Effects of Cultural Values on the Attitudes and Behaviours of Survivors of the 1999 Earthquake in Turkey

The Australasian Journal of Disaster
and Trauma Studies
ISSN:  1174-4707
Volume : 2004-2

Effects of Cultural Values
on the Attitudes and Behaviours of Survivors of the
1999 Earthquake in Turkey

M.Aytul Kasapoglu Department of Sociology, Ankara University, Turkey

Mehmet C. Ecevit Department of Sociology, Middle East Technical University, Turkey

Abstract

The primary finding of this research, based on a survey conducted with a representative sample size of 500 people, is that education is the most important variable influencing the basic values of materialism and traditionalism in the region of 1999 Marmara earthquake in Turkey. When their effects on responsible behaviour and attitudes are investigated, hardworking (materialism), devotion and consensus (traditionalism) caused statistically significant differences. The findings are expected for a society where traditional characteristics are predominant. Policies developed for preparedness should take into account the hybrid nature of this society.

Effects of Cultural Values
on the Attitudes and Behaviours of Survivors of the
1999 Earthquake in Turkey

Introduction

Although culture, economy and politics are the three main dimensions of society (Mukherjee 1998), until very recently economic explanations dominated most of the sociological research in Turkey. However, culture as an important component of the society has started to gain importance. The comprehension and the interpretation of social values have now become the main purpose of many studies (Kasapoglu 1999). The ideas of Beck and Giddens (1998) about risk society and the hybrid character of physical and cultural facts also played an important role in recent interests in culture.

According to Sorensen and White (1980), one of the main limitations of early research on disasters was the lack of consideration of human culture as an important element of calamity. The disaster research focused more on social, psychological, behavioural, economic and political implications rather than cultural references, and only in the early 1970’s did culture became an important component of disaster studies. Until then, few research findings were available to explain and distinguish the influence of cultural settings on human response to calamity. The work of psychologist Wallace (1956) contributed significantly to the emergence of a new approach, where the effects of disaster were linked to community response and cultural crisis. Anderson (1967) also affirmed that communities affected by extreme natural phenomena assimilate and normalise the concepts of risks and disaster within the local culture. When anthropologists and geographers extended disaster research to Third World countries during the 1970’s, the latter demonstrated that the theories and methods of the agreed Western academic research were inadequate for the Third World contexts (Oliver-Smith 1986). Dynes (1970) was the first to define ‘culture of disaster’ as the sum of what the community has assimilated in its experience of the most recent major impact. The findings of this research are in accordance with and supported by the work of Wallace (1956), Dynes (1970) and Oliver-Smith (1986).

Turkey is an economically developing country with a very rich ‘cultural capital’ in the discourse of Bourdeiu (1984/1986). Both Islam and the cultural heritage of the Ottoman period (1299-1923) have had great influence on today’s Turkish society. Modernisation, understood in the Turkish context as Westernisation and civilisation, has become a main goal since the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the foundation of the Republic of Turkey. Similar target continues as Turkey works towards becoming a member of the European Union.

The combination of traditional and modern attitudes and behaviour can be easily observed in families (Ecevit 1994) and society in Turkey. The same is also the case for rational and traditional duality with its derivatives of materialism and non-materialism. The dialectical principle of unity of opposites (Milinar 1997; Kasapoglu 1999), methodologically facilitates to understand those ‘hybrid’ (Latour 1995) and articulated values and behaviours.

Although the original research was more comprehensive and detailed, this paper primarily aims to understand the degree certain social values (traditionalism and materialism) of victims were affected by the 1999 Marmara Earthquake and the possible effects of these values on responsible behaviour, locus of control and verbal commitment were investigated.

Methods

“We must not act contrary to our traditional values and customs”;
“Even if it is against my principles, I obey the decisions of the majority”;
“I have always been against divorce whatever the reason is”;
“I never forget those who helped me”;
“If I were an employer I would always hire first my relatives”;

“High wages are more important than the job being pleasant”;
“A person must think first for him/herself rather than society”;
“I prefer a hardworking but selfish person to a lazy but good person.”
“Fighting inflation is more important than democratic rights and freedom”;
“State subsidies make people lazy and irresponsible”.

Findings and Discussions

The research findings are assumed to be more informative if certain basic demographic data about the sample is provided: it is observed that 50 percent are women; the average schooling is 7 years (St.d: 4); less than half (42 %) of them are employed; most of them (78 %) are covered with social security programs and half of them (50.4 %) own an apartment.

In this study, being egocentric, hard working, having a high salary and fighting against inflation and state support were accepted as the sub-components of having materialist values and attitudes. The independent variables such as gender, age, education, employment, social security and house-ownership were considered to have an effect on materialism.

According to the results of the regression analysis provided in Table 1, the independent variables assessed do not show a statistically significant effect on egocentrism and being hard-working, the two sub-components of being materialistic. One of the most important reasons for such a result is the fact that a large majority of the sample population does not share materialistic values. It is quite natural that materialist discourses are not considered as desirable in a society like Turkey where traditional values are more prominent. (Hard working 47.4 % and egocentrism 27.8 %)

Table 1: Regression of Materialism

Independent Variables	Egocentrism	Hard Working	High Income	Fight With Inflation	State Support
Gender	-.081 (-.090)	-.039 (-.039)	-.064 (-.068)	-.040 (-.040)	-.092 (-.092)
Age	-.000 (-.019)	.000 (.010)	.000 (.017)	.002 (.065)	-.003 (-.078)
Education	-.008 (-.077)	-.001 (-.009)	-.025 (-.218)***	-.011 (-.091)	-.008 (-.073)
Employment	-.104 (-.113)	-.047 (-.045)	-.006 (-.007)	-.103 (-.101)	-.130 (-.127)**
Social Security	-.085 (-.079)	.017 (.014)	.012 (.011)	.013 (.011)	.047 (.039)
House Ownership	-.081 (-.090)	.011 (.012)	-.033 (-.035)	.041 (.042)	.027 (.027)

Unstandardised coefficients B are presented, with standardised coefficients Beta in parentheses
* p <.05 ; ** p<.01 ; ***p<.001 (two-tailed test)

The most influential independent variable over high income was education. Only 24 % of the entire sample population shares this value. This ratio increases for those with the lowest level of education and it drops down to 4.9 % for the university graduates.
It is quite obvious that individuals who have low levels of education with limited choice of selecting right kind of job will give more emphasis to high salary rather than high job satisfaction (Chi-square=20.288, df=5, p<.001). As levels of education increase, choosing between different work options is more conscientious. More importantly, however, those who give priority to money or wages/salaries remain a minority in this society.

Although none of the independent variables affected the variable fight against inflation, 43.5 percent of the sample indicated that the fight against inflation had priority over democratic rights and freedoms.

Employment is the most statistically significant independent variable and the perception that state aid and benefits make citizens prone to laziness. Of the total sample population, 56 % viewed state aid and benefits negatively. 59.7 % of the unemployed and 51.4 % of the employed believed that state benefits create laziness among citizens: The latter situation is statistically significant (Chi-square=3.277, df=1, p< .043). Because Turkish citizens may not favour opinions or attitudes concerning materialism, individuals may refrain from stating their real opinions or beliefs concerning this issue due to the influence of a social desirability effect. Thus, the tendency of individualistic values not to be shared within the Turkish society at large -where traditional values are still strongly upheld- is an expected finding.

The results of the regression analysis between sub elements of traditional values and attitudes such as not behaving in accordance with tradition, compliance with the views of the majority, opposition to divorce, not forgetting favours done in the past and nepotism and the independent variables of gender, age, education, employment, social security and house-ownership are presented in Table 2.

According to this regression analysis, the independent variable of education has the most significant correlation with agreement to traditional norms. As the levels of education increased, the percentage of individuals who shared this value dropped. In reality, 76.8% of the total sample population showed traditional values. However, while this rate was 82% among primary school graduates, it dropped to 59% among graduates of higher education (Chi-square= 18.974, df=5, p<.002).

Table 2: Regression of Traditionalism

Independent Variables	Agreement With Traditions	Consensus	Against Divorce	Faithful	Relatives First/ Nepotism
Gender	.039 (.046)	-.091 (-.091)	.039 (.040)	.009 (.022)	.021 (.032)
Age	.001 (.033)	.001 (.026)	.002 (.050)	.000 (.034)	.001 (.044)
Education	-.011 (-.111)**	-.017 (-.140)*	-.033 (-.273)***	.008 (.163)***	-.013 (-.162)***
Employment	-.029 (-.033)	-.095 (-.092)	.032 (.032)	-.002 (-.004)	.052 (.077)
Social Security	-.070 (-.069)	-.045 (-.037)	.015 (.013)	-.040 (-.074)	-.109 (-.134)***
House Ownership	-.002 (-.003)	.004 (.005)	.051 (.052)	-.009 (-.022)	.038 (.058)

Unstandardized coefficients B are presented, with standardised coefficients Beta in parentheses
* p <.05 ; ** p<.01 ; ***p<.001 (two-tailed test)

Unstandardized coefficients B are presented, with standardised coefficients Beta in parentheses
* p <.05 ; ** p<.01 ; ***p<.001 (two-tailed test)

The two independent variables that were significant with verbal commitment were the fight against inflation and laziness thought to be originating due to prolonged state benefits, also indicators of materialist attitudes. Since 97.9% of the total sample population stated that they would volunteer to do aid work, the Chi-square statistical analysis did not show any significant difference pertaining to combating inflation. However, it must be noted that 43.5% of the sample population believed fighting to reduce inflation comes before struggling for political rights and freedoms (Chi-square=2.916, df=1, p>.083). In the same sense, a significant statistical difference could not be found between the independent variable of the idea that state benefits create laziness among individuals and the dependent variable of verbal commitment (Chi-square= 2.987, df=1, P>.080).

In this study, the most important independent variable that has an effect on having scientific knowledge about earthquakes is that of egocentrism. Only 27.5% of the sample population believed that people should think of themselves before thinking about society in general. While only 22.2% of those who possessed scientific knowledge about earthquakes believed that people should be concerned about their own well being first. On the other hand, of those who made non-scientific explanations about earthquakes, the rate of having such an opinion rose to 32.9 % (Chi-square=7.052, df=1, p<.005). The reasons why people who have scientific knowledge about earthquakes are more society-oriented and less egocentric may lie in the fact that they are more conscious individuals.

Three independent variables are believed to have an effect on locus of control. They are, in order, egocentrism, giving priority to high income to job satisfaction and the convictions that state benefits make people lazy. Levels of internal locus of control are not fully developed in Turkey. Those who believed that it is the responsibility of the state to compensate for earthquake damage are thus in a majority within the sample population (81.7 %). Consequently, among the people who expressed egocentric attitudes and opinions, individuals who expected everything to be done by the state were higher (88 %) than those who did not (%11.1). (Chi-square=6.481, df=1, p<.006) The fact that external locus of control and egocentrism has a positive relation indicates that the findings are consistent.

Preference for higher salaries over job satisfaction had a significant correlation with locus of control. Of those individuals who preferred high salaries, a large majority expected the state to take full responsibility (89.5%). Among those whose internal locus of control was more developed, , individuals who prefer high salaries over job satisfaction were fewer (10.5%) (Chi-square=9.868, df=1, p<.001). Giving priority to job satisfaction over received payments is a consistent and expected finding for this group. For those who expect everything from the state and thus side step their own responsibilities, preference for salaries is quite normal.

Table 4: Regression of Verbal Commitment, Locus of Control, Responsible Behaviour
(When Elements of Traditionalism are Considered as Independent Variables)

Independent Variables	Verbal Commitment	Knowledge	Locus of Control	Responsible Behaviour
Agreement With Traditions	.001 (.005)	-.092 (-.078)	-.022 (-.024)	-.106 (-.091)
Consensus	.001 (.007)	.012 (.012)	.064 (.083)	-.095 (-.096)*
Against Divorce	.003 (.015)	-.174 (-.172)***	.004 (.006)	-.077 (-.077)
Devotion	-.035 (-.060)	.050 (.021)	.010 (.006)	.248 (.108)**
Relatives Come First/ Nepotism	-.022 (-.060)	-.163 (-.110)**	-.033 (-.029)	-.065 (-.044)

Unstandardized coefficients B are presented, with standardized coefficients Beta in parentheses
* p <.05 ; ** p<.01 ; ***p<.001 (two-tailed test)

In the belief that state benefits make people lazy, materialism was significant with locus of control. However, very interesting findings have been obtained in this area. 85.3% of the people who thought that state support makes individuals lazy also expected the state to take full responsibility over the damage caused by the earthquake. Although they are aware of the possibility of the creation of laziness, they still expect that the state should take up primary responsibility for earthquake damages. Only 14.7 % of the survivors both did not expect everything to be handled by state authorities and thought that state support makes people lazy (Chi-square=6.047, df=1, p<.010).

The independent variable that had an effect on taking up responsibility after the earthquake was the preference of hard-working yet self-centred individuals over individuals who are lazy but benevolent. Of the entire sample population, 47% preferred hard-working, self-centred individuals. Although preference of such individuals remained at 35.7% of people who chose to take up responsibility, this preference increased to 64.3 % for individuals who did not take up responsibility at a personal level (Chi-square=8.833, df=1, p<.002). The findings indicate that the situation of people who have taken responsible action to help minimize the effects of future earthquakes as an important element of materialism is not shared at very high rates. In a society like Turkey, where traditions still persevere, mixed values and attitudes are quite widespread. It can be assumed that while citizens display a certain level of rationalism by taking responsible actions, they still suggest the existence of traditional attitudes through their preference of lazy but benevolent individuals over hard-working yet self-centred people.

Agreement with traditions, consensus, opposition to divorce, devotion and nepotism are taken as independent sub-variables of traditionalism and the dependent variables of verbal commitment, knowledge, locus of control, responsible behaviour have been subjected to a regression analysis and the results are summarised in Table 4.

None of the independent variables in relation to traditionalism had an effect on verbal commitment. This might be due to the fact that traditional values are still very prominent in Turkey and that almost the entire sample population (97.8%) stated that they would provide voluntary support in the event of an earthquake anywhere in the country.

Opposition to divorce and nepotism were most highly correlated with possessing scientific knowledge about earthquakes. Lower percentages of opposition to divorce among individuals with scientific knowledge about earthquakes (48.4%), and higher percentages of opposition with metaphysical explanations about earthquakes (66.9%) are expected findings (Chi-square=17.493, df=1, p<.000). As a traditional value, nepotism found support from only 13.1 % of the entire sample population. A large majority explicitly opposed the idea that they would display nepotism if they had been an employer. However, as expected, this value was lower for those with scientific knowledge regarding the earthquake (9.4 %) than it was for individuals with non-scientific explanations (16.6 %) (Chi-square=5.624, df=1, p>.012).

None of the sub-components of traditionalism had an effect on the locus of control. This may have emerged because of majority of individuals believed that the state is responsible for dealing with the outcome of earthquakes (81.2%).

Consensus and devotion are the two independent variables that had an effect on taking responsible action regarding the outcome of -disasters. While for contradictory opinion, consensus was preferred by 49.9% of the sample, this ratio dropped to 43.1% for individuals who had taken responsible action and increased for those who had not (56.9%) (Chi-square=6.731, df=1, p<.006). The indication by 94.8% of the sample population that they would remember people in who were kind to them and provided support shows that this value is highly stressed in the Turkish society. However, a significant difference regarding this value did not appear in relation to taking up responsible behaviour to decrease the effect of the disaster (Chi-square=2.738, df=1, p>.071).

Conclusion

The August 1999 Earthquake of Turkey has taught numerous lessons for the future to almost all sections of the society: vital need for a well-established civil society; support and compatibility between the public and private spheres; and the need to develop modern values such as individual and social responsibilities while preserving traditional values such as solidarity.

According to the findings, majority of respondents do not share materialistic values. Furthermore, only high income and state support variables being sub-components of materialism showed statistically significant relations with the independent variables such as education and employment. In other words, while education having an impact on high income, employment have on state support (see, Table 1). Such findings are in expected direction, mostly due to the dominant characteristics of prevailing traditional values in Turkey.

Traditionalism as the second dependent variable of our study, its sub-components such as agreement with traditions, consensus, opposition to divorce, nepotism and not forgetting favours done in the past have statistically significant relations with education. It could not be wrong to conclude that level of education plays important role in developing societies like Turkey.
The detailed regression analyses have shown that the most important independent variable is education. Education had a significant influence over values of materialism and traditionalism: as the levels of education increased degrees of materialism and traditionalism subsequently decreased.

This outcome, for a society like Turkey that has strong traditional values and attitudes, and that has consciously been striving to complete its process of modernisation for the past 100 years, is very significant and promising. Cultural values are slowly showing the tendency to change. Education is important in acquiring modern values and attitudes in Turkey. For all sections of Turkish society that have experienced directly or indirectly the trauma of earthquakes, emphasis should be placed on education to develop responsible behaviour toward reducing their impact in future disasters. The findings of this study indicate that Turkish society is definitely not homogeneous, and that traditional and modern values and behaviours co-exist in the same social structure. Furthermore as discussed by Bolin and Stanford (1990: 107), the social, political and economic disruption of disasters such as earthquakes, can provide specific opportunities for certain aspects of social change. According to them, during disasters current system challenged the traditional system of power, privilege and property resulting in conflict. Therefore sociological studies on change have vital importance in order to provide policy solutions for effective mitigation activities of Turkey.

On the other hand as it is discussed by Mileti (1999) and many others (Berke, Kartez and Wenger, 1993) sustainability is a very important concept in order to achieve mitigation and recovery after disasters. In order to develop long-term self-sufficient programs without depending on external sources, internalized and sustained disaster culture should be developed. For the development of such a conceptual model to understand the local disaster recovery efforts, empirical sociological studies should be supported.

Consequently, projects and programs geared toward disaster preparedness must be flexible and based on scientific research. Turkey while using Western experiences, the solutions derived from them must be moulded to accommodate the unique conditions of its own social structure.

References

Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Anderson, J. W. (1967) ‘Cultural Adaptation to Threatened Disaster’ Human Organisation 27-(4):298-307.

Bailey, K. D. (1987) Methods of Social Research, New York: The Free Press.

Beck, U. 1998 ‘Politics of Risk Society’ in J. Franklin (ed.) The Politics of Risk Society (pp: 9-22) . Cambridge: Polity Press.

Berke, P.R., Kartez, J., Wenger, D. (1993) ‘Recovery after Disaster: Achieving Sustainable Development, Mitigation and Equity’, Disasters, 17 (2):93-109.

Bolin, R., Stanford, L.(1990) ‘Shelter and Housing Issues in Santa Cruz County’ in Robert Bolin (ed) The Loma Prieta Earthquake: Studies on Short Term Impacts (pp:99-108).Colorado: University of Colorado .

Bourdeiu, P. (1984/1986) Distinctions: A Social Critique of Judgement and Taste . London: Routledge.

Dynes, R. R. (1970) Organised Behaviour in Disaster. Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Health.

Ecevit,M. (1994) Cagdas Kurum :Aile ve Kadina Iliskin Bazi Kavramsal Iliskiler (Contemporary Institution: Conceptual Relations on Family and Women) in S. Koç (ed.) Aile ve Eitim (Family and Education), pp:11-25 Ankara: Publications of Turkish Educational Association.

Giddens, A. (1998) ‘Risk Society: The Context of British Politics’ in J. Franklin (ed.) The Politics of Risk Society (pp:23-34) Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hines,J. M., Hungerford, H.R., Tomera, A.N. (1986) ‘Analysis and Synthesis of Research on Responsible Environmental Behaviour: A Meta Analysis’. Journal of Environmental Education, 18 (2), 1-8.

Kamano, S. (1999) ‘Comparing Individual Attitudes in Seven Countries’, Social Science Research 28:1-35.

Kasapoglu,A. (1999) Toplumsal Yapi ve Kultur Iliskileri. (The Relationships of Culture and Society), paper presented in the Fifth Congress of Social Sciences . Ankara: Turkish Social Sciences Association.

Kasapoglu, A. & Ecevit, M.( 2002) Attitudes and Behaviour Towards the Environment: A Case of Lake Burder in Turkey‘, Environment and Behaviour. 34 (3), 366-377.

Latour, B. (1995) Wir Sind Niemals Gewesen. Berlin: Academia Verlag.

Mileti, D.S. (1999) Disasters by Design. Washington: Joseph Henry.

Milinar, Z. (1997) ‘Globalization as a Research Agenda’ paper presented in the Third European Sociology Conference, Essex, United Kingdom.

Mukherjee, R. (1998) ‘Social Reality and Culture’, Current Sociology 46 (2):39-50.

Oliver-Smith, A. (1986) The Martyred City: Death and Rebirth in the Andes , New Mexico: University of New Mexico Press.

Sorensen, J. H. and White, G. F. (1980) ‘Natural Hazards: A Cross Cultural Perspective’, in I. Altmann, A. Rapoport, J.F. Wohlwill (eds.) Human Behaviour and Environment: Advances in Theory and Research. 4:279-318. London: Plenum Press.

Wallace, A.F.C. (1956) Human Behaviour during Extreme Situations, Disaster Study No 1, Washington D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the research permission given and the generous support of the governor of the disaster region Mr. Dursun Ali Sahin, and the assistant governors of Kocaeli, Düzce and Sakarya cities. We are grateful to the Sociology Association in Turkey for their financial support.

Copyright