DYNAMICAL COGNITIVE MODELS OF SOCIAL ISSUES IN RUSSIA
Olga
Mitina1, Frederick Abraham2, and Victor Petrenko1
1 Department
of Psychology, Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia
2 Blueberry Brain Institute, Waterbury Center, VT USA
05677 & Department of Psychology, Silliman University, Dumaguete City,
Philippines, 6200, or blueberry-brain.org
Correspondence should be addressed to Olga Mitina,
123060 Russia, Moscow, Raspletin Str., h. 15, app. 77. phone (095)-194-9087, or
omitina@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT
A DYNAMICAL MODEL OF CHANGES IN
SOCIAL MENTALITY
Construction of the Dynamical Model. While dynamics and synergetics is used metaphorically quite successfully in many areas of social and psychological science and philosophy, there are still relatively few studies using the application of operational mathematical models as has been employed in the physical sciences (Kurdyumov, 1982, 1990). Therefore, the development of methods for the social, psychological, and life sciences is eagerly sought. A dynamical system can be represented by a vectorfield in a state space, by the equations (difference or differential) that best model the system, and by the portrait (the collection of possible trajectories in the space generated by the vectorfield, or generated by the solutions to the equations). Time is represented on the trajectories rather than on an axis of the state space. We use a semantic factor analytic reduction of the dimensionality resulting from conducting a survey to determine the dimensions of the space. The administration of the survey at two points in time, together with objects from the survey that share factor loadings in the factor (state) space, determine the vectors throughout the space. When the survey is completed by each subject, each object—a social or political event, institution, or individual—is rated on the same set of scales using a matrix-shaped questionnaire. Difference equations are fitted to the data, and the resulting theoretical portrait is simulated.
Let Sn+1
= F [Sn]
represent the basic generic difference equations, where Sn is
the condition of the system at time n,and F is an operator, and
the equations are iterated over n steps. Our time series are extremely
short: two points! What to do? Moon (1987) suggests building a pseudo-state
space and extracting F from that, using measured values for a whole ensemble of
points in the space measured at two points in time. This depends upon an
assumption of ergodicity in dissipative systems for the ensemble of vectors at
sampled points in the space. The validity of this assumption is in the
non-additivity in the state space for the system. This has proved true for the
majority of models in statistical physics, but strict proof is difficult and
more often remains an unsolved task. The synergetic approach allocating general
laws of functioning of natural and social systems suggests the acceptance of
the ergodicity assumption in our case. It allows one to avoid difficulties
arising from «development in time» of this or that process, and to replace it
by «development in space». That is, with data on a large number of objects in
the system, measured at a given moment in time, it is possible to predict the
behavior of the system at other stages of its development (also assuming
stationarity). In social science where longitudinal studies with many points
sampled over time is inconvenient, expensive, or impossible, this technique of
sampling over the state space with few time samples can be critical.
As an operational model of the «simultaneously cut» space of public consciousness we use a psychosemantic device—multidimensional semantic spaces defined with factor analysis (Osgood, 1953; Petrenko, 1997). Psychosemantic methods allow the simulation of the space of basic categories of consciousness (in our case, public consciousness) at a certain moment of time that is determined by the survey procedure. Factor analysis allows the reduction of the initial basis of descriptive attributes to certain generalized categories—factors—that constitute the coordinate axes of the semantic space.
The system, S, is defined by the position of these objects in the space, and S1 and S2 are the states of the system at times t1 and t2. Let A be the regression operator constructed on the basis of the statistical analyses of empirical values, specifying the coordinates of each of the objects in S1 and S2 in a space of N dimension. So from the point of view of statistical criteria, S2 = A(S1) is the best theoretical approximation of the experimental data, i.e., for each object, O, with coordinates Oij, where i=1 if we are speaking about the coordinates of object O for S1 and i=2 for S2, j=1,2,…N. Then it is possible to determine the following simultaneous equations with the help of the regression operator:
O2j = A(O1j), j=1,…N
Having constructed the operator A as a «spatial unfolding», we can, bearing in mind the ergodicity assumption, consider that it represents a «temporal evolution» and describes the law of the change in opinions on the objects in time—the system’s vectorfield, as well as being the basis for its portrait.
The choice of the type of regression operator, A, is probably one of the most difficult methodological questions and should be resolved on the basis of additional reasons concerning the laws and properties of the dependencies under study. In our work, we restricted ourselves to a linear operator, proceeding on the assumption that the majority of nonlinear operators in the limited vicinity can be approximated by linear operators. Such an assumption is common in nonlinear dynamics, using local linearity to determine global nonlinearity (Abarbanel, 1996; Ott, 1993).
RUSSIAN POLITICAL MENTALITY, 1994-1997
Methods. We used the so-called implicative procedure of data matrix construction. Respondents were asked to fill in the questionnaire in the form of a matrix containing the 35 objects. The objects were economic and political realities of Russian life like: «privatization», «foreign investments», «conversion of the defense industry», «the disintegration of the USSR», «the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)»; political and social institutions: «the government», «the State Duma», «the Army», «the Church»; and well-known politicians: «Yeltsin», «Chernomydrin», «Luzhkov», «Chubais», «Zhirinovsky», etc. For a complete list see Figure 1.1.
Fifty-three (53) scales described possible consequences of each of the 35 objects, the economic and political events or activities. For example, «leads to isolation», «increases unemployment», «leads to greater democratization of society», «leads to dictatorship», «improves the country’s defense», «improves the country’s defense capacity», «leads to the growth of the threat of local wars», «aggravates interethnic conflicts», «improves cultural life », «improves social mobility», «promotes freedom of conscience and faith», etc. The respondents were asked to assess for each of these on a seven-point scale going from –3 to +3, the probabilities of each of the 53 consequences as the result of the realization, fulfillment or activity of each of the 35 objects, thereby filling in the 35x53 response matrix. Responses were obtained in 1994 and 1997; the results from the 1994 sample were previously reported (Petrenko & Mitina, 1997).
Our primary purpose was to develop the model rather than to get a completely representative sample of Russian society. For reasons of uniformity and for the need for rather politically sophisticated respondents, we limited our sample to Muscovites (370 men for the first sample; 276 for the second) with higher education, whether completed or not. One might think that this was a relatively quiet period since the beginning of Peristroika and the economic and political restructuring in 1991. On the contrary, the end of 1993 was marked by the armed opposition between the Supreme Soviet and the President, and mid-1998 marked the beginning of a systemic crisis in Russia.
Results. Proceeding
to the development of the model from the data, we assume the data are adequate
for this purpose, and we assume that the changes in public opinion occurs in a
continuous topological space, without discontinuities like armed conflicts,
putsches, crises, or revolutions, or other sources of nonstationarity and
bifurcation.
F1 Universal justice and equality, social optimism and society’s well-being « Social depression, internal contradictions, and “illness” in society.
F2 Liberal and democratic freedoms « Totaliarianism
All pairs of objects (1994, 1997) were placed in this space. Let the variable Xn(i) represent the coordinates on the first factor for the ith object for the first sample, (or, equivalently, coordinates of the first factor for the ith object at the moment of time n) and Xn+1(i) the coordinates for the second sample (or, again, equivalently, coordinates of the first factor for the ith object at the moment of time n+1). Similarly, let variables Y n(i)and Yn+1(i) be the coordinates on the second factor of object i. The general form of the simultaneous difference equations were:
Xn+1 = a0+a1 Xn+a2
Yn
Yn+1 = b0+b1 Xn+b2 Yn
Fitting these equations to our data, they became:
Xn+1 = –0.09+1.04 Xn+0.12 Yn
Yn+1 = –0.07–0.09 Xn+1.05 Yn
These can be expressed as differences as follows:
Xn+1 – Xn = –0.09+0.04 Xn+0.12
Yn
Yn+1 – Yn= –0.07–0.09 Xn+0.05
Yn
Which are equivalent to the following simultaneous linear differential equations:
dx/dt = –0.09+0.04 x+0.12 y
dy/dt = –0.07–0.09 x+0.05 y
Solutions of this system form a portrait with a spiral fixed point repellor at (–0.30, 0.85). (See. Filippov, 1973). The portrait is shown in Figure 1.1 with normalized coordinates.
Discussion. The locus of the fixed point repellor corresponds to such representations of societal structure where, on the one hand, there are, to a certain extent, liberal and democratic freedoms, and on the other, there are some social contradictions and negative phenomena in society, although they are very small, practically close to zero, but nevertheless present. It is possible to say that this fixed point in the generalized consciousness of our respondents corresponds more to a readiness for or anticipation of the fruits of democratic and liberal reforms. That is, while improvements in life style were not yet realized, there was a tolerance to accept that such improvements can be deferred, to be realized only in the future. However, such a condition is unstable and the slightest deviation leads to the outward spiraling trajectories.
The substantial sense of the portrait can be interpreted as follows: The availability of liberal and democratic freedoms are seen as providing opportunities for citizens to be the masters of their own lives. Also to be shareholders of the enterprises in which they work at (at least to influence their activity), to be the masters of the country, to have private property, and to change their social status. In addition, our respondents reveal an attitude that these reforms promote positive economic development within Russian society and Russia’s participation in the global economy. All these freedoms that open life’s prospects are also seen as a benefit to the state as a whole, to separate industrial collectives, and to wide layers of workers. They consequently are supported by the majority of the population (in this we are conjecturing from our sample to the Russian people as a whole). Some trajectories show movement from the positive pole of factor 2—liberal and democratic freedoms—to the positive pole of factor 1—universal justice and equality, social optimism and society’s well being. As a result, the state becomes stronger and begins to develop. The people begin to feel the meaningfulness of their own life and self-respect. Material well being raises and the ruble’s exchange rate stabilizes. The citizens’ faith in the ideals of good and justice becomes stronger, they have optimism for an increase of morality and culture, of social relations, of social unity, of legal and social security, of education, of public health services, and of ecological conditions.
At the same time, each social phenomenon has two sides. Liberalism and democracy, besides their positive attributes, can also provoke the development of negative features: stratification of society, its division into poor and rich, the prosperity of Mafia structures, regional elites that lead to the partitioning of Russia, and the stealing of its riches by international monopolies. It is possible to overcome some of these negative consequences by limiting freedom: strengthening the power of the administrative system, pursuing the policy of the iron hand. These negative tendencies can drive direction of movement of the trajectories from the positive pole of factor 1—universal justice and equality, social optimism and well being—to the negative pole of factor 2–totalitarianism. As a result, totalitarian tendencies in society leading to isolationism amplify, and, consequently there is further economic decline and people’s disappointment in life. There is a direction of movement of the trajectory from the negative pole of factor 2—totalitarianism—to the negative pole of factor 1—social depression and the decline of the state. The threat of local wars and interethnic conflicts grows; the crime level in society grows. To get out of this hole is possible only by escaping from totalitarian regime to freedom and democracy. It is inevitable to recollect the words of Winston Churchill: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.". The trajectory from the negative pole of factor 1 turns to the positive pole of factor 2. However, it is already a new outward level of the spiral trajectory. People have learned a lesson from the previous cycle, but at the new level, everything repeats anew, with a spiraling amplification.
As we have already said, the model corresponds to the representations in public consciousness. Proceeding from the thesis of A. N. Leontiev (1978) about the unity of consciousness and activity, it is possible to assume that such representations do not exist by themselves alone, but arise and develop in the interaction with some objective component realized in political life, which also develops cyclically. One may say that currently in public consciousness of Russians, the opinions that the negative aspects of liberalization and democratization have begun to prevail above positive ("criminal elements have taken advantage of liberalization", "the privatized property has moved into the hands of a small number of "oligarchs" etc.). These attitudes first appeared subconsciously and later evolved into full social consciousness. To a certain extent, the crisis was expected and society was ready for it.
Furthermore, a desire is revealed to introduce certain restrictions both in the economy and in politics. These desires, evident in the portrait, are also reflected in society from the allocatation of a larger role to the state in the decision of economic problems, the prevalence of CPRF (Communist) members and supporters in the government which came just after 1998 august’s system crisis in Russia. These desires are also evident in politics— the removal of the moratorium on death penalty, “physical destruction" of dangerous criminals, the return to the former repressive situation, Lubyanka, the monument to Dzerzhinsky as a symbol of struggle with criminality, and the governments’ attempts to control mass-media.
If we turn to the history of development of stable Western democratic countries, we shall easily enough notice similar cyclicity with the change of right-wing and left-wing governments, supporters of state regulation of economy and advocates of complete economic freedom, proponents of certain political restrictions and supporters of their complete absence, democrats and republicans, laborites and conservatives, etc. However, this cyclicity appears fairly stable and consequently these countries develop and changes of political and economic priorities are perceived as local crises that are not fatal.
In this connection, there is a
question of how long a similar process in Russia can last when this process is
unstable and the “rotor” of contradictions is increasingly unwound? Moreover,
is the system crisis of 1998 a continuation of this process or is it a
transition to something new? Will further processes of transformations submit
to another law? The future will yield answers to these questions. We will have
to wait and see.
2. WHAT RUSSIANS THINK OF
SOCIAL
DEVELOPMENT IN OTHER COUNTRIES
Methods. The study was carried out in two stages in 1993 and 1998. We used a multidimensional scaling procedure and data matrix procedure as previously. At each stage of the study respondents were asked to evaluate a number of countries in the CIS, Europe, and the world by various descriptive scales, characterizing the country’s situation in economy, culture, education, home and foreign policy, etc. The scales were 7-point (–3 to +3) as before. Individual responses were again summarized into a group data matrix that was subjected to factor analysis.
The respondents were Muscovites, both men and women, aged from 18 to 70. The sample cannot be considered representative, because the majority of respondents were students and people with higher education. The sample’s bias towards more educated respondents is connected with the specificity of our study, requiring certain general and regional geographical knowledge, as well as general political culture of the subjects. Moreover, there was the time-consuming procedure of filling in individual data matrices (each matrix requiring over one and a half hour of the respondent’s time to fill in). This and the absence of other motivational factors other than an interest in the task itself, and personal request of the experimenter, limited the circle of respondents to “interesants” (people, interested in the study itself or who otherwise kindly agreed to participate), students, their relatives, and friends.
Furthermore, since the main objective of the present work was the elaboration of a model for the analysis of representations of the existing public social consciousness on the dynamics of development of different countries, we did not set ourselves an obligatory task to obtain a wholly representative Russian picture. For reasons of homogeneity, we confined our sample of respondents to Muscovites. Our sample thus reflects a certain segment of Muscovites having some higher education during a relatively geopolitical continuous period. This period, since 1993, is characterized by the founding of the CIS when the former Soviet republics formalized their independent statehood. By that time, most of them had held elections for the supreme bodies of state power and had adopted national Constitutions. The whole world witnessed the ultimate end of the cold war and decomposition of the socialist bloc up to 1999. It marked the beginning of a serious trial and transformation of the established geopolitical structure caused by the Yugoslavian conflict.
From the objectives of our study, the use of experimental data obtained precisely at that period is quite adequate. Actually, we can consider the development and transformation of geopolitical space as occurring in a continuous topological space, without discontinuities like wars, collapses of empires, and international communities, etc.
Data Analyses and Construction of the Dynamical Model. Two averaged group data matrices for 1993 and 1998 were merged. That is, an aggregated matrix was constructed, with 9 rows corresponding to 9 descriptive scales, and 82 columns, where each of 41 countries has two data columns, one each for the years 1993 and 1998. This aggregated matrix was subjected to factor analysis, from which two most significant factors were identified:
F1 Stability of state «Instability of state
F2 Liberal values and democratic freedoms « Totalitarianism
Each of 41 countries was represented as a pair of points (respondents’ opinion about the country in 1993 and 1998, respectively) in the state space generated by these two factors. We shall denote by Xn(i)the coordinate corresponding to the opinion about the object i in 1993 along the first factor, and by Xn+1(i) the coordinate corresponding to the opinion about the same object in 1998 along the first factor.
Similarly, we denote the coordinate corresponding to the opinion about the object i in 1993 along the second factor by Yn(i), and the coordinate corresponding to the opinion about the same object in 1998 along the second factor by Yn+1(i).
Then we again used multiple linear regression methods to build up a theoretical model based on the experimental data. We used the following regression formulas for the model:
Xn+1 = a0+a1
Xn+a2 Yn
Yn+1 = b0+b1 Xn+b2 Yn
We obtained the following realizations for these simultaneous linear difference equations by statistically fitting them to the experimental data:
Xn+1 = 0.601 + 1.16
Xn + 0.323 Yn
Xn+1 = 0.0576 –
0.106 Xn + 0.658 Yn
This system may be transformed in the following way:
Xn+1 – Xn
= 0.601 + 0.16 Xn + 0.323 Yn
Yn+1 – Yn = 0.0576 – 0.106 Xn
– 0.342 Yn
and simultaneous differential equations substituted for them:
dx/dt=0.601 +0.16 x + 0.323y
dy/dt=0.0576 – 0.106 x – 0.342y
Discussion. This result can be interpreted as a model of representation in our respondents’ generalized consciousness of the existence of four different types of governmental development. These four regions can be characterized as:
I. The countries theoretically located in this domain may be characterized, from the respondents’ point of view, as totalitarian, unstable states. Anti-totalitarian strivings are achieved at the price of even greater instability.
II. Theoretically, this domain may contain, according to respondents’ opinions, the countries that are relatively democratic and liberal, but as in region I, very unstable. In the event of any revolutionary transformations and cataclysms, these countries also cannot expect stabilization in the future, that is, to move from the domain of instability into the domain of stability.
III. In the countries that are theoretically situated in this domain, the stock of liberal and democratic freedoms is rather high, the level of instability is substantially lower and responds to regulation. If necessary, greater stability of society, in the respondents’ opinion, can be achieved at the expense of lessening freedoms.
IV. This domain includes relatively stable and totalitarian countries. If the state is assessed as totalitarian, the trajectory first goes toward democratization at the expense of stability, and then approaches the outset P as convergence toward social stability.
Thus, the two basins can be interpreted as indicating the existence of certain respondents’ representations on alternative aspects of political development. Either a country—if in the right hand basin—is stable and ruled by a strong hand (within reasonable boundaries, but not leading to totalitarianism), or it—if in the left hand basin—suffers instability which expanding freedoms inevitably exacerbate.
From Figure 2.1 we can see
that, according to respondents’ actual evaluations, quite a large number of
countries are located rather compactly within the right-hand basin. This
indicates that, in the respondents’ opinions, there were no states, among those
investigated, with the prospect of instability and crisis development. That is,
for most countries, respondents (implicitly) anticipate a steady state of
development of a moderately strong governance hand toward increasing social stability.
These results are in good conformity with the results obtained by us in an
earlier study of Russian political attitudes in 1991-1993 (Petrenko &
Mitina, 1997).
Go to Figure 2.2
State space of Russians’
Generalized Views on the Dynamics of Various Countries (Countries’ Grouping
Domain)
Figure 2.2 displays a
portion of the generalized portrait with the countries investigated located and
identified by a number (see key) hyphenated to a 1 for results of 1993 survey,
or by a 2 for results of 1998 survey. Vector lines connecting these two points
in the direction from point 1 to point 2 (left as an exercise for the reader)
could be interpreted as reflecting respondents’ representations of the dynamics
of social transformation during the 1993-1998 period. If we consider to what
extent all empirical vector lines fit theoretical trajectories, and which
countries lie in region III and which lie in region IV, we can make the
following conclusions.
Go to Figure 2.4 State space of Russians’ Generalized Views on the Dynamics of
Various Countries (Domain IV – “Regular” countries)
Go to Figure 2.5 State space of Russians’ Generalized Views on the Dynamics of
Various Countries (Domain IV – “Non-regular” countries)
A. Domain III (Fig. 2.3) contains the most developed countries of Western Europe and North America. For all these countries, the empirical vectors are close to the theoretical trajectories. We shall call these countries “Regular”.
B. Domain IV (Figs. 2.4, 2.5) contains all the rest countries. We can specify the following groups:
1. “Regular” countries for which the empirical vector lines are close to the theoretical trajectories.
2. “Irregular” countries for which the empirical vector lines do not conform to the theoretical trajectories. These mismatches occur either along the X-axis (Stability«Instability), or along the Y-axis (Freedoms«Totalitarianism). These exceptions include:
a) Chechnya — discordance on both X- and Y-axes, i.e., from respondents’ standpoint, it “moves” simultaneously in the direction of instability and totalitarianism (Fig. 2.5).
b) South Osetia — both surveys give practically the same results, that is, from the point of respondents’ view, there is no perceived development of governance in the republic (Fig. 2.5).
c) Brazil — the direction of vector line is close to that of a theoretical trajectory, but the point, corresponding to the image of the country in 1998 fell in domain III: the movement towards freedoms along Y-axis turned out to be greater than that of theoretical trajectories in the vicinity of Brazil’s starting point in 1994. We may say that, according to respondents’ opinion, Brazil has undergone a “leap” in its democratic development that has been ahead of its perceived stabilization (Fig. 2.5).
d) Japan — shows the opposite tendency(Fig. 2.5). The empirical vector line is close to theoretical curve but the movement in the direction of stabilization along the X-axis was greater than that along the Y-axis. It was similar to the theoretical trajectories in the vicinity, but exaggerated. One can say that according to the views of respondents, Japan has experienced a “jump” in its stabilization development, i.e. stabilization processes have been ahead of its democratization. Therefore, we may say that Japan and Brazil have become the countries conforming to a Western European model of development.
e) Russia — shows discordance between the vector line and the theoretical trajectory on both X- and Y-axes (Fig. 2.5). That is, from the respondents’ standpoint, Russia “moves” simultaneously towards democratization and instability. Moreover, its vector line crosses the outset of the saddle, suggesting that the saddle may be located further up and left in the space for Russia. It could be in the dangerous condition of region I, tending toward instability if some radical bifurcation is not accomplished to move it to the right hand basin.
Thus, in case of Russia we are faced with the situation in which all possible discrepancies to the model are present. The directions of the vector lines are contrary on both axes to those of the trajectories, behaving more as if they were in the left hand basin (region I) than in the right hand basin (region IV). Russia also differed from most other countries in the same region of state space, except for Croatia (whose move toward instability was borne out in the real world subsequently to the study!) and Tadjikistan (Fig. 2.5). Except for these countries, the rest of the world is developing rather in concordance with the model and most countries have many common features in their development. It seems fair to say that a unified model can describe this process. However, Russia is a special country with its own particular way, which might be accounted for by a shift of the model portrait in the state space
In this connection, there arises the
following question: whether the obtained ethno-centric phenomenon is peculiar
only to Russians, or if there may be other countries showing some similar
cognitive dynamics. However, the answer to it can only be obtained with more
cross-cultural studies using respondents from other countries.
The procedure of the experiment was the following. The persons tested in our research were men and women from different regions of Russia (417), over 18 years old. They were given the list of 100 different situations from every-day women’s life concerning choice of husband, job, hobbies, styles of raising children, and so on. They were to assess the probability of this or that situation for each of the following roles: I my-Self, an ideal woman, a happy woman, a despised woman, a typical Russian woman, a woman 60 years ago, a woman 40 years ago, a woman 20 years ago, a contemporary woman, a woman 20 years from now, a woman 40 years from now, and a woman 60 years from now. The respondents assessed the probability of each situation, using a 7-point scale (from –3 to 3) from the view-point of each of the different roles. The individual records of proceedings of those under test were summed in the all-group matrix.
Factor analysis identified three factors accounting for 86.0 % of the total variance.
F1. Emancipativeness (Orientation of equal relations between men and women) « Patriarcality (Orientation of behavioral norms with domination by men and submissiveness by women.) It accounts for 36.7% of the total variance.
F2. Orientation toward the household and within-the-family activity. It accounts for 34.6 % of the total variance.
F3. Orientation
toward society and social activity. It accounts for 14.7 % of the total
variance.
60 years ago – that was very long ago
40 years ago – that was long ago
20 years ago – that was not very long ago
Contemporary – that is happening at present
20 years from now – that will be relatively soon
40 years from now – that will be not very soon
60 years from now – that will be in a very distant future
Therefore, when analyzing the graphs in Figure 3.1, we are interested not so much in the absolute values that the respondents gave to the women of certain period, but in the dynamics of these evaluations. That is, we are interested in their perception of the changes in stereotypes over time.
Thus, on the first factor, we can easily trace a representation of the rise of female emancipation, i.e. the degree to which women are fully aware of and oriented to equality with men in all spheres of life. The respondents believe that by now, emancipation, in principle, has already occurred. However, for images of future women’s roles, from contemporary woman on, the plot ascends very little, practically becoming a plateau. In addition, we may say that the respondents largely approve of that process. The role of the image of My ideal received the highest evaluation on this factor compared to the other stereotypes. Interestingly, they considered themselves, I myself, as close to the ideal.
The dynamics of the second factor illustrates respondents’ representation of a substantial decrease of women’s activity within the family and in the household. However, the evaluation of that process is negative, in contrast to the previous case, because the factor, although highly valued, has greatly lost value over time. Thus the images with positive connotation (My ideal and happy woman) got high ratings on the in-family activity, while a despised woman, on the contrary, was assessed very low. On the other hand, the forecast of dynamics along this factor points to expectations of a positive shift, namely, a gradual rise of women’s in-family activity for the future.
On the third factor, social activity, the comparison of the ratings given by the respondents to different images of women and on temporally defined generalized images indicates a substantial difference in evaluations. Indeed, all temporally unspecified female images have substantially lower ratings than those that are temporally specified. This fact may be accounted for by a specific attitude of our respondents to participation in social life. That is, when the respondents rated the degree of women’s social activity in different periods, they evaluated the dynamics apart from their own subjective attitude to this factor. However, in the assessment of temporally unrelated women’s stereotypes on this factor, it was essentially influenced not by the classic gender literature and “patriarchal syndrome” connected with a traditional role of a woman in any society. Rather, it was more likely influenced by a general resistance of personality to the social environment of the soviet period in our country. As the well-known contemporary Russian writer V.Yerofeev (1997) noted, a Soviet woman managed to withdraw from ideology much better than Soviet men did. The “Russian woman did laundry, ironed clothes, wore rouge, gave birth, and breast-fed children even in the worst periods of the Stalin cult. She dreamt of new furniture. Love, for her, was more important than Communism” (Yerofeev 1997, p.8). If a woman can actualize herself in social life, it is wonderful—a happy woman received the highest rating on the social activity factor compared to that factor for the other temporally unrelated images. However, for themselves, the respondents cannot imagine such a situation even in the ideal. Nevertheless, analyzing respondents’ representations on the dynamics of this process, we may notice their awareness of the growth of female social activity in the past periods and the expectation of it in the future. The present period is characterized by the respondents as a decay, which may be attributed to the general economic situation in which women are the first to be fired from jobs. This condition may be seen as the death of officially declared egalitarianism following the end of the Soviet era.
Construction of the Dynamic Models with Discussions. The model was built up as previously. On each factor, we had the coordinates of seven objects, comprising a dynamical set, i.e. those determining the transformation of women’s behavioral stereotypes over consecutive moments of time: historic, contemporary, and futurist. Thus on each factor i = 1, 2, 3 we had a sequence of points Xni (n=1, 2, . . .7) where i is used as a superscript, rather than as a power.
Then we used multiple linear regression methods to fit a model to the experimental data. The formulas for the model of regression for the first and second variables (factors) that we used are:
Xn+11 = a10 + a11
Xn1+ a12 Xn2
Xn+1 2= a20 + a21
Xn1+ a22 Xn2
And for the first and third variables:
Xn+11 = a10 + a11
Xn1 + a13 Xn3
Xn+13 = a20 + a31
Xn1 + a33 Xn3
And for the second and third variables:
Xn+12 = a20 + a22
Xn2 + a23 Xn3
Xn+1 3= a30 + a32
Xn2 + a33 Xn3
All of them allow us to build up state spaces for each pair of the three identified factors.
As the result of the regression analysis, we obtained the following numeric realizations of these simultaneous difference equations for the first and second variables:
Xn+11 = 0.188 + 0.916 Xn1
+ 0.327 Xn2
Xn+12 = 0.535 – 0.213 Xn1
+ 0.239 Xn2
This system may be transformed in the following way:
X1n+1 – X1n
= 0.188 – 0.084 Xn1 + 0.327 Xn2
X2n+1 – X2n =
0.535 – 0.213 Xn1 – 0.761 Xn2
And simultaneous linear differential equations may be substituted for these:
dx1/dt = 0.188 – 0.084 x1+
0.327 x2
dx2/dt = 0.535 – 0.213 x1–
0.761 x2
Go to Figure 3.2
State Space of Russians’
generalized Views on the Dynamics of Women Behavior Stereotypes (F1, F2)
The solutions of this system form a stable portrait with a fixed point attractor at (2.38, 0.04) (Fig. 3.2). Theoretically, eigen vectors (the straight lines shown with filled arrows) that approach the fixed point attractor partition the state space into domains, each with its own characteristic vectorfield (and portrait). However, for the analysis of the existing experimental data we are interested only in the domain that contains most of the objects of scaling. That domain is where the vectors indicate a decrease of in-family activity and a growth of emancipativeness. The exception here is a despised woman, and the point corresponding to it lies in the domain where vectors are directed not only at the growth of emancipativeness, but, to a great extent, at the increasing of in-family activity. Thus, we can think that the respondents regard a household and in-family workload of women to be extreme and see a perspective for the development of female stereotypes in society’s full awareness of genuine equality of men and women. However, the fact that the portrait is stable indicates that the process of emancipation, according to respondents’ opinion, is limited. Respondents also do not exclude moderate involvement of a woman in the household. Moreover, the existing exception only confirms a general rule: a woman living outside of household and family concerns is despised.
Simultaneous difference equations for the first and third variable are:
Xn+11 = –0.138 + 0.636 Xn1
+ 0.892 Xn3
Xn+13 = 0.744 – 0.102 Xn1
+ 0.162 Xn3
Which may be transformed in the following way:
X1n+1 – X1n
= –0.138 – 0.364 Xn1 + 0.892 Xn3
X3n+1 – X3n =
0.744 – 0.102 Xn1 – 0.838 Xn3
And this system of linear differential equations can be substituted for them:
dx1/dt = – 0.138 –0.344 x1 +
0.892 x3
dx3/dt = 0.744 – 0.102 x1 –
0.838 x3
Go to Figure 3.3 State Space of Russians’ generalized Views on the Dynamics of Women
Behavior Stereotypes (F1, F3)
The solutions of this system form a stable portrait with a spiral fixed point attractor at (1.38, 0.72). (Fig. 3.3).
As we have already noted, hypothetical representations of the respondents on the transformation of stereotypes connected with female social activity are strongly discordant with their own direct attitudes. However, the model was constructed based on the regression analysis of “temporally related” images and, in our opinion, is not adequate for the analysis of “temporally unrelated” images. Therefore, we shall not depict these temporally unrelated images on the figures that contain the third factor.
Here we should note the difference between emancipativeness as a value and as a social activity. Thus, the respondents characterize the women of previous periods as the bearers of patriarchal consciousness, though relatively actively involved in social life. Indeed, a stereotype of non-working woman was unpopular in our society; a housewife caused a negative reaction (Mitina 1999). However, women worked, carried out “public activities”, rather by external necessity than by their own desire, for it was a social custom. Thus they were submitting to the will of society and recognizing the existing inequality. A present decay of social activity can be explained, in our view, by an “over-dosage” of that compulsory emancipation à la Sovietique. In spite of the fact that contemporary women are characterized, in respondents’ opinion, by significantly lower social activity, the level of their emancipativeness is rated as high. The fact that a woman 20, 40 and 60 years from now do not fit the portrait can be interpreted as a vague representation of the respondents on the specificity of the future process of women’s involvement in social life. That is, in many respects, the future development of society and state as a whole is hardly predictable for Russia. Nevertheless, the dynamics of the process in the past precisely enough corresponds to the model: the historical objects (women of 60, 40, 20 years ago) seem to be on a trajectory approaching the attractor. Thus, the respondents are well aware of their own representations on the nature of women’s participation in the life of society in the past.
The system of difference equations for the second and the third variables:
Xn+12= 0.768 + 0.518 Xn2
– 0.689 Xn3
Xn+13= 0.79 – 0.139 Xn2
+ 0.305 Xn3
Which may be re-written in the following way:
X2n+1 – X2n=
0.768 – 0.482 Xn2 – 0.689 Xn3
X3n+1 – X3n=
0.79 – 0.139 Xn2 – 0.695 Xn3
And the equivalent simultaneous linear differential equations are:
dx2/dt= 0.768 – 0.482 x2 – 0.689
x3
dx3/dt=0.79 –0.139 x2– 0.695 x3
Go to Figure 3.4
State Space of Russians’
generalized Views on the Dynamics of Women Behavior Stereotypes (F2, F3)
Solutions of this system form a stable portrait with a
radial fixed point attractor at (-0.04, 1.15) (see Fig. 3.4). As in the
previous case, we did not depict “temporally unrelated” women images on this
picture. The analysis of the direction of the trajectories’ movement allows us
to make a conclusion that our respondents perceive “in-family” to “social
activity” interrelational developmental dynamics as a process converging to a
stable fixed point attractor. Moderate participation of a woman in the
household (in-family activities, approximately at the contemporary level) and
substantial rise (as compared with the present) of female social activity are
viewed as a stereotype of women’s behavior in the future.
Abraham
F. D, Abraham, R. H., & Shaw, C. D. (1990). A visual introduction to
dynamical systems theory for psychology. Santa Cruz: Aerial.
Arnold
V. I. (1971). Ordinary differential equations. Moscow: Nauka.
Filippov
A. F. (1973). Differential equations. The collection of problems.
Moscow: Nauka.
Guastello,
S. J. (1995). Chaos, catastrophe, and human affairs. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Haken,
H. (1985). Synergetics. (Translation from English) Moscow: Nauka.
(trans. of Haken, H. (1978). Synergetics (2nd ed.).
Berlin-Heidelberg-New York: Springer-Verlag.
Heath,
R. (2000). Nonlinear dynamics: Techniques and applications in psychology.
Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Kurdyumov
S. P. (1979/1982). Eigenfunctions of combustion in a nonlinear medium and
constructive laws of its organization. Modern problems of mathematical
Physics and Computational Mathematics, Keldysh Institute of Applied
Mathematics, no. 29. 217-243. Moscow: Nauka (1982, 235-236, in Russian).
Kurdyumov S. P.
(1990). Evolution and self-organization laws in complex systems. International
Journal of Modern Physics C, 1(4), 299-327.
Leontiev, A.N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Engelwood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Mitina O. V.
(1999). Women’s gender behavior in social and cross-cultural aspects. Social
Science Today, 3. pp. 179-191.
Mitina O. V.,
Petrenko V. F. (1999). Dynamic model of changing political mentality of
Russians. Mathematical and computer modeling in the humanitarian and social
sciences. Moscow: State University of Management Press, p. 44-53.
Mitina O. V., & Petrenko V. F.
(2000). Cross-cultural research on women’s behavior’s stereotypes Voprosy
Psychologii (Issues of Psychology) 1, 68-86.
Moon,
F. C. (1987). Chaotic vibrations. New York: Wiley.
Osgood,
C. E. (1953). Method and Theory in Experimental Psychology. New York: Oxford.
Ott,
E. (1993). Chaos in dynamical systems. New York: Cambridge.
Petrenko V. F., & Mitina O. V. (1997). Psychosemantic analysis of public consciousness’ dynamics. Moscow: Moscow State University (in Russian).
Petrenko V., Mitina
O., & Berdnikov K. (2000). Psychosemantic analysis of Geopolitical
Representations of Russian Citizens. Journal of Psychology, N2,
pp. 49-70. (in Russian).
Petrenko V. F. (1997). The Psychosemantics of consciousness. Moscow: Moscow State University (in Russian).
Schuster
H.G. (1984). Deterministic Chaos. An Introduction. Weinheim:
Physik-Verlag.
Yerofeef, V. (1997). Men, [Muzhchiny]. Moscow: Podkova.