Self-Construal Scale

Factor: Power and Autonomy

Age: Teen, Adult

Duration: 3-5 minutes

Reading Level: 6th-8th grade

What

Cultural psychologist Ted Singelis (1994) developed the 30-item Self-Construal Scale to measure how people view themselves in relation to others.

Who

Researchers have used the Self-Construal Scale with teens and adults from a wide range of socioeconomic, ethnic, and national backgrounds, including Americans of African, Asian, European, Latinx, Native, and Pacific Islander heritages who live on a low income or are working-class.

How

INSTRUCTIONS

Using a 7-point rating scale (1= strongly disagree; 4 = neither agree or disagree; 7 = strongly agree), respondents indicate how much they agree with 30 statements about themselves. Fifteen items measure how much the respondent sees their self as separate, unique, and independent from others (e.g., “I act in the same way no matter who I am with.”), while 15 items measure how much the respondent sees their self as connected, similar, and interdependent with others (e.g., “I often have the feeling that my relationships with others are more important than my own accomplishments.”)

Researchers then calculate two scores for each respondent: their average rating of the independent subscale items and their average rating of the interdependent subscale items. Most people have a sense of themselves as both independent and interdependent. But depending on their cultural backgrounds or the given situation, people tend to emphasize one self-construal more than the other (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Markus & Conner, 2014).

RESPONSE FORMAT

1 = strongly disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = a little disagree; 4 = neither agree or disagree; 5 = a little agree; 6 = somewhat agree; 7 = strongly agree.

Why It Matters

Factors related to social mobility can both cause and result from people’s self-construals. For instance, research shows that wealthier people, more educated people, European-Americans, and people in power see themselves as more independent; while poorer people, less educated people, Americans of color, and people with less power tend to see themselves as more interdependent (Conner Snibbe & Markus, 2005; Conner & Markus, 2012; Fernández, Paez, & González, 2005; Lee & Tiedens; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Having an independent self-construal, in turn, causes people to act more impulsively, competitively, and selfishly — behaviors that help individuals get and keep higher social status (Magee & Galinsky, 2008).

Meanwhile, having an interdependent self-construal causes people to act more deliberately, collaboratively, and ethically (Cojuharenco, et al., 2012; Konrath, Bushman, & Grove, 2009; Utz, 2004; Zhang & Shrum, 2008). These behaviors may not propel individuals as much as do more independent behaviors. Yet research suggests that groups of more interdependent people are often more successful than are groups of more independent people (Bell, 2007; Woolley, et al., 2010). These findings suggest that priming independent self-construals may boost individual mobility, but priming interdependent self-construals may boost community mobility.

HEADS UP

Relationships between self-construals and social mobility may vary by culture. For instance, healthy eating is both a cause and a consequence of mobility (Sobal, 1991). In the United States, eating a healthy diet is associated with an independent self-construal. But in Japan, eating a healthy diet is associated with an interdependent self-construal (Levine, 2016). Researchers using the Self-Construal Scale should interpret their results with care.

References

Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 595.

Cojuharenco, I., Shteynberg, G., Gelfand, M., & Schminke, M. (2012). Self-construal and unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(4), 447-461.

Fernández, I., Paez, D., & González, J. L. (2005). Independent and interdependent self-construals and socio-cultural factors in 29 nations. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 18(1), 35-63.

Konrath, S., Bushman, B. J., & Grove, T. (2009). Seeing my world in a million little pieces: Narcissism, self‐construal, and cognitive–perceptual style. Journal of Personality, 77(4), 1197-1228.

Lee, F., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2001). 2. Is it lonely at the top?: The independence and interdependence of power holders. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 43-91.

Levine, C. S., Miyamoto, Y., Markus, H. R., Rigotti, A., Boylan, J. M., Park, J., … & Love, G. D. (2016). Culture and healthy eating: The role of independence and interdependence in the United States and Japan. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(10), 1335-1348.

Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self‐reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 351-398.

Markus, H. R., & Conner, A. L. (2014). Clash! How to thrive in a multicultural world. New York: Plume.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.

Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580–591.

Sobal, J. (1991). Obesity and socioeconomic status: A framework for examining relationships between physical and social variables. Medical Anthropology, 13(3), 231-247.

Utz, S. (2004). Self-construal and cooperation: Is the interdependent self more cooperative than the independent self? Self and Identity, 3(3), 177-190.

Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330(6004), 686-688.

Zhang, Y., & Shrum, L. J. (2008). The influence of self-construal on impulsive consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(5), 838-850.