Advertisement

Psychological Studies

, Volume 63, Issue 1, pp 78–87 | Cite as

Self-Construals in Situational Context: Disaggregating Behaviours and Intentions Using Sinha et al.’s (2002) Decision-Making Scenarios

  • Natasha Koustova
  • Catherine T. Kwantes
  • Ben C. H. Kuo
Research in Progress
  • 59 Downloads

Abstract

The present study examined the influence of independent and interdependent self-construals and social context on decision-making using a set of hypothetical scenarios. Following the methodology of Sinha et al. (J Psychol 37(5):309–319, 2002.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590244000124), a sample of Canadian undergraduate students was presented with 16 decision-making scenarios. Scenarios were divided into two clusters depending on interaction target: nine scenarios related to conflict between personal needs versus family and friends, and seven scenarios related to conflict between personal needs versus community or society. Participants were asked to choose one of five responses: collectivist behaviour with collectivist intent, individualist behaviour with individualist intent, collectivist behaviour with individualist intent, individualist behaviour with collectivist intent, or a mix of collectivist and individualist behaviours and intentions. Participant self-construal was measured orthogonally using Singelis’ (Personal Soc Psychol Bull 20(5):580–591, 1994) Self-Construal Scale. The results suggest that a complex mix of self-concept, situation, and interaction target influenced participant behaviours and intentions. Biggest differences were observed between participants who scored high on one construal and low on the other: those who were more independent were more likely to choose individualist behaviours and intentions, and those who were more interdependent tended to choose more collectivist options. Interdependent self-construal was found to curtail individualist intentions, but not behaviour. Both independent and interdependent participants made collectivist choices towards family and friends as opposed to the greater community. The results have implications for studying the influence of self-concept and cultural norms on behaviour.

Keywords

Self-construal Situation/context Social cognition Interpersonal influences Cultural norms Behaviours and intentions 

References

  1. Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R. N., & Sinha, J. B. P. (1999). Organizational culture and human resource management practices: The model of culture fit. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 501–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Choi, I., Nisbett, R. E., & Norenzayan, A. (1999). Causal attributions across cultures: Variation and universality. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 47–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture and organizations: Software of the mind. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  5. Hong, Y., & Mallorie, L. (2004). A dynamic constructivist approach to culture: Lessons learned from personality psychology. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hong, Y.-Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C.-Y., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55, 709–720.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Kuo, B. C. H., Roysircar, G., & Newby-Clark, I. R. (2006). Development of the cross-cultural coping scale: Collective, avoidance, and engagement strategies. Measurement and Evaluation in Counselling and Development, 39, 161–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kwantes, C. T., Ali, S., Kuo, B. C. H., & Towson, S. (2007a). Measuring intentions and behaviours: Allocentrism and idiocentrism in cultural context. Presented at the International Academy of Intercultural Research Conference, Groningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  9. Kwantes, C. T., Ali, S., Kuo, B. C. H., & Towson, S. (2007b) Allocentrism and idiocentrism: Are intentions and behaviours always congruent? Presented at the 68th Annual Conference of the Canadian Psychological Association, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
  10. Li, H., Zhang, Z., Bhatt, G., & Yum, Y.-O. (2006). Rethinking culture and self construal: China as a middle land. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 591–610.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Oyserman, D. (2011). Culture as situated cognition: Cultural mindsets, cultural fluency, and meaning making. European Review of Social Psychology, 22, 164–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Oyserman, D., & Lee, S. (2008). Does culture influence what and how we think? Effects of priming individualism and collectivism. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 311–342.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Oyserman, D., Coon, H., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Peng, K., Nisbett, R. E., & Wong, N. Y. C. (1997). Validity problems comparing values across cultures and possible solutions. Psychological Methods, 2, 329–344.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.2.4.329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Realo, A., & Allik, J. (2009). On the relationship between social capital and individualism–collectivism. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(6), 871–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schwarzer, R., & Schwarzer, C. (1996). A critical survey of coping instruments. In M. Zeiclner & N. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, and application (pp. 107–132). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 325–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Singelis, T. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sinha, J. B. P., Vohra, N., Singhal, S., Sinha, R. B. N., & Ushashree, S. (2002). Normative predictions of collectivist–individualist intentions and behaviour of Indians. International Journal of Psychology, 37, 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Statistics Canada. (2006). Canada’s ethnocultural mosaic, 2006 census. Retrieved from http://www12.statscan.ca/english/census06/analysis/ethnicorigin/more/cfm.
  22. Triandis, H. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Academy of Psychology (NAOP) India 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WindsorWindsorCanada

Personalised recommendations