DOES LINGUISTIC PERFORMANCE IN ROMANIAN INFLUENCE SOCIAL AXIOMS, BASIC PSYCHOLOGICAL NEEDS, AND SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING?

Cătălin MOSOIA
Keywords: social axioms, basic psychological needs, linguistic performance.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26758/14.1.5

Address correspondence to: School of Advanced Studies of the Romanian Academy – SCOSAAR, Romanian Academy, Bucharest, Romania, tel. 0723 540 213, e-mail: catalin.mosoia@gmail.com

Abstract

Objectives. This study explores the link between social axioms, basic psychological needs, and subjective well-being, considering Romanian participants’ linguistic performance, specifically whether different levels of linguistic performance influence social axioms and other variables analyzed in this study.

Material and methods. 190 adult Romanian males and females (M = 40.25; SD = 11.16) completed the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale—General Measure; Social Axioms Survey II; the World Health Organization Well-Being Index; and the Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire, a measure of linguistic performance in Romanian. The study analyzed two groups of participants: those with high- and low-level linguistic performance in Romanian.

Results. Participants with high linguistic performance in Romanian tend to exhibit high values of social cynicism, social complexity, and fate control. Individuals with low linguistic performance tend to exhibit low scores at reward for application and religiosity. A t-test for independent groups reveals that fate control differs between the two groups of participants: fate control means scores of the high-level linguistic performance group (M = 22.87, SD = 5.378) are significantly higher (t = 2.308, df = 188, p = .022) than those of the low-level linguistic performance group (M = 21.04, SD = 5.515). Higher linguistic performance tends to be associated with psychological needs satisfaction, while lower levels are associated with frustration. High well-being scores are associated with the high-level linguistic performance group.

Conclusions. Individuals with a strong sense of fate control tend to believe it is pointless to resist it, yet they acknowledge the presence of expectations. A balance in evaluating social situations contributes to subjective well-being for those with high linguistic ability.

Keywords: social axioms, basic psychological needs, linguistic performance.

 Introduction

 Defined as “generalized beliefs about oneself, the social and physical environment, or the spiritual world” (Leung et al., 2002, p. 289), social axioms represent a construct that helps explain human actions. Social axioms are social because they appear due to socialization and are axioms because people accept and endorse them without too much validity analysis (Leung & Bond, 2009).

Previous research suggests that social axioms are stable in time across a period of eight years (Leung et al., 2012b, p. 837), and changes with impact at the societal level, e.g., wars and natural catastrophes, can result in significant changes in social axioms (Li & Leung, 2012). Even the recent COVID pandemic could not identify a significant change of beliefs in a group of Romanian participants (Mosoia, 2022, p. 69). Investigations on the culture-level dimensions of social axioms across 41 cultures indicate a higher value for Romania on societal cynicism, a construct that refers to the same content as social cynicism (Bond et al., 2004a, p. 566).

Other studies suggest that social axioms are meaningful variables either for describing groups and societies (Leung et al., 2002; Bond et al., 2004a; Leung & Bond, 2009; Comunian, 2009; Guan, Bond, Dincă, & Iliescu, 2010; Leung, Li, & Zhou, 2012a; Leung et al., 2012b; Iliescu, Dincă, & Bond, 2017) or individuals inside those groups and societies (Singelis, Hubbard, Her, & An, 2003; Dragolov & Boehncke, 2015).

Social axioms were investigated in different cultural contexts along with various variables. For example, learning in the Philippines (Bernardo, 2009); moral development in Italy (Comunian, 2009); personality and behavioral indicators in Romania (Dincă & Iliescu, 2009); couple relations in Romania (Iliescu et al., 2017); social beliefs (Leung & Bond, 2004); values (Bond, Leung, Au, Tong, & Chemonges-Nielson, 2004b; Leung et al., 2007); personality and beliefs (Chen, Bond, & Cheung, 2006); life satisfaction (Lai, Bond, & Hui, 2007); achievement (Zhou, Leung, & Bond, 2009); and subjective well-being (Hui & Bond, 2010).

The Basic Needs Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) states that humans have three innate, fundamental psychological needs: relatedness, competence, and autonomy, and their achievement supports optimal functioning. Therefore, the satisfaction of psychological needs “predicts optimal psychological functioning, well-being, life satisfaction, and positive affect” (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 62) and well-being throughout life (Lataster et al., 2022). Frustration with basic psychological needs may cause people to experience ill-being, dissatisfaction, and negative affect (Hagger, Hankonen, Chatzisarantis, & Ryan, 2020).

Studies on basic psychological needs suggest that satisfaction is critical for healthy functioning across cultures (Nishimura & Suzuki, 2016). Psychological needs are essential in “development, adjustment, and wellness across cultures, with strong implications for basic motivational science, applied practices, and even broad social policies” (Vansteenkiste, Ryan, & Soenens, 2020, p. 2).

Basic psychological needs were studied in different aspects of life, such as education (Klassen, Perry, & Frenzel, 2012); work and motivation in the workplace (Deci & Ryan, 2014; Olafsen, Deci, & Halvari, 2018); sport (Li, Wang, Pyun, & Kee, 2013); well-being and enhancement of well-being (Martela & Ryan, 2015); and balance between the needs (Sheldon & Niemiec, 2006; Sheldon & Filak, 2008; Milyavskaya et al., 2009; Milyavskaya, Philippe, & Koestner, 2013; Radel, Pelletier, & Sarrazin, 2012; Dysvik, Kuvaas, & Gagné, 2013).

The term subjective well-being was introduced a couple of decades ago (Diener, 1984) and represents an individual evaluation of the quality of life (Proctor, 2014) or “a person’s cognitive and affective evaluations of his or her life” (Diener, Lucas, & Oishi, 2002a, p. 63). Hence, subjective well-being is an inner state that manifests itself through behavior.

Examples of subjective well-being determinants: good mental health and positive relationships with others (Proctor, 2014; Diener & Seligman, 2002); environment (Diener & Seligman, 2004); employment (Diener, Nickerson, Lucas, & Sandvik, 2002b; Lucas, Clark, Georgellis, & Diener, 2004); marriage (Lucas, Clark, Georgellis, & Diener, 2003); age (Diener & Suh, 1998); culture (Diener, Suh, Smith, & Shao, 1995a); and individual characteristics (Diener, Diener, & Diener, 1995b).

Whatever the language, linguistic performance is not linguistic competence, and Chomsky (2015) made it clear this fundamental distinction between competence and linguistic performance: Linguistic competence is the knowledge of the language by a speaker or listener, while language performance represents “the actual use of language in concrete situations” (Chomsky, 2015, p. 2). Molea (2019), recalling the writings of Coșeriu (2000, p. 9) and Frâncu (1997, p. 19), claims that the competence-performance pair is another form of the language-speech dichotomy specified by Ferdinand de Saussure (1971, p. 38); in the view of the Swiss linguist, language is different from speech as the social is different from the individual (Saussure, 1971, pp. 38–39; 2011, pp. 19–20). Consequently, in this study, the term linguistic performance was used. Linguistic performance was defined as the arithmetic means of the L1 participants’ self-evaluation regarding speaking, understanding the spoken language, and reading in their native language.

Considering the objective of this study, i.e., determining the role of the linguistic performance in maternal language on social axioms, basic psychological needs, and subjective well-being, the following general hypothesis emerged: the linguistic performance in the native language of participants differentiates social axioms, basic psychological needs, and subjective well-being.

Material and Methods

 Tools

 In this study, the Social Axioms Survey II was used (Leung et al., 2012b) to assess social axioms – social cynicism, social complexity, reward for application, fate control, religiosity; the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale – General Measure (Chen et al., 2015) to assess basic psychological needs, i.e. the needs for competence, relatedness, and autonomy; the World Health Organization (WHO) (Five) Well-Being Index (1998 version) (Psychiatric Research Unit, WHO Collaborating Centre in Mental Health, n.d.) to evaluate subjective well-being; a measure of linguistic performance based on the Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire the Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire, LEAP-Q (Marian, Blumenfeld, & Kaushanskaya, 2007; Kaushanskaya, Blumenfeld, & Marian, 2019).

The Social Axioms Survey II, shortened as SAS II (Leung et al., 2012b), consists of 40 items referring to beliefs, which group five dimensions of social axioms: social cynicism, the reward for application, social complexity, fate control, and religiosity. Each item is scored on a Likert scale from 1, ‘Strongly disbelieve’, to 5, ‘Strongly believe’. In this way, social axiom factors range from a minimum value of eight to a maximum value of 40. Examples of SAS II items: “People create hurdles to prevent others from succeeding.” − social cynicism; “Building the way step by step leads to success” − reward for application; “There is usually more than one good way to handle a situation.” – social complexity; “Matters of life and death are determined by fate.” – fate control; “Belief in a religion helps one understand the meaning of life.” – for the factor religiosity.

The Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale – General Measure (Chen et al., 2015), shortened as BPNSFS, was used to measure basic psychological needs for autonomy, relatedness, and competence. The BPNSFS scale consists of 24 items about actual experiences of certain feelings in the respondent’s life. Answers are scored on a Likert scale from 1, ‘Not True at all’, to 5, ‘Completely True’, to indicate the degree to which the statement is valid for the respondent. Each of the three dimensions of the scale – autonomy, relatedness, and competence − consists of four items, either for the satisfaction or frustration of the need. Therefore, scores range from a minimum value of four (4) to a maximum value of 20. Examples of BPNSFS items: “I feel a sense of choice and freedom in the things I undertake.”, “I feel that my decisions reflect what I really want.” – autonomy satisfaction; I feel connected with people who care for me, and for whom I care.” – relatedness satisfaction; “I feel confident that I can do things well.” – competence satisfaction; “I feel forced to do many things I wouldn’t choose to do.” – autonomy frustration; “I feel excluded from the group I want to belong to.” – relatedness frustration; “I have serious doubts about whether I can do things well.” – competence frustration.

The World Health Organization (WHO) (Five) Well-Being Index (1998 version) was used to measure subjective well-being. It is a self-report questionnaire consisting of five statements on how the respondent has been feeling over the last two weeks by choosing the appropriate answer on a Likert scale, from zero (0) to five (5), where 0 = “At no time”, 1 = “Some of the time”, 2 = “Less than half of the time”, 3 = “More than half of the time”, 4 = “Most of the time”, and 5 = “All the time”. Raw scores range from zero (0), the worst possible, to 25, the best possible quality of life. A percentage score was calculated by multiplying the raw score by 4; Hence, a percentage score of 0 represents the worst possible, while 100 represents the best possible quality of life. Therefore, high scores indicate better subjective well-being. Example of WHO-5 items: “I have felt cheerful and in good spirits.” “I have felt active and vigorous.”

The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire, LEAP-Q (Marian et al., 2007; Kaushanskaya et al., 2019) is a self-report questionnaire. LEAP-Q items refer to all languages the participant knows, starting with its native language, the order of acquisition of these languages, the knowledge of the language, and its learning history. For example, the age at which they began to learn the language, the age at which they became fluent in the language, the age at which they began to read in the language, the age at which they began to read fluently in the language; the respondent also selects, on a scale from zero (0) to ten (10), the level of proficiency in speaking, comprehension and reading, where 0 (zero) means “no level”, 1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = acceptable, 4 = insufficient, 5 = sufficient, 6 = just above sufficient, 7 = competent, 8 = very competent, 9 = excellent, and 10 = perfect.

Starting from The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q) (Marian et al., 2007), a measure of the level of performance in the maternal language (L1) was suggested and defined. This study chose the word ‘performance’ instead of ‘competence’ because it was considered the distinction made by Chomsky between competence, “the speaker-hearer’s knowledge of his language”, and performance, “the actual use of language in concrete situations” (Chomsky, 2015, p. 4). Therefore, linguistic performance was defined as the arithmetic means of the L1 participants’ self-evaluation of speaking, understanding the spoken language, and reading in their native language: [1/3(Speaking + Understanding + Reading)].

Participants and procedure

One hundred ninety Romanian adults, 126 females and 64 males, aged between 18 and 60 years (M = 40.25, SD = 11.16), filled out an online survey in the Romanian language. The data were collected between May 2019 and March 2020. Participants were recruited (e.g., during several meetings with undergraduate and master’s psychology students) and through electronic platforms for graduate and postgraduate students. The questionnaire was created in Google Forms. Participants could withdraw from completing the survey for any reason. Respondents were not rewarded in any way. At the beginning of the survey, respondents were asked to answer honestly. They wrote a valid email indicating the participant’s adult age and agreement to participate in the study.

Two groups of participants were made depending on their above-defined linguistic performance in Romanian. Group 1 consists of 98 adults (71 females and 27 males) for whom the level of linguistic performance in Romanian is equal to 10 (ten), PerfL1Ro = 10; Group 2 consists of 92 participants (55 females and 37 males) for whom the level of linguistic performance in their maternal language is strictly smaller than 10 (ten), PerfL1Ro < 10. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the two groups of participants.

Table 1
Romanian participants in this study, depending on their high- and low-level linguistic performance in Romanian (PerfL1Ro is the participants’ linguistic performance in Romanian) (to see Table 1, please click here).

Data and statistical analysis

The data for this study consists of information collected from some 190 Romanian participants. The analysis in this study was done with IBM SPSS Statistics (version 26) and MPlus version 7 (Muthén & Muthén, 2012). T-tests were used to investigate the differences between the means of the variables. The normality of the data was checked with the z values of Skewness and Kurtosis, the Shapiro-Wilk test, and visual inspection of histograms. Graphics were made with an Excel program within Microsoft 365.

Results

For each group of participants, Group 1 and Group 2, the means scores of social axioms, basic psychological needs, and subjective well-being were calculated. Table 2  summarizes the mean scores of the variables depending on the participants’ gender and linguistic performance in Romanian. It was observed that the mean scores of the variables were different.

Table 2

The means of the variables – social axioms, basic psychological needs, subjective well-being – depending on participants’ gender and their high- and low-level of linguistic performance in Romanian, PerfL1Ro = 10 (Group 1 participants) and PerfL1Ro < 10 (Group 2 participants) (to see Table 2, please click here).

Social axioms

The social axioms’ values corresponding to each group, Group 1 and Group 2, are illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Social axioms mean scores corresponding to the two groups of participants, Group 1 with PerfL1Ro = 10, and Group 2 with PerfL1Ro < 10 (to see Figure 1, please click here).

Next, to analyze if the difference between the variables means is statistically significant, the normality of the data was checked. Table 3 exemplifies the data for the social axiom of fate control.

Table 3
The information used to check the normality of the data of the social axiom of fate control (to see Table 3, please click here).

A Shapiro-Wilk’s test (p > .05) (Shapiro & Wilk, 1965; Razali & Wah, 2011) and a visual inspection of their histograms, normal Q-Q plots, and box plots showed that fate control (CDE) scores were approximately normally distributed for both groups, with a skewness of .082 (SE = .244) and a kurtosis of -.506 (SE = .483) for Group 1 and a skewness of .111 (SE = .251) and a kurtosis of .529 (SE = .498) for the second group. Therefore, the scores on the social axiom of fate control are approximately normally distributed, and the ANOVA test or the independent samples t-test may be used.

A t-test shows that the mean scores of fate control (CDE) obtained by the participants with a high level of linguistic performance in Romanian, PerfL1Ro = 10, (M = 22.87, SD = 5.378), are statistically significantly higher (t = 2.308, df = 188, p bidirectional = .022) than those of participants with a low level of linguistic performance in the Romanian language, PerfL1Ro < 10 (M = 21.04, SD = 5.515).

Furthermore, a t-test shows that the mean scores of social complexity (COS) obtained by the participants with a high level of linguistic performance in Romanian, PerfL1Ro = 10, (M = 34.33, SD = 3.274), are statistically significantly higher (t = 2.027, df = 188, p bidirectional = .044) than those of participants with a low level of linguistic performance in the Romanian language, PerfL1Ro < 10 (M = 33.36, SD = 3.307).

Group 1 and Group 2 participants’ scores at social cynicism, reward for application, and religiosity are different but not statistically significant.

Basic psychological needs

Figure 2 illustrates the basic psychological needs scores corresponding to each group of participants: Group 1 (participants with PerfL1Ro = 10) and Group 2 (participants with PerfL1Ro < 10).

Figure 2

The basic psychological needs mean scores corresponding to the two groups of participants: Group 1 with PerfL1Ro = 10, and Group 2 with PerfL1Ro < 10 (to see Figure 2, please click here).

A t-test shows that the mean scores of competence satisfaction (STC) obtained by the participants with a high level of linguistic performance in Romanian, PerfL1Ro = 10, (M = 17.49, SD = 2.193), are statistically significantly higher (t = 2.008, df = 188, p bidirectional = .046) than those of participants with a low level of linguistic performance in the Romanian language, PerfL1Ro < 10 (M = 16.76, SD = 2.791).

The difference in the mean scores for the rest of the psychological needs is not statistically significant. However, we observe that the mean scores of relatedness satisfaction and autonomy satisfaction corresponding to participants with a high level of linguistic performance in Romanian, PerfL1Ro = 10, are higher than those with a low level of linguistic performance in Romanian, PerfL1Ro < 10 (16.42 > 15.80; 15.46 > 15.12).

Subjective well-being

 Figure 3 illustrates the subjective well-being mean scores corresponding to each group of participants: Group 1 (participants with PerfL1Ro = 10) and Group 2 (participants with PerfL1Ro < 10).

Figure 3

Subjective well-being mean score corresponding to the two groups of participants: Group 1 with PerfL1Ro = 10, and Group 2 with PerfL1Ro < 10 (to see Figure 3, please click here).

Regarding subjective well-being, the mean scores corresponding to Group 1 and Group 2 of participants are different but not significant from a statistical point of view. Still, it was observed that participants with a high level of linguistic performance in Romanian, PerfL1Ro = 10, have better subjective well-being than participants with a low level of linguistic performance in the Romanian language, PerfL1Ro < 10 (62.73 > 60.52).

In the case of those 98 Romanian participants and their linguistic performance in Romanian, the following significant results were obtained:

  1. Participants with a high level of linguistic performance in Romanian, PerfL1Ro = 10, had a higher fate control (CDE) than those with a low level of linguistic performance in the Romanian language, PerfL1Ro < 10.
  2. Participants with a high level of linguistic performance in Romanian, PerfL1Ro = 10, had a higher social complexity (COS) than those with a low level of linguistic performance in the Romanian language, PerfL1Ro < 10.
  3. Participants with a high level of linguistic performance in Romanian, PerfL1Ro = 10, had a higher competence satisfaction (STC) than those with a low level of linguistic performance in the Romanian language, PerfL1Ro < 10.

A gender perspective on the variables in this study

The gender perspective on social axioms, basic psychological needs, subjective well-being, and a measure of linguistic performance in the Romanian language reveals a difference between the mean scores of females and males.

Group 1 of participants, PerfL1Ro = 10

Figure 4 illustrates the participants’ female and male mean scores on social axioms corresponding to Group 1, i.e., participants with a high level of linguistic performance in Romanian.

Figure 4

The social axioms mean scores corresponding to Group 1 of female and male participants (to see Figure 4, please click here).

In the case of those 98 Romanian participants, 71 females and 27 males, with a high level of linguistic performance in Romanian, PerfL1Ro = 10, t-tests show that:

– The mean scores for social cynicism (CIS) obtained by females (M = 22.17, SD = 5.943) are statistically significantly smaller (t = -1.839, df = 96, p bidirectional = .034) than those of males (M = 24.56, SD = 5.154).

– The mean scores for religiosity (REL) obtained by females (M = 24.52, SD = 6.689) are statistically significantly smaller (t = -2.079, df = 96, p bidirectional = .040) than those of males (M = 27.93, SD = 8.562).

It was observed that females’ mean scores on reward for application, social complexity, and fate control are higher than those of males, but the differences are not statistically significant.

Figure 5 illustrates the mean scores on basic psychological needs corresponding to females and males with a high level of linguistic performance in the Romanian language.

Figure 5

The basic psychological needs mean scores corresponding to 71 females and 27 males with high-level linguistic performance in Romanian, PerfL1Ro = 10 (to see Figure 5, please click here).

A t-test shows that the mean scores of competence frustration (FTC) obtained by females (M = 7.10, SD = 2.559) are statistically significantly smaller (t = -2.256, df = 96, p unidirectional = .029) than those of males (M = 8.56, SD = 3.534).

It was noted that the mean scores on the satisfaction of need competence, need relatedness, and need autonomy for females and males are different, but the differences are not statistically significant.

Figure 6 illustrates the mean scores of subjective well-being corresponding to females and males with a high level of linguistic performance in the Romanian language.

A t-test shows that the mean scores of subjective well-being (SWB) obtained by females (M = 65.52, SD = 17.726) are statistically significantly higher (t = 2.524, df = 96, p bidirectional = .013) than those of males (M = 55.41, SD = 17.705).

Therefore, a gender perspective on 98 Romanian participants, 71 females and 27 males, with a high level of linguistic performance in Romanian, PerfL1Ro = 10, shows that:
(4) Females’ religiosity (REL) is smaller than that of males.
(5) Females’ social cynicism (CIS) is smaller than that of males.
(6) Females’ competence frustration (FTC) is smaller than that of males.
(7) Females’ subjective well-being (SWB) is higher than that of males.

Figure 6
The mean scores of subjective well-being corresponding to 98 Romanian participants, 71 females and 27 males, with a high level of linguistic performance in the Romanian language, PerfL1Ro = 10 (to see Figure 6, please click here).

Figure 7  illustrates the mean scores of social axioms corresponding to 92 Romanian participants, 55 females and 37 males, with low-level linguistic performance in the Romanian language.

Figure 7

The social axioms mean scores correspond to 92 Romanian participants, 55 females and 37 males, with low-level linguistic performance in the Romanian language, PerfL1Ro < 10 (to see Figure 7, please click here).

In the case of those 92 Romanian participants, 55 females and 37 males, with a low level of linguistic performance in Romanian, PerfL1Ro < 10, t-tests show that:

  • The mean scores for social complexity (COS) obtained by females (M = 33.98, SD = 3.046) are statistically significantly higher (t = 2.252, df = 96, p bidirectional = .027) than those of males (M = 32.43, SD = 3.500).
  • The mean scores for fate control (CDE) obtained by females (M = 21.84, SD = 5.453) are statistically significantly higher (t = 1.699, df = 96, p unidirectional = .046) than those of males (M = 19.86, SD = 5.468).

The females’ social cynicism mean score was noted to be smaller than that of males, but the differences are not statistically significant. Also, the females’ mean scores at reward for application and religiosity are higher than those of males, but the differences are not statistically different.

Figure 8 illustrates the mean scores of basic psychological needs corresponding to females and males with low-level linguistic performance in the Romanian language.

Figure 8
The basic psychological needs mean scores corresponding to 92 Romanian participants, 55 females and 37 males, with low-level linguistic performance in the Romanian language, PerfL1Ro < 10 (to see Figure 8, please click here).

According to the data in Figure 8, for the 92 Romanian participants, 55 females and 37 males, with a low level of linguistic performance in Romanian, PerfL1Ro < 10, t-tests show that:
– The mean scores of competence satisfaction (STC) obtained by females (M = 17.22, SD = 2.401) are statistically significantly higher (t = 1.945, df = 90, p unidirectional = .027) than those of males (M = 16.08, SD = 3.201).
– The mean scores of relatedness satisfaction (STR) obtained by females (M = 16.20, SD = 2.724) are statistically significantly higher (t = 1.718, df = 90, p unidirectional = .044) than those of males (M = 15.22, SD = 2.647).
It was noted that mean scores of autonomy satisfaction (STA) obtained by females are smaller than those of males, but the differences are not statistically significant.
Figure 9 illustrates the mean scores of subjective well-being corresponding to females and males with a low level of linguistic performance in the Romanian language.

Figure 9
The basic psychological needs mean scores corresponding to 92 Romanian participants, 55 females and 37 males, with a low level of linguistic performance in the Romanian language, PerfL1Ro < 10 (to see Figure 9, please click here).

Analysis reveals that the mean scores of subjective well-being (SWB) obtained by females (M = 63.71, SD = 19.442) are statistically significantly higher (t = 1.905, df = 90, p unidirectional = .030) than those of males (M = 55.78, SD = 19.753).
Therefore, a gender perspective on 92 Romanian participants, 55 females and 37 males, with a low level of linguistic performance in Romanian, PerfL1Ro < 10:

(8) Females have a higher social complexity (COS) than males.
(9) Females have a higher fate control (CDE) than males.
(10) Females have a higher competence satisfaction (STC) than males.
(11) Females have a higher relatedness satisfaction (STR) than males.
(12) Females have a higher subjective well-being (SWB) than males.
The results of this study are summarised in Table 4.

Table 4

Social axioms, basic psychological needs, and subjective well-being of 190 Romanian participants depending on their high- and low-level linguistic performance in Romanian (PerfL1Ro = 10 and PerfL1Ro < 10) and their gender (f, females, and m, males) (to see Table 4, please click here).

Discussions

 The analysis of social axioms, basic psychological needs, subjective well-being, and linguistic performance in Romanian shows that the high- and low-level linguistic performance in the native language of participants differentiates some, but not all, of the variables. In addition, the variables were investigated from a gender perspective. This study identifies, in total, 12 statistically significant relations; they are all presented in Table 4.

Participants with a high level of linguistic performance in Romanian have more profound beliefs in social complexity (COS) and fate control (CDE) than participants with a low level of linguistic performance in the Romanian language. Also, respondents with a high level of linguistic performance had higher competence satisfaction (STC) than those with a lower level of speaking, reading, and understanding Romanian.

The gender perspective on the variables, in the case of participants with a high level of linguistic performance in their native language, Romanian (PerfL1Ro = 10), shows the following inequalities:

  • Females’ religiosity (REL) is smaller than that of males;
  • Females’ social cynicism (CIS) is smaller than that of males;
  • Females’ competence frustration (FTC) is smaller than that of males;
  • Females’ subjective well-being (SWB) is higher than that of males.

The same gender perspective on the variables but corresponding to participants with a low level of linguistic performance in Romanian (PerfL1Ro < 10) shows the following five differences:

  • Females have a higher social complexity (COS) than males;
  • Females have higher fate control (CDE) than males;
  • Females have higher competence satisfaction (STC) than males;
  • Females have higher relatedness satisfaction (STR) than males;
  • Females have higher subjective well-being (SWB) than males.

Previous research suggests that, in general, men are more cynical than women (e.g., Leung et al., 2012a, p. 1159; Mosoia, 2022, p. 58). However, investigations of students from eight different cultural contexts suggest that women are more cynical than men (Leung et al., 2012a, p. 1161). Therefore, the result of this study suggests that men have a higher social cynicism than women in the context of high linguistic performance in the native language of participants.

Referring to the social axiom of religiosity, men are more religious than women, a result that confirms previous investigations (e.g., Mosoia, 2022, p. 58) and contradicts other studies (e.g., Beit-Hallahmi, 2003). However, this study suggests that men are more religious than women in the context of high-level linguistic performance in the native language of participants.

Regarding social complexity, this study suggests that females have a more profound belief than men, confirming previous research (e.g., Mosoia, 2022, p. 58). However, this study suggests that the result is valid among participants with a lower level of linguistic performance in their maternal language.

The present study shows that participants with a high level of linguistic performance in their native language have more profound fate control than participants with a low level of linguistic performance in their maternal language. Participants with a high level of speaking, reading, and understanding Romanian have a stronger sense of fate control and tend to believe that it is pointless to resist it. Also, they acknowledge the presence of expectations. In other words, respondents with a high level of linguistic performance in Romanian seem to accept more readily that the ability to change predetermined events and predetermination are logically incompatible than those with a low level of linguistic performance in Romanian.

Conclusions

 This study shows greater social complexity and fate control associated with high-level linguistic performance in Romanian. High social cynicism tends to be associated with high-level linguistic performance in the maternal language of participants. The linguistic performance in Romanian differentiates reward for application and religiosity, but the difference is not statistically significant.

Also, higher linguistic performance tends to be associated with psychological needs satisfaction, while lower levels are associated with frustration. Also, high well-being scores are associated with high-level linguistic performance in maternal language.

In other words, this research suggests that linguistic performance in participants’ maternal language impacts some social beliefs, basic psychological needs, and subjective well-being. In other words, this research positively answers the question addressed at its beginning.

 Limitations

 The time interval of this study, May 2019–March 2020, contains the emergence of the global pandemic in early 2020, which has consequences for the world population, implicitly on Romanian participants in this research. The present investigation did not consider COVID-19 as a variable, as it may have influenced participants’ social axioms, psychological needs, and subjective well-being. Therefore, it represents a limitation of this study.

Next, most participants in this study reported a high level of education, and the generality of the findings also needs to be evaluated with low-levels education participants.

Another limitation emerged from how participants self-assessed themselves on speaking, understanding, and reading in their mother tongue, the Romanian language. The grade they report may be overestimated or underestimated. Therefore, biases could be manifested at the level of their beliefs. Overcoming this situation could have been achieved using a technique that did not involve participants’ self-evaluation.

At the time of this study, studies have yet to be identified on the possible influence of language performance in the mother tongue on social axioms, which constitutes another limitation of the present research.

Acknowledgements

 This study is part of the doctoral research project entitled ‘Social axioms – mediators between basic psychological needs and behaviour’ coordinated by Professor Margareta Dincă, School of Advanced Studies of the Romanian Academy, Institute of Philosophy and Psychology ‘Constantin Rădulescu – Motru’, Romanian Academy.

A summary of this paper was presented at the online international conference: Individual, family, society-contemporary challenges, fifth edition, October 4-5, 2023, Bucharest, Romania, and published in the journal Studii şi Cercetări de Antropologie, No. 8/2023.

References

  1. Beit-Hallahmi, B. (2003). Religion, religiosity, and gender. In C. R. Ember & M. Ember (Eds.), Encyclopedia of sex and gender: Men and women in the world’s cultures (pp. 117–127). Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29907-6_12
  2. Bernardo, A. B. I. (2009). Exploring the links between social axioms and the epistemological beliefs about learning held by Filipino students. In K. Leung & M. H. Bond (Eds.), Psychological aspects of social axioms: Understanding global belief systems (pp. 163-176). Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09810-4_10
  3. Bond, M. H., Leung, K., Au, A., Tong, K.-K., de Carrasquel, S. R., Murakami, F., … Lewis, J. R. (2004a). Culture-Level Dimensions of Social Axioms and Their Correlates across 41 Cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(5), 548–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022104268388
  4. Bond, M. H., Leung, K., Au, A., Tong, K., & Chemonges-Nielson, Z. (2004b). Combining social axioms with values in predicting social behaviours. European Journal of Personality, 18(3), 177-191. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.509
  5. Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E. L., Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., … Verstuyf, J. (2015). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion, 39(2), 216-236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-014-9450-1; Translated into Romanian by C. Mosoia, Scala de Satisfacere și Frustrare a Trebuințelor Psihologice de Bază − Măsură generală, ResearchCentral, Universitatea din Bucuresti. Retrieved September 25, 2023 from http://researchcentral.ro/detalii.php?id=512.
  6. Chen, S. X., Bond, M. H., & Cheung, F. M. (2006). Personality correlates of social axioms: Are beliefs nested within personality? Personality and Individual Differences, 40(3), 509-519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.04.016
  7. Chomsky, N. (2015). Aspects of the theory of syntax: 50th anniversary edition. MIT Press. Retrieved September 25, 2023 from https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262527408/aspects-of-the-theory-of-syntax/
  8. Comunian, A. L. (2009). Social axioms in Italian culture: Relationship with locus of control and moral development. In K. Leung & M. H. Bond (Eds.). Psychological aspects of social axioms: Understanding global belief systems (pp. 269-282). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09810-4_15
  9. Coșeriu, E. (2000). Lecţii de lingvistică generală. Chisinau :
  10. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2014). The Importance of Universal Psychological Needs for Understanding Motivation in the Workplace. In M. Gagné (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of work engagement, motivation, and self-determination theory (pp. 13-32). Oxford University Press. Retrieved September 25, 2023 from https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199794911.001.0001
  11. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
  12. Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Beyond money: Toward an economy of well-being. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00501001.x
  13. Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science, 13(1), 81-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00415
  14. Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., Oishi, S. (2002a). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and life satisfaction. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Ed.), Handbook of positive psychology, (pp. 63-73). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195187243.013.0017
  15. Diener, E., Nickerson, C., Lucas, R. E., & Sandvik, E. (2002b). Dispositional affect and job outcomes. Social Indicators Research, 59, 229-259. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019672513984
  16. Diener, E., & Suh, M. E. (1998). Subjective well-being and age: An international analysis. In K. W. Schaie & M. P. Lawton (Eds.), Annual review of gerontology and geriatrics, 17. Focus on emotion and adult development (pp. 304-324). Springer. https://connect.springerpub.com/content/sgrargg/17/1/304
  17. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Smith, H., & Shao, L. (1995a). National differences in reported subjective well-being: Why do they occur? Social Indicators Research Special Issue: Global Report on Student Well-Being, 34(1), 7-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01078966
  18. Diener, E., Diener, M., & Diener, C. (1995b). Factors predicting the subjective well-being of nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 851-864. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.851
  19. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542-575. Retrieved September 14, 2023 from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2162125
  20. Dincă, M., & Iliescu, D. (2009). Linking Social Axioms with Behavioral Indicators and Personality in Romania. In Leung, K. & Bond, M. H. (Eds.), Psychological aspects of social axioms: Understanding global belief systems (pp. 145-162). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09810-4
  21. Dragolov, G., & Boehncke, K. (2015). Social axioms as mediators between culture-level and individual-level values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(6), 772-788. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0022022115587027
  22. Dysvik, A., Kuvaas, B., & Gagné, M. (2013). An investigation of the unique, synergistic and balanced relationships between basic psychological needs and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(5), 1050-1064. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12068
  23. Frâncu, C. (1997). Curente și tendințe în lingvistica secolului nostru. Iasi: Casa Editorială „Demiurg”.
  24. Guan, Y., Bond, M. H., Dincă, M., & Iliescu, D. (2010). Social axioms among Romanians: Structure and demographic differences. Romanian Journal of Applied Psychology, 12(2), 48-53. Retrieved September 25, 2023 from https://www.rjap.psihologietm.ro/archive2010.html
  25. Hagger, M. S., Hankonen, N., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., & Ryan, R. M. (2020). Changing behavior using self-determination theory. In M. S. Hagger, L. D. Cameron, K. Hamilton, N. Hankonen, & T. Lintunen (Eds.), The Handbook of Behavior Change (pp. 104-119). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108677318.008
  26. Hui, C-M., & Bond, M. H. (2010). Relationship between social axioms and subjective well-being: The role of self-regulation. Journal of Psychology in Chinese Societies, 11(1), 29-52. Retrieved September 14, 2023 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290801200_Relationship_between_social_axioms_and_subjective_well-being_The_role_of_self-regulation
  27. Iliescu, D., Dincă, M., & Bond, M. H. (2017). The increment of social axioms over broad personality traits in the prediction of dyadic adjustment: An investigation across four ethnic groups. European Journal of Personality, 31(6), 630-641. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2131
  28. Kaushanskaya, M., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Marian, V. (2019). The language experience and proficiency questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Ten years later. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(5), 945-950. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728919000038
  29. Klassen, R. M., Perry, N. E., & Frenzel, A. C. (2012). Teachers’ relatedness with students: An underemphasised component of teachers’ basic psychological needs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 150-165. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026253
  30. Lai, J. H., Bond, M. H., & Hui, N. H. (2007). The role of social axioms in predicting life satisfaction: A longitudinal study in Hong Kong. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8(4), 517-535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9029-y
  31. Lataster, J., Reijnders, J., Janssens, M., Simons, M., Peeters, S., & Jacobs, N. (2022). Basic psychological need satisfaction and well-being across age: A cross-sectional general population study among 1709 Dutch speaking adults. Journal of Happiness Studies, 23(5), 2259-2290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-021-00482-2
  32. Leung, K., Li, F., & Zhou, F. (2012a). Sex differences in social cynicism across societies: The role of men’s higher competitiveness and male dominance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(7), 1152-1166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111422259
  33. Leung, K., Lam, B. C., Bond, M. H., Conway, L. G., Gornick, L. J., Amponsah, B., … Zhou, F. (2012b). Developing and evaluating the social axioms survey in eleven countries: Its Relationship With the Five-Factor Model of Personality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(5), 833-857. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111416361
  34. Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (2009). Psychological aspects of social axioms: Understanding global belief systems. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09810-4
  35. Leung, K., Au, A., Huang, X., Kurman, J., Niit, T., Niit, K-K. (2007). Social Axioms and Values: A Cross-Cultural Examination. European Journal of Personality, 21(2), 91-111. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.615
  36. Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (2004). Social axioms: A model for social beliefs în multi-cultural perspective. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances în Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 119-197. Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(04)36003-X
  37. Leung, K., Bond, M. H., De Carrasquel, S. R., Muñoz, C., Hernández, M., Murakami, F., … Singelis, T. M. (2002). Social axioms: The search for universal dimensions of general beliefs about how the world functions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(3), 286-302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022102033003005
  38. Li, C., Wang, C. J., Pyun, D. Y., & Kee, Y. H. (2013). Burnout and its relations with basic psychological needs and motivation among athletes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14(5), 692-700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.04.009
  39. Li, F. & Leung, K. (2012). Effects of evaluation of societal conditions and work-family conflict on social cynicism and distress: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(3), 717-734. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00816.x
  40. Lucas, R. E., Clark, A. E., Georgellis, Y., & Diener, E. (2004). Unemployment Alters the Set Point for Life Satisfaction. Psychological Science, 15(1), 8-13. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.0963-7214.2004.01501002.x
  41. Lucas, R. E., Clark, A. E., Georgellis, Y., & Diener, E. (2003). Reexamining adaptation and the set point model of happiness: Reactions to changes in marital status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 527-539. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.527
  42. Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The language experience and proficiency questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50(4), 940-967. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2007/067)
  43. Martela, F., & Ryan, R. M. (2015). The benefits of benevolence: Basic psychological needs, beneficence, and the enhancement of well-being. Journal of Personality, 84(6), 750-764. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12215
  44. Milyavskaya, M., Philippe, F. L., & Koestner, R. (2013). Psychological need satisfaction across levels of experience: Their organisation and contribution to general well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(1), 41-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.10.013
  45. Milyavskaya, M., Gingras, I., Mageau, G. A., Koestner, R., Gagnon, H., Jianqun Fang, … Boiché, J. (2009). Balance across contexts: Importance of balanced need satisfaction across various life domains. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(8), 1031-1045. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209337036
  46. Molea, V. (2019, Summer). Limbă/vorbire vs. competență/performanță [Language/speech vs. competence/performance]. Limba Română, 252(2), 270-277. Retrieved September 14, 2023 from http://limbaromana.md/index.php?go=articole&n=3721
  47. Mosoia, C. (2022). Particularități ale axiomelor sociale: Un studiu privind stabilitatea temporală realizat asupra unui grup de participanți români [Peculiarities of social axioms: A study on temporal stability carried out on a group of Romanian participants]. Revista de Psihologie, 68(1), 51-74. Retrieved September 14, 2022 from https://revistadepsihologie.ipsihologie.ro/images/revista_de_psihologie/Revista-de-psihologie-1_2022.pdf
  48. Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (2012). Statistical analysis with latent variables. User’s Guide (Version 7) [Computer software]. Retrieved March 2020 from https://www.statmodel.com/download/usersguide/Mplus%20user%20guide%20Ver_7_r6_web.pdf
  49. Nishimura, T., & Suzuki, T. (2016). Basic psychological need satisfaction and frustration in Japan: Controlling for the Big Five personality traits. Japanese Psychological Research, 58(4), 320-331. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12131
  50. Olafsen, A. H., Deci, E. L., & Halvari, H. (2018). Basic psychological needs and work motivation: A longitudinal test of directionality. Motivation and Emotion, 42(2), 178-189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-017-9646-2
  51. Proctor, C. (2014). Subjective Well-Being (SWB). In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research (pp. 6437-6441). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_104518
  52. Radel, R., Pelletier, L., & Sarrazin, P. (2012). Restoration processes after need thwarting: When autonomy depends on competence. Motivation and Emotion, 37(2), 234-244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-012-9308-3
  53. Razali, N. M., & Wah, Y. B. (2011). Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling tests. Journal of Statistical Modeling and Analytics, 2(1), 21-33. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267205556
  54. Saussure, F. D. (1971). Cours de linguistique générale [Course in general linguistics]. Paris: Payot. Retrieved September 25, 2023 from https://archive.org/details/f.-de-saussure-cours-de-linguistique-generale-texte-entier/mode/2up
  55. Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (Complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3/4), 591. https://doi.org/10.2307/2333709
  56. Sheldon, K. M., & Filak, V. (2008). Manipulating autonomy, competence, and relatedness support in a game-learning context: New evidence that all three needs matter. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(2), 267-283. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466607×238797
  57. Sheldon, K. M., & Niemiec, C. P. (2006). It’s not just the amount that counts: Balanced need satisfaction also affects well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(2), 331-341. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.2.331
  58. Singelis, T. M., Hubbard, C., Her, P., & An, S. (2003). Convergent validation of the social axioms survey. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(2), 269-282. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-8869(02)00043-0
  59. Vansteenkiste, M., Ryan, R. M., & Soenens, B. (2020). Basic psychological need theory: Advancements, critical themes, and future directions. Motivation and Emotion, 44(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09818-1
  60. Zhou, F., Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (2009). Social axioms and achievement across cultures: The influence of reward for application and fate control. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(3), 366-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.11.002
  61. ***Psychiatric Research Unit, WHO Collaborating Centre in Mental Health. (n.d.). WHO (Five) Well-Being Index (1998 version). WHO-5 Questionnaires. Retrieved September 14, 2023 from https://www.psykiatri-regionh.dk/who-5/Documents/WHO5_Romanian.pdf
PDF
HTML