Life’s recurring challenges and the fundamental dimensions: An integration and its implications for cultural differences and similarities

Ybarra, Chan, Park, Burnstein, Monin, and Stanik's 2008 article in the European Journal of Social Psychology (volume 38, pg 1083-1092), delineates "two psychological dimensions, one relevant to relationships and group life (communion . . .) and the other to skill acquisition, talent, and accomplishment (agency . . .)" (1083).  They further argue that judgments of the communion dimension are stable relative to the agency dimensions.  (1083). 

For Ybarra et al., the communion dimension is comprised of those traits that effect success in “connecting with others and being accepted” (1083).  These include “behavioral tendencies such as honesty and kindness and those relevant to group living and a sense of right and wrong in interpersonal relationships” (1083).  The agency dimension is composed of traits that effect success in “acquiring skills, talent, and status” (1084). These traits include “intelligence, competence, and diligence.” 

The agentic traits, they argue, may be expressed less frequently and will be tied more closely to specific situations (1084).  In contrast, people are always pressured to conform to group norms and are actively monitor for any failure to conform to group norms.  Further, communion-related traits convey commitment to the group, wheras agency-related traits are silent on the subject (1084).   Laboratory research performed by Ybarra et al in 2001 indicated that research participants could more easily access traits related to communion than to agency, as measured by a lexical decision task.  Willis and Todorov, in 2006, found that their research participants made “more reliable [Communion] than [Agency] judgments” after short exposure periods.  Wojciszke, Bazinska and Jaworksi’s 1998 research participants demonstrated greater interested in communion than in agency “in interpersonal judgment.  Research subjects in studes by De Bruin and Van Lange in 1999, Lingle and Ostrom in 1979, Martijn, Spears, Van Der Pligt and Jakobs in 1992, Wojciske et al in 1998, and Ybarra in 2001 all have weighed information related to communion more than information related to agency (1084). 

The categories of traits were:

Communion (Positive)	Communion (Negative)	Agency (Positive)	Agency (Negative)
Trusting	Rude	Astute	Inept
Harmonious	Malevolent	Inventive	Hasty
Sympathetic	Crooked	Skillful	Sluggish
Trustworthy	Withdrawn	Knowledgeable	Ignorant
Sincere	Hypocritical	Talented	Irresponsible
Righteous	Injurious	Methodical	Lazy
Jocular	Resentful	Diligent	Mediocre
Polite	Tyrannical	Witty	Disorganized
Obedient	Snobbish	Attentive	Idiotic
Benevolent	Rebellious	Purposeful	Haphazard