Following concepts introduced by Markus and Kitayama, this study describes the theoretical and empirical development of a scale to measure the strength of an individual's interdependent and independent self-construals. These two images of self are conceptualized as reflecting the emphasis on connectedness and relations often found in non-Western cultures (interdependent) and the separateness and uniqueness of the individual (independent) stressed in the West. It is argued that these two images of self can and do coexist in individuals and that they can be measured. A 24-item Self-Construal Scale measuring two dimensions of self-image is presented. The two distinct dimensions of the scale were supported in confirmatory factor analyses of two multiethnic samples of college students. The scale was found to have satisfactory reliability and validity. Its implications and potential applications are discussed.

In developing a new scale, this article makes theoretical and measurement distinctions between vertical and horizontal individualism and collectivism. Vertical collectivism includes perceiving the selfas a part (or an aspect) of a collective and accepting inequalities within the collective. Horizontal collectivism includes perceiving the self as a part of the collective, but seeing all members of the collective as the same; thus equality is stressed. Vertical individualism includes the conception of an autonomous individual and acceptance of inequality. Horizontal individualism includes the conception of an autonomous individual and emphasis on equality. Measurement of these constructs is preferable theoretically and empirically (better internal consistency) to either of the more general constructs of individualism and collectivism or the constituent elements of these constructs, such as self-reliance, hedonism, family integrity, and so on. The usefulness of these theoretical distinctions is demonstrated and their implications are discussed.

The first part of the study confirmed an additive effect of the newly proposed construct of relationship harmony to self-esteem in predicting life satisfaction across student samples from the United States and Hong Kong. As predicted from the dynamics of cultural collectivism, the relative importance of relationship harmony to self-esteem was greater in Hong Kong than in the United States. In the second part of the study, the independent and interdependent self-construals (H. R. Markus & S. Kitayama, 1991) and the 5 factors of personality (P. T. Costa & R. R. McCrae, 1992) were advanced to be the culture-general determinants of life satisfaction, acting through the mediating variables of self-esteem and relationship harmony. Both self-construals and the 5 factors of personality were shown to influence life satisfaction through the mediating agency of self-esteem and relationship harmony in equivalent ways across these 2 cultural groups.

Rather, ecological variables are necessary to examine structural, contextual, and sociological effects on human behavior and disease development. Schwartz, 1994 b, p. 823 Many attempts have been made to define (e.g., Rohner, 1984) and then to measure culture. Given the classic definition of culture provided by Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952), this mapping has usually been made by using values. The most widely known value mapping is the work of Hofstede (1980), whose four value dimensions of Individualism-Collectivism, Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Masculinity-Femininity are used as organizing and explanatory constructs in many disciplines. Tapping values salient to Chinese people, the Chinese Culture Connection (1987) has identified one additional dimension to the Hofstede four: Confucian Work Dynamism, or short-term versus long-term orientation (Hofstede, 1991). All five dimensions of culture-level values have provided the conceptual impetus for numerous cross-cultural studies. Several major cross-cultural projects have been conducted subsequent to Hofstede's (1980) groundbreaking work. With his theory-derived value survey, Schwartz (1994 a) has identified seven culture-level dimensions, namely, Conservatism, Intellectual Autonomy, Affective Autonomy, Hierarchy, Egalitarian Commitment, Mastery, and Harmony. Smith, Dugan, and Trompenaars (1996) have identified two reliable value dimensions at the cultural level from their analysis of managerial values: Egalitarian Commitment versus Conservatism, and Utilitarian Involvement versus Loyal Involvement. Smith and Bond (1998, Ch. 3) concluded that these different value surveys have produced convergent results, lending support to the validity of the cultural dimensions originally identified by Hofstede (1980). Recently, House and his associates (2003) have orchestrated a major project to identify cultural dimensions across 62 countries. A distinctive feature of this multicultural project is that values associated with leadership were measured concurrently with ideal and actual leadership behaviors. The House team has identified nine culture-level dimensions: