, the questionnaires were written in Chinese (though back translations were done) to ensure linguistic equivalence of items. Procedure
Subjects were approached personally on campus and asked to complete the questionnaire anonymously. The questionnaire took approximately 10 minutes to complete. Of the 130 questionnaires distributed 117 were returned but nine of these were incomplete. By discarding a further eight questionnaires, each of the remaining could be placed in one of four cells of 25 respondents based on sex (male, female) and income level (higher, lower).
Results Free descriptions of the rich
The descriptions of the rich fell broadly into two categories: descriptions of the living pattern or the personality traits of the rich. As regards the former the rich are those living in large apartments or villas, owning large cars, or successful businesses, being well-dressed and leading a luxurious life style. These descriptions are, of course mainly tautological and tell us nothing of how the rich came to be wealthy. The personal attributes of the rich included being sociable, careful, achievementoriented, cunning and utilitarian. No clear patterns emerged from this data though it did serve as a useful manipulation check for the explanations that were offered to the subjects in the second part of the study. Univariate analyses on explanations
Firstly, a series of two-way ANOVAs were computed on each of the 22 explanations. As can be seen from table 1 there were six significant sex differences ( p < 0.05). Females more than males believed the following explanations important: (3) The taxation system favours the rich (F = 2.82; M = 2.46); (7) A favourable
economic environment provides many projit-making
-
15 16 17 18
19 20 21
22
@
t
: t
@
@
With good business sense Skillful in social interactions The taxation system favours the rich Careful money management Being knowledgeable Having high risk-taking propensity Favourable economic environment Being very intelligent Being creative Good luck in winning money The economic system automatically creates inequalities Able to grasp opportunities Better educational training and job opportunities for people from certain families Government policies benefit certain parties Inheriting wealth from parents and relatives High wages in some trades or professions Hard work and great effort Being at the right place at the right time with the right person Societal values promote money-making Being honest Graduated from famous schools or higher institutions The rich are ruthless
Explanations of wealth
-.._
__.__~
0.91 1.11
0.76 4.79 b
4.11b 6.71 c 0.90
0.94 0.95 0.94
4.15 (2) 2.48 (19) 2.25 (21) 2.44 (20) 2.78 (15)
0.00 0.01 0.06 3.158 0.88 0.88 0.81 0.86
0.10
0.14 0.38
1.73 1.17
2.98 ’ 0.57
0.04 2.25 0.55
0.50 0.09 0.76 2.56
0.30
1.65 2.59 2.32 0.75 3.54” 0.04 0.01 2.31
0.04 3.25 ’
_
Income
0.25 0.33 3.08 a 0.23 0.29 0.94 7.54c 0.07 0.05 0.25
Sex
F levels
2.96 (13) 2.95 (14) 3.14 (12) 3.81 (7)
0.93
1.06 0.64
2.76 (16) 4.37 (1)
3.23 (11)
0.79 0.87 1.04 0.83 0.92 0.92 1.02 0.77 0.85 1.01
4.04 (3) 3.83 (6) 2.64 (17) 3.92 (4) 2.63 (18) 3.63 (9) 3.43 (10) 3.70 (8) 3.88 (5) 1.97(22)
SD
Means & SD’s Mean
Nore: Scale: 1 no importance-5 great importance. @ Items from Furnham (1983); t Items from Forgas et al. (1982). =p < 0.09; bp.zO.05; ‘p
14
@
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II
1
No.
12 13
t @
@
t
:
t
Item
Table 1 Means, standard deviations, F levels from the 2-way ANOVA and factor analytic (Varimax) results.
0.22 0.21
0.00 0.37 0.07
1.32 2.27 2.788 3.27 a
1.78
0.55 1.21
1.44 1.21 1.40 1.50 0.85 0.23 0.00 0.15 0.29 0.00
Sex x Income
0.21 -0.17
Q.32 0.14 fU.4
0.20 -0.02 0.25 QS
E 0.03
g 0.21 0.26
!I!,.48 0.28 0.16
0.25 Q&I
-g
0.10
Q& -0.02
0.20 0.01
0.26 Q&l 0.23 0.03 0.32
0.15
Factor 2
Factor loadings Factor 1
; S
2
6
$
a
454
A. Fur&am, M. Bond / Explanations for wealth
opportunities (F= 3.70, M = 3.16); while males believed more than females in (I 7) Hard work and great effort (F = 3.66, M = 3.96); (18) Being at the right place at the right time with the right person (F = 3.96; M = 4.34); (19) S ocietal values promote money-making (F = 2.24; M = 2.72); and (22) The rich are ruthless (F = 2.54, M = 3.02). Fewer items, however, yielded a significant income effect. In fact, only three reached significance (p < 0.05). Higher income groups rated explanations (2) Ski&Z in social interactions (L = 3.66, H = 3.99), and (7) Favourable economic environment (L = 3.27, H = 3.61), and (21) Graduatedfrom famous schools or higher institutions (L = 2.29, H = 2.60) more than lower income groups. Similarly, only two interactions between sex and income reached significance. Females from lower income groups and males from higher income groups tended to rate explanation (16) High wages in some trades andprofessions less highly than females from higher income groups and males from lower income groups. Males from both income groups rated explanation (I 7) Hard work and great eflort as more important than females but low income females tended to do so less than low income males. Factor analysis Performing 21 2-way ANOVAs is likely to increase the possibility of type II errors particularly as it has been shown that these explanations usually group into a limited number of interpretable factors. A VARIMAX analysis was done and a two- and three-factor structure considered. The loadings on the first two factors are given in table 1. The first factor (with an eigenvalue of 3.85) is clearly internal or individualistic, while the second (with an eigenvalue of 2.29) is a mixture of external/structural and luck/fatalistic items. A 2-way (sex x income) ANOVA was then performed on the factor scores derived from this analysis. However, none of the main effects or interactions was significant. The whole process was repeated on a 3-factor solution, but, although the factors seemed clearly interpretable, no significant ANOVA results emerged. Although not comparable to other studies, because they used different items, this factor analysis has revealed much’ the same factors as other studies.
455
A. Furnham, M. Bond / Explanations for wealth
Comparisons with British data Although cross-cultural comparisons are notoriously difficult particularly as it is not easy to ensure equivalent groups these results were compared to those from Furnham (1983) who used a large group of British subjects. In all, thirteen explanations were identical (or very similar) in the two studies. Table 2 shows the rank ordering of the thirteen different explanations for the British (Furnham 1983) and the Hong Kong (this study) group. Because they were rated on a different scale only the rank order scores are shown in table 2. Overall the correlation between the two groups was 0.69 which is significant at the p < 0.05 level. There was no clear pattern in either group of the rating of individualistic, above societal or fatalistic explanations. However, what is most interesting between the two groups are the four explanations which showed the greatest differences in ranking. The British ranked inheritance second while it was ranked eighth by the Hong Kong respondents, no doubt, because so many wealthy people in Hong Kong are self-made compared to Great Britain. On the other hand, the Hong Kong respondents ranked a lucky break and hard work and effort as more important than the British who believed being sent to certain universities and schools to be important. Table 2 Comparisons between the explanations for wealth in a British (Fumham 1983) and a Hong Kong sample. Number represents the rank order from important (1) to unimportant (13).
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. I. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
Being born with good business sense Inheriting wealth from parents and relatives Careful money management throughout life Being very intelligent Having a luck break Very high wages in some businesses and industry Being sent to certain schools and universities Better opportunities for people from certain families Hard work and great effort among the rich The rich are ruthless and determined The economic system automatically creates inequalities The taxation system favours the rich Good luck in winning money at gambling
Note: Rank order correlation = 0.69. p Items where there is a rank order difference of greater than 4.
GB
HK
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
2 8” 3 5 1s 7 12” 6 48 9 10 11 13
456
A. Furnham, M. Bond / Explanations for wealth
Discussion Despite the overall lack of significant internal differences the results are particularly interesting compared to others in this area. What is most striking about these results is the extent to which subjects endorse individualistic explanations. Consider some of the most highly rated: able to grasp opportunities, good business sense, careful money management, being creative, etc. Compared to respondents in other cultures - Forgas et al. (1982) in Australia, Furnham (1983) in Britain, Younger et al. (1977) in Canada - these Hong Kong students believed that wealth (and presumably its converse poverty) is very strongly the result of their own skill, effort, creativity and timing. They appear not to believe that it is the preserve of certain social political or economic groups acting to deny them access to fair competition. However, it is quite possible that while internal explanations are given for wealth, external ones are given for poverty. Certainly other work in this field would suggest that there is consistency in explanations (tendency for individualistic vs societal explanations) but this has clearly not been tested in this group (Furnham and Lewis 1986). The explanations considered most important can probably be explained in terms of the unique social, political and economic climate of Hong Kong. The explanation rated as most important ‘Able to grasp opportunities’ reflects the free-trade policy of the government which fosters speculation and opportunism. ‘Good business sense’ was rated third and ‘Careful money management’ fourth, both of which refer to the importance of adaptability to the changing economic climate. ‘Being creative’ or innovative is undoubtedly important and was rated fifth. The sixth most important factor was ‘Skillful in social interaction’ which probably reflects the traditional Chinese belief that work success is dependent on good relations with others, particularly those at work (Jacobs 1979). The seventh most importantly rated factor was hard work and great effort. Chinese people are widely regarded as diligent and hard working and it is generally believed that effort is rewarded with material success, as the introductory proverb suggests. All these strongly held internal beliefs differ somewhat from other studies. For instance, Furnham (1983) found that his British subjects believed ‘Inheriting wealth from parents or relatives’ the most important explanation, while this Chinese sample placed it 14th. Along with hard work and great effort the British rated very high wages in some businesses
A. Furnham, M. Bond / Explanations for wealth
451
and industry very important which the Chinese placed 12th of 22. However, like the Chinese the British did emphasize good business sense and careful money management. The role of luck did not seem very important. Although attribution to the external/fatalistic cause ‘Having a lucky break - being at the right place at the right time with the right person’ was ranked as the second most important explanation, it complements rather than opposes ‘Able to grasp opportunities’ (ranked 1) and ‘Having good business sense’ (ranked 3). It may be argued that it takes a certain amount of skill, ingenuity and planning to indeed be at the right place and time as well as take advantage of it. In other words, the role of luck is secondary to that of foresight. Indeed all the factor analytic results showed that this item loaded on the individualistic factor along with other ‘internal’ items. Other luck/fatalistic factors were rated as unimportant. Like the British subjects (Furnham 1983) this sample rated ‘Good luck in winning money’ as least important. Curiously, ‘Being honest’ was rated as penultimately least important which may reflect the Chinese proverb, ‘Honesty makes one become a beggar’. That is, whereas honesty may be valued in interpersonal relationships, it is not seen as important in the business world. Other societal explanations-taxation, the economic system-were not highly ranked by these subjects. As predicted the Chinese subjects rated internal factors as more important than external factors. These results may be explained thus: traditional Chinese society was essentially collectivistic in nature (King and Bond 1986). People tended to emphasize attitudes, needs and goals of the group rather than the self in order to satisfy the integrity and advancement of the group. In exchange for this compliance and loyalty, in-group members worked to promote one another’s interests. People therefore needed to depend less on individual abilities in order to find a job, achieve financial security or gain high status. Their chance of their gaining wealth greatly depended on whether they were born in rich families or had good social relationships with others. In addition, the traditional Chinese were somewhat superstitious. It followed that their explanations for wealth were mainly attributed to external factors such as familial background or luck. However, the modernization of Hong Kong was accompanied by the infiltration of Western culture and industrialization has led to reformation of family structure (Wang 1975). In order to survive in the increasingly competitive world, people have had to rely more on their own abilities. Moreover, the Western economic dynamic encourages
458
A. Furnham, M. Bond / Explanations for wealth
self-orientation and emphasizes individual responsibility. As a result, the new generation of people in Hong Kong (such as the university students) tend to attribute wealth mainly to certain internal factors such as possessing good business sense and social skills. Besides this sociocultural change, the Hong Kong educational system may also contribute to such internal attribution trends. University students have ‘survived’ numbers of stressful examinations before they can get to the top of the ‘pyramid’. Thus, they are likely to be more confident in their own abilities and, in turn, believe more in internal factors than external ones. Overall there were few sex or income differences. By and large it seemed that males favoured more internal explanations than females. However, as in many non-Western societies, male-female differences from university students are always suspect because the women are very special relative to the men. Nearly always the women are more internal (compared to other women) as they have had more barriers to overcome in achieving what they have against a background of traditional prejudice. It should, however, also be pointed out that previous studies in this area also found little or no evidence of sex differences (Furnham 1983; Forgas et al. 1982). Similarly, income differences revealed few significant differences either as a main effect or in interaction with sex. This may be due to the fact that the prevailing cultural influences and fairly homogenous educational experiences of the subjects are more important than income in explaining wealth. But it is more probably a function of sampling - the subjects in this study were not themselves breadwinners or full-time employees and thus not actively engaged in making money. One’s actual relative income as a wage-earner may be a much better predictor of wealth explanations than one’s family income level. The factor analysis made perfect sense and is comparable to that of Furnham (1983). However unlike the latter, the fatalistic explanations tended to load on the same factor as the societal/external items. Thus it seems that, with some differences, the factor structure of explanations for wealth appear to be cross-culturally invariant. However, what does appear to differ is the relative importance attributed to the different factors. A question of central importance, but one which cannot be answered by this study concerns whether explanations for wealth are a cause or consequence of the distribution of wealth in the society. That is, does the
A. Furnham, M. Bond / Explanations
for wealth
459
predominance of internal/individualistic explanations for wealth in Hong Kong reflect the free-trade capitalism of Hong Kong or do these beliefs account for Hong Kong’s meteoric rise? To some extent both are probably true, and it is difficult to see how experimental studies could tease them apart. Nevertheless, as Furnham (1983) has pointed out, explanations for wealth are important in their own right as they relate closely to such things as a person’s political views, locus of control and need for achievement. This study did have its limitations which were primarily associated with the non-random sampling. University students are more homogenous, younger, better educated, probably more internal in their beliefs than the population as a whole. University students may represent different demographic and socio-economic backgrounds, but one of the main purposes of academic training is to make people more international in their outlook. Similarly, the comparison between the British and Hong Kong sample was weak because the studies were done at different times and the groups were not carefully matched. Further it was not possible to investigate many individual differences or demographic variables and those considered revealed few differences. Nevertheless, it revealed some probably generalizable findings on the preference for internal-individualistic explanations for wealth in South East Asia.
References Abrahamson, A., 1980. Sudden wealth, gratification and attainment: Durkheim’s anomie of affluence reconsidered. American Sociological Review 45,49-57. Biggart, N., 1983. Rationality, meaning and self-management: success manuals, 195&1980. Social Problems 30,298-3 I 1. Bond, M., 1985. Inter-group relations in Hong Kong. Paper given at the Interethnic Conflict and Aggression Conference. East-West Centre, Honolulu, HI. Carter, C., 197 1. Wealth: an essay on the purpose of economics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Evans, W. and D. Sculli, 1981. A comparison of managerial traits in Hong Kong and the U.S.A. Journal of Occupational Psychology 54,183-186. Fenichel, O., 1944. The drive to amass wealth. Collected papers. Forgas, J., S. Morris and A. Furnham, 1982. Lay explanations ofwealth. Attributions for economic success. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 12.381-397. Furnham, A., 1983. Attributions for affluence. Personality andIndividual Differences 4,31-40. Fumham, A., 1985. The economic decline of Britain: an attributional analysis. Unpublished manuscript. Fumham, A. and A. Lewis, 1986. The economic mind: the social psychology of economic behaviour. Brighton: Wheatsheaf. Galbraith, J., 1977. The age of uncertainty. London: BBC.
460
A. Furnham, M. Bond / Explanations for wealth
Hicks, G. and S. Redding, 1983a. The story of the East Asian economic miracle: I. Economic theory be damned. Euro Asian Business Review 2,24-32. Hicks, G. and S. Redding, 1983b. The story of the East Asian economic miracle: II. The culture connection. Euro Asian Business Review 2, 18-22. Jacobs, J., 1979. A preliminary model of particularistic ties in Chinese political alliances: ‘Kan-ching’ and ‘Kuan-hsi’ in a rural Taiwanese township. China Quarterly 78,232-273. Kagitcibagi, C., 1984. Socialization in traditional society: a challenge to psychology. International Journal of Psychology 19,145157. Katona, G., 1975. Psychological economics. New York: Elsevier. King, A. and M. Bond, 1986. ‘The confusion paradigm of men: a sociological view’. In: W. Tseng and D. Wu (eds.), Chinese culture and mental health: an overview. New York: Academic Press. (In press.) Lane, R., 1983. Money and the varieties ofhappiness. Paper presented at Oxford ISPP (International Society for Political Psychology) Meeting. Lewis, A., 1981. Attributions and politics. Personality and Individual Differences 2,14. Lewis, A., C. Sandford and C. Pleming, 1979. A survey of attitudes towards wealth, the wealthy, and the proposed annual wealth tax. Bath University Report, Bath, Bath University. Ouchi, W., 1981. Theory 2: how American business can meet the Japanese challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Rubinstein, W., 1974, ‘Men of property: some aspects of accommodation, inheritance and power among top British wealth holders’. In: P. Stanworth and A Giddens (ed.), Elites and power in British society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Simon, W., and J. Gagnon, 1976. The anomie of affluence: a post-Mertonian conception. American Journal of Sociology 82.356377. Vecchio, R., 1981. Workers’ beliefs in internal versus external determinants of success. Journal of Social Psychology 114, 199-207. Veblen, T., 1953. The theory of the leisure class. New York: Mentor Books. Waines, N., 1984. Development of economic concepts among Egyptian children. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology 1547-64. Wong, F., 1975. Industrialization and family structure in Hong Kong. Journal of Marriage and Family 37,9851000. Younger J., A. Arrowood and G. Hemsley, 1977. And the lucky shall inherit the earth: perceiving the causes of financial success and failure. European Journal of Social Psychology 7,509-515.