Assessment, Analysis, and Cross-Cultural Validation
of Autonomous and Related Self Construals
Cigdem Kagitcibasi
Nazli Baydar
Zeynep Cemalcilar
Koc University, Istanbul, Turkey
23.04.2010
Author’s note: We want to acknowledge the important contributions of Ayse AycicegiDinn, Derya Gungor, Pelin Kesebir, Echo Liao, Ozlem Otyakmaz, and So-wan Wong for data
collection in Turkey, Belgium, the U.S.A, Hong Kong, Germany, and the U.K., respectively.
Kagitcibasi’s work on this article was partially supported by the Turkish Academy of Sciences.
1
Autonomy and relatedness have long been considered basic needs by several theoretical
perspectives in psychology (Kagitcibasi, 2005)). They are also viewed as aspects of independent
and interdependent self, respectively. In the last two decadescultural/cross-cultural social
psychological contributions, mostly conducted within the individualism-collectivism framework
(e.g. Markus & Kitayama, 1991, 2004, Kitayama, 2002; Kitayama, Duffy & Uchida, 2007;
Oyserman, Kemmelmeier & Coon, 2002; Schimmack, Oishi & Diener, 2005; Triandis, 1995;
Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai & Lucca, 1988), and developmental perspectives (e.g.
Greenfield, Keller, Fuligni & Maynard, 2003) have been influential. However, the meanings
attributed to independence-interdependence have been rather diffuse. . They mirror those of
individualism and collectivism, often the two dichotomous sets of constructs being used
interchangeably. The present paper aims to bring clarification to the conceptual and operational
definitions of autonomy and relatedness and offers a cross-cultural validation of these constructs.
Autonomy and Relatedness
Kagitcibasi proposed ‘dependence-independence’ as a basic dimension, ‘having to do
with human merging and separation’ (1990, p. 154). This can be seen as the dimension of
‘interpersonal distance’, reflecting the degree to which the self is connected with others, and the
extent to which the self boundaries are well defined or diffuse and permeable (Kagitcibasi,
1996). Both individual and cultural differences exist in this dimension. Subsequent
conceptualizations, particularly by Markus and Kitayama (1991) and others following suit (e.g.
Gudykunst, Matsumoto, Ting-Toomey & Nishida, 1996; Singelis, 1994) attributed further
meaning to these constructs so that independent self came to imply a combination of
separateness from others (uniqueness) together with autonomy, and interdependent self came to
indicate a blending of relatedness with lack of autonomy. These more inclusive
2
conceptualizations are common in cross-cultural social psychological research (for an extensive
review see Kagitcibasi, 2005, 2007).
A
Autonomy and relatedness have been construed as conflicting in much theory and
research despite their acceptance as basic needs. Thus separation from others is seen as a
requisite for autonomy. The theoretical background of this view can be traced to psychoanalytic
thinking, especially to “separation-individuation hypothesis” in infancy (Blos, 1979; Mahler,
Pine & Bergman, 1975). The construal of autonomy as separateness also influenced adolescent
research stressing the importance of the separation of the adolescent from parents as a second
‘separation-individuation process’ (Hoffman, 1984; Kroger, 1998; Steinberg & Silverberg,
1986). utonomy has been prioritized in psychology, even in cross-cultural psychology, reflecting
the Western individualistic world view.
Yet autonomy concerns human agency, not relatedness. To clarify the issue, Kagitcibasi
(1996, 2005, 2007) proposed ‘agency’ and ‘interpersonal distance’ as two distinct underlying
dimensions of self. Agency spans autonomy to heteronomy, and interpersonal distance spans
separateness to relatedness. A similar conceptualization was put forward by the ‘selfdetermination theory’ which proposed autonomy and relatedness as distinct needs, also adding
competence (Chirkov, Kim, Ryan & Kaplan, 2003; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Ryan, Deci & Grolnick,
1995).
The joint operationalization of agency and interpersonal distance has been rather problematic.
Some reviews questioned the empirical support, even the validity, of the independentinterdependent self construal (Matsumoto, 1999; Takano & Osaka, 1999). Several critics
3
challenged the dichotomous conceptualization of independence-interdependence as well as
individualism-collectivism (Killen, 1997; Raeff, 2004). Others examined the structure of self
construal scales, revealing multifactorial structures rather than single factor structures (Beyers,
Goossens, Vansant & Moors, 2003; Hardin, Leong & Bhagwat, 2004; Kashima & Hardie, 2000;
Uleman, Rhee, Bardoliwalla, Semin & Toyama, 2000). were made at conceptual clarification for
example by proposing two types of relatedness (Rothbaum & Trommsdorff, 2006) and two types
of agency (Markus & Kitayama, 2004).
The prevailing conceptualization of autonomy and relatedness as two poles of a single
dimension has also influenced the measurement of these self construals. Many individualism/
independent self scales tap separateness but also autonomy, and collectivism/ interdependent self
scales tap relatedness but also heteronomy (Hui & Yee, 1994; Gudykunst, et al., 1996;
Kitayama, Markus, Kurokawa, Tummala & Kato, 1991; Matsumoto, Weissman, Preston, Brown
& Kupperbusch, 1997; Singelis, 1994; Triandis, et al.,1988). Given the way these self construals
have been measured, relatedness does not figure in an independent self, and autonomy in an
interdependent self. By implication, the importance, even the existence of autonomy in closelyknit collectivistic cultures has been questioned (Iyengar & Lepper, 1999; Markus & Kitayama,
1991; Oishi, 2000; Rothbaum, Pott, Azuma, Miyake & Weisz, 2000).
Yet autonomy concerns human agency, not relatedness. To clarify the issue, Kagitcibasi
(1996, 2005, 2007) proposed ‘agency’ and ‘interpersonal distance’ as two distinct underlying
dimensions of self. Agency spans autonomy to heteronomy, and interpersonal distance spans
separateness to relatedness. A similar conceptualization was put forward by the ‘selfdetermination theory’ which proposed autonomy and relatedness as distinct needs, also adding
competence (Chirkov, Kim, Ryan & Kaplan, 2003; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Ryan, Deci & Grolnick,
4
1995).Pursuing the distinction of the two underlying dimensions of agency and interpersonal
distance and considering their four-fold combination, Kagitcibasi (1996, 2005, 2007) proposed
four prototypical self configurations, the ‘autonomous-separate’, ‘autonomous-related’,
‘heteronomous-separate’, and ‘heteronomous-related’ selves. Research provides support to the
distinctness and compatibility of autonomy and relatedness, confirming the validity of
Kagitcibasi’s conceptualization (Beyers et al., 2003; Celenk, 2007; Huiberts, Oosterwegel, van
der Valk, Volleberg & Meeus, 2006; Kim, Butzel & Ryan,1998; Kwak, 2003; Meeus,
Oosterwegel and Vollebergh, 2002).
In the light of the above considerations, autonomy is defined here as willful agency. In
other words, it involves an agentic self, acting willfully. This definition is akin to Self
Determination Theory’s point that ‘true agency requires autonomy (Ryan et al., 1995, p. 624) as
well as to other conceptualizations (Beyers, Goossens, Vansant & Moors, 2003). It is to be noted
that this definition of autonomy does not imply more or less relatedness. Thus, autonomy can
coexist with both separateness and relatedness. This is because, relatedness refers to the other
dimension, i.e. ‘interpersonal distance’. While autonomy refers to one pole of the agency
dimension, relatedness refers to one pole of the interpersonal distance dimension. It connotes a
self construal with closely knit interpersonal ties.Given the growing recognition of the
importance of autonomy and relatedness constructs and their combination, there is a great need
for the empirical analysis and assessment of these constructs. In particular, devising an
autonomy scale that does not tap relatedness (separateness) and a relatedness scale that does not
tap autonomy (heteronomy) is called for. The present paper pursues four aims: (1) to present
autonomous and related self scales that are conceptually distinct with established psychometric
properties; (2) to establish the cross-cultural measurement invariance of Autonomous Self and
5
Related Self scales; (3) to examine the association of these two constructs empirically across
cultures; and, (4) to explore whether there exist ideal types of self construals that are seen in
different cultures with varying frequencies. In the first study, we describe the scale construction
process and report the validation analysis of the newly developed scales using two different
validation samples composed of Turkish youth. In the second study, we report cross-cultural
analyses of these scales, with data from seven different cultural groups.
Study 1: Construction and Validation of Autonomous-Related Self Scales
Autonomous and Related Self Scales were developed and validated in two phases. The
first phase was devoted to item selection and scale construction and the second phase was
devoted to the validation of the scales.
Phase 1: Scale Construction
A group of experts generated a large set of items to assess the autonomous, related, and
autonomous-related self items based on Kagitcibasi’s theory (1996). This set was reduced to a
40-item pool and was administered to 117 university students in Istanbul, Turkey. Mean age of
the sample was 21.8 years (SD=3.08) and 72% were females. Participants indicated their
agreement with each item on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Following a
principal component analysis, items with factor loadings above .45 were selected to be in the
final scale. The resulting 27 items constituted the Autonomous, Related and the AutonomousRelated Self scales, each consisting of 9 items and collectively referred to as the ARS scales.
These are balanced scales, with some of the items negatively worded, to minimize acquiescent
response bias. The items, item factor loadings and reliabilities of the scales are presented in
Table 1. Parallel scales of Autonomous, Related and Autonomous-Related self for measuring
the construal of self specifically in the family context were also devised. These latter scales may
6
be used in studies that focus on self-construal from a developmental perspective (not given here;
see, Kagitcibasi, 2007, pages 194-197). The association between the three scales are discussed in
Phase 2, the validation study.
--------------- Insert Table 1 about here --------------------Phase 2: Validation study
Validation of the ARS Scales was done using two emergent adult samples that differed
by socio-economic status. The samples were administered the same set of measures pertaining
to attitudinal, personality and family attributes that were hypothesized to be related to their self
construals. The predictions regarding the association of the ARS scales with conceptually
related constructs were similar for both validation samples because the construct validity of the
ARS scales should not vary across samples.
Validation samples:
The first sample was composed of university students, similar to the sample in Phase 1.
The second sample consisted of young adults who were at the same age group as the first sample
but had less than university education. The latter sample was dissimilar to the sample that was
used for the development of the scales in Phase 1 and was used to further test the validity of the
ARS. Having two samples with divergent characteristics provided insights into the variations in
self construals and their associations with family background characteristics. The demographic
characteristics of the validation samples are given in Table 2.
------ Insert Table 2 about here----------Both samples were mostly urban but had significant differences in several indicators of
socio-economic status. The first validation sample, composed of 477 university students, came
from relatively well educated, nuclear families with middle to high income levels. The mean age
7
was 20.5 years (SD=1.78), and sixty-two percent were females. The mean number of siblings
was 2.6. The self rated family affluence was higher, and the self rated religiosity was lower in
the first sample compared with the second sample. The second validation sample, composed of
200 youth (mean age: 20.9; SD=2.12) had a mean education of 9.6 years (SD=2.03). Fifty nine
percent had high school degree, and the rest had less than high school education. Half of the
participants were males. None were married. A majority (59.8%) were working to earn a living.
Women had higher education than men (10.0 years and 9.3 years, respectively, F(1,190)=5.4, p
<.05), and men were more likely to be working then women (68% and 51.5% respectively, χ2
=5.6, p < .05). This sample had more siblings, and their parents had less education than the first
sample. Thus the second sample has low SES traditional families, as reflected in their family
structure (more siblings, larger families, less educated parents) and more conservative values
(higher religiosity). However, they may be seen as a ‘transitional’ (or upwardly mobile) group,
given their higher level of education compared to their parents.
Measures and hypotheses
Eight measures were identified to be conceptually related to the ARS scales and were
administered to two different validation samples. Four of these measures assess relational self
construal and attributes such as internal control and self efficacy. The other four are retrospective
measures of childhood experiences such as family control, affection, and childhood environment.
The predicted relations with these latter measures provide a developmental perspective on the
self. The validation measures are described below, and the predictions regarding their
associations with the ARS scales are explained following each description.
Internal Control Scale: A new 6-item internal control scale was constructed based on the
Turkish adaptation (Kagitcibasi, 1970) of Rotter’s Internal-External Locus of Control Scale
8
(Rotter, 1966). The scale assessed the degree to which respondents believe that their life is under
their own control. Items were rated on a 5-point scale, with higher scores indicating higher
internal control (α=.65). Sample items included “I manage my life myself” and “Everyone is
responsible for his/her actions.” We expected a positive association between the Internal Control
Scale and the Autonomous Self and the Autonomous-Related Self scales.
The Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal Scale (RISC). This 11-item scale assessed
respondent’s tendency to think of himself/herself in terms of his/her relationships with close
others (Cross, Bacon, & Morris, 2000). Items were rated on a 5-point scale, with higher scores
indicating higher relational-interdependent self. Sample items included “My close relationships
are an important reflection of who I am” and “If a person hurts someone close to me, I feel
personally hurt as well.” Alpha coefficient of the original scale was .88 (Cross et al., 2000), and
was .78 in the present study. We expected the Related Self and the Autonomous-Related Self
Scale scores to be positively associated with the RISC scale scores.
General Perceived Self-Efficacy Scale: This 10-item scale is a reduced version of the
original 20-item self-efficacy scale developed by Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1995) and measures
the optimistic self beliefs to cope with difficult demands in life. Items were rated on a 5-point
scale, with higher scores indicating higher perceived self-efficacy. Sample items included “I am
confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected events” and “I can remain calm when
facing difficulties because I can rely on my coping abilities.” Internal reliability of the original
scale was between .75 - .91 (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995), and was .85 in the present study. In
contrast to other scales that measure optimism, General Perceived Self-Efficacy Scale explicitly
refers to personal agency, such as the belief that our actions are responsible for successful
9
outcomes. Thus, we expected the Autonomous Self and the Autonomous-Related Self Scale
scores to be positively associated with the Perceived Self-Efficacy scores.
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. This 10-item scale is the most widely used self-esteem
scale for the measure of global self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965). Items are rated on a 6- point
scale, with higher scores indicating higher self-esteem. The alpha coefficient of the Turkish scale
was found to be .71 (Çuhadaroğlu, 1985), and it was .84 in this validation study. Self-esteem is
an assessment of how one perceives his/her self-worth. Similar to the generalized self-efficacy
scale, this scale also suggests perceived agency, in addition to an assessment of how much one is
proud of himself/herself in general. Hence we expected the Autonomous Self and the
Autonomous-Related Self scale scores to be positively associated with the Self-Esteem scores.
Family Affection and Family Control Scales: The Family Affection and Family Control
scales (Kagitcibasi, 1970) measured the extent of parental affection and control experienced
during childhood and adolescence. The Family Affection scale was composed of seven items.
Sample items included “When I was a child, my father (mother) gave me a great deal of affection
and acceptance” and “My family believed that a teen-ager should be allowed to decide most
things for himself/herself” (α=.63). The Family Control scale was composed of five items.
Sample items included “I was brought up under strict discipline” and “Sometimes, my parents
punished me harshly for a small misdemeanor” (α=.66). Items were rated on 5-point rating scales
with higher scores indicating more affection or control.
The presence of warmth in a family promotes close relationships among the family
members and contributes to the development of a relational self; whereas strict control in the
family impedes the development of an autonomous self. Hence we expected a positive
association of the Related Self and the Autonomous-Related Self scale scores with the Family
10
Affection scale scores, and a negative association of the Autonomous and Autonomous-Related
Self scale scores with the Family Control scale scores.
Quality of Childhood Environment Scale. A new 6-item scale was constructed to assess
the respondents’ evaluation of the family context they grew up in and the current impact of this
context on the respondents and their relationships. Items were rated on a 5-point scale, with
higher scores indicating a positive evaluation of one’s childhood environment. Sample items
included “We had a loving atmosphere in our family” and “There are matters from my family
experience that negatively affect my ability to form close relationships” (reverse coded). The
internal reliability was .88, and the dominant factor accounted for 63% of the variance in the
present study.
As in the Family Affection scale, higher scores on this scale also suggest a positive and
nurturing family environment. Hence, we expected the Related Self and the AutonomousRelated Self scale scores to be positively associated with the Quality of Childhood Environment
scores.
Teen Timetable Scale: This is a 19-item scale that measured expectations for behavioral
autonomy (Feldman, & Rosenthal, 1991). Participants were asked to choose the age that they
first engaged in the behaviors mentioned in the items, such as “At what age were you able to
choose your own hair style even if your parents disapproved?” and “At what age were you able
to go out on dates?” The items were rated on a five-point scale: 1=before age 14; 2=14-15 years,
3=16-17 years, 4=18 and older and 5=never. 19 items are summed to calculate the overall
timetable score. High scores indicated a delayed teen timetable. Alpha coefficient of the original
scale ranged from .83 to .87, and was .84 in this study. The delay in earning behavioral
autonomy in age-related tasks hampers the development of autonomous self. Hence we expected
11
the Autonomous Self and the Autonomous-Related Self scales scores to be negatively associated
with a delayed teen timetable.
Beyond the measures used for validation purposes, demographic measures were used.
These included various indicators of family background and socio-economic status. Religiosity
was also measured with an item asking for the respondents’ self perceived degree of
religiousness from 1 to 7.
Results and Discussion of Study 1
Figure 1 presents the interrelations among the autonomy, relatedness, and autonomousrelatedness scores in a three dimensional chart. This chart shows the mean autonomousrelatedness scores of participants who had Autonomous Self and Related Self scores in the
indicated quintiles. As the autonomy and relatedness scores increase, so do the autonomousrelatedness scores, showing the construct validity of the latter.
============Insert Figure 1 about here ============
The Autonomous Self and Related Self scores are negatively correlated (r= -.53, p <
.001). The magnitude of this correlation indicates that each scale can explain 28% of the variance
in the other one, leaving the majority of the variance unexplained. Hence the two constructs are
overlapping but not interchangeable, as suggested by Kagitcibasi (1996). Correlation of the
Autonomous – Related Self Scale is r=. 08 (p > .05) with the Autonomous Self Scale and r= .43
with the Related Self Scale (p < .05). It appears that the Turkish young adults in the two samples
responded to this scale more on the basis of their feelings of interpersonal distance than in terms
of their feelings about autonomy. Thus relatedness weighs more heavily than autonomy in the
Autonomous-Related Self Scale. Individuals can be categorized as having an Autonomous Related Self based on their scores on the 9-item A-R Self Scale, or by their relative scores on the
12
two other self scales. The next phase of Study 1 was devoted to the validation of the newly
developed ARS scale in the Turkish population. The ARS scales were administered together with
other conceptually related measures to establish their construct validity.
Table 3 provides the means and the standard deviations of the scales used in the
validation study. The two validation samples had almost identical mean autonomous self scores
(51.6 and 51.4, for the university student sample and the non-student sample, respectively).
However, the university student sample had significantly higher mean Related self scores and
Autonomous-related self scores than the non-student sample (Related self: 69.5 and 61.1,
respectively, F (1, 675) =41.4, p < .05; and Autonomous-related self: 81.3 and 67.0, respectively,
F (1, 675=145.8, p < .05). The reason of relatively low levels of Related self and AutonomousRelated self scores in the non-student sample may be an indication of the transitional nature of
this group. As described above, this group was urban, who had families with limited levels of
education. They differed substantially from their parents in their level of education. The
majority was economically active, and none were married at the age of almost 21. Because of
their upwardly mobile aspirations, this sample might have rejected close ties to their families of
origin.
----------------- Insert Table 3 about here ---------------------The validity of the ARS scales was established by analyzing their associations with the
variables expected to be conceptually related described above. Participants were categorized as
the highest 25%, middle 50% and the lowest 25% scorers for each characteristic that was thought
to be associated with self construals and differences of mean ARS scale scores were examined
across those three categories (see Table 4). This approach allowed the identification of non-linear
13
associations among related constructs, as opposed to the commonly used correlation analyses
that allow the identification of linear associations only.
-------------------Insert Table 4 about here ------------------------------As can be seen from Table 4, all predictions were confirmed for both validation samples,
except for the association between Family Affection and the Related Self scale scores that were
not significant though showed a trend in both samples. The analyses revealed some additional
associations between Related Self scores and internal control, self-efficacy, and self-esteem in
the non-student sample. Internal control, self-efficacy, and self-esteem were positively associated
with Related Self scores in addition to the Autonomous Self scores. This result may be explained
by the specific characteristics of this sample (i.e., as upwardly mobile working young adults).
High values of these scales, which are typically associated with adaptive functioning in a
competitive urban environment, appear to affect the participants’ likelihood of developing a
Related Self in addition to contributing to the enhancement of an Autonomous Self. This would
appear to be a disposition contrary to reactionary separateness.
Study 2: Cross-Cultural Analyses of the Autonomous and Related Self Scales
The analyses of cross-cultural data had four aims: (1) to establish the cross-cultural
measurement invariance of the autonomy and relatedness scales; (2) to explore the associations
between autonomy and relatedness constructs in the seven cultural groups; (3) to compare the
levels and variability of autonomy and relatedness in seven different groups that were studied;
and, (4) to explore whether there were groups of individuals who had similar patterns of
autonomy and relatedness among the samples coming from seven different cultural groups. The
Autonomous Self and Related Self Scales were used in Study 2; the combined AutonomousRelated Self Scale was not used. One reason for this was our intention to explore the variability
14
in the association between these two conceptually distinct dimensions of self; another reason was
that the Autonomous-Related Self Scale was not administered in all of the cultural groups.
In order to address the above aims, a variety of methods were adopted. The first aim
required the estimation of models that would systematically test whether the factor structures of
the items that represent autonomy and relatedness were similar across the 7 groups represented in
the cross-cultural sample. These tests were performed using Confirmatory Factor Analyses
(CFA) models that tested the equivalence of the factor structures across different groups with
progressively more restrictive equivalence restrictions (Wu, Li & Zumbo, 2007). First,
configural invariance was tested. This test determined if, for all groups considered, the number
and configuration of factors for each set of items was identical. Next, a model of invariance of
factor loadings was tested, to determine if these loadings were invariant across the seven groups.
Kline (1998) labels this criterion “partial measurement invariance.” A further requirement of
invariance of intercepts of all items was not imposed because this test tends to be highly sensitive
to the distribution of the responses to each item, which, in this case spans only a 5-point scale.
In order to determine the goodness of fit, and to test nested models of measurement
invariance, Comparative Fit Index (CFI; Bentler, 1990) and Root Mean Square Error (RMSEA,
Browne & Cudeck, 1993) were used. In order to obtain statistical criteria that were robust with
large samples and models with large numbers of parameters, traditional likelihood ratio tests
were not used. The criteria adopted here were: (1) CFI ≥ 0.90; (2) RMSEA ≤ 0.05; and (3) for
nested models, ΔCFI ≥ -0.01 (Wu et al., 2007). Tables of goodness of fit statistics also report the
conventional likelihood ratio chi-square values alongside the CFI and RMSEA.
The second aim of the analyses, i.e., the investigation of the association between the
autonomy and relatedness constructs in the seven cultural groups, could be done within the
15
framework of the structural equation models, where correlations between the latent autonomy
and relatedness constructs could be estimated. These correlations, in general, are stronger than
those that are estimated between raw additive scale scores because the correlations estimated in
structural equation models are estimates of the association between latent constructs that, by
definition, exclude measurement errors.
The third aim, i.e, the comparisons of the levels of and variability in autonomy and
relatedness across the seven cultural groups, required the calculation of scale scores that were
demonstrated to have comparable factor structures and comparing these scale scores using
standard ANOVA across countries. The scale scores were constructed using two alternative
methods: additive scale scores based on observed item scores, and the latent factor scores based
on CFA results. Further analyses using the latent factor scores yielded results that were very
similar to those obtained based on additive scale scores. Only the latter analyses are presented
here because they are easier to replicate and interpret than the latent factor scores.
The final aim of the cross-cultural study, i.e., whether there were groups of individuals
who had similar patterns of autonomy and relatedness across the seven different cultures, was
addressed by using cluster analyses that identified groups of individuals that could be
characterized with a given pattern of associations between their autonomy and relatedness
dimensions. Ward’s method of clustering was used here because of its efficiency when cluster
criteria are measured at interval level (Ward, 1963). The analyses were repeated using the
within-cluster average linkage method, however the cluster results of the two methods were
extremely similar. The results of the Ward’s method of clustering are presented here.
Sample
16
Data were collected from 7 different cultural groups: university students from Belgium,
Germany, Hong Kong, Turkey, United Kingdom, USA, and immigrant Turks in Europe (in
Belgium and Germany). All participants were living in big cities or metropolitan areas at the
time of the data collection. Sample characteristics are summarized in Table 5. The Belgian
sample also included a group of last year high school students. .
----------------------- Insert Table 5 about here ------------------Results and discussion of Study 2
Exploratory factor analyses of the 9 autonomy and 9 relatedness items for the pooled
international sample revealed that the dominant factors accounted for 29% of the joint variance
of the nine autonomy items and 31% of the joint variance of the nine relatedness items. These
groups of items yielded Cronbach’s reliability coefficients of 0.68 for the autonomy items and
0.70 for the relatedness items. Additive scale scores based on nine autonomy and nine
relatedness items were correlated by -0.48 (p<.001).
Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to establish the invariance of the factor
structure of the Autonomy and Relatedness scales across the seven groups. The least restrictive
model, the model of configural invariance was supported neither for autonomy (χ2(189) = 508.6,
p<0.01, CFI=0.80, RMSEA=0.09) nor for relatedness (χ2(189) = 645.6, p<0.01, CFI=0.79,
RMSEA=0.10) constructs. Further exploratory factor analyses revealed a more nuanced factor
structure for the two constructs than originally postulated.
Both the autonomy construct and the relatedness construct were found to consist of two
sub-dimensions yielding a total of four substantively meaningful constructs. A two factor
configural invariance model for autonomy yielded an adequate fit for the seven distinct cultural
groups (χ2(178) = 257.5, p<0.01, Relative χ2=1.4, CFI=0.94, RMSEA=0.05). A similar two
factor configural invariance model for relatedness was also adequate (χ2(178) = 270.5, p<0.01,
17
Relative χ2=1.5, CFI=0.95, RMSEA=0.05). The two sub-dimensions of autonomy and
relatedness constructs were labeled ‘behavioral’ versus ‘ideational autonomy’, and ‘related self’
versus ‘permeable self’ dimensions, respectively. Behavioral autonomy refers to actual
autonomous behaviors, reflecting volitional agency. Ideational autonomy has to do with
independent ideas. It may be influenced by individualistic norms. Related self emphasizes the
importance of close relationships. Permeable self refers to a self that has rather diffuse
boundaries which can be permeated by other close selves, that is, a self construal without
interpersonal distance. The items of the subscales are indicated under Table 6.
The analyses of the cross-cultural data proceeded for these four constructs (i.e., two
constructs representing each of the original autonomy and the relatedness dimensions). The
cross-cultural validity of these four constructs was established next using partial measurement
invariance criterion (Kline, 1998). The nested tests of goodness of fit conducted on the four
constructs are presented in Table 6. Based on these tests, additive scale scores were computed
that quantified each construct.
----------------------- Insert Table 6 about here ------------------In order to investigate the pattern of correlations between the autonomy and relatedness
dimensions, a multi-group CFA model that included all four constructs and their correlations
were estimated for all seven cultures. The pattern of correlations between the latent constructs of
behavioral autonomy, ideational autonomy, related self, and permeable self revealed positive
associations between the two dimensions of autonomy and the two dimensions of relatedness
(see Table 7). The correlations across the overall autonomy and relatedness dimensions were
negative. The correlations between behavioral and ideational autonomy constructs were high in
Belgium and Hong Kong (about 0.8) and lower elsewhere (about 0.6). The correlations between
18
related and permeable self constructs were higher in Belgium and Germany (about 0.8) than
other cultural groups (0.4 in Hong Kong and about 0.6 elsewhere). Behavioral autonomy was
weakly correlated with permeable self everywhere (correlations ranging between 0 in the US,
UK, and Germany, to 0.3 in Belgium and in immigrant Turks in Europe). Far from being the
opposite poles of a single self construal, these two dimensions were nearly orthogonal in many
cultural groups. Ideational autonomy and related self constructs were strongly negatively
correlated in all cultural groups though showing a range of variation (between -0.7 and -1.0). In
all cases ideational autonomy had more negative associations with related and permeable self
than behavioral autonomy had, except in only one case (with related self among immigrant Turks
in Europe). Thus, the pattern of correlations revealed a dimension of autonomy (ideational) that
is aligned with interpersonal distance, and another dimension of autonomy (behavioral) that is
relatively independent of interpersonal distance.
----------------------- Insert Table 7 about here ------------------All four construct means significantly differed across the seven groups (all F-tests
yielded p<.01). The patterns of differences between each pair of groups were tested using
Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons. The results were as follows: the students from
Turkey, UK, and USA had high scores in behavioral autonomy; pairwise tests yielded no pairs of
groups that were significantly different in ideational autonomy; immigrant Turks as a group had
low levels of related self; and immigrant Turks and students in Hong Kong had low levels of
permeable self. All of the analyses presented thus far addressed cross-cultural differences
assuming within-culture homogeneity in the seven groups that constituted the cross-cultural
sample. However, there was evidence of substantial variability in self construals in each one of
19
the seven cultural groups. The next set of analyses took a different perspective and focused on
the within-culture variability and across-culture similarities of individuals’ self construals.
When focusing on within culture variability, a question to explore is whether there exist
some combinations of autonomy and relatedness dimensions that tend to be replicated across
cultures albeit with varying frequencies. An example could be an “ideal type” of individuals who
are high in both dimensions of autonomy and low in both dimensions of relatedness, i.e., an ideal
type that is often defined as the “individualist” or “Western” self. It is the autonomous-separate’
self in Kagitcibasi’s model (2005, 2007). The cross cultural comparison of mean autonomy and
relatedness dimensions clearly indicated that this ideal type was not the rule in any one of the
seven cultural groups. However, it could occur with greater frequency in some than in others.
Cluster analysis is used to identify groups of individuals configured such that within
group similarities in autonomy and relatedness are high and across group similarities are low.
The cluster analysis of four scale scores representing the four dimensions of the self construals
from all seven cultural groups yielded four clusters, interpreted as “ideal types” of self. The
characteristic patterns of autonomy and relatedness of these four ideal types can be examined
using the mean scores of the four scales in these four ideal types (Table 8). All of the mean scale
scores significantly differed across the four ideal types (all F statistics yielded a p<.01).
----------------------- Insert Table 8 and Figure 2 about here ------------------The self construals that were depicted by the profiles of the four ideal types could be
easily grasped graphically (Figure 2). All four ideal types corresponded to the four self
constructs proposed by Kagitcibasi (2005, 2007) in her theory of the self. Ideal Type I was
characterized with a high level of behavioral autonomy, a moderate level of ideational autonomy
and high levels of related self and permeable self. This Ideal Type is what Kagitcibasi described
20
as the Autonomous-Related self. Ideal Type II differed from the Ideal Type I in behavioral
autonomy that was significantly lower than Ideal Type I, moderate levels of ideational autonomy
and related self, and a low-moderate level of permeable self. Ideal Type II can be described as
the Heteronomous Separate self. However, the low level of (behavioral) autonomy is a more
distinguishing characteristic of this type of self than its separateness. The Heteronomousseparate self differed significantly from the Autonomous Related self in behavioral autonomy but
not in ideational autonomy based on post hoc tests. This divergence in the differences in
behavioral and ideational autonomy between the ideal types further validates the existence of
two distinct dimensions of autonomy.
Ideal Type III was characterized by low levels of behavioral and ideational autonomy and
high levels of related and permeable self. This Ideal Type is what Kagitcibasi (2005) called
Heteronomous-Related self. Ideal Type IV was characterized by high levels of behavioral and
ideational autonomy and low levels of related and permeable self. This Ideal Type can be
described as the Autonomous-Separate self (Kagitcibasi, 2005). The levels of behavioral
autonomy of the Autonomous Related self and the Autonomous Separate self types were not
significantly different from each other, based on post hoc tests with Bonferroni correction.
The presence of the Autonomous Related self (the Ideal Type I) and the Heteronomous
Separate self (the Ideal Type II) does not fit with the prevailing conceptualizations of
independent self (highly autonomous and not related) versus interdependent self (highly related
and not autonomous), as discussed earlier. Yet , in a sample of 1,300 individuals representing
seven distinct cultural groups, about one half of the participants could be characterized by these
two ideal types that defy the uni-dimensional view of self on a single axis of independence/
interdependence.
21
The distribution of the four ideal types of self in the seven cultural groups considered in
the current study revealed the structure of distinct self construals that resulted in the observed
differences in average levels of the four scale scores representing the dimensions of autonomy
and relatedness. Table 9 provides the percentage distributions of the four ideal types of self in
each cultural group. There is a significant difference in the distributions of the ideal types across
the seven samples (χ2(128)=123.4, p<.01).
----------------------- Insert Table 9 about here ------------------Further analyses of differences in the four autonomy and relatedness scores were carried
out to investigate whether the mean levels of these scores differed within a given ideal type
across different cultures. In other words, it was hypothesized that the ideal types could be
nuanced, somewhat, in different cultures. Univariate ANOVAs were conducted of the four scale
scores, investigating the main effects of cultural group and the ideal type, and the interaction
effect of these. The interaction effects for behavioral autonomy and ideational autonomy were
significant (F(18, 1272)=4.6, p<.01 and F(18, 1272)=1.6, p<.05, respectively), but they were not
significant for related and permeable self scores (F(18, 1272)=0.9, p>.10 and F(18, 1272)=1.4,
p<.10, respectively). Thus, behavioral and ideational autonomy levels of the same ideal type in
different cultural groups slightly varied, revealing that ideal types may have some differences
across cultures.
General Discussion and Conclusions
Notwithstanding the impressive literature on culture and self of the last two decades,
there is a continuing need for more clear definition and operationalization of self construals
across cultures. This is because the seemingly attractive dichotomies of independentinterdependent self construals tend to confound some important underlying dimensions that are
22
conceptually distinct. In particular, the constructs of autonomy and relatedness need to be better
conceptualized and operationalized in different cultures for a better understanding of the
complex psychological phenomena involved.
This study, therefore, aimed to bring some clarification to the conceptual and operational
definitions of autonomy and relatedness, informed by Kagitcibasi’s (2005, 2007) theoretical
perspectives and using comparative cross-cultural data. The findings provided empirical
evidence for the distinctness and compatibility of autonomy and relatedness, also substantiating
the validity of the proposed scales of autonomous, related, and autonomous-related self scales.
The use of two quite different validation samples offered insights into the developmental aspects
of these self construals. The confirmatory factor analyses on the cross-cultural comparative data
pointed to further refinement, yielding two sub-dimensions each of autonomy and relatedness.
The cross-cultural validity of these four constructs was established and provided empirical
evidence for Kagitcibasi’s (2005, 2007) theory of self.
The present study proposed scales of autonomy and relatedness that can be used to
characterize individuals across different cultural backgrounds. The findings demonstrated that
the ‘independent’ and ‘interdependent’ self construals, combining autonomy and relatedness (or
agency and interpersonal distance dimensions) are indeed much too broad to do justice to the
inherent complexity of the phenomena in question, both within a society and especially across
societies with different cultures. Given the distinctness of the agency and interpersonal distance
dimensions, the Autonomous and Related Self construals are conceptually defined as two distinct
constructs. These constructs are then operationally defined together with an AutonomousRelated self construal. Proposed scales are validated in the first study. It was shown that the
Autonomous and Related self scales were distinct, though negatively correlated. This is
23
important given the widespread use of independent-interdependent self scales that confound
these constructs. Thus, it is possible and desirable to measure autonomy without tapping
relatedness (separateness), and to measure relatedness without tapping autonomy (heteronomy).
A piece of empirical evidence that agency and interpersonal distance can vary
independently is the existence of the autonomous-related self which increases as the Autonomy
and Relatedness scores increase (Figure 1). This type of self can be more prevalent in some
cultural contexts than others. An Autonomous-Related Self Scale is proposed here to measure
the degree to which agency and relatedness coexist. Autonomous-Related Self scores had a
higher correlation with Related than with Autonomous Self Scale scores, showing that in the
validation samples from Turkey the autonomous-related self is engendered more by relatedness
than by autonomy. This is likely because of the greater variability in relatedness than in
autonomy among young adult participants.
The observed associations of the Autonomous, Related, and Autonomous-Related self
construals with family background variables provided insights into the possible developmental
processes that may contribute to the generation of these self construals. Notwithstanding their
traditional background, the upwardly mobile young adults from low SES backgrounds had low
levels of relatedness but high levels of autonomy. In this case, the high level of autonomy may
have been developed at the cost of their relatedness, taking the form of ‘reactionary separateness’
in response to restrictive parenting. A similar pattern was found among migrant Turkish youth in
Europe (Gungor, Phalet & Kagitcibasi, 2008; Kagitcibasi & Otyakmaz, 2006). The higher levels
of relatedness and autonomous-relatedness among college students point to the likely
development of these self construals in nurturant environments.
24
The negative effects of strict family control (also operationalized in terms of teen
timetables) on autonomy and on relatedness and the positive effect of quality of childhood
environment and family affection (trend) on the development of relatedness are theoretically
important (Kagitcibasi, 2007). The positive associations of self efficacy, self esteem and internal
control with relatedness in the low SES but upwardly mobile sample is notable. These findings,
together with the finding of lower relatedness and autonomous-relatedness in this sample are
suggestive of the conditions conducive to the development of relatedness and autonomousrelatedness. It appears that the balanced synthesis of autonomy and relatedness (the
Autonomous-Related self) is more likely to emerge in supportive home contexts. Where there is
high level of family control, it may trigger reactive separation from parents, further aggravated
by a low level of education, low socio-economic standing, and youth’s earlier labor force
participation (see also Georgas, Berry, van de Vijver, Kagitcibasi & Poortinga, 2006; Gungor et
al., 2008; Kagitcibasi & Otyakmaz, 2006).
The cross cultural validation of the constructs of autonomy and relatedness (Study 2)
revealed two subdimensions of autonomy (behavioral vs. ideational) and two subdimensions of
relatedness (related vs. permeable self), pointing to further complexity. Behavioral autonomy
refers to behaviors reflecting volitional agency. Ideational autonomy reflects an attitude of
independence that has to do with the independent formulation and maintenance of opinions
probably influenced by individualistic norms. The related self emphasizes the importance of
close relationships, whereas the permeable self refers to diffuse boundaries of self and a lack of
personal distance. This distinction between relatedness and boundary diffusion has been an
important one in family research (Minuchin, 1974). For example, Manzi and colleagues (Manzi,
25
et al, 2006) use the concepts of family cohesion and enmeshment to refer to this distinction. At
the level of the self, also, the two emergent configurations appear conceptually different.
These sub-dimensions have culturally varying associations with each other, providing
insights into the substantive meanings of autonomy and relatedness. Ideational autonomy
emerged as the opposite of related self, but behavioral autonomy was nearly orthogonal to the
permeable self. Ideational autonomy dimension appears to be responsible for the negative
correlation between autonomy and relatedness in nearly all cultures in the study. The crosscultural perspective on autonomy and relatedness highlights a substantive difference between
behavioral and ideational autonomy. In line with the common assumptions in the literature,
ideational autonomy is conflicting with relatedness, because the former concerns values.
However, behavioral autonomy is not antithetical to relatedness, as proposed by Kagitcibasi
(2005, 2007) and also substantiated in previous research (Beyers, et al., 2003; Huiberts, et.al,
2006; Meeus, Oosterwegel and Vollebergh, 2002). Ideational autonomy appears to be akin to
what Kagitcibasi (1996) called ‘normative individualism.’ It has to do with the value or ideology
of independence, but may not manifest itself in interpersonal behavior. On the other hand,
behavioral autonomy is akin to Kagitcibasi’s (1997) ‘relational individualism’ which is reflected
in self-other relations. This distinction is in line with the Oyserman, et al. (2002) metaanalysis
finding of a high level of relationality among Americans in contrast to the highest level of
(normative) individualism in the U.S. among all the countries in Hofstede’s classic work (1980).
In addition to the pursuit of cross cultural similarity in conceptualization and
measurement of self construals, this study also pursued the sources of within culture variability
in self construals. One way of describing within culture variability in self construals would be the
examination of variances and covariances of the two autonomy and two relatedness measures
26
within each culture. While informative, this approach would have the inherent assumption that
there are an infinite number of combinations of these four aspects of the self construal.
Alternatively, the within culture variability may be modeled as the variability that emerges
because there exists a mixture of a finite number of self prototypes within a culture where the
self prototypes are defined by given relative levels of autonomy and relatedness. This approach
would require the identification of a limited number of self prototypes that exist in all cultures,
albeit in varying proportions.
The pursuit of the finite number of self prototypes revealed four combinations of
autonomy and relatedness dimensions that were present in varying proportions in all cultures.
These four ideal types of self coincided with Kagitcibasi’s (2005, 2007) four self types and were
labeled, accordingly, as Autonomous-Related, Heteronymous-Separate, Heteronymous-Related,
and Autonomous-Separate selves. The four subdimensions of autonomy and relatedness help
clarify the conceptual differences between the ideal types. Heteronomous-Separate self differs
from the Autonomous-Related self in behavioral autonomy but not in ideational autonomy. The
low level of behavioral autonomy is a more distinguishing characteristic of the HeteronomousSeparate self than its separateness. The levels of behavioral autonomy of the AutonomousRelated self and the Autonomous-Separate self types are also not different. Of the four ideal
types, the Heteronomous-Related and the Autonomous-separate selves are most clearly defined
with regard to contrasting high or low levels of both autonomy and relatedness scores, followed
by the Autonomous-Related ideal type, which demonstrates the compatibility of behavioral
autonomy with relatedness. The Heteronomous-Separate self is the least well defined ideal type,
nevertheless, it does manifest low levels of both behavioral autonomy and permeable self(Figure
27
2). Thus, cluster analyses produced configurations that fit with the conceptual distinctions made
by Kagitcibasi earlier (2005; 2007).
The distribution of the ideal types across the cultural groups is informative. As expected,
cultures that are known to be similar, have distributions of self construals that are similar. For
example, Germany and Belgium are characterized by a low proportion of autonomous related
self, whereas the Anglo American cultures are characterized by almost one-fifth of their samples
with this Ideal Type. More than one half of the sample from Hong Kong is characterized with
the Heteronomous-Separate self, an individual who keeps highly personal matters to
himself/herself and at the same time is influenced by the close others in his/her decisions,
expressed by low behavioral autonomy and low permeable self. While this picture does not quite
fit the general collectivistic stereotype, it is in line with research findings of low self disclosure
in Eastern cultures (Rime, Corsini & Herbette, 2002). Ideational autonomy being especially low
among the heteronomous-separate respondents in Hong Kong appears to reflect collectivistic
values and norms there. The profiles of the immigrant Turks in Europe differ from those in
Turkey, due, probably, to the influence of the host culture. The immigrants’ low level of related
and permeable self may be a reaction to the relatively restrictive parenting they experience in a
host culture of individualism and relatively lenient parenting (Gungor et al., 2008; Kagitcibasi &
Otyakmaz, 2006). Surprisingly, the proportions of Autonomous-Separate individuals in Belgium
and Germany were lower than in any other group. Possibly as a reaction to excessive
individualism and with the rise of post modern values, the changes in values toward a higher
level of relatedness in Western Europe have been noted in other studies, also (e.g. Georgas et al.,
2006; Inglehart, 2003).
28
The measures of autonomy and relatedness presented here are promising for use in
different socio-cultural contexts. However, the number of items in the scales is small, and
following the confirmatory factor analyses, the items of the subscales assessing sub-dimensions
were further reduced. In the future the measures need to be strengthened to target the
dimensions of autonomy and relatedness identified here. Many cultural groups were not
represented in the present study. This is a limitation, and there is a need for further studies in
more cultures and with more varied samples. Despite these limitations, conceptually meaningful
self construal patterns were empirically established in this study which future studies can explore
further.
In conclusion, research presented here provides us with new conceptualizations and
measures of autonomy and relatedness that show cross cultural validity. This research
reconfirms the need to disaggregate the construals of independent and interdependent self and
provides extensive empirical evidence to support a new perspective on the theory,
conceptualization and measurement of the self construals. The complexity of culture-self
dynamics defies simple depictions and requires more nuanced conceptualization and
operationalization. This study has aimed to do this task. The results substantially improve our
understanding of self in terms of the interaction between autonomy and relatedness. The
distinction of four types of self proposed by Kagitcibasi (2005, 2007) is now supported with
empirical evidence.
29
REFERENCES
Bentler, P. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
Beyers, W., Goossens, L., Vansant, I. & Moors, E. (2003). A structural model of autonomy in the middle
and late adolescence: Connectedness, separation, detachment, and agency. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 32, 351-365.
Browne, M. WW., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen, K. A., &
Long, J. S. (Eds.) Testing Structural Equation Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 136-162.
30
Blos, P. (1979). The adolescent passage. New York: International Universities Press.
Celenk, O. (2007). Adult attachment styles, autonomous-relational self and gender roles as mediators
between culture and relationship satisfaction for British and Turkish people. Master’s Thesis.
Brunel University.
Chirkov, V., Kim, Y., Ryan, R., Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from individualism and
independence: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization of cultural orientations
and well being, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 97-110.
Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., Morris, M. L. (2000). The Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal an
Relationships. , Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 791-808.
Cuhadaroglu, F. (1985). Ergenlerde benlik saygisi [Self-esteem in the adolescence]. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, Hacettepe University, Ankara.
Feldman, S. S., & Rosenthal, D. A. (1991). Age expectations of behavioral autonomy in Hong Kong,
Australian, and American youths: The influence of family variables and adolescents values.
International Journal of Psychology, 26, 1-23.
Georgas, J., Berry, J.W., Vijver van de, F., Kagitcibasi, C., Poortinga, Y.H. (Ed.) (2006) Families
across cultures: A 30 Nation psychological study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Greenfield, P.M., Keller, H., Fuligni, A., & Maynard, A. (2003). Cultural pathways through universal
development. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 461-90.
Gudykunst, W.B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., & Nishida, T. (1996). The influence of cultural
individualism-collectivism, self-construals, and individual values on communication styles
accross cultures. Human Communication Research, 22, 510-543.
Gungor, D., Phalet, K., & Kagitcibasi, C. (2008). Autonomy and Relatedness in Turkish, Belgian, and
Turkish-Belgian Adolescents: Extending the Model of Family Change to the Context of
31
Acculturation. Paper presented at the invited symposium “Autonomous-Related Self and Family
Change in Cultural Context“, 20th Biennial ISSBD Meeting, 13-17 July, Wurzburg, Germany.
Hardin, E. E., Leong, F. T. L., Bhagwat, A. A. (2004) Factor Sturucture of the Self-Construal Scale
Revisited: Implications for the Multidimensionality of Self-Construal. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 35, 327-345.
Hoffman, J. A. (1984). Psychological separation of late adolescents from their parents. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 31, 170-178.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences. Beverly Hills, California: SAGE.
Hui, C.H. & Yee, C. (1994). The shortened individualism-collectivism scale: Its
relationship to demographic and work related variables. Journal of Research in Personality, 28,
409-424.
Huiberts, A., Oosterwegel, A., Vandervalk, I., Vollebergh, W., & Meeus, W. (2006). Connectedness
with parents and behavioural autonomy among Dutch and Moroccan adolescents. Ethnic &
Racial Studies, 29(2), 315-330.
Inglehart, R. (2003) Human values and social change. Findings from the values surveys (International
Studies in Sociology and Social Anthropology). Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural perspective on
intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 349-366
Kagitcibasi, C. (1970). Social norms and authoritarianism: A Turkish-American comparison. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 16, 444-451.
Kagitcibasi, C. (1990). Family and socialization in cross-cultural perspective: A model of change. In J.
Berman (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives: Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1989 (pp. 135200), 37, Nebraska University Press.
32
Kagitcibasi, C. (1996). The autonomous-relational self: A new synthesis. European Psychologist, 1,
180-186.
Kagitcibasi, C. (1997). Individualism and collectivism. In J. W. Berry, M. H. Segall & C. Kagitcibasi
(Eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology (2nd ed.,vol 3, pp. 1-50). Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Kagitcibasi, C. (2005). Autonomy and Relatedness in Cultural Context. Implications for Self and
Family. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 403-422. Sage.
Kagitcibasi, C. (2007). Family, Self and Human Development Across Cultures: Theory and
Applications. (Revised Second Edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kagitcibasi, C. & Otyakmaz, B.O. (2006). “Autonomy and relatedness in immigration societies- A
comparison of German and Turkish-German university students”, paper presented at symposium
“Family Issues” at IACCP Congress, 11-15 July, Spetses, Greece:
Kashima, E. S., & Hardie, E. A. (2000). The development and validation of the relational, individual
and collective self-aspects (RIC) scale. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 19-48.
Killen, M. (1997). Culture, self, and development: Are cultural templates useful or stereotypic?
Developmental Review, 17, 239-249.
Kim, Y., Butzel, J. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1998). ‘Interdependence and well-being: A function of culture
and relatedness needs’. Paper presented at The International Society for the Study of Personal
Relationships, Saratoga Spring, NY.
Kitayama, S. (2002). Cultural and basic psychological process-toward a system view of culture:
Comment on Oyserman et al. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 189-196.
33
Kitayama, S., Duffy, S., Uchida Y., (2007) Self As Cultural Mode of Being. Handbook of Cultural
Psychology, 6,136-174, Guilford Press.
Kitayama, S., Markus, H.R., Kurokawa, M., Tummala, P., & Kato, K. (1991). Self-other similarity
judgments depend on culture. University of Oregon, Institute of Cognitive Decision Sciences,
Technical Report, No. 91-17.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY, US:
Guilford Press, 1998. xiv, 354 pp.
Kroger, J. (1998). Adolescence as a second separation-individuation process: Critical review of an
object relations approach. In E.E.A. Skoe & A.L.von der Lippe (Eds.), Personality development in
adolescence: A cross-national and life span perspective. Adolescence and society. (pp. 172-192).
New York: Routledge.
Kwak, K. (2003). Adolescents and their parents: A review of intergenerational family relations for
immigrant and non-immigrant families. Human Development, 46, 15-36.
Mahler, M., Pine, F., & Bergman, A. (1975). The psychological birth of the human infant. New York:
Basic Books).
Manzi, C., Vignoles, V.L., Regalia, C. & Scabini, E. (2006). Cohesion and enmeshment revisited:
Differentiation, identity, and well-being in two European cultures. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 68, 673-689.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and
motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2004). Models of agency: Sociocultural diversity in the construction
of action. In V.M.Berman & J.J.Berman (Eds.) Nebraska symposium on motivation: Crosscultural differences in perspectives on the self (Vol. 49, pp. 1-58). Nebraska: Nebraska
University Press.
34
Matsumoto, D. (1999). Culture and self: An empirical assessment of Markus and Kitayama’s theory
of independent and interdependent self-construal. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 289310.
Matsumoto, D., Weissman, M.D., Preston, K., Brown, B.R., & Kupperbusch, C. (1997). Contextspecific measurement of individualism-collectivism on the individual level: the individualismcollectivism interpersonal assessment inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 743767.
Meeus, W., Oosterweegel, A., & Vollebergh, W. (2002). Parental and peer attachment and identity
development in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 93-106.
Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Oishi, S. (2000). Goals as cornerstones of subjective well-being: Linking individuals and cultures. In E.
Diener & E. M. Suh (Eds.), Cross-cultural psychology of subjective well-being (pp.87-112). Boston: MIT
Press.
Oyserman, D., Kemmelmeier, M., Coon, H. (2002a). Rethinking individualism and collectivism:
Evaluation of Theoretical Assumptions and Meta-Analyses, Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72.
Raeff, C. (2004). Within-culture complexities: multifaceted and interrelated autonomy and
connectedness characteristics in late adolescent selves. In M.F. Mascolo & J. Li (Eds.), Culture
and Developing Selves: Beyond Dichotomization, 104, 61-79.
Rime, B., Corsini, S. & Herbette, G. (2002). Emotion, verbal expression, and the social sharing of
emotion. In S.R.Fussell (Ed.), The verbal communication of emotions: Interdisciplinary
perspectives (pp. 185-208). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rosenberg, M., (1965). Society and Adolescent self-image. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
35
Rothbaum, F., Pott, M., Azuma, H., Miyake, K., & Weisz, J. (2000a). The development of close
relationships in Japan and the United States: Paths of symbiotic harmony and generative tension.
Child Development, 71, 1121-1142.
Rothbaum, F., & Trommsdorff, G. (2007). Do roots and wings complement or oppose one another?
The socialization of relatedness and autonomy in cultural context. In J. Grusec and P. Hastings
(Eds.), The Handbook of Socialization. New York: Guilford
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Psychological Monographs, 80, Whole No.609, 1-28.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Grolnick, W. S. (1995). Autonomy, relatedness, and the Self: Their
relation to development and psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen. (Eds.),
Developmental psychopathology, 618-655. NY: Wiley.
Schimmack , U., Oishi, S., & Diener, E. (2005). Individualism: A valid and important dimension of
cultural differences between nations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(1), 17-31.
Schwarzer, R. & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In Weinman J., Wright S. and
Johnston M., Measures in health psychology: A user's portfolio. Causal and control beliefs, pp.
35-37. Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON.
Singelis, T.M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580-591.
Steinberg, L., & Silverberg, S. B. (1986). The vicissitudes of autonomy in early adolescence. Child
Development, 57, 841-851.
36
Takano, Y., & Osaka, E. (1999). An unsupported common view: Comparing Japan and the U.S. on
individualism/collectivism. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 311-341.
Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Triandis, H.C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M.J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and
collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 54, 323-338.
Uleman, J.S., Rhee, E., Bardoliwalla, N., Semin, G., Toyama, M. (2000) The relational self:
Closeness to ingroups depends on who they are, culture and the type of closeness. Asian Journal
of Social Psychology, 3, 1-17
Ward, J. H. (1963). Hierarchial grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American
Statistical Association, 58, 236.
Wu, A. D., Zhen, L. & Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Decoding the Meaning of Factorial Invariance and
Updating the Practice of Multi-group Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A Demonstration With
TIMSS Data. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 12(3), 1-26.
37
Table 1: The Factor Structures and Reliabilities of the Self - Scales
Factor
loadings
Autonomous Self Scale
1. People who are close to me have little influence on my decisions.
.56
2. I do not like a person to interfere with my life even if he/she is very close to me.
.55
3. I feel independent of the people who are close to me.
.54
4. I lead my life according to the opinions of people to whom I feel close. (R)
.65
5. The opinions of those who are close to me influence me on personal issues. (R)
.59
6. While making decisions, I consult with those who are close to me. (R)
.58
7. On personal issues, I accept the decisions of people to whom I feel very close. (R)
.57
8. I usually try to conform to the wishes of those to whom I feel very close. (R)
.68
9. I can easily change my decisions according to the wishes of those who are close to me. (R)
.63
% Variance explained
36
Cronbach alpha
.77
Related Self Scale
1. I need the support of persons to whom I feel very close.
.74
2. I prefer to keep a certain distance in my close relationships. (R)
.57
3. Generally, I keep personal issues to myself. (R)
.51
4. The people who are close to me strongly influence my personality.
.58
5. I think often of those to whom I feel very close.
.62
6. I do not worry about what people think of me even if they are close to me. (R)
.62
7. Those who are close to me are my top priority.
..46
8. My relationships to those who are close to me make me feel peaceful and secure.
.67
38
9. I do not share personal matters with anyone, even if very close to me. (R)
.51
% Variance explained
35
Cronbach alpha
.75
Autonomous-Related Self Scale
1. It is important to have both close relationships and also to be autonomous
.55
2. Even if the suggestions of those who are close are considered, the last decision should
.70
be one’s own
3. A person who has very close relationships cannot make his/her own decisions (R)
.57
4. A person should be able to oppose the ideas of those who are close
.63
5. Giving importance to the opinions of those who are close to me means ignoring my
.70
own opinions (R)
6. Being very close to someone prevents being independent (R)
.59
7. A person can feel both independent and connected to those who are close to him/her
.66
8. In order to be autonomous, one should not form close relationships (R)
.60
9. A person may be attached to those who are close, and at the same time, expect respect
.69
for any differences of opinion
% Variance explained
40
Cronbach alpha
.81
Note: (R) reversed item
39
Table 2: The demographic characteristics of the validation samples
Validation sample 1
Validation sample 2
University students
Less than university
education
Urban family background
92.3 %
90%
Grew up in a nuclear family
81.1 %
57.9 %
Both parents were at home while growing up
95.3 %
77.5 %
Number of siblings
2.6
3.5
Mother’s level of education
9.7 years
6.4 years
Mother worked while growing up
33.8 %
20.5 %
Father’s level of education
11.4 years
7.16 years
Father worked while growing up
97.3%
90.5 %
Level of religiosity (1-7)
3.8
4.7
40
Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations of the Scales (in parenthesis) in the validation
samples
Sample 1 1
Sample 2
Related Self
69.46 (15.07)
61.09 (16.23)
Autonomous Self2
51.57 (15.60)
51.37 (15.42)
Autonomous-Related Self
81.34 (13.43)
66.97 (15.68)
Internal Control Scale
84.02 (14.01)
73.86 (18.68)
The Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal Scale3
68.34 (14.89)
NA
General Perceived Self-Efficacy Scale
76.80 (13.87)
80.50 (15.68)
Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale
75.31 (14.42)
66.65 (15.60)
Family Control Scale
29.56 (19.58)
45.10 (22.39)
Family Affection Scale
69.20 (16.41)
66.26 (16.84)
Quality of Childhood Environment
76.67 (23.59)
70.36 (24.09)
Teen Timetable Scale
50.69 (15.31)
64.34 (17.33)
Notes:
1. All scale scores are converted to 0-100 scale for ease of interpretation.
2. All scale means were significantly different between the two samples, except for
the Autonomous Self score.
3. The RISC scale was not available for Sample 2.
41
Table 4: Mean Autonomous Self, Related Self and Autonomous –Related Self Scale
scores for groups defined as having low, medium or high values in characteristics predicted to be
associated with these self construals (Predicted Relationships).
Characteristics
Validation sample 1
Validation sample 2
Autonomous
Related
AR
Autonomous
Related
AR
Self
Self
Self
Self
Self
Self
Internal Control
Low
47.54 a
75.61 a
45.46a
58.17 a
Medium
49.40 a
82.54 b
51.40a
69.07 b
High
58.31 b
84.98 b
58.95b
73.78 b
Relational-Interdependent
Self Constural
Low
58.06a
77.98 a
Medium
70.07b
80.66 a
High
80.89c
86.00 b
Self-Efficacy
48.08a
78.58 a
53.12
60.36 a
51.30a,b
81.80 a,b
49.74
69.12 b
High
55.31b
83.40 b
53.84
71.70 b
Low
48.01a
75.84 a
49.43a
60.19 a
Medium
52.67b
81.78 b
52.62a
71.24 b
Low
Medium
Self-Esteem
42
High
54.98b
85.76 b
61.04b
77.22 b
Family Affection
Low
66.87
79.36 a
57.02
62.03 a
Medium
70.09
81.09 a,b
62.26
68.35 a,b
High
71.27
84.22 b
64.06
70.18 b
Family Control
Low
Medium
High
Quality of Childhood
Environment
54.51a
87.07 a
57.43a
71.12 a
51.56a,b
81.09 b
50.52a,b
68.19 a
48.22b
76.42 c
47.18b
60.31 b
F
3.477
3.149
10.813
11.738
Low
65.89a
78.93 a
54.98a
61.01 a
Medium
69.02a,b
81.05 a,b
59.90a
65.16 a
High
71.37b
83.38 b
69.95b
75.75 b
Teen Timetable
Low
58.35a
84.33 a
57.95a
67.31
Medium
50.48b
82.12 a
51.01a,b
68.47
High
47.78b
76.26 b
48.69b
66.37
Note: mean scores with different subscripts within each validation sample indicate
significant differences at p < .05
43
Table 5: Student Samples of the Cross-Cultural Study
N
Gender %
Age
F
M
Mean (SD)
Range
Belgium
131
45
55
18.07 (9.54)
17-21
Germany
94
72
28
22.26 (1.74)
18-25
Hong Kong
128
57
43
20.06 (1.13)
18-23
Turkey
468
62.4
37.6
20.43 (1.62)
17-25
218
60
40
19.27 (1.81)
17-25
UK
88
73.9
26.1
19.75 (1.53)
18-25
USA
173
75.3
24.7
19.77 (1.18)
18-23
Total
1300
62.8
37.2
19.96 (1.78)
17-25
Immigrant Turks
in Europe
44
Table 6. The goodness of fit of the nested models testing the measurement invariance of
the four constructs of interest.
Invariance of the Factor
Structure
Invariance of the Factor Loadings
Likeli
hood
Construct
Ratio
Likelihood
Df
CFI
12.3 14
1.00
44.2 33
RMSEA
Diff.
Ratio
Df
CFI
RMSEA
CFI
.00
31.6
29
1.00
.02
.00
0.98
.04
71.3
54
0.97
.04
.01
45.9 34
0.99
.04
76.9
57
0.98
.04
.01
21.4 14
0.99
.05
41.2
30
0.98
.05
.01
Behavioral
Autonomy (i)
Ideational
Autonomy (ii)
Related Self (iii)
Permeable Self
(iv)
Note: CFI: Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA: Root Mean Square Error
Item numbers (from Table 1) of the Constructs: (i): Autonomous self4, 7, 8, 9; (ii): Autonomous
self1, 2, 3, 5, 6; (iii): Related self 1, 4, 5, 7, 8; (iv): Related self 2, 3, 6, 9
45
Table 7. Correlations between the latent constructs of behavioral autonomy, ideational
autonomy, related self, and permeable self.
Ideational
Related
Permeable
Autonomy
Self
Self
.87
-.69
-.34
-.83
-.83
Belgium
Behavioral Autonomy
Ideational Autonomy
Related Self
.79
Germany
Behavioral Autonomy
.64
Ideational Autonomy
-.40
-.06
-.91
-.78
Related Self
.78
Hong Kong
Behavioral Autonomy
.83
Ideational Autonomy
-.50
-.13
-1.00
-.76
Related Self
.40
Turkey
Behavioral Autonomy
.62
Ideational Autonomy
-.43
-.14
-.79
-.62
Related Self
.57
Immigrant Turks in Europe
Behavioral Autonomy
.63
-.76
-.31
46
Ideational Autonomy
-.67
Related Self
-.96
.57
UK
Behavioral Autonomy
.55
Ideational Autonomy
-.25
-.03
-.97
-.79
Related Self
.62
USA
Behavioral Autonomy
Ideational Autonomy
Related Self
.69
-.34
.05
-.90
-.60
.62
47
Table 8. The means and standard deviations of the autonomy and relatedness scores of
the four “ideal types” of self: the results of the cluster analysis.
Behavioral
Ideational
Related
Permeable
Autonomy
Autonomy
Self
Self
Ideal Type I
3.86
2.63
4.14
3.90
Autonomous Related Self
(0.43)
(0.54)
(0.37)
(0.47)
Ideal Type II
2.74
2.60
3.95
3.26
Heteronomous Separate Self
(0.47)
(0.46)
(0.44)
(0.48)
Ideal Type III
2.80
1.96
4.46
4.28
Heteronomous Related Self
(0.55)
(0.41)
(0.35)
(0.43)
Ideal Type IV
3.78
3.15
3.38
2.73
Autonomous Separate Self
(0.61)
(0.60)
(0.65)
(0.66)
N
240
437
265
358
48
Table 9. Distribution of the four Ideal Types of self in seven cultural groups
Ideal Type I
Ideal Type II
Ideal Type III
Ideal Type IV
Autonomous
Heteronomous
Heteronomous
Autonomous
Related Self
Separate Self
Related Self
Separate Self
Belgium
8.4%
44.3%
27.5%
19.8%
Germany
10.6%
36.2%
38.3%
14.9%
Hong Kong
10.2%
53.1%
10.9%
25.8%
Turkey
27.6%
23.3%
18.8%
30.3%
11.9%
42.7%
14.2%
31.2%
Kingdom
19.3%
28.4%
20.5%
31.8%
USA
19.7%
28.9%
24.3%
27.2%
Total
18.5%
33.6%
20.4%
27.5%
Immigrant
Turks in
Europe
United
49
Figure 1. The mean Autonomous-Related Self scores for individuals grouped by quintile
scores in Autonomous Self and Related Self scales in validation sample 1
…………
50
Figure 2. Mean standard autonomy and relatedness scores (z-scores) of four Ideal Types
of self
51