6.2 Study 4: Structure of Self-construals at the Individual and Cultural level
6.2.2.2 Second-order analyses
Next I investigated whether the seven first-order dimensions could be represented in a higher-order structure. Firstly, I tested whether a one-dimensional second-order structure at both levels of analysis would fit the data (Model 8, see Table 6.5).33 This involved having all first-order factors as indicators of one second-order factor. A two-dimensional second-order structure of Independence and Interdependence was then tested. Higher-order Independence included Self-reliance, Self-direction, Consistency and Uniqueness as indicators and higher-order Interdependence included Inclusion, Commitment and Harmony, at both levels of analysis (Model 9).34 Both models were tested while keeping the first-order loadings constrained across levels. As can be seen in Table 6.5, neither of these models achieved an acceptable fit. Moreover, both included non-significant loadings within the second-order structure. Thus, it was clear that neither model could account for the pattern of relationships among the factors. In particular, from inspecting the two-dimensional model, it became evident that
Harmony did not factor with Inclusion and Commitment, and that Uniqueness and Self- direction did not factor with Self-reliance and Consistency at the cultural level.
32
At this stage two residual variances at the cultural level were set to 0, in order to avoid negative values (residual variances of items 18 and 8, see Appendix B). 33 Four residual variances at the cultural level were set to 0 (item 18, item 1, item 15, and item 8 see Appendix B)
34
In order to avoid negative residual values, six residual variances had to be set to 0 (item 1, item 15, item 8, Inclusion and Self-reliance at the cultural level and Self- direction at the individual level)
Table 6.6 Correlations among Latent Factors in Multilevel Analyses in Study 4. Individual-level above the Diagonal; Cultural-level below the Diagonal.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001
In order to identify an alternative higher-order structure, the latent correlations were inspected at both levels of analysis (see Table 6.6). At the cultural level, a very high negative correlation between Harmony and Uniqueness suggested that these two factors may be part of the same higher-order dimension. Because Uniqueness is about being different and standing out and Harmony refers to conforming and fitting in, this makes theoretical sense. Hence, a third higher-order factor was created with these two dimensions as indicators. Given that Self-direction did not correlate with Self-reliance and Consistency at the cultural level but did correlate with the other four factors, it was allowed to cross-load onto the other two higher-order factors. Thus, the resulting higher- order model at the cultural level included three dimensions which were labelled
accordingly: (a) Self-differentiation, which included Uniqueness, Harmony (reversed) and Self-direction; (b) Other-focus, which included Inclusion, Commitment and Self-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Self-reliance - .33*** .07 .29*** -.03** -.08*** .37*** 2. Self-direction .08 - -.59*** .02 -.49*** -.47*** .39*** 3. Inclusion .79*** -.56** - .20*** .38*** .53*** -.18*** 4. Consistency .56*** .06 .23 - -.14*** .15*** .03 5. Harmony -.17 -.53** .25 -.41** - .38*** -.37*** 6. Commitment .20** -.35* .69*** -.14 .03 - -.27*** 7. Uniqueness .37* .42** -.05 .32* -.81*** .18 -
direction (reversed); and (c) Self-containment, which included Self-reliance and Consistency35.
At the individual level, on the other hand, the pattern of correlations was less clear, with most dimensions only moderately interrelated (see Table 6.6). In order to make further sense of this, the correlations were investigated separately for each cultural group. These analyses revealed very divergent results. For instance, the correlation between Inclusion and Commitment ranged from -.07 in Ghana to .53 in Western China, with 19 out of 64 correlations below .20. Similarly, the correlation between Self-
direction and Uniqueness ranged from -.15 among Indian Muslims to .45 in rural Spain, with 29 out of 64 correlations below .20. Given that the correlations varied to such a degree across cultural groups, it was not considered meaningful to impose a higher- order structure at this level. Rather, the manner in which the different dimensions relate to each other is likely to differ depending on culture, and it was therefore considered most appropriate to define individual-level self-construals in terms of seven dimensions.
Hence, I tested a model with seven first-order factors and no higher-order structure at the individual level, whereas at the cultural level the seven factors were organized into the three-dimensional higher-order structure described above, keeping the first-order loadings constrained across levels (Model 10). This model showed an acceptable fit and all second-order indicators were significant.36 The higher-order
35
It should be noted that the present concept of self-containment differs from that of (Sampson, 1977), who used the term self-contained individualism to describe the cultural ethos within American society and within psychology as a discipline.
Sampson’s portrayal of self-containment is more extreme, ”needing or wanting no one” (p. 770), whereas the present construct of self-containment does not rule out important connections with other people. Rather, it refers more specifically to a self that is defined without reliance on other people or contextual influence.
36
This model had four residual variances set to 0 at the cultural level (item 18,
Inclusion, Uniqueness and Self-reliance). The only large cultural-level correlation not accounted for by this model was the substantial correlation between Inclusion and Self-
structure of Self-differentiation, Other-focus, and Self-containment therefore may be useful to describe self-construals at the cultural level, whereas at the individual level the seven first-order factors should be considered separately.
6.2.3 Discussion
Study 4 was designed to test, using a new set of self-construal items, whether the structure identified in Study 3 would apply to the more diverse adult samples and at the cultural-level of analysis, as well as whether a possible second-order structure could be identified. The results suggested that a similar, although not identical, structure could be replicated in Study 4. In particular, whereas Self-reliance and Self-direction had
factored together in Study 3, these two dimensions were separate and not very highly correlated at either level of analysis among the adult samples in Study 4. The seven- factor model was found to fit the data well, whereas the one-, two-, and three- dimensional models did not, replicating the results from Study 3. Thus, a
multidimensional model is needed to account for dimensions of self-construals at both individual and cultural levels of analysis.
Given that isomorphism of the first-order structure was established, it can be concluded that it has comparable meaning at the individual and cultural level. Hence, the same seven dimensions can be used to describe cultures as well as individuals, without committing the ecological or reversed ecological fallacy. However, although these structures were found to be comparable, it is important to note that this does not
reliance. In order to establish that I had indeed identified the best model, we also ran two alternative models, one where Inclusion loaded on the Self-containment factor, alongside Self-reliance and Consistency (AIC = 780447.00) and one model where Self- reliance and Inclusion formed a higher-order factor and Consistency was a separate first-order factor (AIC = 780445.820). Both of these fitted the data less well than the original model with three higher-order factors (AIC = 780431.07). Smaller AIC indicates better fit and was used here as these were non-nested models (Kline, 2005)
mean that they have the same meaning. At the individual level, these dimensions refer to different ways that the individual sees the self and its relation to others. At the cultural level, on the other hand, these dimensions are better thought of as referring to normative, social, and cultural constructions of selfhood.
At the cultural level, the multiple factors could also be organized into three higher-order dimensions: Self-differentiation, where emphasis is placed on being different and standing out (over conforming and fitting in); Other-focus, where emphasis is placed on being committed to others and sharing their happiness and sadness (over one’s personal achievements and a sense of separateness from others); and Self-containment, referring to the self as complete in itself, independent from the context and from reliance on other people (over a self that depends on the context to shape its behaviour and on the assistance of others). Hence, dimensions which
traditionally would be considered part of independence and interdependence did not all factor together. This demonstrates that self-construals cannot be organized into a simple one or two-dimensional structure. Rather, the structure reflects different dimensions of variation in how people construe themselves and their relations with others. I should emphasize that these three dimensions should not be used when investigating
individuals’ self-construals. Given that the first-order dimensions could not be
organized in the three factor structure at the individual level, characterizing individuals along these dimensions would mean committing the ecological fallacy.