Self construal

Description

The concept of self construal evolved from a comparison of Western and Eastern conceptualizations of the self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). In particular, Markus and Kitayama (1991) recognized that Western cultures tend to construe the self as separate from their social context and thus emphasize autonomy and independence-a representation called an independent self construal. Eastern cultures conventionally construe the self as a constituent of a broader social context; their concept of self entails characteristics and qualities of this social environment-called an interdependent self construal (see also Singelis, 1994; Trafimow, Triandis & Goto, 1991; van Baaren et al., 2003).

Self construal seems to vary across contexts (e.g., Stapel & Koomen, 2001) and individuals (e.g., Singelis, 1994). Self construal also affects cognitive performance, aesthetic preferences, social interactions, and many other facets of behavior. For example, after individuals reflect upon their family, or observe national icons, their preferences change. Specifically, they prefer alternatives that are adequate or moderate on all attributes, rather than excellent on a subset of qualities only.

Relational self

Since this original conceptualization, two forms of interdependent self have been differentiated. The first is called a relational self construal, in which individuals primarily define themselves by their roles in interpersonal relationships (Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Cross & Morris, 2003). The second is called the collective self construal, which is more aligned to the original conceptualization of an interdependent self construal, in which individuals primarily define themselves as members of a broader, abstract collective (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). When this distinction between a relational and collective self construal is applied, researchers tend to refer to an independent self construal as the personal self construal (Brewer & Gardner, 1996).

When individuals adopt a relational self, their self concept tends to entail both their own characteristics as well as the attributes, qualities, and inclinations of their close friends or relatives (Gabriel, Renaud, & Tippin, 2007). Reflections about their friends tends to boost their confidence (Gabriel, Renaud, & Tippin, 2007).

The human self

Like Brewer and Gardner (1996), Harb and Smith (2008) also distinguished between multiple forms of an interdependent self construal. In their model, however, interdependent self construal did not only include the relational and collective conceptualizations but also entailed a humanity category. That is, according to Harb and Smith, individuals sometimes adopt a humanity self construal, in which they conceptualize themselves as part of the human race in general.

Moghaddam (2009) argued that societal policies or practices that instill this identification with humans might curb the prevalence of fundamentalism and even terrorism. Specifically, Moghaddam (2009) highlights that migration is dramatically more prevalent today than previous decades, centuries, and millennia. Thus, distinct cultures often interact with each other; one culture is often subsumed by another culture. Thus, cultures often feel threatened, called fractured globalization.

Apart from the increased threat, other trends have also emerged. Global economic units are forming, such as the EU, undermining the need to identify with local communities--a tension that can also promote conflict. Second, the expectations of even the most impoverished individuals are rising exponentially and, often, unrealistically. Third, changes at the macro level, such as government policy and technology, are often more rapid than is the capacity of individuals to shift their own perceptions and behaviors, also evoking stress. Fourth, global and virtual communities have proliferated, less dependent on traditional leadership. Finally, disparities in wealth have escalated.

The ensuing tensions often manifest as hostile movements, often culminating in terrorist acts. Moghaddam (2009) maintains that omniculturalism, emphasizing the shared features of humanity, can ameliorate these tensions. First, schools and other sources of discourse should emphasize universal human features, as derived scientifically (for examples, see Moghaddam, 1998). That is, students and citizens first attend to the similarities of all humans. They identify firstly with humanity. Next, after this stage is fulfilled, they celebrate the distinct identities of each group.

The self salience model

The self salience model, formulated and substantiated by Stapel and Van der Zee (2006), and emanating from the arguments proposed by Brewer and Gardner (1996), explains the effect of self construal on the motivations and behaviors of individuals. According to this model, self construal governs the core goals and values of individuals, which in turn impinges on their perceptions of themselves.

For example, when individuals adopt a personal self construal, their self concept depends on the extent to which they experience a sense of agency--the sense they are competent, powerful, independent, and unique (Stapel & Van der Zee, 2006). Their self esteem is more likely to escalate if they are informed they are unique and independent rather than obliging and cooperative, as verified by Hannover, Birkner, and Pohlmann (2006). To maintain this self concept, these individuals tend to perceive themselves as more dominant than individuals to whom they are interacting (Stapel & Van der Zee, 2006), and thus overrate their competence and trivialize their limitations.

In contrast, when individuals adopt a relational self construal, their self concept primarily depends on the stability, trust, and utility of their personal relationships. To promote this perception, they strive to perceive themselves as complimentary to the needs and preferences of their relatives or friends Stapel & Van der Zee, 2006). They will, for instance, perceive themselves as asserrtive when they interact with a subservient person or vice versa, because such complimentary demeanors tends to facilitate trust and admiration (e.g., Tiedens & Fragale, 2003).

Finally, when individuals adopt a collective self construal, their self concept largely depends on their capacity to establish and maintain their connection to a broader social entity (Stapel & Van der Zee, 2006), called their social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Their self esteem is more likely to rise if they are informed they are obliging and cooperative, not independent and unique, as demonstrated by Hannover, Birkner, and Pohlmann (2006) Accordingly, they tend to inflate the extent to which they feel they mirror the norms and inclinations of other individuals in their social environment (Stapel & Van der Zee, 2006).

Self construal and fit

Agrawal and Maheswaran (2005) argued extended the concept of regulatory fit, promulgated by Higgins (2000), to the domain of self construal. In particular, individuals experience a sense of fit or congruence when cues in the environment align with their motivational orientations. Specifically, in the context of self construal, when an independent self construal prevails, this sense of fit emerges when the environment presents opportunities for individuals to seek independence. In contrast, when an interdependent self construal prevails, this sense of fit emerges when the environment presents opportunities for individuals to maintain close relationships. This sense of fit increases the value that individuals assign to the corresponding cues or messages.

For example, after exposure to personal pronouns, which putatively confers an independent self construal, individuals were more convinced by messages that emphasize their potential independence and agency (Agrawal & Maheswaran, 2005), such as "You'll be informed and organized than everyone else". In contrast, after exposure to collective pronouns, which putatively confers an interdependent self construal, individuals were more persuaded by messages that emphasize the formation and stability of relationships (Agrawal & Maheswaran, 2005), such as "You'll be able to keep in touch with your friends and family".

Consequences of self construal

Cognitive styles and preferences

Self construal has been demonstrated to influence the cognitions, emotions, motivation, and behaviors of individuals (e.g., Kuhnen & Oyserman, 2002; Lee, Aaker, & Gardner, 2000). Some research, for example, has revealed that an interdependent self construal facilitates performance on tasks in which individuals need to recognize the interrelationships between diverse objects (see Kuhnen, Hannover & Schubert, 2001; Kuhnen & Oyserman, 2002; van Baaren, Horgan, Chartrand & Dijkmans, 2004). In other words, self construal impinges upon the processing style of individuals.

Self construal not only affects performance on specific activities, but also influences aesthetic preferences. When individuals adopt an interdependent, rather than independent, self construal, they become more likely to prefer rounded rather than angular shapes (Zhang, Feick, & Price, 2006). Conceivably, the rounded shapes represent harmony rather than conflict, aligning with the core values and goals of individuals in an interdependent state.

Furthermore, because an interdependent self construal evokes the need to maintain harmony, individuals in this state become less inclined to challenge social norms. Hence, their suggestions are more likely to align with prevailing conventions, which tends to limit their creativity (Goncalo & Staw, 2006).

Motivation

An interdependent self construal also reduces the likelihood that individuals will fulfill personal goals, such as "to lose weight" or "to watch less TV" (Downie, Koestner, Horberg, & Haga, 2006). In particular, when individuals adopt an interdependent self construal, they often strive to pursue goals that were instilled by other members of their collective and, hence, do not necessarily align to their own core personal values. As a consequence, they feel less engaged and absorbed when they pursue these goals. In addition, because they attempt to accommodate the expectations of many individuals, their goals often contradict each other. They feel these goals do not coalesce. Finally, because they attempt to fulfill the needs of individuals in their immediate environment, they are often distracted, and thus do not attempt to predict and accommodate these obstacles in advance (Downie, Koestner, Horberg, & Haga, 2006).

Impulsive behavior

Several arguments imply that an interdependent or collective self construal might curb impulsive purchases, and this problem could partly explain the excessive private debt in the United States (Vohs & Faber, 2007). First, as Ybarra and Tramifow (1998) showed, individuals who adopt an interdependent self construal are more likely to engage in behavior that aligns with social norms--that is, the characteristic inclinations and preferences of their group. In contrast, individuals who adopt an independent self construal are more likely to engage in behavior that aligns with their attitudes (Ybarra & Tramifow, 1998) or with their emotional preferences (Markus & Kitiyama, 1991).

These findings, taken together, imply that individuals with an interdependent self construal will often inhibit their personal attitudes or emotional impulses to fulfill the expectations of their social environment. In contrast, the behavior of individuals with an independent self construal are primarily governed by their preferences and emotions; impulses should be more likely to dictate the purchases of these individuals.

Similarly, as Chen, Ng, and Rao (2005) reveal, North American individuals tend to be less patient than East Asian individuals. That is, North Americans, who typically adopt an independent self construal, can delay gratification as readily as East Asians, who typically adopt an interdependent self construal. The capacity to curb impulse purchases does, presumably, demand the delay of gratification.

Consistent with these arguments, Zhang and Shrum (2009) demonstrated that an independent self construal was associated with alcohol consumption--a proxy measure of impulse purchases. The first study, for example, was showed that beer consumption is negatively associated with the level of collectivism in the corresponding nation, which represents an independent self construal.

In the second study, self construal was manipulated. Participants completed a short essay, within five minutes. To prime an independent self construal, participants wrote about the thoughts evoked by the sentence "Remember, enjoying your life is what it is really all about". To prime an interdependent self construal, participants wrote about the thoughts evoked by the sentence "Remember, enjoying relationships with your family and friends is what it is really all about".

Participants, subsequently, were more likely to express positive attitudes towards beer consumption after an independent, rather than interdependent, self construal was primed. Interestingly, this effect of self construal was most pronounced if individuals had also imagined interacting with friends. Arguably, the tendency to curb impulses in individuals who adopt an interdependent self construal is amplified in social contexts.

A third study demonstrated that interdependent individuals do indeed need to mobilize self control to curb this impulse. When this capacity to control inclinations and impulses was diminished--that is, when individuals had earlier been instructed to suppress thoughts about white bears--this pattern of data was no longer observed.

Social behavior

In addition, an interdependent self construal has been demonstrated to enhance the incidence of cooperative, supportive, altruistic, and compliant behavior (e.g., Van Baaren, et al., 2004; see also Holland, Roeder, Van Baaren, Brandt, & Hannover, 2004). For example, when individuals experience an interdependent self construal, they feel the need to comply with social norms and, hence, become less inclined to engage in behaviors that could evoke embarrassment, such as purchases of unusual shirts (Mandel, 2003).

These findings imply that individuals who adopt an interdependent self construal are more conservative--disinclined to engage in risky, rebellious behavior. Nevertheless, an interdependent self construal does elevate the likelihood that individuals will engage in financial risks (Mandel, 2003), perhaps because they feel they will receive some form of support if they fail.

Apart from compliance, self construal affects the need to maintain cohesion. For example, when individuals adopt an interdependent self construal, they become more inclined to sit closely to another person (Holland, Roeder, Van Baaren, Brandt, & Hannover, 2004). Accordingly, when individuals adopt an interdependent self construal, they engage in behaviors that could facilitate cohesion.

Because of this need to maintain cohesion, an interdependent self construal deters individuals from engaging in conflicts (Zhang, Feick & Price, 2006). That is, when individuals adopt an interdependent self construal, they strive to resolve conflicts, behaving more obligingly than assertively.

Reactions to social support

After individuals reflect upon one of their friends, their confidence sometimes rises but can also decline. Specifically, whether or not their confidence rises will depend on their self construal, as Gabriel, Renaud, and Tippin (2007) discovered.

If individuals adopt a relational self construal--defining themselves by their close friends or family--their confidence rises after they reflect upon these networks. In this state, individuals strive to form and maintain strong relationships. If indeed they have fulfilled this objective, they experience positive mood states, and these states elicit confidence. Even images of a supportive friend, therefore, are sufficient to boost confidence.

If individuals adopt a personal self construal instead, conceptualizing themselves as independent and detached, they strive to feel powerful , autonomous, and unique. Images of a supportive friend, therefore, indicate they have not fulfilled this goal, which activates negative mood states and dents their confidence.

Gabriel, Renaud, and Tippin (2007) uncovered some results that align with with this proposition. In this study, for some participants, a relational construal was evoked. That is, these participants read an anecdote about a person who sacrificed their own success to help some relatives. For other participants, a personal construal was evoked. These participants read an anecdote about a person who did not sacrifice their own success to help some relatives. If a relational construal was evoked, participants felt more confident about themselves after they described one of their friends for several minutes. If a personal construal was evoked, participants felt less confident after this exercise.

Attitudes towards justice and equality

When individuals adopt an independent self construal, they seek justice and equality, presumably to fulfill their need to maintain harmony (Briley & Wyer, R. S Jr., 2002). In contrast, when individuals adopt an interdependent self construal, they do not seek equality, but embrace hierarchies.

Consistent with this proposition, research indicates that individuals are more sensitive to violations of procedural injustice when they adopt an interdependent rather than independent self construal (De Cremer, van den Bos, & Chen, 2005). For example, when employees are prohibited from contributing to decisions, their work attitudes tend to decline, especially when they adopt an interdependent self construal (De Cremer, van den Bos, & Chen, 2005).

Effects of justice and equality

Self construal also affects the impact of distributive justice on productivity. Specifically, as Goncalo and Kim (2010) argued, individuals who adopt an independent self construal often attempt to thrive, outperforming other people. If informed that productive individuals will be rewarded, called equity, they perceive such productivity as an opportunity to fulfill this motive. In contrast, individuals who adopt an interdependent self construal strive to maintain harmony with their social collective. They do not want to seem conspicuous. If informed that productive individuals will be rewarded, they feel they might be conspicuous if they work too productively.

Goncalo and Kim (2010) conducted research to substantiate these contentions. To manipulate self construal, participants circled the words "I" or "we" in an article. To prime equity, some participants were asked to consider the benefits of distributing more rewards to the most productive individuals. To prime equality instead, the other participants were asked to consider the benefits of distributing the rewards equally. Participants then performed a task in which they needed to uncover many possible solutions to a problem. They were asked to identify, in a team context, possible business ventures that could be initiated in an empty lot.

If participants adopted an independent self construal, equity enhanced the number of ideas that were generated relative to equality. In addition, equity instilled a competitive orientation. If participants adopted an interdependent self construal, however, equity curbed the number of ideas that were generated.

Correlates of self construal

Regulatory focus

Several studies have shown that an independent self construal seems to coincide with a prevention focus--an inclination to fulfill duties and minimize shortfalls rather than pursue aspirations and maximize gains (Higgins, 1997). Likewise, an independent self construal seems to coincide with a promotion focus--an inclination to pursue aspirations and maximize gains (Higgins, 1997; see Regulatory focus theory).

To illustrate, when individuals adopt a prevention focus, they prefer products that are adequate on all attributes, such as durability, versatility, and reliability, rather than excellent on some attributes and inferior otherwise. That is, they are more concerned with minimizing deficiencies that maximizing strengths (Zhang & Mittal, 2007). Likewise, when individuals adopt an interdependent self construal, perhaps after observing national icons for example, they are prefer alternatives that are adequate or moderate on all attributes (Briley & Wyer, R. S Jr., 2002; Zhang & Mittal, 2007).

Conceivably, an interdependent self construal might induce a prevention focus. That is, when individuals adopt a prevention focus, their principal concern is to satisfy, not breach, the norms and expectations of their social collective, to maintain harmony. Accordingly, their attention is directed towards potential violations of their duties and responsibilities, which represents a prevention focus (Higgins, 1997)

In contrast, an independent self construal is likely to foster a promotion focus. To maintain their sense of independence, these individuals will strive to dismiss, not embrace, their social duties or obligations and, thus, will seldom adopt a prevention focus (Fujita, Trope, Liberman, & Levin-Sagi, 2006; Lee, Aaker, & Gardner, 2000).

Correlates with Eastern and Western cultures

Many of the differences between Eastern cultures, such as Japanese, and Western cultures, such as European Americans, can be ascribed to self construal. That is, relative to their Western counterparts, individuals in Eastern cultures are more likely to rate domains on which they had performed inadequately as important and diagnostic of their ability; they did not feel the motivation to trivialize these qualities to restore their perception of themselves (Heine, Lehman, Markus, & Kitiyama, 1999). This finding can be ascribed to the interdependent self construal that is more prominentin Eastern cultures (e.g., Kashima & Kashima, 2003; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002; Triandis, 1995).

Some other differences can also be ascribed to self construal. In Eastern cultures, individuals are more inclined to praise conformity and derogate unique characteristics--characteristics that could challenge the collective (Kim & Markus, 1999). In these cultures, individuals are also more inclined to predict better fortune for other people than for themselves--a pattern that differs from the inclinations of many Western citizens (Chang, Asakawa, & Sanna, 2001). Furthermore, in Eastern cultures, individuals are especially averse to being conspicuous in their group (Kwan, Bond, Boucher, Maslach, & Gan, 2002).

In addition, in Eastern cultures, individuals tend to focus more on contextual factors rather than individual traits--consistent with their sensitivity to events and constraints in their social environment. They are less likely than are their Western counterparts to ascribe behaviors to the enduring traits of individuals (Morris & Peng, 1994). Indeed, Chinese newspapers are more likely than American newspapers to focus on situational factors, rather than individual traits, when presenting an account of crimes.

Nevertheless, some of the prevailing differences between Eastern and Western cultures do not relate directly to self construal. For example, relative to Westerners, Easterners can reconcile or maintain arguments that are logically inconsistent or incompatible. Similarly, they may be less likely to experience a sense of dissonance or tension when their attitudes and behavior do not align (see Heine & Lehman, 1997).

Individuals who have been exposed to both Western and Eastern cultures can shift between these frames. That is, they seem to shift from Eastern to Western inclinations, often automatically, in response to relevant primes or environments (Wan, Chiu, Peng, & Tam, 2007; Wong & Hong, 2005). In a study conducted by Hong, Chiu, and Kung (1997), for example, participants exposed to both cultural environments received either American icons, such as the American flag, or Chinese icons, like the Chinese dragon. If exposed to American--rather than Chinese--icons, individuals were more inclined to assume a lone fish, swimming ahead of a school, was leading the other fish and not being chased.

Indeed, Alter and Kwan in 2009, showed that East Asian locations such as Chinatown or East Asian icons such as the yin-yang symbol were more likely to demonstrate inclinations that typify this culture even in European Americans. For example, Eastern and Western cultures tend to adopt different expectations and assumptions about change and progress. In Eastern cultures, individuals often assume that processes, such as the weather, oscillate continuously between extremes (see Ji, Nisbett, & Su, 2001). In Western cultures, individuals tend to perceive change as linear and progressive. For example, from this perspective, individuals can improve on some abstract dimension indefinitely, to seek self actualization.

When individuals in this study were exposed to an Asian rather than American supermarket, they were more likely to assume that stocks that had recently increased in price will begin to decrease. That is, European Americans adopted the assumption that processes oscillate between extremes rather than change in the same direction continually. After exposure to the yin-yang symbol, which participants recognize represents balance, they were more likely to assume that stocks that had appreciated recently will begin to decline. They were also more likely to assume that rainy weather will be followed by sunshine. A Chinese dragon, which does not explicitly correspond to balance, did not generate these assumptions.

Manipulations and determinants of self construal

Self construal seems to vary across individuals (e.g., Singelis, 1994) and cultures (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Nevertheless, self construal can also be manipulated or shaped by the context or environment. For example, anecdotes about family (Trafimow, Triandis, & Goto, 1991), national icons (Briley & Wyer, Jr., 2002), reflections about relationships (Stapel & Koomen, 2001), and collective pronouns (Stapel & Koomen, 2001) have all been shown to prime an interdependent rather than independent self construal (for more information, see Manipulations of self construal).

Justice

As Johnson and Lord (2010) demonstrated, when individuals perceive a context is just, they are more likely to experience a collective rather than personal self construal. In particular, according to the fairness heuristic theory, promulgated by Lind (2001), individuals often need to decide whether a person or group is cooperative or competitive. They need to establish whether this person or group is trustworthy.

To reach this decision, individuals often consider whether this person or group is fair. That is, sometimes individuals receive information this person or group is just. Consequently, they assume they can trust this person or group. They feel this person or group is part of their own identity. They feel a sense of connection, instilling a collective self construal (Johnson & Lord, 2010; for a related explanation, see the group engagement model; Tyler & Blader, 2003).

To substantiate this argument, in a study conducted by Johnson and Lord (2010), participants completed a battery of tests. These tests, supposedly, were developed to assess whether emergency medical technicians should be promoted. They were informed they received scores of 2 and 5 out of 10 for two tests. Some participants were exposed to injustice: Experimenters pretended that had misplaced the results of the second test and, hence, the participant would be awarded only 2 points, compromising distributive justice and accuracy. Furthermore, participants were not granted opportunities to express their concerns, impeding voice. Finally, the experimenter showed disinterest and improprieties, failing to justify the decision. Other participants were exposed to justice.

Next, participants completed an implicit test of self construal. They received a series of word fragments, like UNI---. If participants completed the fragment with words that coincide with cooperation and connection, like UNITED, they were assumed to experience a collective self construal. If participants completed the fragment of words that coincide with independence, like UNIQUE, they were assumed to experience a personal self construal. Furthermore, they also undertook a test that established whether their attention is oriented towards global patterns instead of specific details.

Finally, the extent to which participants behaved cooperatively rather than deceptively was also assessed. The experimenter, for example, dropped some pencils, supposedly by accident. Whether the participant picked up the pencils was a measure of cooperation. In addition, the participants were granted an opportunity to pilfer some of the pencils later, as a measure of theft.

Compared to the other participants, individuals who were exposed to a just experimenter were more likely to demonstrate a collective self construal. They were also more likely to behave cooperatively and less inclined to steal the pencils (Johnson & Lord, 2010). An explicit measure of self construal generated similar results but did not predict helping.

Measures of self construal

Self construal scale

Singelis (1994) developed and validated two scales to assess independent and interdependent self construal, called the self construal scale. Twelve items represent interdependent self construal, such as "Even when I strongly disagree with group members, I avoid an argument". These argues relate to the extent to which individuals maintain harmony as well as value groups and relationships--and thus seems to entail both collective and relational facets. Twelve items represent independent self construal, including "I enjoy being unique and different from others in many respects". Cronbach's alpha for these two subscales approximate .74 for interdependence and .70 for independence, as shown by Singelis (1994).

Nevertheless, the factor structure of the self construal scale has been challenged. Confirmatory factor analysis, applied to responses collected in South Korea, Japan, and the United States, showed the two factor solution was inadequate in each of these samples (Levine, Bresnahan, Park, Lapinski, Lee, and Lee, 2003). Nevertheless, a two factor solution is superior to a one factor solution (Hardin, Leong, & Bhagwat, 2004).

Indeed, Grace and Cramer (2003) administered this scale to Canadian psychology students, pertaining to a diversity of cultural backgrounds. Three factors were generated. These factors seemed to correspond to independence, interdependence, as well as power distance--or respect towards authority. Hardin, Leong, and Bhagwat (2004) uncovered six factors, applying both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. These factors were designated as autonomy, individualism, behavioral consistency, and primacy of the self as well as group interdependence and relational interdependence. Nevertheless, the internal consistency of these six subscales was low, between .43 and .64.

Furthermore, the results of this self construal scale do not correlate highly with responses to the Twenty Statements Test (Bresnahan, Levine, Shearman, Lee, Park, & Kiyomiya, 2005). To complete the Twenty Statements Test, developed by Kuhn and McPartland (1954), participants transcribe 20 answers to the question "Who am I?", and these responses are subjected to a content analysis to uncover themes that relate to independence and interdependence. Arguably, the low correlation between these measures does not necessarily challenge the validity of these approaches. Conceivably, according to Kim and Raja (2003), the self report scale assesses stable traits whereas the Twenty Statements Test evaluates momentary orientations.

Four facets of self construal

Harb and Smith (2008) developed a measure that distinguishes four facets of self construal: personal, relational, collective, and humanity. The scale comprises stems such as "I think of myself as connected to ----", "I control my behavior to accommodate the interests of ----, "I am affected by events that concern ----", "I am aware of the needs, desires, and goals of ----" and "I feel I have a strong relationship with ----". The last word or phrase of each statement depends on which self construal the item assesses. To assess personal self construal, for example, the word that follows "I feel I have a strong relationship with ----" is "myself". Reliability and validity of this scale seems to be encouraging (Harb & Smith, 2008).

Implicit measures

To measure self construal implicitly, in a study conducted by Johnson and Lord (2010), participants received 25 word fragments, like UNI---. Participants were instructed to complete the fragments as rapidly as possible: If they could not identify an answer almost immediately, they were encouraged to proceed to the next fragment. This approach ensured their responses reflected the most accessible content. If participants completed the fragment with words that coincide with cooperation and connection, like UNITED, they were assumed to experience a collective self construal. If participants completed the fragment of words that coincide with independence, like UNIQUE, they were assumed to experience a personal self construal.

The validity of this procedure was confirmed. If participants demonstrated a collective self construal, completing words that relate to cooperation, they behaved more cooperatively later. For example, they helped the experimenter pick up objects that had been dropped (Johnson &ggg Lord, 2010).

Other measures

Hackman, Ellis, Johnson, and Stanley (1999) validated another measure of self construal. In particular, Hackman, Ellis, Johnson, and Stanley (1999) subjected responses of an unpublished measure of self construal to a confirmatory factor analysis. This analysis confirmed that independence and interdependence represent two distinct factors. These measures, however, have not been utilized extensively, but preliminary reports are promising. For example, the 11 items that assess independent self construal have been shown to generate levels of internal consistency that exceed .85 in various samples.

Cross, Bacon, and Morris (2000) developed a scale that specifically gauges relational self construal. A sample item includes "If a person hurts someone close to me, I feel personally hurt as well". Cronbach's alpha ranges from .85 to .90 (Cross, Bacon, & Morris, 2000). The test-retest reliability over a two month interval approximated .73 (Cross, Bacon, & Morris, 2000).

References

Agrawal, N., & Maheswaran, D. (2005). The effects of self-construal and commitment on persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 841-849.

Alter, A. L., & Kwan, V. S. Y. (2009). Cultural sharing in a global village: Evidence for Extracultural cognition in European Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 742-760.

Bresnahan, M. J., Levine, T. R., Shearman, S. M., Lee, S. Y., Park, C. Y., & Kiyomiya, T. (2005). A multimethod multitrait validity assessment of self-construal in Japan, Korea, and the United States. Human Communication Research, 31, 33-59.

Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this "we"? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83-93.

Briley, D. A. & Wyer, R. S Jr. (2002). The effect of group membership salience on the avoidance of negative outcomes: Implications for social and consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 400-415.

Brockner, J., De Cremer, D., van den Bos, K., & Chen, Y. (2005).The influence of interdependent self-construal on procedural fairness effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 155-167.

Chen, H., Ng, S., & Rao, A. R. (2005). Cultural differences in consumer impatience. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 291-301.

Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. (2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 791-808.

Cross, S. E., & Morris, M. L. (2003). Getting to know you: Relational self-construal, relational cognition, and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 512-523.

Downie, M., Koestner, R., Horberg, E., & Haga, S. (2006). Exploring the relation of independent and interdependent self-construals to why and how people pursue personal goals. Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 517-531.

Ellis, J. B., & Wittenbaum, G. M. (2000). Relationships between self-construal and verbal promotion. Communication Research, 27, 704-722.

Fujita, K., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Levin-Sagi, M. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 351-367.

Gabriel, S., Renaud, J. M., & Tippin, B. (2007). When I think of you, I feel more confident about me: The relational self and self-confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43, 772-779.

Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., & Hochschild, L. (2002). When you and I are "we", you are not threatening: The role of self-expansion in social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 239-251.

Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., & Lee, A. Y. (1999). "I" value freedom, but "we" value relationships: Self-construal priming mirrors cultural differences in judgement. Psychological Science, 10, 321-326.

Goncalo , J. A., & Kim, S. H. (2010). Distributive justice beliefs and group idea generation: Does a belief in equity facilitate productivity? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 836-840.

Goncalo, J. A., & Staw, B. M. (2006). Individualism-collectivism and group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 96-109.

Grace, S. L., & Cramer, K. L. (2003). The elusive nature of self-measurement: The Self-Construal Scale versus the Twenty Statements Test. Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 649-668.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Lee, C. M. (2003). Assessing the validity of self construal scales: A response to Levine et al. Human Communication Research, 29, 253-274.

Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K., & Heyman, S. (1996). The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self construals, and individual values on communication styles across cultures. Human Communication Research, 22, 510-543.

Hackman, M., Ellis, K., Johnson, C., & Stanley, C. (1999). Self-construal orientation: Validation of an instrument and a study of the relationship to leadership communication style. Communication Quarterly, 47, 183-195.

Hamilton, R, W. & Biehal, G. J. (2005). Achieving your goals or protecting their future? The effects of self-view on goals and choices. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 277-83.

Hannover, B., Birkner, N., & Pohlmann, C. (2006). Ideal selves and self-esteem in people with independent and interdependent self-construal. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 119-133.

Harb, C., & Smith, P. B. (2008). Self-construals across cultures: Beyond independence-interdependence. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 178-197.

Hardin, E. E. (2006). Convergent evidence for the multidimensionality of self-construal. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 37, 516-521.

Hardin, E. E., Leong, F. T. L., & Bhagwat, A. A. (2004). Factor structure of the Self-Construal Scale revisited: Implications for the multidimensionality of self-construal. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 35, 327-345.

Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300.

Holland, R. W., Roeder, U., Van Baaren, R. B., Brandt, A. C., & Hannover, B. (2004). Don't stand so close to me: The effects of self-construal on interpersonal closeness. Psychological Science, 15, 237-242.

Ji, L. J., Nisbett, R. E., & Su, Y. (2001). Culture, change and prediction. Psychological Science, 12, 450-456.

Johnson, R. E., & Lord, R. G. (2010). Implicit effects of justice on self-identity . Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 681-695.

Kemmelmeier, M., & Oyserman, D. (2001). The ups and downs of thinking about a successful other: Self-construals and the consequences of social comparisons. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 311-320.

Kim, M. S., & Raja, N. S. (2003). When validity testing lacks validity: Comment on Levine et al. Human Communication Research, 29, 275-290.

Kuhn, M. H., & McPartland, T. S. (1954). An empirical investigation of self-attitudes. American Sociological Review, 19, 68-76.

Kuhnen, U., & Hannover, B. (2000). Assimilation and contrast in social comparisons as a consequence of self-construal activation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 799-811.

Kuhnen, U., Hannover, B., & Schubert, B. (2001). The semantic-procedural interface model of the self: The role of self-knowledge for context-dependent versus context-independent modes of thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 397-409.

Kuhnen, U., & Oyserman, D. (2002). Thinking about the self influences thinking in general: cognitive consequences of salient self concept. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 492-499.

Lam, B. T. (2005). Factor structure of the Self-construal Scale in a Vietnamese-American adolescent sample. Psychological Reports, 96, 152-158.

Lee, A. Y., Aaker, J. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). The pleasure and pains of distinct self-construals: The role of interdependence in regulatory focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1122-1134.

Leung, T., & Kim, M. S. (1997). A revised self-construal scale. University of Hawaii at Manoa.

Levine, T. R., Bresnahan, M. J., Park, H. S., Lapinski, M. K., Lee, T. S., & Lee, D. W. (2003). The (in)validity of self-construal scales revisited. Human Communication Research, 29, 291-308.

Levine, T. R., Bresnahan, M. J., Park, H. S., Lapinsky, M. K., Wittenbaum, G. M., Shearman, S. M., et al. (2003). Self-construal scales lack validity. Human Communication Research, 29, 210-252.

Mandel, N. (2003). Shifting selves and decision making: The effects of self-construal priming on consumer risk-taking. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 30-40.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

Markus, H. R., Uchida, Y., Omoregie, H., Townsend, S. S. M., & Kitayama, S. (2006). Going for the gold: Models of agency in Japanese and American contexts. Psychological Science, 17, 103-112.

Matsumoto, D. (1999). Culture and self: An empirical assessment of Markus and Kitayama's theory of independent and interdependent self- construals. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 289-310.

Moghaddam, F. M. (1998). Social psychology: Exploring universals across cultures. New York: Freeman.

Moghaddam, F. M. (2009). Omniculturalism: Policy solutions to fundamentalism in the era of fractured globalization. Culture & Psychology, 15, 337-347.

Singelis, T.M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580-591.

Stapel, D. A., & Koomen, W. (2001). I, we, and the effects of others on me: Self-construal level moderates social comparison effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 766-781.

Stapel, D. A., & Koomen, W. (2005). Competition, cooperation, and the effects of others on me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 1029-1038.

Stapel, D. A. & Van der Zee, K. I. (2006). The self salience model of other-to-self effects: Integrating principles of self-enhancement, complementarity, and imitation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 258-271.

Tiedens, L. Z., & Fragale, A. R. (2003). Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 558-568

Trafimow, D., Triandis, H. C., & Goto, S. G. (1991). Some tests of the distinction between the private self and the collective self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 649-655.

Van Baaren, R. B., Holland, R. W., Kawakami, K., & van Knippenberg, A. (2004). Mimicry and prosocial behavior. Psychological Science, 15, 71-74.

Van Baaren, R. B., Horgan, T. G., Chartrand, T. L., & Dijkmans, M. (2004). The forest, the trees, and the Chameleon: Context dependency and mimicry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 453-459.

Van Baaren, R. B., Maddux, W. W., Chartrand, T. L., de Bouter, C. & van Knippenberg, A. (2003). It takes two to mimic: Behavioural consequences of self-construals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1093-1102.

Vohs, K. D., & Faber, R. J. (2007). Spent resources: Self-regulatory resource availability affects impulse buying. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 537-47.

Ybarra, O. & Trafimow, D. (1998). How priming the private self or collective self affects the relative weights of attitudes and subjective norms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 362-70.

Zhang, Y., Feick, L., & Price, L. J. (2006). The impact of self construal on aesthetic preference for angular versus rounded shapes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 794-805.

Zhang, Y., & Mittal, V. (2007). The attractiveness of enriched and impoverished options: Culture, self-construal, and regulatory focus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 588-598.

Zhang, Y., & Shrum, L. J. (2009). The influence of self-construal on impulsive consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 838-850.

Created by Dr Simon Moss on 18/10/2008

Free Personality Tests : Relationships - Personality - Beliefs - Wellbeing - Attitudes - Behaviour - Cognitive Abilities