Cultural Differences in the Relation between Self-discrepancy and Life ...

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 1997, 32 (6), 387± 398

Cultural Differences in the Relation between Selfdiscrepancy and Life Satisfaction Phanikiran Radhakrishnan U niversity of Texas at El Paso, U SA

Darius K.-S. Chan Chinese U niversity of H ong K ong, Hong K ong

Cultural differences in the relation between self-discrepancy and subjective w ell-being were examined. Participants from India (N = 54) and the United States (N = 55) listed 10 goals they set for the mselves and their parents set for them. They rated the importance of ow n and parental goals from their ow n and their parents’ perspectiv e. They also complete d measures of c ollectivism and w ell-being. Americans, who w ere less collectivistic than Indians, rated their own goals to be more important than their parents’ goals for them, w hereas Indians regarded their own and their parents’ goals as e qually important. Americans’ we ll-being w as predicted by discrepancies between own and pare ntal ratings on personal goals. However, discrepancies betw een own and pare ntal ratings on parental goals w ere predictive of Indians’ w ell-being. Theoretical implications of these ® nding s are discussed. Cette eÂ tude examine les diffeÂ rences culturelles entre l’ incompatibliteÂ du soi et le bien-eÃ tre subjectif. Des participants de l’ Inde (N = 54) et des EÂtats -Unis (N = 55) eÂ numeÁ rent 10 objectifs qu’ ils se sont ® xeÂ s eux-meÃ mes et que leurs parents leur ont ® xeÂ s. Ils eÂ valuent l’ importance de leurs propres objectifs et ceux ® xeÂ s par leurs parents en fonction de leur propre point de vue et de celui de leurs pare nts. Ils remplissent aussi des questionnaires sur le collectivisme et sur le bie n-eÃ tre. Les participants des EÂtats-Unis, qui se sont aveÂ reÂ s moins collectivistes que les participants indiens, eÂ valuent leurs propres objectifs comme plus importants que c eux ® xeÂ s pour eux par leurs parents tandis que les participants indiens consideÁ rent leurs propres objectifs et ceux ® xeÂ s par leurs pare nts c omme eÂ galement importants. Le bien-eÃ tre des participants des EÂ tats-Unis est preÂ dit par les inc ompatibiliteÂ s entre les eÂ valuations de leurs propres objectifs et les eÂ valuations des objec tifs ® xeÂ s par les pare nts. Cependant, chez les participants indiens, le bien-eÃ tre est preÂ dit par les inc ompatibiliteÂ s entre leurs propres eÂ valuations et les eÂ valuations parentales des objectifs ® xeÂ s par les parents.

The study of the various aspects of the self-concept has a long history in psycholog y (Lecky , 1961; Mead, 1934). R esearchers distinguish between the social self (i.e. an individual ’ s perceptions of w hat others believe him/her to be; Lecky, 1961 ; Mead, 1934 ) and the private selfconcepts (i.e. an individual ’ s perceptions of himself/herself; Greenw ald & Pratkanis , 1984).

Em pirical research conducted primarily w ithin the United State s suggests that a multi-faceted view of the se lf can be useful in predicting how self-discrepancies affect emotions (Higgins, 1987 ; Lecky, 1961; Mead, 1934) . Some researchers have argued that the social and the private se lfconcepts can also explain cultural differences in cognition and e motion (Markus & Kitayama,

Requests for reprints should be addressed to Phanikiran Radhakrishnan, Department of Psychology, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX 79968, USA (email: [email protected]) or to Darius K.-S. Chan, Department of Psychology, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong (email: b062712@ mailserv.cuhk.edu.hk). We would like to thank the following for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript: Harry Triandis, members of the cross-cultural research group at the University of Illinois, Stephan Ahadi, Sandra Carpenter, Ed Diener, Shigeh Oishi, and Ulrich Schimmack. We are grateful to Roger Shaw and Rita Sharma for assisting in data collection and management in the USA and to Y. Radhakrishnan for collecting data in India. Part of this paper was presented at the 12th Congress of Cross-Cultural Psychology, held in Pamplona, Spain, in July 1994.

Ó

199 7 International Union of Psycholog ical Science

38 8

RADHAKRISH NAN AND CHAN

19 91; Triandis, 1989). We integrated the ories of culture and the self (Triandis , 1989) and se lf-discrepancy (Higgins, 19 87) to inve stigate how selfdiscrepanc y affec ted w ell-being (Diener, 1984 ) across different cultures.

CULTURE AND THE SELF Theories employing the self-c oncept to explain cultural difference s in cognition and emotion distinguis h betw een a private and a collective selfconce pt (Triandis, 1989 ; cf. independent and interdependent self c onstrual , Markus & Kitayama, 19 91). The private self-concept contains information about an individual ’ s preferences (e.g . `Ì w ish to be a doctor’ ’ ) and motivates that individua l to ac t in accordance w ith those preferences. On the other hand, the collective self contains information about ingroup norms (e.g. ``My parents believe that I should be an engineer’ ’ ) and motivates that individual to ac t in accordance w ith those norms (Triandis , 1989 ; see also Greenw ald & Pratkanis , 19 84). People from different cultures differ in the extent to w hich their collective or their private self-concepts are more salient to them (Triandis , 19 89). Those from collectivistic cultures (e.g. China, India, etc.) have highly salient collective self-concepts, w hereas those from individuali stic cultures (e.g. United States, France, etc.) have highly salient private self-concepts (Tra® mow , Triandis , & Goto, 1991; see also Gudykunst, Yang-Seung, & Nishida, 1987; Hofstede, 1980; Oyserman, 1993). The increased salie nce of a particular type of self-concept leads to cultural differences in information processing (Triandis , 19 89) and em otional reactions (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). For example, an increased focus on the private self-conc ept leads to more distinctions betwe en the self and others whereas an increased focus on the collective self-concept leads to more distinctions betw een in-groups and out-groups (Triandis , 19 88; see also Oyserman, 19 93). Such distinctions in turn lead to cultural differences in social relations (Fiske, 1992) , inter-group perceptions (Lee, 19 93; Radhakrishnan , 1994; Triandis , McCusker, & Hui, 1990), and negotiation behaviours (Chan, Triandis , Carnevale, Tam, & B ond, 1996). This paper examined how the increased salience of the collective or the private self-c oncept led to differences in emotional responses to con¯ ict between the tw o. To do this, w e examined ow n and par-

ental goal s as instances of the private and collective self-conce pts. Goals have bee n regarded as part of the selfconcept by several theorists (Higgins, 1987; Markus & Wurf, 1987 ; Triandis , 1989). In fact, Triandis regards goal s as operationali zations of the self: the private self-concept can be examined in terms of the individual ’ s goal s for him/he rself and the collective self concept can be studied in terms of the in-group’ s goals . Similarly , in his self-discrepancy theory Higgins (1987) de® nes the id eal self as that w hich contains goals and aspirations for the individual . Higgins also characterizes the self in terms of standpoints or perspec tives. Standpoints of the se lf spe cify whose aspirations or represe ntations are being considered when de® ning a self-domain. For instance, the self can be described in terms of the individual’ s own aspirations for him/herself, or an impo rtant othe r’ s aspiration s for the individual . In this way, Higgins de® nes the ideal/ow n self as the individual ’ s aspiration s for him/herself, and the id eal/other self as an important other’ s hopes and aspirations for the individual . Higgins ’ de® nition of the important other is similar to Triandis’ de® nition of the in-group, so Higgins’ own and other perspectives can be mapped onto Triandis’ de® nitions of the private (as that w hich contains the individual ’ s ow n preferences) and collective (as that w hich contains the in-group’ s preference s) self-concepts respectively. In sum, theories of the se lf regard goals as instances of the self (Higgins, 1987; Markus & Wurf, 1987 ; Triandis , 1989 ) and provide meaningful distinctions be tw een personal and in-group goal s (Higgins, 1987; Triandis , 1989). Therefore, we examined personal and parental goal s as instances of the private and collective self-concepts and ideal/ow n and ideal/other selves. Participants listed and rated the importance of goals they had for themselves and those that their parents had for them. And since culture and self theories (e.g. Triandis, 1989) predicted cultural differences in the salience of self-concepts, w e investigated cultural differences in goals.

Cultural Differences in Goals Theorists argue that cultural differences in the salience of the private and collective self-concepts (Tra® mow et al., 1991) are primarily due to cultural differences in values: Collectivistic cultures emphasize group values w hereas indivi dualisti c ones focus on individua l preferences

SELF-DISCREPANCY AND LIFE SATISFACTION

(Triandis , 1989). Not surprisingl y, collectivists gave more importanc e to the social aspects of their self-concepts, w hereas individuali sts gave more importance to the psychologi cal aspects of their self-conce pts (Van-den-Heuval , Tellegen, & Koomen, 1992). Similarly (Triandis , 1989, p. 509), `ìndividua lists give priority to personal goal s over the goal s of the collective; collectivists either make no distinctions betw een personal and collective goals , or if they do make suc h distinctions, they subordinate their personal goal s to the collective goals.’ ’ Thus, collectivists and individuali sts differ not only in the relative salience of their collective and private self-concepts but also in how important they regard the contents of these self-concepts. Althoug h there is theoretical speculation (Triandis, 19 89) and indirect empirical evidence (Iw ao & Triandis , 1993; Schw artz & Billsky , 1990) regarding cultural differences in the relativ e importance of ow n vs. collective goals , there is no direct empirical evidence. In the current study we examined cultural differences in the importance placed on the contents of the private (i.e. personal goals ) and collective (i.e. in-group goals ) self-concepts. We predicted that individuali sts should regard pe rsonal goal s as more important than in-group goals , w hereas collectivists should regard in-group goals as more important than personal goal s or make no such distinctions (Hypothesis 1). If goal s are regarded as instances of the selfconcept, then it is important to consider their content. Individual s from different cultures differ in w hether they articulate the contents of their self-concepts in abstract vs. concrete terms and in social vs. personal terms. For instance, Japanese w ere more likely to describe themselves in concrete terms whereas Americans described themselves in abstract terms (Cousins, 19 89; see also B ond & Cheung, 1983; Lalljee & Angelova, 1995). Similarly , Shw eder and Bourne (1984) found that descriptions of close acquaintances provided by Indians w ere more concrete and contextually quali® ed than those provided by Americans (see also Miller, 1984; Miller & Bersoff, 1994; Miller & Luthar, 1989) . Further, individual s from different cultures also differed in the extent to w hich their self-concepts w ere socially or personall y de® ned. Self-descriptions provided by collectivists w ere m ore socially oriented (i.e. referred to soc ial groups that individuals belong ed to) w hen com pared to those provided by indivi dualists (Bochner, 1994; Dhaw an, Roseman,

389

Naidu, & Rettek, 1995; Lalljee & Angelova, 19 95; Triandis et al., 1990) . Because individual s from different cultures differ in the content of the descriptions of their self-concepts, w e expected that the content of their personal and in-group goal s should also differ. We predicted that collectivists’ personal and parental goal s should be m ore concrete and more interpersonall y oriented, w hereas individualists ’ goal s should be more abstract and personall y focused (Hypothesis 2).

GOALS AND SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING Goal-dis crepancies are similar to self-discrepancies in their effects. Just as there is a potential for con¯ ict among various aspects of the self (Higgins, B ond, Kle in, & Strauman, 1986; Higgins, Klein, & Strauman, 1985; Markus & Nurius, 19 86) and a motivation to maintain consistency betw een them (Epstein, 19 82; Lecky, 1961), there is a potential for con¯ ict among goal s and a m otivation to reduce the discrepancy betw een them (Emmons, 1986 ; Higgins, 1987; Palys & Little, 19 83; Pervin, 1983) . R esearch relating goal s and subjective w ell-being indicates that goal type (Emmons, 1992; Little, 19 89; Palys & Little, 19 83; R eich & Zautra, 1983), goal importance (Emmons, 1986; Emm ons & Diener, 1986 ; Em mons & King, 1988), and goal discrepancy (Emmons & King, 1988; Higgins , 19 87; Higgins et al., 19 85, 1986) all in¯ uence affect. Speci® cally, research suggests that harmony betw een goal s was related to increased subjective w ellbeing (Emmons, 1986; Emmons & King, 19 88), w hereas goal con¯ ict w as associated with negative affect (Emmons, 1986; Emmons & King, 19 88), anxiety, depression (Pervin, 1983) , and decreased life satisfaction (Paly s & Little, 19 83). Some studies of goal con¯ ict (Em mons, 1986 ; Em mons & King, 1988) de® ne goal con¯ ict w ithout regard to the source of the goal: They are primaril y c oncerned w ith how con¯ ict betw een and within goals (e.g. how a goal to be a musician can con¯ ict w ith a goal to be an e ngineer) affects subjective w ell-being. How ever, it is important to de® ne goal con¯ ict in terms of its source (e.g. how a personal goal con¯ icts w ith an in-group goal ) and examine its effects. When goal s were characterized in terms of their sources, con¯ ict betw een goal s (i.e. between an individual ’ s personal goal s and an important other’ s goal s for that individual ) w as associated w ith feelings of shame, embarrassment (Higgins, 1987), and social anxi-

39 0


ety (Sanchez & Sanz, 1992; se e also Ruehlman & Wolchik, 1988). In sum, examining goal con¯ ict in terms of its source predicts emotional outcomes. Therefore, in the current study we examined how discrepancies betw een own and in-group perspective on ow n and in-group goal s predicted subjective w ellbeing. Participants rated the importance of their personal goal s from their ow n and their parents’ perspective. They also rated the importance of their parental goals from their own and their parents’ perspective. Discrepancies be tw een personal and parental rating s for personal and parental goals w ere the n related to subjective w ell-being. We predicte d that ow n and parental goal con¯ ict (i.e. discrepancies betw een ow n and parental perspective ratings ) should have a negativ e effect on subjective w ell-being (Hypothesis 3).

Culture and Goal-Discrepancy Examining goal con¯ ict in terms of its source can also be useful in predicting how individual s from different cultures react to goal con¯ ict. Self-discrepancy theory use s the concept of perspectives to distinguis h betw een own and an important other’ s goal s and pre dicts that behaviour can be motivated by individuals ’ own goal s and by goal s they perceive im portant others as having for them (Higgins, 1987) . Further, it also predicts that discrepancies betw een ow n and an important other’ s goals should be related to shame and embarrassment (Higgins, 1987). However, self-discrepancy theory does not consider individua l differences in the emphasis placed on own vs. the important other’ s perspective . This is because research conducted under the auspice s of the self-discrepancy theory (Higgins e t al., 1985 , 1986) has examined the consequences of self-discrepancies for participants from individuali stic cultures w ho consider their ow n perspec tive to be more important than those articulated by important others. Self-discrepancy theory has not been appli ed to predict how participants from collectivistic cultures, w ho place more importance on their ingroup’ s perspective, or place equal importance to their ow n and their in-group’ s perspectives, should be affected by discrepancies between these perspectives. Cross-cultural theories of the self (Triandis , 19 89; Markus & Kitayama, 1991), on the other hand, predict that individual s from different cul-

tures can differ in the relativ e importance they place on their ow n vs. an important other’ s perspectives (cf. relative salience of collective and private self-concepts). Further, these theories predict that differences in the relative importance of these perspectives should lead to differences in responses to con¯ ict betw een them (Triandis, 1989) . For instance, w hen the private self-concept (e .g. `Ì w ish to be an engineer’ ’ ) is in con¯ ict with the collec tive self-concept (e.g . ``My pare nts wish that I become a doc tor’ ’ ), collectivists should be more likely to react in a negative manner whereas individualists should be less likely to do so (Triandis, 19 89). Althoug h there is some rese arch to suggest that collectivists subordinate their own goals to those of the in-group (Iwao & Triandis, 1993), there is none e xamining their reactions to discrepanc ies betw een ow n and ingroup perspectives. Therefore, w e examined how individuali sts and collectivists differed in their psychological responses to con¯ ict betw een own and in-group goals. In addition , previous cross-cultural research (Iw ao & Triandis , 1993; Triandis , 1989) does not distinguis h betw een goal type (i.e. ow n vs. in-group goal ) and perspective (i.e. ow n vs. ingroup perspective). For instance, the private selfconcept contains ow n goals w hereas the collective self-conce pt contains goal s for the individua l and for the collective and discrepancy is de® ned as con¯ ict betw een ow n and collective goals . Selfdisc repancy theory (Higgins, 1987), on the other hand, is focused on perspective but not on goal type: It predicts that disc repancies betw een own and in-group perspective on ow n goal s affects emotional response s. To clarify w hat kinds of disc repancies affect individual s from different cultures, w e explored all possibl e types of discrepancies: Discrepancies betw een ow n and ingroup perspectives on both, ow n, and in-group goals . B ecause w e predicted that individuali sts and collectivists should diffe r in the relative importance they place on own vs. in-group goals , we predicted that different kinds of discrepancies should affect their responses. Speci® cally, w e hypothesized that individuali sts should experience lower subjective w ell-being in response to disc repancies in own goal s w hen examined from own and in-group perspective. In contrast, collectivists should experience low er subjective wellbeing w hen faced w ith discrepancies between own and in-group’ s perspective on in-gr oup goals (Hypothesis 4).


METHOD Participants The sample consisted of 10 9 participants. Of these, 55 (35 men and 20 women) w ere introductory psycholog y students from the Unite d States who participated for partial course credit. In India, 34 undergraduate students, and 20 college graduates enrolled in a manag erial training pro1 gram , participated voluntaril y (37 men and 17 women).

391

w ould rather struggle through a personal problem by myself, than discuss it w ith my friends’ ’ ). A collectivism score w as created by taking the mean of the eight collectivistic items (Cronbach’ s a = .53) and an individuali sm score w as created by taking the mean of the eight individuali stic items (Cronbach’ s a = .44). The Cronbach alpha reliabiliti es for the collectivism scale for the tw o samples separately w ere .51 for the US sample and .55 for the Indian sample. The Cronbach alpha reliabilities for the individuali sm scale for the two samples separately w ere .4 5 for the US 2 sample and .47 for the Indian sample .

Procedure and Materials Participants were requested to ® ll out a questionnaire in English that assesse d their level of collectivism, psychological well-being, and their ow n and parental goals. The Self Measure. An adapted version of the `Ì am . . . `` scale (Kuhn & McPartland, 1954) was used to m easure collectivism. In this, participants completed 20 sentences beginning w ith `Ì am . . . ``. R esponses w ere content-analys ed by two independent raters as to whether they w ere linked to a group or to a demog raphic category with w hich the participant might experience common fate. The percentage of these responses w ere then labelled as the % S score (Triandi s et al., 1990). In the present study, the inter-rater correlation w as .94. Rese arch suggests that collectivists have a higher % S sc ore w hen compared to individuali sts (Chan, 1994; Triandis , 19 89), althoug h some research (Bond & Cheung, 1983; Ip & Bond, 1995) did not report any differences. Collectivism Attitude Items. A modi® ed version (see Chan, 1994) of Triandis ’ s attitude scale (Triandi s et al., 19 86; Triandis , B ontempo, V illareal, Asai, & Lucc a, 1988 ) w as used as a second measure of collec tivism. In this, participants indicated their ag reement w ith 16 attitude items on a 7-point sc ale. Half of these items referred to collectivistic attitudes (e.g. `Àging parents should live at home w ith their c hildren’ ’ ), and the other half referred to individuali stic attitudes (e.g. `Ì 1

The managerial and student samples from India were samples of convenience. However, subsequent analyses suggested that the managers and students did not differ from each other on any of the measures used in the study, so we combined these samples for the cross-cultural analyses.

Satisfa ction With Life Scale. Subje ctive w ellbeing w as measured by a 5-item Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Grif® n, 1985). In this, participants indicated their agreement w ith ® ve items like `Ìn most ways my life is close to my ideal’ ’ and `Ì am satis® ed w ith m y life.’ ’ According to Diener et al. (1985), the SWLS w as developed to assess respondents’ satisfaction w ith their lives as a w hole. R esearch on SWLS indicates that the scale has desirable psychometric properties such as high internal consistency and temporal stability (see Pavot & Diener, 19 93). In addition, SWLS correlates w ell w ith other measures of subjective w ell-being and the scale is suitabl e for use with different age groups (Diener et al., 1985 ). Most important, the scale has also been validated in other cultures suc h as Portugal (Neto, 19 93) and the Netherlands (Arrindell, Meeuw esen, & Huyse, 1991). In the present study, the Cronbach alpha of the SWLS w as .7 6. The Cronbach alpha reliabilities for the SWLS for the tw o samples separately w ere .83 for the US sample and .6 0 for the Indian sample. G oal Questionnair e. Participants ’ own goal s and their parents’ goal s for them (as perceived by participants), w ere assessed in tw o phases. In the ® rst phase, participants listed 10 most important goal s they had in life (self-set goals ) and 10 most important goal s they perceived their parents as having for them (parental goals) . After listing goals , subjects rated the importance of each 2

These alpha values are consistently low (see Chan, 1994), indicating that they may not be measuring a unidimensional construct. As discussed in Chan (1994), these attitude items tap the construct across very different aspects of life. Although the heterogeneity of the items can increase the generality of the construct, the scale is less likely to be highly internally consistent because of the different domains of life that the items re¯ ect.

39 2


goal w ith a 7-point scale w here 7 was `èxtremely important’ ’ and 1 was `èxtremely unimportant. ’’ For all 20 goal s (i.e. 10 ow n and 10 parental goals ) participants made (1) ow n ratings , that is, they indicated how important it w as for them personally to achieve each self-set and parental goal and (2) parental ratings , that is, they took the perspective of their parents and rated how important each goal w as for their parents. Upon completing these, participants w ere thanked and debriefed.

TABLE 1 Mean (SD) Importance Rating of Goals as a Function of Goal Type, Perspective, and Culture US Respondents

Perspective Ow n Parents’

Indian Respondents

Self-set Goal

Parental Goal

Self-set Goal

Parental Goal

6.19 (0.56) 5.15 (0.85)

5.76 (1.01) 6.19 (0.64)

6.11 (0.72) 5.67 (0.81)

6.05 (0.85) 6.23 (0.83)

The larger the number, the greater the importance.

RESULTS Cultural Differences in Collectivism and Subjective Well-being Separate one-w ay ANOVAs were performed on measures of collectivism, individuali sm, and SWLS using Culture (United States vs. India) as the independent variabl e. Results from the tw o c ollectivism measures (i.e. % S scores and collectivism attitude items) supported the assumption that Indians w ere more collectivistic than Americans. Speci® cally, the mean % S score was signi® cantly higher for Indian (M = 25 % ) than for American (M = 14 % ) participants [ F(1,107 ) = 7.33 , P < .01] . Further, Indian participants scored signi® cantly higher on the collectivism attitude ite ms (M = 5.49) w hen compared to American participants [ M = 4.82, F(1,107) = 26.89, P < .0001)] . How ever, Americans did not score signi® cantly higher on individualism (M = 4.31) than Indians [ M = 4.20, F(1,107) = 2.55, P > .05] . Previous research suggests that collectivists have highe r colle ctivism scores when compared to individualists, w hereas individuali sts have higher individuali sm scores (C han, 1994). It is also im portant to examine whe ther participants from the tw o cultures differed in their ov erall subjective w ell-being. The analys es from the SWLS scores suggested that participants from both cultures w ere equall y satis® ed with their live s (F < 1, P > .05; M = 4.55 for Americans and M = 4.78 for Indians) .

Goal Importance Analyses To test the hypothesis that Americans w ould attach greater importance to their ow n goal s than to their parental goals , whereas Indians w ould not make such a distinction (i.e. Hypothesis 1), the mean importance rating s of the 10

self-set and parental goal s rated from participants’ own perspective w ere analy zed by a two-way ANOVA. In this, particip ant culture (US vs. India) w as a betw een-subjects factor and type of goal (self-set goals vs. parental goals) w as a within-subj ects factor. Table 1 depicts the mean importance rating s of own and parental goal s from the respondent’ s own perspective. Consiste nt with our hypothesis, Americans attached greater importance to their own goal s than to their parents’ goals . In contrast, Indian respondents rated their ow n goal s and the goal s their parents set for them as equally important. These means w ere sign® cantly different as supported by a two-way interaction betw een participant culture and type of goal [ F(1,107) = 6.97, P < .01] . In addition, we found that participants attached greater importance to their ow n goal s (M = 6.15) than to the goal s their parents se t for them (M = 5.90), w hich w as supported by main effect for type of goal [ F(1,107 ) = 12.27 , P < .001] .

Goal Content Analyses To examine the hypothesis that the types of goals listed would differ across cultures (i.e. Hypothesis 2), tw o independent raters, w ho were blind to the experimental conditions and hypotheses, content analy zed and coded self-set and perceived paren3 tal goals . Two a priori classi® cations w ere used to code goals. The ® rst classi® cation criterion was to code goal s on how `àbstract’ ’ (e.g . to do w ell in school) or ``concrete’ ’ (e.g. to get good grades) they w ere. The second classi® cation w as to code goal s on how ``personal’ ’ (e.g. to becom e independent) or `ìnterpersonal’ ’ (e.g . to have a happy 3

Raters were Indian-Americans w ho were trained on the coding scheme. Inconsistent coding between raters were deleted from subsequent analyses to avoid ambiguities in interpretation.


family) they w ere. Using a dichotomou s yes/no response , raters indicated w hether each goal w as concrete or abstrac t, and personal or interpersonal. The percentage of inter-rater ag reements for the abstract vs. concrete classi® cation w ere 91.89 % (self-set goals ) and 91.92 % (parental goals) . The percentage of inter-rater ag reements for the personal vs. interpersonal classi® cation we re 79.24% (self-set goals ) and 77.96 % (parental goals). Results from the goal content analyses generally supported our second hypothesis that Indians we re more likely to list interpersonal and concrete goal s whe n compared to Americans, who w ere more likely to list personal and abstract goal s (see Table 2). Further, the differences in the proportions of concrete vs. abstract goals and the proportions of pe rsonal vs. interpersonal goal s we re very similar for both self-set goal s and perceiv ed parental goals across cultures (see Table 2). C ultural differences in the proportion of inter2 personal and personal goal s w ere signi® cant: c 2 (1) = 3.67, P < .1 0 for self-set goals , and c (1) = 10.27, P < .01 for parental goals. Similarly , cultural differences in abstract vs. concrete goal s 2 we re signi® cant: c (1) = 9.09, P < .01 for self2 set goal s and c (1) = 7.96 , P < .01 for parental goals.

Goal Discrepancy Analyses Tw o types of goal discrepanc y w ere examined: self-se t and parental goal discrepancy. Self-set goal discrepancy w as c omputed by taking the absolute mean difference betw een ow n and parental rating on the importanc e of each self-set goal . A large self-set goal discrepancy sc ore TABLE 2 Proportions of Personal vs. Interpersonal Goals and Abstract vs. Concrete Goals across Cultures US Respondents

Indian Respondents

Self-set Goals Personal Interpersonal Abstract Concrete

45.3 % 54.7 % 93.3 % 6.7%

27.7% 72.3% 70.3% 29.7%

Perceived Parental Goals Personal Interpersonal Abstract Concrete

57.9 % 42.1 % 93.1 % 6.9%

27.5% 72.5% 72.8% 27.2%

Goal Type

393

w ould indicate that the individua l w as in con¯ ict w ith his/her parents in how important his/her ow n goal s w ere perceive d to be. Similarly , parental goal discrepancy w as computed by taking the absolute mean difference betw een one’ s own rating and perceived parental rating on the importance of each perceived parental goal (i.e. goal s parents set for the individual) . Here, a large discrepancy w ould indicate that the individua l was in con¯ ict w ith her/his parents on the importance of parental goals . To examine the relation between goal con¯ ict and psychologi cal w ell-being, c orrelations betw een goal discrepancies and subjective w ellbeing w ere computed. Further, SWLS scores were regressed on self-set and parental goal discrepancy scores to examine the relativ e impact of the tw o types of goal discrepancies on subjective w ell-being. In addition, hierarchical multiple regression w as performed to assess if the relations betw een SWLS and the discrepancy scores were equival ent across cultures. Results supported our third hy pothesis specifying the negative relationshi p between goal con¯ ict and subjective w ell-being. We found that both self-set and parental goal disc repancies were negativ ely c orre lated with subjective w ell-being for the tw o cultural groups combined (r = 2 .29, P < .01 for self-set goal disc repancy; r = 2 .28, P < .01 for parental goal discrepancy). We also found support for our fourth hypothesis, that the kind of discrepancy predicting subjective well-being differed across c ultures. Selfset goal discrepancy w as more highl y related to Americans’ subjective well-being (r = 2 .32, P < .01) than w as parental goal discrepancy (r = 2 .1 6, P < .01). In contrast, parental goal discrepancy w as more highly related to Indians’ subjective w ell-being (r = 2 .42 , P < .01) than w as se lf-set goal discrepancy (r = 2 .2 7, P < .01). Separate regression analy ses also suggested that there were cultural differences in the relativ e impact of these discrepancies on subjective w ell-being. As se en in Table 3, for American participants, self-set goal discrepancy w as a signi® cant predictor of subjective w ell-being whereas parental goal discrepancy did not have a strong association w ith well-being. For Indian participants , the pattern of results w as quite the opposite : Parental goal disc repancy w as a signi® cant predic tor of their subjective w ellbeing. How ever, since self-set goal discrepancies and parental goal disc repancies w ere highl y correlated across cultures (r = .6 7, P < .0 01) and w ithin cultures (r = .76, P < .001 for Indians ,

39 4


TABLE 3 Regression of Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) on Self-set Goal-discrepancy (SGD) and Parental Goaldiscrepancy (PGD) b

Predictors For US Respondents SWLS = SGD + PGD

For Indian Respondents SWLS = SGD + PGD

1

b

2

R

D R

goal discrepancy w as more likely to be related to the subjective w ell-being of Indians than of Americans. How ever, the hierarchical regression analy ses did not reveal an interaction between culture and own-goal discrepancy suggesting that ow n-goal discrepancy w as more important for Americans, as w e had inferred from the se parate regression analyses (see Table 3).

2

2 .37* ( 2 .32)

.09 ( 2 .16)

.33

.11*

2 .11

2 .33*

.40

.16*

Supplementary Analyses ( 2 .29)

( 2 .39)

It is also interesting to note that the US sample scored higher on both the self-set goal discrepanc y (M = 1.40) and the pare ntal goal discrepanc y (M = .93) than did their Indian counterparts (Ms = .79 and .68 for self-set goal and parental goal disrepancy, respectively). The cultural diffe renc es for self-set goal discrepancy w ere significant [ F(1,107 ) = 25.56 , P < .0 001] , whereas differences for pare ntal-goal disc repancies w ere marginall y signi® cant [ F(1,107) = 3.32, P = .07)] .

* P < .05. Zero-order correlations in parentheses.

r = .64 , P < .0 01 for Americans), one must be cautious in interpreting the separate effects of the tw o predictors. To determine if the pattern of relations betw een SWLS and the two discrepancy scores w as different ac ross cultures, hierarchical multiple regression analyses were performed. Following the procedures outlined in C ohen and C ohen (1975), SWLS was ® rst regressed on the two discrepancy scores w ith the tw o cultural groups combined. Second, participant culture (India vs. US) w as coded w ith a dummy variabl e, and the SWLS score w as then regressed on the tw o discrepancy scores, the dummy variabl e, and two more variables representing the interactions between culture and the tw o discrepanc y measures. Any signi® cant interac tion term in the regression equation w ould suggest that the relation between SWLS and that discrepancy score differed across cultures. Table 4 presents the results of the hierarchical regression analysis . The m arginall y signi® cant interaction betw een culture and parental goal discrepancy (P < .10) suggests that parental

DISCUSSION Our hypotheses predicted differences on individu alism and collec tivism; however, our sample of American and Indian participants differed only on collectivism. Therefore, w e believe that w e have found partial support for our hypothe sesÐ that the predic ted cultural differences in goal importance ratings and the effects of discrepancy on wellbeing are primarily due to differences in collectivism. Consistent w ith our ® rst hypothesis, Americans attached greater importance to their own goal s than to the goal s their pare nts set for them, w hereas Indians considered their ow n goals and their parent’ s goal s as equall y important. Similar patterns have been reported w hen participants from different cultures rate aspe cts of their

TABLE 4 Hierarchical Regression Analyses using the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) Predictors Step 1 SWLS = SGD + PGD

b

1

2 .24** (.32)

Step 2 SWLS = SGD + PGD + NATION + SGD 3 NATION + PGD 3 NATION

2 .12

* P < .10; ** P < .05; *** P < .01. Zero-order correlations in parentheses. 2 Cumulative R = .14 **.

b

2

b

3

b

4

b

5

2 .12

R

D R2

.33

.11***

.37

.03

(.27)

2 .31* *

.05

2 .36

.39*


self-concepts: Turkish and Moroccan participants (i.e. high collectivists) gave more importance to the social aspects of their self-concepts w hen compared to Dutch participants (i.e. low collectivists; V an-den-Heuvel et al., 19 92). As predicted by our se cond hy pothesis, Indians w ere more likely to have interpersonall y oriented and concrete goals in comparison to Americans, w ho we re more likely to have personally oriented and abstract goals. Similarly , previous research reports that collectivists’ descriptions of themselves w ere more like ly to be contextual (Bond & Cheung, 19 83; Cousins, 1989; Lalljee & Angelova, 1995) and socially oriented (Bochner, 1994; Dhawan et al., 1995; Lalljee & Angelova, 1995; Triandi s et al., 19 90) when compared to those of individuali sts. Goal-dis crepancy analys es supported our third hypothe sis predicting the negative effects of goal discrepancies on subjective w ell-being (see Emmons & King, 1988; Higgins et al., 1985, 1986, for similar ® ndings) . Most important, w e found support for our hy pothesis regarding cultural differences in the kinds of disc repancies that affected subjective well-being. For American participants, discrepancies betw een ow n and parental perspective on goal s they set for themselv es decreased subjective w ell-being. For Indian participants, how ever, the discrepancy between their ow n and their parents’ perspective on goal s that their parents set for them decreased subjective we ll-being. How ever, since our predictors w ere correlated, we interpret these results with caution. Neverthe less, this is the ® rst em pirical study to support Triandis ’ (1989) prediction that collectivists react more negatively to ow n-parental goal discrepancy.

Implications and Future Directions Our ® nding s raise tw o important points. One pertains to the de® nition of the in-group and the other pertains to the kinds of goal s that qualif y as ingroup goals . Triandi s (1989) de® nes the in-group as a group of individuals sharing common fate, facing common outside threat, and w ho are in close proximity to each other. B ase d on the common fate de® nition of in-group, members of a family, members of the tribe, coworkers, indivi duals w ith the same politi cal or religious belie fs, and members of a common social collective can all function as in-groups. The choice of parents as the in-group can also be supported by the empirical ® nding that interdependence (i.e. comm on

395

fate) was m ore important than perceiv ed similarlity in predicting in-group formation (Flippen, Hornstein, Siegal, & Weitzman, 19 96). Sim ilarly , self-discrepancies w ere negativ ely related to emotional responses w hen spouse s w ere de® ned as ingroup members (Alexander & Higgins , 1993 ; Schafer & Keith, 1981). Some studies ® nd that the type of in-group member predicts differences in emotional responses: Discrepancies from m others’ standpoints w ere related to depression w hereas discrepancies from fathers’ standpoints w ere related to anxiety (Forston & Stanton, 19 92). Future research should examine how discrepancies betw een ow n perspectives and perspe ctives articulated by different kinds of ingroups (e.g . friends’ vs. cow orkers’ perspectives) and in-group members (e.g. mothe rs vs. fathers) affect individual s from different c ultures. Another point raised by our results is that regarding the de® nition of in-group goals. Higgins (1987) de® nes in-group goal s as goal s that the important other (or the in-group) has for the individual , w hereas Triandis (1989 ) de® nes in-group goal s as those that the in-group has for the w hole collective and for the individual . For instance, Higgins would consider parental goals as those parents have for their children, whereas Triandis ’ w ould regard parental goal s as those that parents have for their children and goal s that they have for the family as a w hole. Althoug h Higgins ’ de® nition is included in Triandis ’ de® nition of in-group goals, we believe that the latter can be a very strict de® nition: Triandis ’ de® nition implies that in-group goals are regarde d as important by all in-group members and have been internalized by all m embers. In our study, w e de® ned in-group goal s as those that individual s perceived their in-group as having for them (cf. Higgins, 19 87). Such goal s need not be internalized or regarded as important by the individual, as w as demonstrated by the responses of the American participants in the current study. Most important, w ith this de® nition w e found that con¯ ict betw een ow n and in-group perspective on personal and ingroup goal s exerted a sig ni® cant effect on subjective w ell-being. Our ® nding s suggest that integrating self-disciplinary theory (Higgins, 1987) w ith culture and self theory (e.g. Triandis , 19 89) can be use ful in predicting cultural differences in perceptions of, and responses to, self-disc repancies. Self-discrepancy theory predicts that the magnitude, accessibility, and type of disrepancy can affect the amount of discomfort e xperienc ed (Higgins,

39 6


19 87). However, most of the em pirical research has focused on the magnitude and relative accessibility of the actual, ideal, and ought domain s to predict emotional responses (e.g. Higgins et al., 19 86; Strauman & Higgins, 1987 ). In the current study, w e demonstrated that focusing on the magnitude and relative accessibility of the self and other standpoints can explain cultural differences in perce ptions of, and responses to, self-discrepancies. How ever, as a ® rst attempt, w e w ere only able to examine the effects of goal-discrepancy on life satisfaction. Previous studies on self-disc repancy (e.g. Higgins, 1987; Higgins et al., 1985), althoug h examining individual s from one culture , also examine speci® c emotional outcomes such as agitation and dejection. Future studies should investigate how individual s from different cultures differ in their speci® c em otional responses to self- and in-group discrepancies. Our ® nding s have implications for the relation betw een culture and inconsis tency. Some research suggests collectivists may be more tolerant of inconsistencies: Japanese participants de monstrated a higher degree of inconsistency-tolerance w hen compared to Americans (Iwao, 1989), and w ere less likely to expect attitude-behaviour consistency w hen compared to Australians (Kashima, Siegal, Tanaka, & Kashima, 1992). It could be that inconsistency among one’ s own attributes is less likely to affect collectivists. Similarly , we found that collectivists w ere less affected by discrepancies on their ow n goals . Howe ver, it could be that collectivists are more negatively affec ted by inconsiste ncies betw een ow n and in-group attributes since we found that discrepancies on in-group goal s had a negative effect on their w ell-being. Similarly, Iw ao and Triandis (1993 ) found that Japanese acc epted inconsistencies betw een self and in-group and behaved according to in-group norms. Such ® nding s suggest that individual s from different cultures react differently to different kinds of consistencies. Considering the relative salience of own vs. an important other’ s standpoint and the type of consistency (betw een one’ s ow n attributes vs. between ow n and an important other’ s attributes) is crucial to explaining cultural differences in responses to discrepanc ies. Manuscript ® rst received November 1996 Revised manuscript accepted April 1997

REFERENCES Alexander, M.J., & Higgins, T.E. (1993) . Emotional trade-offs of bec oming a parent: How social roles in¯ uence self-discrepancy effe cts. Jou rnal of Persona lity and Social Psychology, 65, 1259 ± 12 69. Arrindell, W.A., Meeuw esen, L., & Huyse, F.J. (1991) . The satisfaction w ith life scale: Psychometric properties in a non-psychiatric medical outpatients sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 117± 123. Bochne r, S. (1994) . Cross-cultural differences in the self concept: A test of Hofstede’ s individualism/ collectivism distinction. Jo urnal of Cross-Cultural Psyc holog y, 25, 2 73± 283. Bond, M.H., & Cheung, T. (1983) . Colleg e students’ spontaneous self-conc ept: The effect of culture am ong respondents in Hong Kong, Japan and the United States. Jou rnal of Cross-Cultural Psycholog y, 14, 153± 171. Chan, D.K.-S. (1994) . CO LINDEX : A re® nement of three collectivism measures. In U. Kim, H. Triandis, C . Kagitcibasi,S.C. Choi, & G. Y oon (Ed s.), Individualism and collectivism : Theory, m ethod, and applications (pp. 200 ± 210) . Beverly Hills, CA : S age. Chan, D.K.-S ., Triandis, H.C., Carne vale, P.J., Tam, A., & B ond, M.H. (1996). Culture an d negotiation: Effects of collectivism, relationship between nego tiators, an d opp onent’ s strategy on negotiatio n beha vior. Manuscript submitted for publication. Cohen,J., & C ohen,P. (1975) . Applied m ultiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences . Hillsd ale, NJ: Lawren ce ErlbaumA ssociates Inc. Cousins, S.D. (1 989). Culture and self-perception in Japan and the United States. Jou rnal of Persona lity an d Social Psychology, 56, 1 24± 131. Dhaw an, N., Roseman, I.J., Naidu, R.K., & Rettek, S .I. (1995) . Self-concepts across tw o cultures: India and the United States. Special section: Culture and the self. Journ al of Cross-Cultura l Psychology, 26 , 606± 621 . Diener, E. (198 4). Subjective well-being . Psycholog ical Bulletin, 95 , 542± 575. Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J., & Grif® n, S . (1985) . The satisfaction w ith life scale. Jour nal of Persona lity Assessment, 49, 71± 75 . Emmo ns,R .A . (1986) . Personalstrivings: An approach to person ality and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1058 ± 1068 . Emmons, R.A. (199 2 ). Abstract versus concrete goals: Personal striving level, physical illness, and psychological w ell-being. Jou rnal o f Persona lity an d Social Psychology, 62, 2 92± 300. Emmons, R .A., & Die ner, E. (1985) . Personality correlates of subje ctiv e w ell-being. Persona lity and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11 , 89± 97. Emmons, R.A., & Diener, E. (1986) . A goal-affect analysis of everyday situational choice s. Jour nal of Research in Personality, 20, 309 ± 326. Emmons, R.A., & King, L.A. (1988) . Con¯ ict among personal strivings: Immediate and long-term implications for psycholog ical and physical w ell-being. Jou rnal of Persona lity and Social Psychology, 54, 10 40± 1048.


Epstein, S . (1982) . Con¯ ict and stre ss. In L. Goldberger & S . B reznitz (Eds.), Ha ndboo k of stress (pp. 49± 68). New York: Free Pre ss. Fiske, A.P. (1992) . The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a uni® ed theory of social relations. Psychologic al Re view , 99, 689± 723 . Flippen, A.R., Hornstein, H.A., Siegal, W.E., & Weitzman, E.A. (1996) . A comparison of similarity and interdependence as triggers for in-g roup formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2 2, 882± 893. Forston, M.T., & Stanton, A.L. (1992) . Self-discrepancy the ory as a framew ork for understanding bulimic symptomatology and associated distress. Journal of Social a nd Clinical Psychology, 1 1, 103± 118. Greenw ald, A.G., & Pratkanis, A.R. (1 984). The self. In R.S. W ye r & T.K. Srull (Eds.), Handbo ok of social cognition (pp. 12 9± 178) . Hillsdale, NJ: Law rence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Gudykunst, W .B., Yang-Seung, M., & Nishida, T. (1987) . Cultural differences in self-consciousness and self-monitoring. Commun ication Research, 14, 7± 34 . Higgins, E.T. (1987) . Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affec t. Psyc holog ical Review , 9 4, 319± 340. Higgins, E.T., B ond, R.N., Klein, R., & Strauman, T. (1986) . Self-discrepanc ies and emotional vulnerability: How magnitude, accessibility, and type of discrepanc y in¯ uence affect. Jou rnal of Personality and Social Psycholog y, 51, 5± 15. Higgins, E.T., Klein, R., & S trauman, T. (198 5). Selfconcept discrepanc y theory: A psychological model for distinguishing among different aspects of depression and anxie ty. Social Cognition, 3, 51 ± 76. Hofstede, G. (1980) . Culture’ s co nseque nce. B everly Hills, CA: Sage. Ip, G.W.M., & Bond, M.H. (1995) . Culture, values and the spontaneous self-concept. Asian Jou rnal of Psychol ogy, 1, 30± 35. Iwao, S. (1989) . Social psychology’ s mod els of social behav ior. Unpublished manuscript. Iwao, S., & Triandis, H.C. (19 93). V alidity of autoand hetero stereotypes among Japanese and Ame rican students. Journa l o f Cross-Cultu ral Psycholog y, 24, 428± 444. Kashima, Y., Siegal, M., Tanaka, K., & Kashima, E.S . (199 2). Do people believe behaviours are consistent w ith attitudes? Towards a cultural psychology of attribution proce sses. British Journ a l of Social Psycho logy, 31, 111 ± 124. Kuhn, M.H., & Mc Partland, R. (1 954). An empirical investigation of self attitudes. America n Sociological Review , 19, 68± 76. Lalljee, M., & Angelova, R. (1995) . Person description in India, Britain and B ulgaria. Special section: Culture and the self. Jo urnal of Cross-Cultural Psycholog y, 26, 645± 657. Lecky, P. (1961) . Self-consisten cy: A theory of persona lity. New York: Shoe String Press. Lee, Y .T. (1993) . In-grouppreferenceand homo geneity am o ng A frican-A mericanand C hinese A merican students. Journa l of Social Psycholog y, 133 , 225± 235.

397

Little, B.R. (1989) . Personal projects analysis: Trivial pursuits, magni® cent obsessions and the search for coherence. In D.M. B uss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Person ality psychology: Recent tre nds and emerging directions (pp. 15± 31). New York: S pringer-V erlag. Markus, H.R., & Kitayama, S. (1991) . Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivati on. Psychological Rev iew, 98, 224± 253. Markus, H.R., & Kitayama, S. (1994) . A collective fear of the c ollective: Implications for selves and theories of selves. Persona lity and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 568± 5 79. Markus, H.R ., & Nurius, P. (1986) . Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954± 965. Markus, H.R ., & Wurf, E. (1987) . The dynamic selfconcept: A social psychological perspective. Annua l Review of Psycholog y, 38, 299± 337. Mead, G.H. (1934) . Mind, self and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicag o Press. Miller, J.G. (1984) . Culture and the dev elopment of everyday social explanation. Jou rnal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 , 961± 978. Miller, J.G., & Bersoff, D.M. (1994) . Cultural in¯ uences on the moral status of reciprocity and the discounting of endoge nous motivation. Special issue : The self and the collective. Person ality and Social Psycholo gy Bulletin, 20, 5 92± 602. Miller, J.G., & Luthar, S. (1989). Issues of interpersonal responsibility and accountability: A comparison of Indians’ and Americ ans’ moral judgements. Social Cognition, 7, 237± 26 1. Neto, F. (1993) . The satisfaction w ith life scale: Psychometric prope rties in an adolescent sample. Jour nal of Youth a nd Adolescence, 22, 125 ± 134. Oyse rman, D. (1993) . The lens of personhood: View ing the self and others in a multicultural society. Jou rnal of Personality and Social Psycholog y, 65, 993± 10 09. Palys, T.S., & Little, B.R. (1983) . Perce ived life satisfaction and the organiz ation of personal project systems. Jou rnal of Persona lity and Social Psychology, 44, 122 1 ± 1230 . Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993) . Review of the satisfaction w ith life scale. Psychologic al Assessmen t, 5, 164± 17 2. Pervin, L.A. (1983) . The stasis and ¯ ow of behavior: Toward a theory of goals. In M. M. Page (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on motivation (pp. 1± 53). Lincoln, NB : University of Nebraska Press. R adhakrishnan, P. (199 4). C ultural differences in perceptions of in-group s and out-g roup s: A multi-me asure study. Unpublished master’ s thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. R eich, J.W., & Zautra, A.J. (1983) . Demands and desires in daily life: Some in¯ uences on we ll-being. American Jou rnal of Community Psychology, 11, 41± 58. R uehlman, L.S., & W olchik, S.A. (198 8 ). Personal goals and inte rpersonal support and hindranc e as factors in psy chological distress and we ll-being. Jou rnal of Personality and Social Psycholog y, 55, 293± 30 1. Sanchez, B.M.L., & S anz, J. (1992) . Effe cts of the discrepancy between self-concepts on emotional

39 8


adjustment. Jou rnal of Research in Persona lity, 26, 303± 318. Schafer, R.B ., & Keith, P.M. (1 981). Self-esteem discrepancies and depression. Jou rnal of Psychology, 109 , 43± 49. Schwartz, S.H., & B illsky, W. (1 990) . Tow ard a psychologic al structure of human values. Jour nal of Persona lity and Social Psychology, 53 , 550± 562 . Shw eder, R .A., & Bourne, E.J. (1 984). Does the concept of the person vary cross-culturally? In R.A. Shw eder & R .A. LeVine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essay on min d, self, and emotion, (pp. 158 ± 199) . New York: Cambridge Univ ersity Press. Strauman, T.J., & Higgins, T.E. (1987) . Automatic activation of self-discrepanc ies and emotional syndromes: When cognitive structures in¯ uence affec t. Special issue: Integrating personality and social psychology. Journa l of Personality and Social Psychol ogy, 53, 100 4± 1014 . Tra® mow , D., Triandis, H.C., & Goto, S.G. (1991) . S ome tests of the distinction betw een the private self and the collective self. Jo urna l of Persona lity and Social Psychology, 60 , 649± 655 . Triandis, H.C. (1988) . Collectivism and individualism: A reconceptualization of a basic concept in cross-c ultural psychology. In G.K. V erma & C. B agley (Eds.), Personality, cogn ition, a nd values:

Cross-cultural perspectives of childhoo d and ad olescence. London: Mac millan. Triandis, H.C. (1989) . The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96 , 506± 520 . Triandis, H.C., B ontempo, R ., Betancourt, H., B ond, M., Leung, K., Brenes, A., Georgas, J., Hui, C .H., Marin, G., Setiadi, B ., S inha, J.B.P., V erma, J., S pangenberg, J., Touzard, H., & de Montmollin, G. (1 986). The measurement of etic aspects of individualism and colle ctivism across cultures. Australian Jou rnal of Psychology (Special issue of cross-cultural psychology), 38, 257± 267. Triandis, H.C., Bontempo, R., V illareal, M.J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988) . Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self± in-group relations. Journal of Person ality and Social Psychol ogy, 54, 32 3± 338. Triandis, H.C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C.H. (1990) . Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Jou rnal of Persona lity and Soc ial Psychol ogy, 59, 10 06± 1020 . Van-den-Heuval, H., Tellege n, G., & Koomen, W. (1992) . Cultural differences in the use of psychological and social characteristics in c hildren’ s self-understanding. European Jou rnal of Social Psychol ogy, 22, 35 3± 362.