ALEMANIA

(Singelis 1994)

Construct:

Independent self-construal is defined as a “bounded, unitary, stable” self that is

separate from social context. The constellation of elements composing an independent self-construal includes an emphasis on (a) internal abilities, thoughts, and feelings, (b) being unique and expressing the self, (c) realizing internal attributes and promoting one's own goals, and (d) being direct in communication. An interdependent self- construal is defined as a “flexible, variable” self that emphasizes (a) external, public features such as statuses, roles, and relationships, (b) belonging and fitting in, (c) occupying one's proper place and engaging in appropriate action, and (d) being indirect in communication and “reading others’ minds” (Singelis 1994, p. 581). The focus then is on the degree to which individuals see themselves as separate or connected with others (Markus and Kitayama 1991). As Singelis (1994, p. 582) summarizes, collectivist cultures encourage development of cognitions that refer to groups as collective,

whereas individualist cultures nurture cognitions that refer to the individual's traits and states. These constructs have been used frequently in consumer research (e.g., Escalas and Bettman 2005; Ferraro, Bettman, and Chatrand 2009; Zhang and Khare 2009).

Description:

The combined factors are labeled the self-construal scale (SCS). The measures of interdependent and independent self-construals consist of 12 items for each construct. Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement with the items in a 7-point Likert

scale format (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). Item scores are averaged to represent scores for the measures of interdependent and independent self-construals.

Development:

Forty-five items designed to be appropriate for normal student experiences were developed from a review of prior related measures and by the author. Multiple factor analysis results and the interpretation of factor loadings were used to select the final scale items. Items were selected if loadings from tests of varimax and oblique two- factor solutions were below 0.35 and/or loaded equally on the two factors (Singelis 1994, p. 584). The coefficient alpha estimates of internal consistency reliability for the interdependent and independent self-construal measures were 0.73 and 0.69 for the Sample 1 set of responses, respectively. The corresponding estimates for Sample 2 were 0.74 and 0.70. The correlations between the two scales were -0.04 for Sample 1 and 0.16 for Sample 2.

Samples:

Sample 1 consisted of 364 undergraduate students from the University of Hawaii (57% female). Sample 2 consisted of 160 students from the same university.

Validity:

Confirmatory factor analysis was used to confirm the two-factor model structure. Evidence of acceptable fit was presented for a two-factor almost orthogonal structure. As explained briefly below, a series of mean scores between ethnic groups offered evidence of validity. That is, group mean scores were consistent with Markus and Kitayama's (1991) characterizations of Asians as interdependent and North Americans as independent (Singelis 1994, p. 587). Other group comparisons provided support for the measures. Evidence from the minimal correlations between the two factors in both studies was offered as support for minimal concerns regarding acquiescence bias. Evidence of predictive validity was provided from a series of correlations with scenario

analyses in which the scales predicted better than ethnic group alone. Other supportive results regarding predictions of situational attributions were also reported. For example, Asian Americans and those with higher interdependence scores tended to attribute more influence to situational effects than Caucasian Americans and those with lower independence (Singelis 1994, p. 587).

Scores:

[p. 50 _↓ ] Each dimension was said to be normally distributed in both samples. In

Sample 1, the means (and standard deviations) for the independent and interdependent dimensions were 4.68 (0.73) and 4.79 (0.76), respectively. For Sample 2, the

corresponding estimates were 4.83 (0.75) and 4.84 (0.80). In both samples, Asian Americans were more interdependent than Caucasian Americans. The reverse pattern of means occurred for the independence measure of self-construal. Other mean scores across ethnic groups are reported as well.

Source:

Singelis, Theodore (1994), “The Measurement of Independent and Interdependent Self- Construals,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20 (May), 580–91.

References:

Escalas, Jennifer Edson and James R. Bettman (2005), “Self Construal, Reference Groups, and Brand Meaning,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (3), 378–89. Ferraro, Rosellina, James R. Bettman, and Tanya L. Chartrand (2009), “The Power of Strangers: The Effect of Incidental Consumer Brand Encounters on Brand Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (5), 729–41.

Markus, H. R. and S. Kitayama (1991), “Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation,” Psychological Review, 98, 224–53.

Zhang, Yinlong and Adwait Khare (2009), “The Impact of Accessible Identities on the Evaluation of Global Versus Local Products,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (3), 524–37.

[p. 51 _↓ ]

Independent and Interdependent Self-

Construals

(Singelis 1994)

Interdependent

• I have respect for the authority figures with whom I interact. • It is important for me to maintain harmony within my group. • My happiness depends on the happiness of those around me. • I would offer my seat in a bus to my professor.

• I respect people who are modest about themselves.

• I will sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of the group I am in.

• I often have the feeling that my relationships with others are more important than my own accomplishments.

• I should take into consideration my parents’ advice when making education/ career plans.

• It is important for me to respect decisions made by the group.

• I will stay in a group if they need me, even when I'm not happy with the group.

• If my brother or sister fails, I feel responsible.

• Even when I strongly disagree with group members, I avoid an argument. Independent

• I'd rather say “no” directly than risk being misunderstood. • Speaking up during class is not a problem for me.

• Having a lively imagination is important to me.

• I am comfortable being singled out for praise or rewards. • I am the same person at home that I am at school.

• Being able to take care of myself is a primary concern for me. • I act the same way no matter who I am with.

• I feel comfortable using someone's first name soon after I meet them, even when they are much older than I am.

• I prefer to be direct and forthright when dealing with people I've just met. • I enjoy being unique and different from others in many respects.

• My personal identity, independent of others, is very important to me. • I value being in good health above everything.

Notes: Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement with the items in a 7-point Likert scale format (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree).

[p. 52 _↓ ]

Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and