3.3.1 Independent, relational and collective self-construals
Self-construals are most commonly conceptualized and measured as two independent dimensions (Gudykunst et al., 1996; Singelis, 1994) or as one bipolar dimension (Kitayama et al., 2009) and the former model of self-construals has come to dominate the literature. However, some have suggested that independence and
interdependence needs to be unpacked. Kağitçibaşi (2005) argues that the tendency within psychology to confound autonomy and relatedness is misguided. This is frequently the case when independence is conceptualised and measured; separateness and autonomy are often used interchangeably. Instead she proposes a model in which these are orthogonal dimensions. Hence, she argues it is possible to endorse both autonomy and relatedness. Kağitçibaşi (2005) refers to research in Turkey which shows that improvement in economic conditions leads to less utilitarian reliance on the child, which in turn promotes autonomy of the child. However, she argues that there is still a psychological interdependence within the family. Hence, autonomy does not necessarily mean separateness.
Others have argued that interdependence needs to be considered at different levels of inclusiveness, distinguishing between relational and collective interdependence (Brewer & Chen, 2007; Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Cross, Bacon, & Morris, 2000;
Kashima & Hardie, 2000). These researchers base the dimensions of self-construals on the targets of social relationships—close others for relational self-construal, and groups for collective self-construal. Harb and Smith (2008) provide a further distinction, dividing the relational and collective self-construals into horizontal dimensions, reflecting equal relationships, and vertical dimensions, reflecting hierarchical
relationships.4 These perspectives share the idea that different types of relationships have differing importance for the self across cultures. For example, Cross et al. (2000) suggest that North Americans, in particular women, define the self in terms of close relationships, whereas East Asians are more likely to define the self in terms of group memberships (but see Yuki, 2003).
3.3.2 Different domains of independence and interdependence
Others have argued for the importance of considering different domains or facets of independence and interdependence. For instance, Noguchi (2007) found that,
whereas American participants scored higher than the Japanese on self-focus and Japanese participants scored higher than Americans on other-focus, as Markus and Kitayama’s (1991) theory would predict, Americans still scored higher on helping others. This suggests that the pattern of results depends on which facet of independence and interdependence is considered.
Several other studies have also indicated that self-construals are
multidimensional (Christopher, Norris, D’Souza, & Tiernan, 2011; Guo, Schwartz, & McCabe, 2008; Hardin et al., 2004; Levine et al., 2003; Milfont, 2005; Sato & McCann, 1998). Hardin et al. (2004) identified six different domains: four facets of independence that they labelled autonomy/assertiveness, individualism, behavioural consistency, and primacy of self, and two facets of interdependence that they labelled esteem for group and relational interdependence. They demonstrated that European Americans and Asian Americans differed on autonomy/assertiveness and primacy of self, whereas the two groups did not differ on the higher-order factor of independence. They also found that the six separate dimensions had incremental explanatory power compared to using only
4
Harb and Smith’s (2008) model includes six self-construals: personal self, relational- vertical, relational-horizontal, collective-vertical, collective-horizontal, and humanity.
the two higher-order dimensions when explaining social anxiety (Hardin, 2006). Hardin et al.’s studies are important as they point to the potential value of considering multiple dimensions of self-construals. However, the meaning of factors they identified is far from clear. For instance, the factor which they label individualism includes a range of different themes: enjoying being unique, acting independently, importance of personal identity, respecting people that are modest, and having lively imagination. Moreover, the distinction between esteem for group and relational interdependence is not very clear since both include items referring to giving something up for one’s group and sharing of one’s fate with others. It should also be noted that although Hardin and colleagues’ research (Hardin et. al., 2004; Hardin, 2006) involved different ethnic groups, their participants were still all North American and their model has received mixed cross-cultural support (cf. Christopher et al., 2011; Milfont, 2005). In order to be more confident about the underlying structure of self-construals, it seems that more cross-cultural research is needed which incorporates a much wider range of cultures.
One such attempt was provided by Fernández, Paez, and González (2005) who, using data from student samples in 29 nations and a shortened version of Singelis’ (1994) self-construal scale, identified four dimensions of self-construals. These were labelled group loyalty, uniqueness, low context and relational independence. Although some of these resemble the factors identified by Hardin et al. (2004), some items that were found to load on the same factor in Hardin et al.’s model, loaded on different factors in Fernández et al.’s model and vice versa. It is also possible that the factor structure that they extracted was influenced by the fact that they only used 13 items. For instance, none of the items that make up Hardin et al.’s primacy of self factor were included in their study. Moreover, the authors did not account for the multilevel
structure in their data and it is possible that their individual-level analyses were influenced by nation-level variation.
These studies raise the question of whether there are different ways of being independent and interdependent, which should be considered separately, even though there still seems to be some lack of clarity of what the different domains are.
Investigating different domains of independence and interdependence may provide a clearer pattern of cross-cultural differences (Fiske, 2002). For example, it may be that striving for self-reliance on the one hand and striving for uniqueness on the other are in fact separate facets in which the self is defined in different ways. These separate facets may be differentially endorsed in particular cultures, and thus measures that confound these different facets may be unable to provide a clear picture of self-construals across cultures—perhaps explaining some of the inconsistent findings in the literature. Hardin and colleagues’ studies (Hardin et al., 2004; Hardin, 2006) point to the usefulness of looking at separate domains, however, their starting-point in terms of samples was too limited. Fernández et al.’s (2005) study provides an advancement in terms of their large cross-cultural dataset but used a restricted item pool and failed to account for the multilevel structure of the data. Hence, questions still remain with regards to how the different facets should be conceptualized. The current research aims to answer these questions, using two large and diverse cross-cultural datasets, and a wider range of self- construal items.