تحقیقات میان فرهنگی و عامیانه درباره قدرت درک شده، نمادگرایی های انسانی و مذهبی و استفاده از پول  Cross-cultural folk-tale-elicitation research on the perceived power, humanistic and religious symbolisms, and  use of money

1. Introduction The earliest records provide evidence of money in various forms. From barter transactions involving horses and grain to cowry shells and minted currency, money is a common denominator in mankind’s history (Davies, 2010). In Maslow’s terms, money helps fulfill both basic (i.e., physiological and safety) and higher level (i.e., social, self-esteem, and self-actualization) needs. Money provides a projectable field for fulfilling personal needs and aspirations (Goldberg & Lewis, 1978). Recent research suggests that symbolic money meanings vary across cultures (Merchant, Rose, & Gour, 2015; Rose, Bakir, & Gentida, 2016). Conceptually, money meaning should provide a window into the values and desires of national cultures. Yet, relatively little research exists that qualitatively and systematically examines the rich symbolic meanings of money across cultures. To what extent are symbolic money meanings universal? What roles do economic development and socio-cultural differences play in shaping the symbolic meanings and attitudes associated with money? Prior research in the U.S. documents the interaction between societal changes, money meanings, and family dynamics, and demonstrates that economic changes impact attitudes about money (Commuri & Gentry, 2005; Zeiler, 1989). This study builds on this research by examining differences in symbolic money meanings across two nations, India and Korea, at different stages of economic development. Qualitative analysis documents, assesses and contrasts the rich, symbolic meanings of money for middle class individuals in these nations. Money is a very complex and personal topic. Collecting meaningful data requires moving beyond scaled response metrics to understand naturally occurring thinking, assessment, and behaviors (Woodside & Martin, 2015). Human decision making and behavior rely far more on social and environmental conditions than individuals realize. Folk theories of the mind posit that impression management combined with conscious, and unconscious thoughts affects behavior (Maile, 2005). Conscious and unconscious memories retrieved from memory form gestalt images that influence opinions, decisions, and actions (Bargh, 2002; Wilson, 2002). Adding to the challenge, individuals find difficulty explaining their own actions and behaviors (Rapaille, 2006). This complexity calls attention to the difficulty of understanding consumer behavior, particularly relating to complex topics, such as attitudes toward money. Common methodological approaches potentially miss important clues regarding consumer attitudes (e.g., Armstrong, 2012). To better understand this complex process, developing multiple methods moving beyond positivist methodologies is helpful (Woodside, Megehee, & Sood, 2012; Woodside, 2013). To address these concerns, this study examines narratives from respondents to collect nonconscious data as stored (see Schank, 2000). Following McCracken (1988), the following study employs semi-structured interviews to collect data from middle class couples in India and Korea. Emic (self) and etic (researcher) interpretations uncover insights about money. To triangulate these results, this study introduces folk tale elicitation (FTE). Prior to the interviews, respondent couples provided examples of folk tales relating to money. Jung (1948/1990) suggests that archetypes emerging from fairy tales move beyond the conscious and offer deeper insights on collective unconscious thought. As these fables tend to be rather old, they also provide a historical perspective. Lévi-Strauss (1963) posits that these mythical tales are timeless and explain the past, present, and future. Analyzing folk tales leads to uncovering deep metaphors associating with the phenome studied (Zaltman & Zaltman, 2008). Results provide deep insights on the impact of culture and economic development on money attitudes. Although Korea and India are both horizontal collectivist nations, attitudes about money likely differ due to their divergent historical experiences.