All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Relational Models and Horizontal & Vertical Individualism-Collectivism:
Unformatted Document Text:  Relational Models 9 relationship types. That is, persons in actual and ongoing interpersonal relationships can and usually do relate to others in ways consistent with all four relational models within the context of the same relationship. In some relationship domains an ongoing relationship might be characterized by communal sharing, whereas in other relationship domains the partners employ a hierarchy ranking and equality matching. An example would be a couple that pools its income in one checking account (CS), where one partner takes an instructor role in gardening and tells the other what to do (AR), and where both partners take turns cleaning dishes (EM). The model of CS is similar to Mills and Clark’s (1982) description of communal relationships, where there are no differences between the individuals within the relationship. That is, relating according to this model is based on the perception that the partners are equivalent and undifferentiated. The focus is on shared attributes and commonalties in values, beliefs, and goals. Within CS, no distinct individual identities exist, rather the groups to which individuals belong are differentiated. CS is often based on perceptions of common bonds, such as blood relationships. From the perspective of CS, other persons either belong to the in-group or to the out-group, but no further distinctions are made among group members. Generally, when applying CS to evaluate people, members of one's in-group are evaluated as being superior and more valuable than members of the out-group. The AR model of relating is one where persons are differentiated by rank. Using AR to place persons in relations to one another, identity is equivalent to rank. That is, differences between individuals arise from their hierarchical positions in respect to one another. Persons of equivalent rank are not differentiated and people higher up in the hierarchy are

Authors: Koerner, Ascan.
first   previous   Page 9 of 32   next   last



background image
Relational Models
9
relationship types. That is, persons in actual and ongoing interpersonal relationships can
and usually do relate to others in ways consistent with all four relational models within the
context of the same relationship. In some relationship domains an ongoing relationship
might be characterized by communal sharing, whereas in other relationship domains the
partners employ a hierarchy ranking and equality matching. An example would be a couple
that pools its income in one checking account (CS), where one partner takes an instructor
role in gardening and tells the other what to do (AR), and where both partners take turns
cleaning dishes (EM).
The model of CS is similar to Mills and Clark’s (1982) description of communal
relationships, where there are no differences between the individuals within the
relationship. That is, relating according to this model is based on the perception that the
partners are equivalent and undifferentiated. The focus is on shared attributes and
commonalties in values, beliefs, and goals. Within CS, no distinct individual identities
exist, rather the groups to which individuals belong are differentiated. CS is often based on
perceptions of common bonds, such as blood relationships. From the perspective of CS,
other persons either belong to the in-group or to the out-group, but no further distinctions
are made among group members. Generally, when applying CS to evaluate people,
members of one's in-group are evaluated as being superior and more valuable than
members of the out-group.
The AR model of relating is one where persons are differentiated by rank. Using AR to
place persons in relations to one another, identity is equivalent to rank. That is, differences
between individuals arise from their hierarchical positions in respect to one another.
Persons of equivalent rank are not differentiated and people higher up in the hierarchy are


Convention
All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 9 of 32   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.