The development and validation of the Relational, Individual, and Collective self‐aspects (RIC) Scale

Abstract

A new scale measuring Relational, Individual, and Collective self-aspects (RIC) was developed. The RIC Scale consists of ten questions each followed by three options reflecting the three self-aspects. Respondents rate each option in terms of its applicability to the self, yielding three subscale scores and revealing the relative prominence of each self-aspect. Two samples of university students (N 1 = 170, N 2 = 214) were used to develop and refine the scale. Analyses supported the reliability and validity of the three RIC subscales. Each self-aspect correlated in predicted ways with several existing scales. The RIC Scale also proved useful in assessing gender differences in self-aspect prominence. Validity of the threepart model of the self and implications for future research are discussed.

Beyond the ‘east–west’ dichotomy: Global variation in cultural models of selfhood.

“…Variation in response styles can obscure mean differences in cross-cultural comparisons (Schimmack, Oishi, & Diener, 2005), as well as distorting individual-level dimensional structures (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012). Yet, self-construal researchers have very rarely attempted to account for acquiescence, and recent measures continue to include few, if any, reversed items (e.g., Cross, Bacon, & Morris, 2000;Harb & Smith, 2008;Kashima & Hardie, 2000).…”

“…Variation in response styles can obscure mean differences in cross-cultural comparisons (Schimmack, Oishi, & Diener, 2005), as well as distorting individual-level dimensional structures (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012). Yet, self-construal researchers have very rarely attempted to account for acquiescence, and recent measures continue to include few, if any, reversed items (e.g., Cross, Bacon, & Morris, 2000;Harb & Smith, 2008;Kashima & Hardie, 2000).Moreover, surprisingly little attention has been paid to theorizing how high independence differs from low interdependence, or vice versa. Researchers usually test paired predictions using both dimensions (e.g., Singelis, Bond, Sharkey, & Lai, 1999), or they compare groups of individuals who score high on one dimension and low on the other, ignoring those who score high on both or low on both (e.g., Sedikides, Gaertner, & Toguchi, 2003).…”

“…Experimental researchers typically prime independent and interdependent self-construals as two levels of a single factor, rather than attempting to prime them orthogonally (Oyserman & Lee, 2008). In short, the view of independence and interdependence as orthogonal factors has failed to inspire distinct theoretical predictions, and we believe that it needs urgent reconsideration.Recently, researchers have begun to view both independence and interdependence as multidimensional, either distinguishing construals of the self in relation to different kinds of "others", or focusing on different ways of being independent or interdependent in relation to the same others (e.g., Harb & Smith, 2008;Kağıtçıbaşı, 2005;Kashima & Hardie, 2000). A few studies have shown that distinguishing different forms of independence and interdependence helps explain cultural differences in outcomes (Chen, Brockner, & Katz, 1998;Morrison, Chen, & Salgado, 2004;Noguchi, 2007).…”

“…We did not include items from Kashima and Hardie's (2000) relational-individual-collective scale, nor from Harb and Smith's (2008) six dimensional scale, because the main focus of these measures is on the importance of different social targets, whereas our main goal was to distinguish ways of being independent or interdependent. We excluded items from the this question would have been counter-productive.…”

Negotiating Relationally: The Dynamics of the Relational Self in Negotiations

“…In recent years, however, research has shown that this prevailing self-construal provides a rather limited perspective on the nature and consequences of the self. In contrast to a focus on independence, a proliferation of research has shown that individuals can emphasize the relational self-a view of the self as fundamentally connected to other individuals (e.g., Andersen & Chen, 2002;Aron, Aron, & Smollman, 1992;Brewer & Gardner, 1996;Chen, 2001Chen, , 2003Chen et al, 2001;Clancy & Dollinger, 1993;Cross et al, 2000;Cross & Madson, 1997;Cross & Morris, 2003;Cross et al, 2002;Gilligan, 1982;Kashima & Hardie, 2000;Kashima et al, 1995). Rather than emphasizing individual autonomy and promotion of one's own goals, in this self-construal, the priority is to emphasize "connectedness to others and [to] behave in ways that promote and strengthen existing relationships" (Cross et al, 2002: 400).…”