The present study examines cross-cultural differences in interpersonal closeness to different people and whether these differences can be explained by independent and interdependent self-construal. Turkish and Euro-Canadian samples of university students were asked to indicate how close they feel and how close they ideally would like to be to family members, romantic partners, friends, and acquaintances. As predicted, Turkish participants scored higher on interdependent self-construal, whereas there was no culture difference on independent self-construal scores. Turkish participants rated their actual and ideal closeness with others higher than Euro-Canadian participants did. Both Turkish and Euro-Canadian participants reported feeling closest and ideally wanting to be closest to their romantic partner, and then to their families and friends, followed by acquaintances. Turkish participants desired more closeness with family members and acquaintances than Euro-Canadian participants did. Interdependent self-construal was found to partially mediate the relationships between culture and actual closeness scores forfamily, friends, and acquaintances and between culture and ideal scores for family and acquaintances.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Agnew, C. R., Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., & Langston, C. A. (1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 939-954.
2.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596-612.
3.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M. & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 241-253.
4.
Averill, J. R. (1985). The social construction of emotion: With special reference to love. In K. J. Gergen & K. E. Davis (Eds.), The social construction of the person (pp. 89-109). New York: Springer Verlag.
5.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
6.
Başaran, F. (1992). The university students’value preferences. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih Coğrafya Fakültesi Arast rma Dergisi, 14, 13-25.
7.
Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
8.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1990). Self-construction over the life-span: A process perspective on identity formation. In G. J. Neimeyer & R. A. Neimeyer (Eds.), Advances in Personal Construct Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 155-186). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
9.
Betancourt, H., & López, S. R. (1993). The study of culture, ethnicity, and race in American psychology. American Psychologist, 48, 629-637.
10.
Breer, P. E., & Locke, E. A. (1965). Task experience as a source of attitudes. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
11.
Brislin, R. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods for cross-cultural psychology (pp. 137-164). London: Sage.
12.
Çileli, M. (2000). Change in value orientations of Turkish youth from 1989 to 1995. Journal of Psychology, 134, 297-305.
13.
Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. (2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 191-208.
14.
Cross, S. E.,& Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5-37.
15.
Dhawan, N., Roseman, I. J., Naidu, R. K., & Rettek, S. I. (1995). Self-concepts across two cultures: India and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 606-621.
16.
Dion, K. K., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Psychological individualism and romantic love. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 17-33.
17.
Dion, K. K., & Dion, K. L. (1993). Individualistic and collectivistic perspectives on gender and the cultural context of love and intimacy. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 53-69.
18.
Goodwin, R. (1995). Personal relationships across cultures. Psychologist, 8, 73-75.
19.
Göregenli, M. (1995). Kültürümüz aç*IšsIndan bireycilik-toplulukçuluk eğilimleri: Bir başlangIç çalIgşmasI [Individualism-collectivism orientations in the Turkish culture: A preliminary study]. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 10, 1-14.
20.
Göregenli, M. (1997). Individualist-collectivist tendencies in a Turkish sample. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 787-794.
21.
Guthrie, D. (1981). Analysis of dichotomous variables in repeated measures experiments. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 189-195.
22.
Harris, J. R. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do. New York: Free Press.
23.
Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Peng, K., & Greenholtz, J. (2002). What’s wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales? The reference-group effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 903-918.
24.
Ho, D. Y. F. (1975). Traditional approaches to socialization. In J. W. Berry & W. J. Lonner (Eds.), Applied crosscultural psychology (pp. 309-314). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
25.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
26.
Hsu, F. L. K. (1981). Americans and Chinese: Passages to differences. Honolulu, HI: The University Press of Hawaii.
27.
Imamoğlu, E. O., & Karakitapoğlu-Aygün, Z. (1999). Value preferences from 1970s to 1990s: Cohort, generation and gender differences at a Turkish university. [Turkish]. Turk Psikoloji Dergisi, 14, 1-22.
28.
Imamoğlu, O., Küller, R., Imamoğlu, V., & Küller, M. (1993). Social psychological worlds of Swedes and Turks in around retirement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24, 26-41.
29.
KağItçşbasI3, C. (1994). A critical appraisal of individualism and collectivism: Toward a new formulation. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, Ç. KağItçşbaşI, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 52-65). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
KağItçşbasI3, C. (1996). Özerk-ilişkisel benlik: Yeni bir sentez [The autonomous-relational self: A new synthesis]. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 11, 36-44.
31.
Karakitapoğlu-Aygün, Z. (2002). Self-construals, perceived parenting styles and well-being in different cultural and socio-economic contexts. Unpublished Dissertation. Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
32.
Karakitapoğlu-Aygün, Z. & Imamoğlu, E. O. (2002). Value domains of Turkish adults and university students. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 333-351.
33.
Kashima, E. S., & Hardie, E. A. (2000). The development and validation of the Relational, Individual and Collective Self-Aspects (RIC) Scale. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 19-48.
34.
Kashima, Y., Yamaguchi, S., Kim, U., Choi, S. C., Gelfand, J. H., & Yuki, M. (1995). Culture, gender, and self: A perspective from individualism-collectivism research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 925-937.
35.
Kim, M. S., Hunter, J. E., Miyahara, A., & Horvath, A. M. (1996). Individualvs. culture-level dimensions of individualism and collectivism: Effects on preferred conversational styles. Communication Monographs, 63, 28-49.
36.
Kurt, A. (2002, June). Cross-cultural comparison of Canadian and Turkish university students with respect to selfconstrual. Paperpresented at the Annual Convention of Canadian Psychological Association, Vancouver, BC.
37.
Lalonde, R. N., Hynie, M., Pannu, M., & Tatla, S. (2002). The role of culture in interpersonal relationships: A focus on the preferred mate characteristics of second generation South Asian Canadian immigrants. Manuscript submitted for publication.
38.
Lay, C., Fairlie, P., Jackson, S., Ricci, T., Eisenberg, J., Sato, T., et al. (1998). Domain-specific allocentrismidiocentrism: A measure of family connectedness. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 434-460.
39.
Li, H. Z. (2002). Culture, gender and self-close-other(s) connectedness in Canadian and Chinese samples. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 93-104.
40.
Lin, Y. H. W., & Rusbult, C. E. (1995). Commitment to dating relationships and cross-sex friendships in America and China. Journal of Social and Personal Relationship, 12, 7-26.
41.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications of cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
42.
Oetzel, J. (1998). The effects of self-construals and ethnicity on self-reported conflict styles. Communication Reports, 11, 133-144.
43.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72.
44.
Parish, T. S., & Necessary, J. R. (1995). The importance of peers in forming students’actions and attitudes. College Student Journal, 29, 399-400.
45.
Peng, K., Nisbett, R. E., & Wong, Y. C. (1997). Validity problems comparing values across cultures and possible solutions. Psychological Methods, 2, 329-344.
46.
Rhee, E., Uleman, J. S., & Lee, H. K. (1996). Variations in collectivism and individualism by ingroup and culture: Confirmatory factor analyses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1037-1054.
47.
Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580-591.
48.
Singelis, T., & Brown, W. (1995). Culture, self, and collectivist communication: Linking culture to individual behavior. Human Communication Research, 21, 354-389.
49.
Singelis, T. M., & Sharkley, W. F. (1995). Culture, self-construal, and embarrassability. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 622-644.
50.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptomatic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290-312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
51.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1991). Intimacy expressions in three cultures: France, Japan, and the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 29-46.
52.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.
53.
Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, J. M., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: Crosscultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323-338.
54.
Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 1006-1020.
55.
Uleman, J. S., Rhee, E., Bardoliwalla, N., Semin, G., & Toyama, M. (2000). The relational self: Closeness to ingroups depends on who they are, culture, and the type of closeness. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 1-17.
