Allocentric and Idiocentric Self-Description and Academic Achievement Among Mexican American and Anglo American Adolescents

Dabul, Amy J.; Bernal, Martha E.; Knight, George P.

doi:10.1080/00224545.1995.9712235

Cited by 22 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Americans did score higher on the independence subscale measuring self-knowledge; the Costa Ricans, however, scored lower on the interdependence subscale measuring maintenance of self-other bonds. Similar non-findings have been reported with other cultural groups supposedly differing on individualism and collectivism (e.g., Chang, Lee, & Koh, 1998;Dabul, Bernal, & Knight, 1995;Watkins & Regmi, 1996). These findings seriously challenge the propositions offered by Markus and Kitayama (1991), and collectively indicate that there is no evidence to support the claim that individualistic and collectivistic cultures are associated exclusively or relatively more with the two self-construals in the directions predicted by Markus and Kitayama (1991).…”

Section: Studies That Do Examine Their Assumptionssupporting

confidence: 85%

Culture and self: An empirical assessment of Markus and Kitayama’s theory of independent and interdependent self‐construals

Matsumoto

1999

Asian J of Social Psycho

328

256

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I critically evaluate the logic underlying Markus and Kitayama's (1991) theory of independent and interdependent self-construals, and examine the evidence that directly tests its major assumptions. On the basis of my review of the studies they cite, and literature from three other sources, I conclude that the evidence severely challenges the validity of their theoretical framework for explaining observed national differences in psychological phenomena. I offer some ideas about alternative methodologies for research in this important area of psychology that may aid in developing and testing theories of culture and self in the future.In the U.S., ''the squeaky wheel gets the grease''; in Japan, ''the nail that sticks up gets pounded down''. Markus and Kitayama (1991) contend that anecdotes like these symbolize meaningful and important cultural differences between the U.S. and Japan, and North American/European and almost all other cultures. These differences are the basis for their theory of independent and interdependent self-construals, which is arguably one of the most influential works in the past decade in culture and psychology. Its import and implications are far-reaching, its popularity and usage widespread.Like all theories, we need to objectively evaluate it in terms of its assumptions and empirical support. Despite its popularity, to my knowledge no work to date has explicated its assumptions, nor objectively reviewed the available evidence in support of them. This paper does so. First, I review the theory, highlight major aspects of it, and describe its basic logic. Second, I identify its major assumptions, and evaluate those assumptions in relation to the evidence that has been suggested as supportive of their theory. My evaluation suggests that no study supports their contentions, because none tests the basic logic underlying their theory. Third, I review three other types of studies that directly test the assumptions in their theory. This evidence also suggests that there is little, if any, empirical support for them. Finally, I discuss the implications of this evidence for their theory, and for future work in this area. Independent and interdependent selves, and their impact on cross-cultural psychologyA brief review of the theory, and its basic logic Markus and Kitayama's (1991) well-known theory is based on the premise that

show abstract

Section: Studies That Do Examine Their Assumptionssupporting

confidence: 85%

Culture and self: An empirical assessment of Markus and Kitayama’s theory of independent and interdependent self‐construals

Matsumoto

1999

Asian J of Social Psycho

328

256

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The lack of support for strong associations between these values and performance suggests that the greater collective orientation of the Aboriginal students (Fogarty & White, 1994) is not in itself a barrier to success in education. Thus, the findings reported by Dabul et al (1995) that allocentric (collective) values were negatively related to academic success has not received strong support in this study. It should be noted, however, that the correlations reported by Dabul et al were also very low, around the -.14 mark.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 80%

Educational Implications of the Values Held by Australian Aboriginal Students

White

Fogarty

2000

Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Pr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fogarty and White (1994) found that Australian Aboriginal university students tend to be more collectively minded than their non-Aboriginal counterparts. Using the Values Survey developed by Schwartz (1992), the present study set out to replicate this finding and to determine whether observed value differences can help to explain the low achievement levels of Aboriginal students in a university setting. The differences noted by Fogarty and White (1994) were replicated in the present study where data gathered from a sample of Aboriginal students (N = 202) over a six-year period indicated that they score more highly on the collectivist scales of Conformity, Tradition, and Security than a non-Aboriginal student cohort (N = 194). Across the combined samples, however, scores on values were not strong predictors of academic success, with only Tradition (r = −.28, p < .01) and Conformity (r = −.28, p < .01) showing appreciable relations with a measure of academic performance. When Race was partialled out of these correlations, Achievement (r = .16, p < .01) and Conformity (r = −.15, p < .01) were the only variables to demonstrate any relationship with performance. These findings suggest that there are factors other than value systems that have a much greater impact on the problems experienced by Australian Aborigines in higher educational settings.

show abstract

“…Coding scheme for the TST There has been some debate in the literature over whether responses to the TST should be weighted in terms of importance (either explicitly by participants, or implicitly by rank order), and whether seven, ten or 20 responses should be used (Bochner, 1994;Watkins, Yau, Dahlin, & Wondimu, 1997). However, studies that have used both simple frequency (percentage of total responses) and weighted scores have consistently found no substantial method effects on the direction or significance of cross-cultural or gender differences (Bochner, 1994;Cousins, 1989;Dabul et al, 1995;Nolan, 1996;Trafimow et al, 1991). For the sake of simplicity, in the present study participants were presented with only ten statements to complete, and scores were calculated as unweighted percentages.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…''Group identity'' refers to descriptions of self in terms of a particular group to which the person belongs and with whom they share a common fate, for example, ''I am a university student''. In contrast, a ''public'' or ''allocentric'' self-concept explicitly or implicitly refers to a generalised other, for example, ''others see me as a kind person'' (e.g., Bochner, 1994;Dabul, Bernal, & Knight, 1995;Trafimow, Triandis, & Goto, 1991;Triandis, 1989). 1 Many two-culture comparisons of allocentric and group responses to the TST have been attributed to country differences on I-C (e.g., Altrocchi & Altrocchi, 1995;Dabul et al, 1995;Dhawan, Roseman, Naidu, & Rettek, 1995;Lalljee & Angelova, 1995;Ma & Schoeneman, 1997;Trafimow et al, 1991).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Individualism‐collectivism and self‐concept: Social or contextual?

Parkes

Schneider

Bochner

1999

Asian J of Social Psycho

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cultural constructs of individualism and collectivism (I‐C) have been closely identified with different conceptions of the self. In contrast to autonomous, abstract self‐concepts, it has been argued that collectivists have concepts of self which are interdependent with others and connected with particular contexts. This study investigated the extent to which spontaneous social and contextual self‐concepts were connected to each other and to individual‐level I‐C measures. Questionnaires were administered to adult employee samples in Australia and South‐East Asia (N = 581). Although closely intertwined, social and contextual statements were able to be independently tested in relation to I‐C. I‐C was primarily related to the social‐autonomous dimension of self. Controlling for social self‐responses, contextual self‐concepts were not independently related to any of the measures of I‐C.

show abstract

Allocentric and Idiocentric Self-Description and Academic Achievement Among Mexican American and Anglo American Adolescents

Cited by 22 publications

References 8 publications

Culture and self: An empirical assessment of Markus and Kitayama’s theory of independent and interdependent self‐construals

Culture and self: An empirical assessment of Markus and Kitayama’s theory of independent and interdependent self‐construals

Educational Implications of the Values Held by Australian Aboriginal Students

Individualism‐collectivism and self‐concept: Social or contextual?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About