8.3.1 Similarities and differences
The starting point for this research was to identify dimensions of cultural orientations and investigate how cultural groups differ on these dimensions. Hence, from the outset I aimed to investigate cultural variation and difference. In psychology, such an approach has in many ways been a worthwhile endeavour—focusing on cultural variation has highlighted the problems with simply importing Western theories to non- Western contexts and it has brought attention to the value of indigenous research. The fact that this quest for difference gave non-Western researchers a voice and a way to challenge the hegemony of Western research traditions made it a prominent aim of cross-cultural and cultural psychology. However, this search for difference could also be seen as problematic. It involves the construction of ‘the Other’, either as different
and inferior based on colonialist traditions, or different and surprise superior based on orientalist traditions (Burman, 2007). This ‘Other’ is normally measured against a Western standard and it is constructed as strange and exotic. The discourse of difference runs the risk of reifying, essentialising, and homogenizing cultures. Moreover, focusing on purely ‘cultural’ differences may obscure other factors, such as differences in power and affluence, an argument which relates to Adams et al.’s (2012) point above that separating these things may not always be helpful.
Questions have started to be raised regarding whether this focus on difference is justified in cross-cultural psychology (Poortinga, 2012). Arguments for a more careful consideration of ‘difference’ refer to the fact that normally only about 10-12% of variance of cultural orientation measures is found at the cultural level (Fischer, 2012). However, perhaps discussions about when a difference is large enough to be considered meaningful should focus on whether the differences matter. As noted in Section 6.3.2, even small nation-level differences have been shown to meaningfully predict
psychological outcomes (Becker et al., 2012; Gheorghiu et al., 2009). At the same time, our research agendas (as well as publication practices) should equally allow for quests for difference and similarity, cultural uniqueness and universality. Moreover, rather than a blind search for difference, we need to be better at developing theory of why we would expect differences or similarities in specific areas. The present research into antecedents of self-construal provides a small step in that direction by identifying factors which appear to produce differences.
8.3.2 Can we really measure the self?
Self-construals are often defined as “how individuals see the self in relation to others” (Cross et al., 2011, p. 143). Thus, the core idea refers to self-perceptions—the
image in our mind of who we are. Nonetheless, a closer inspection of the items used in the present research as well as the more traditional scales reveal a wide range of items, including behaviours, preferences, emotions, values, as well as self-perceptions. Thus, the way self-construals are most often operationalised is closer to Singelis’ (1994, p. 581) definition of self-construals as “a constellation of thoughts, feelings, and actions concerning one’s relationship to others, and the self as distinct from others”. One reason for operationalising self-construals in this way is practical. Experience of working with such a large number of translations and some semi-literate groups highlighted the need for straightforward and concrete language and concepts, which makes it difficult to capture the idea of self-perceptions. If the goal is to put together a measure that can be used in a range of different cultural contexts, the present thesis suggests it needs to be based on concepts that are relatively easy and straightforward to grasp. Nonetheless, theoretically this opens up questions about what we are actually measuring. Is it really constructions of the self, or is it their manifestations and consequences? The question then arises—can we ever measure the self? And can these things really be separated? As hinted to above, this thesis adopted a very pragmatic approach to this question. At the same time it recognises that there is a lot of scope in investigating this issue further, which may require a multimethod approach (see below in section 8.4.1). This also raises the question of whether self-construal is the best label for these constructs. In fact, Markus and Kitayama (1991) had originally chosen the wording ‘modes of being’ and ‘modes of operating’, but reviewers thought such terms sounded awkward and advised them to change them (Markus & Kitayama, 2003). Considering the difficulties in measuring the self and the lack of clarity around these constructs, it may be more constructive to broaden the terminology more in line with Markus and Kitayama’s original idea.
8.3.3 Issues of representativeness and comparability
Throughout the thesis I have brought attention to the fact that our samples were not representative of their nations, nor were they matched on specific criteria (with the exception of being students in Study 1, 3 and 6). It is possible that this may have influenced the pattern of results. Nonetheless, it is worth reiterating that analyses controlled for the compositional differences of our samples in terms of gender, age and subjective wealth in Study 5. Moreover, in many nations we sampled more than one cultural group in order to increase the diversity of our samples. Considering that a large proportion of cross-cultural research is conducted using undergraduate student samples, this can be considered a strength of this research. The fact that I found meaningful cross-cultural patterns and meaningful effects of external nation-level indices in spite of not having representative or comparable samples further speaks to the adequacy of this approach. Sampling different groups within a culture does not necessarily pose a problem to the validity of a nation-level analysis. As noted in Chapter 1, Section 1.1.4, Minkov and Hofstede (2011) demonstrated that regional groups within nations tended to cluster together and did not tend to cluster with groups from other nations. Nonetheless, future research should attempt to use representative samples in order to be able to draw more firm conclusions.