Abstract
There are two typical approaches to requesting help: autonomy-oriented help-seeking (asking in order to learn how to fix a problem) versus dependency-oriented help-seeking (asking a helper to fix it). This article presents three studies demonstrating a systematic impact of a person’s chronic or activated self-construal (interdependent vs. independent) that operates through activated regulatory focus (prevention vs. promotion) on these two help-seeking styles. The hypothesis was tested by measuring chronic self-construal, regulatory foci, and help-seeking styles (Study 3), and by priming self-construal (Study 1) and regulatory focus (Study 2). Results show that people with an independent self-construal and a promotion focus prefer autonomy-oriented help, whereas people with an interdependent self-construal and a prevention focus seek dependency-oriented help. Mediation analysis (Study 3) shows that regulatory focus is a mediator between self-construal and help-seeking styles. The conceptual and applied implications of these findings are discussed.
Our daily life is full of challenges, and seeking assistance is an integral part of social behavior. Whatever challenges we face—academic problems, medical situations, emotional dilemmas, or just simple practical difficulties such as changing a tire or traveling in a foreign country—we always contemplate asking for help. The type of help requested can vary according to the degree of one’s involvement: one can rely on a specialist to fix a problem or ask to learn new ways of dealing with it independently. For example, faced with the breakdown of a piece of office equipment, one worker will wait for the technician to fix it, while the other will call maintenance for instructions on how to fix it herself. Likewise, in a medical situation, one can let the doctor make decisions about the course of treatment (as in the classic paternalistic model of patient–doctor relationship) or make an informed decision together with the doctor (as in the shared decision-making model; Wirtz, Cribb, & Barber, 2006).
These represent two typical approaches to requesting help: autonomy-oriented help-seeking (asking in order to learn how to fix a problem) versus dependency-oriented help-seeking (asking a specialist to fix it; Nadler, 1998, 2002, in press). Seeking autonomy-oriented assistance allows a person to be self-reliant the next time he or she encounters the same problem, whereas seeking dependency-oriented help leaves him or her dependent on assistance the next time they experience a similar difficulty. The aim of this study is to examine the proposition that independent or interdependent self-construals affect the preference for either of these kinds of assistance, and that this link is mediated by the person’s prevention or promotion regulatory focus.
The majority of past research on helping in social psychology has addressed the questions of why and when people help. It has concentrated mostly on the helper, examining evolutionary, motivational, situational, personal, and interpersonal factors that predict whether a potential helper would provide assistance to a person in need (e.g., Dovidio, Piliavin, Schroeder, & Penner, 2006). A related line of study, extending the focus of research from the emphasis on help-giving to the fuller spectrum of helping relations, has explored people’s readiness to seek help and their reactions to receiving it (Nadler, 2012). It has demonstrated that under certain conditions being dependent on others poses a threat to people’s self-esteem and they avoid seeking or receiving needed help (Nadler, in press). Yet only recently has this research on help-seeking and receiving begun to consider people’s preferences for receiving autonomy- or dependency-oriented help (Nadler & Halabi, 2006).
The decision to seek help is conceptualized in the helping relations paradigm as the outcome of a negotiation between the recipient’s fundamental psychological needs for belongingness and independence (Nadler, 2012). The interplay between these needs determines the diverse goals, beliefs about, and perceived consequences of helping. The experience of belongingness and hence mutual concern for others in a group brings a help seeker to rely fully on the helper in times of need. When one does not want to risk the successful outcome, the feeling of belongingness makes it more acceptable to turn to a specialist in the group for a full solution of the problem, even if it means demonstrating dependency on his or her help. On the other hand, the desire for independence inhibits one’s willingness to seek and receive full assistance. A deeper consideration of the dual meaning of helping as a tension between these two fundamental psychological needs leads beyond the dichotomy of seeking versus non-seeking help to consider the difference between autonomy- and dependency-oriented requests for help.
Although dependency-oriented help-seeking—requesting a full solution from a helper—fulfills the recipient’s immediate needs, it does very little to help him become self-sufficient over time. In contrast, autonomy-oriented help-seeking gives the recipient tools to meet her immediate needs and the knowledge to solve similar problems and fend for herself in the long run (Nadler, 1997, in press). Moreover, receiving dependency-oriented help, but not autonomy-oriented help, is associated with loss in the help-seeker’s social status (Nadler & Halabi, 2006, in press). In work settings, for example, people who are dependent on their co-workers for overcoming job-related difficulties have less prestige and status in the group than those who do not (Nadler, Ellis, & Bar, 2003). Given the relatively greater short- and long-term benefits of autonomy-oriented help, it would appear that in performance settings, people will prefer autonomy- over dependency-oriented assistance. Yet in everyday interactions, there seems to exist a consistent preference of some people for autonomy-oriented and of others for dependency-oriented help (Komissarouk & Nadler, 2008, 2009, 2013).
The current model explored this dilemma by integrating, for the first time, conclusions from two schools of research—self-construal (Markus & Kitayama, 1991) and self-regulation (Higgins, 1997)—with the findings on help-seeking behavior (Nadler, 1997, in press). Our research delves into the self-construal roots (independent vs. interdependent) of autonomous versus dependent help-seeking styles and the motivational mechanisms (promotion vs. prevention focus) that regulate these two different approaches to requesting help (striving for autonomy vs. accepting dependency).
An independent construal of self is linked with a motivation to promote one’s independence and achieve mastery (van Horen, Pöhlmann, Koeppen, & Hannover, 2008). This motivation induces a promotion regulatory focus that results in a preference for autonomy-oriented help. An interdependent self-construal is associated with motivation to conform and be accepted, preserving the current social status quo (Wiekens & Stapel, 2008). This type of self-construal induces a prevention regulatory focus that finds expression in seeking dependency-oriented help from a more experienced and knowledgeable helper.
In any culture, individuals vary in the degree to which they define themselves as being separate from or connected to others, that is, as independent from or interdependent with them (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Interdependent self-construal emphasizes connectedness and relations, whereas independent self-construal focuses on the separateness and uniqueness of the individual (Singelis, 1994). It has been argued that these differences in social orientation derive from the different ways in which cultures perceive and reason about the world around them (Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001). People characterized by an independent construal of self-view the world as controllable through one’s own actions and social networks as a union of separate individuals who work to promote their own individual goals (Nisbett et al., 2001), and are driven by a self-enhancement motivation (Taylor & Sherman, 2008). This desire for individual achievement is inconsistent with dependency on others’ help, so an independent self-construal is likely to drive people to cope with difficulties in a self-reliant manner. They are expected to cope by either avoiding a request for outside assistance or seeking only autonomy-oriented help that allows them to use others’ assistance while maintaining self-perceptions of relative self-reliance. People characterized by an interdependent construal of the self see social networks as closed systems with overlapping connections between its members. They are motivated to maintain harmony between group members, value group goals over individual goals, are concerned with others’ evaluations of them, and seek cooperative strategies to cope with challenges (Gudykunst et al., 1996; Kim, Sharkey, & Singelis, 1994; Oetzel, 1998). Due to this emphasis on achieving group goals, a failure of any member of the group impacts negatively on all group members. This tendency of the interdependent individual will manifest itself in a relatively high preference to rely on others when experiencing a difficulty. It is hypothesized that interdependent individual will be readier to seek dependency-oriented assistance.
The high value put by the interdependent individual on maintaining group harmony and the social status quo, and the independent individual’s desire for mastery and self-enhancement, are conceptually correlated with prevention and promotion states in goal-directed behaviors, respectively (Cross, Hardin, & Gercek-Swing, 2011). The theory of self-regulation processes in goal-directed behavior has distinguished between people characterized by dominant promotion and those characterized by a dominant prevention regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997). The promotion system represents the pursuit of goals and the aspiration toward ideals, whereas the prevention system stresses avoiding losses and the fulfillment of obligations. Therefore, a promotion focus uses an eagerness approach to goals by guaranteeing hits and ensuring against errors of omission, such as losing an opportunity to accomplish a desired outcome. It is an active approach characterized by willingness to take risks to promote self-enhancement. A prevention approach is focused on avoiding losses and mistakes by “staying the course” and not taking risks (Crowe & Higgins, 1997). In support of this, Liberman, Idson, Camacho, and Higgins (1999) found that promotion-focused individuals were much more likely than prevention-focused individuals to switch to a new course of action if deemed necessary.
There is a clear connection between perception of self and motivational regulation (see Cross et al., 2011, for review). Maintaining relational harmony, fitting into one’s proper roles in society, and living up to the standards of significant others are essential for people with high interdependence. This requires sensitivity to self-relevant information that could signal success or failure in the fulfillment of obligations, as supported by a prevention orientation. People with high independent self-construal are individuals who pursue their personal aspirations and are motivated toward self-actualization. Hence, independent self-construal may support a promotion focus. Several studies are in line with this reasoning (e.g., Hamilton & Biehal, 2005; Lee, Aaker, & Gardner, 2000; Zhang & Mittal, 2007).
In congruence with the links between independent or interdependent self-construals and promotion or prevention foci, respectively, research indicates that the effects of self-construal on social behavior may be mediated by regulatory focus. Hamilton and Biehal (2005) showed that priming consumers to think about themselves as independent or interdependent made promotion or prevention goals salient and had a systematic effect on their risk preferences. Consumers with an interdependent self-view chose less risky alternatives than consumers with an independent self-view, and their choices were mediated by a prevention focus, as they were more interested in avoiding losses than in achieving gains. In another study, Zhang and Mittal (2007) demonstrated that the effect of self-construal on the evaluation of enriched and impoverished options was driven by either a promotion or a prevention focus. Enriched options had high attribute scatter with extreme values, whereas impoverished options clustered toward the average. The studies showed that people with an independent self-construal and a promotion focus perceive enriched options as more attractive than impoverished options. Conversely, people with an interdependent self-construal and a prevention focus perceive enriched options as less attractive than impoverished options. Mediation analyses revealed that self-construal operates through an activated regulatory focus. Finally, Briley and Aaker (2006) offered a framework connecting cultural forces, promotion and prevention motives, and decision making in the two policy domains of health and finances, also stressing the mediating role of regulatory focus.
Applied to the present research context, these findings suggest that the effects of self-construal on seeking dependency- or autonomy-oriented assistance are mediated by regulatory focus. We suggest that a person with an interdependent construal of the self, who sees himself as part of a larger structure in which everything is interconnected, will be motivated to maintain the status quo and vigilant about avoiding mistakes in fixing the problem at hand (i.e., a prevention focus). As a result, he or she will feel comfortable with taking a passive role and will seek either dependency-oriented help from a more knowledgeable helper or no help at all. This represents a low level of risk-taking that reduces the danger of making a mistake. On the other hand, a person who has an independent self-construal, strives for self-enhancement, and controls his or her outcomes will be motivated to move forward by taking risks in meeting new challenges (i.e., a promotion focus). As a result, he or she will choose activity over passivity and will attempt to cope on his or her own as much as possible, either by not-seeking help or by soliciting autonomy-oriented help.
Based on Baron and Kenny (1986) (and see also Bullock, Green, & Ha, 2010; Stone-Romero & Rosopa, 2008), support for this mediation model requires a demonstration that (a) self-construal influences self-regulation and help-seeking behavior, (b) regulatory focus influences help-seeking, and (c) the effect of self-construal on help-seeking behavior shrinks or disappears with the addition of regulatory focus to the model. Studies 1 and 2 sought to demonstrate the preference for autonomy- or dependency-oriented help through an experimental induction of self-construal (Study 1) and regulatory focus (study 2). Study 3 assessed the impact of a person’s chronic self-construal, assessed by a score on an interdependent-independent self-construal scale (Singelis, 1994) on seeking help as mediated by a person’s score on a regulatory focus scale (Higgins et al., 2001). It should be stressed that our model seeks to explain an important difference between dependent and autonomous help-seeking, but the no-help option is considered in all our studies as well, as it can be chosen for different reasons by any group of respondents.
Study 1: Influence of Self-Construal on Autonomy- and Dependent-Oriented Help-Seeking Behavior
The aim of the first study was to examine whether individuals primed for interdependence would prefer dependency-oriented help while those primed for independence would prefer autonomy-oriented help.
Method
Participants
Participants were 83 undergraduate psychology students (22 men and 61 women, aged 18 to 28, M = 22 years) who participated for credit in an Introduction to Psychology course.
Materials and procedure
After signing the informed consent form, participants were invited to take part in an “SAT improvement study.” They were told that the researchers were collecting data about coping with difficult tasks under time pressure while taking the Verbal and Math portions of the Israel version of the SAT exam.
During the Verbal task, which was a cover story for the manipulation, participants were randomly assigned to the independent or interdependent condition. Following Trafimow, Triandis, and Goto’s (1991) design, participants in the condition aimed at activating independent self-construal were asked, “Think of what makes you special, different and unique among your closest friends and family. What makes you the individual that is you? Write a short essay on what this uniqueness means to you. Provide an example.” In the other condition aimed at activating interdependent self-construal, participants were asked, “Think of what makes you belong and connected with your closest friends and family. What makes you an integral part of your immediate environment? Write a short essay on what this belonging means to you. Provide an example.”
Participants were then given the Math task, which required them to solve five math problems under time restrictions. The participants did not know that two of the five math problems were unsolvable. A previous pilot study on three solvable problems had established the necessary level of difficulty, with 85% of the undergraduate psychology students solving only one problem and 15% solving all three presented problems. The two unsolvable problems were inserted to create a situation in which all respondents, regardless of their math ability, would face the same difficulties and have to choose between the coping strategies proposed. The three solvable problems served as a baseline for the math ability of the respondents, and their math grades were calculated as the number of correctly solved problems. We used these estimates to control statistically for differences in the respondents’ mathematical ability.
After 10 min, the Math test page was taken from the participants and they were asked to complete an Affect scale measuring “the effect of time pressure during the SAT.” The Affect scale consisted of five pairs of opposite emotional states (good–bad; relaxed–anxious; confident–non-confident; successful–failure; calm–nervous). We asked them to describe how they felt while doing the Math test under time pressure by rating each pair of emotional states on a 7-point scale, with 1 indicating the most positive and 7 indicating the most negative feeling. The general affect after the Math test under time pressure was calculated as an average of those five numbers for every participant (Cronbach’s α = .85). In addition to using this Affect measure for supporting our cover story, we used it to exclude the possible alternative explanation that affect mediates the influence of self-construal on the help option chosen. It could be possibly argued that construing oneself as different and unique among your closest friends and family versus as belonging to and connected with your closest friends and family, might somehow change the participants’ math abilities or affect, and those, in turn, would influence the help chosen. Although there is no known influence of self-construal on these variables, we nevertheless conducted the necessary analyses to rule out this possibility.
After answering the Affect scale, all participants were offered more time to work on math problems they could not solve. For each of the five math problems, participants had to choose between three options: (1) “a hint that may help to solve the problem on your own” (autonomy-oriented style), (2) “the full solution to a similar problem that, in all likelihood, will help you get the solution” (dependency-oriented style), or (3) “you prefer to continue solving the problem on your own” (avoidant style). Only responses to the two unsolvable problems were taken into consideration in the assessment of help-seeking style, so as to ascertain that help-seeking preferences were independent of variations in respondents’ math ability. This behavioral measure of help preferences was validated by numerous previous experiments that studied helping relations (e.g., Study 3 in Nadler, Harpaz-Gorodeisky, & Ben-David, 2009 and Study 4 in Nadler & Halabi, 2006). No doubt, the most dependent way of asking for help would be to get the full solution to the math problem from the helper. But this option was mostly ignored by the respondents in the pilot study, probably due to the social desirability factor (i.e., the need to make a good impression). We therefore proposed a less obvious form of dependent help, slightly changing the operational design used previously proposing “the full solution to a similar problem that, in all likelihood, will help you get the solution.” This still means receiving all the help needed, as one just has to apply this full solution to the current math problem.
Finally, at the end of the experiment, participants were asked to complete the Twenty Statements Test (TST; Kuhn & McPartland, 1954) by responding to 20 “Who am I?” probes. Participants’ statements were classified as independent, interdependent, or irrelevant cognitions. Independent cognitions related to personal qualities, attitudes, and beliefs that do not relate to others (e.g., “I am smart”). Interdependent cognitions related to the quality of friendship, belonging, and responsiveness to others (e.g., “I am a good group member”). Some statements, such as “I am ready to leave” or “I am bored,” could not be classified as either independent or interdependent cognitions and were therefore considered irrelevant. Three coders classified the responses and reached relatively high agreement (Cronbach’s α = 0.78, 0.85 and 0.90 for each cognition respectfully). The proportion of independent and interdependent cognitions served as the manipulation check on the experimental induction of self-construal. After completing the TST, the participants were thanked for their participation and fully debriefed.
Results
Manipulation check
Participants who had been asked to think about what makes them unique as individuals among their closest friends and family described themselves on the TST using independent self-construals (e.g., “I am creative,” M = 0.36, SD = 0.19) more than interdependent ones (e.g., “I am a student in an Introduction to Psychology course,” M = 0.19, SD = 0.15), t(81) = 3.3, p < .001. Those who were asked to think about themselves as belonging to others described themselves with more interdependent than independent statements (e.g., “I am Daniel’s brother,” M = 0.32, SD = 0.18 versus “I love comedies,” M = 0.20, SD = 0.15, respectively), t(81) = −3.2, p < .002. These findings support the effectiveness of the self-construal induction.
Help-seeking preferences
The hypotheses were tested by means of a 2 (between-subjects self-construal) × 3 (within-subjects help-seeking styles) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), which was then followed by tests examining our specific predictions. Covariates were gender, age, math grades, and affect. The participants’ help-seeking preferences (the dependent variable) were assessed by the number of times they chose each type of help, or chose not to seek help, for the two unsolvable math problems.
As expected, the results of the Repeated Measures ANCOVA showed a significant self-construal × help-seeking styles interaction effect, F(2, 154) = 50.98, p < .001. 1 A simple effect test then supported the prediction that the number of dependent help-seeking preferences was higher in the interdependent condition (M = 1.30, SE = 0.07) compared to the independent condition (M = 0.16, SE = 0.08), F(1, 77) = 106.41, p < .001. Moreover, regarding autonomous help-seeking, a simple effect test indicated the predicted difference in which the number of autonomous help-seeking preferences was higher in the independent condition (M = 1.14, SE = 0.09) compared to the interdependent condition (M = 0.48, SE = 0.08), F(1, 77) = 31.58, p < .001. A significant simple effect was also found for avoidant help-seeking, indicating that independent primed participants chose the no-help option more often (M = 0.70, SE = 0.09) than their interdependent counterpart (M = 0.22, SE = 0.07), F(1, 77) = 18.34, p < .001. No main effects for self-construal, F(1, 77) = 0.01, ns, or help-seeking conditions were found, F(2, 154) = 2.22, ns.
Discussion
Consistent with expectations, the findings indicate that the experimental induction of independent self-construal led to the seeking of autonomy-oriented help, and that of interdependent self-construal to the seeking of dependency-oriented assistance. In addition, independence-primed respondents avoided the seeking of help more than their interdependent counterparts. This corresponds to our expectation that in the context of help-seeking, the priming of independent self-construal will result in either of two behavioral tendencies: avoiding a request for help or requesting autonomy-oriented assistance. Both behaviors are an expression of the independently primed individual motivation to act in a way that maximizes his or her striving for individual achievement.
Study 1 established the causal link between self-construal and help- seeking. Study 2 will do the same for the causal link between regulatory focus and help-seeking.
Study 2: Influence of Regulatory Focus on Autonomy- and Dependency-Oriented Help-Seeking Behavior
Method
Participants
Participants were 76 undergraduate psychology students (19 men and 57 women, aged 18 to 30, M = 23 years) who participated in exchange for course credit.
Materials and procedure
We used the same paradigm as in Study 1. After signing the informed consent form, participants were invited to take Verbal and Math tasks as part of an “SAT improvement study.”
During the Verbal task, participants were randomly assigned to a promotion, prevention, or control condition. Participants in the promotion-focus condition were asked to write an essay responding to the question, “To what extent does your life reflect the tendency to advance eagerly at every opportunity in order to fulfill your hopes and aspirations, which provides a feeling of accomplishment? Provide an example.” Participants in the prevention-focus condition wrote an essay responding to the question, “To what extent does your life reflect the tendency to be vigilant and avoid risks and mistakes in order to be safe and responsible? Provide an example.” Participants in the control group were asked about a neutral topic: “Describe a sport you like to participate in or watch on TV and explain why.”
Participants were then given the Math task from Study 1, which required them to solve five math problems under time restrictions, with two of the problems having no solutions. After 10 min, the math test page was taken from the participants, and they were asked to complete an Affect scale, as used in Study 1 (Cronbach’s α = .85). After answering the Affect scale, participants responded to a help-seeking preference measure identical to the one used in study 1. After choosing the help options for every math problem, the participants were thanked for their participation and fully debriefed.
Results
Manipulation check
The regulatory focus manipulation was assessed by promotion/prevention focus expressed in the participants’ Verbal essays (Cronbach’s αs of agreement scores between three judges were .94 and .86 for promotion and prevention, respectively). A significant ANOVA on the average promotion scores, F(3, 72) = 39.83, p < .001, η2 = .52, was followed by Scheffe between groups comparison and indicated that participants in the promotion condition scored significantly higher on the promotion-focus measure (M = 5.49, SD = 1.52) than those in the prevention (M = 2.78, SD = 1.68) and control groups (M = 2.13, SD = 2.05). A significant effect on the average prevention scores, F(3, 72) = 47.55, p < .001, η2 = .57, that was followed by a Scheffe between group comparison indicated that the prevention group scored significantly higher (M = 5.34, SD = 1.6) on the prevention focus than the promotion (M = 2.93, SD = 1.83) and control groups (M = 1.13, SD = 0.22). These findings support the efficacy of the regulatory focus manipulation.
Help-seeking preferences
The hypotheses were tested by means of a 3 (between-subjects primed conditions) × 3 (within-subjects help-seeking styles) Repeated Measures Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), which was then followed by tests examining our specific predictions. Covariates were gender, age, math grades, and affect. The participants’ help-seeking preferences (the dependent variable) were assessed by the number of times they chose each type of help, or chose not to seek help, for the two unsolvable math problems.
The results of the Repeated Measures ANCOVA showed no main effects for primed conditions, F(2, 69) = 0.23, ns, or help-seeking preference, F(2, 138) = 0.99, ns. However, as expected, a significant primed conditions × help-seeking styles interaction effect emerged, F(4, 138) = 4.90, p < .001. 2 Simple effects were conducted for each help-seeking style and supported our hypothesis as follows.
Regarding the dependent help-seeking preference, simple effect tests showed a significant primed condition effect, F(2, 69) = 4.45, p < .05. Simple contrasts with Bonferroni adjustment showed that participants in the prevention condition (M = 0.78, SE = 0.13) preferred dependent help significantly more than their promotion counterparts (M = 0.26, SE = 0.12). These two conditions were not significantly different compared to the control group (M = 0.58, SE = 0.14).
For the autonomous help-seeking preference, significant simple effect was found, F(2, 69) = 3.12, p < .05. As expected, simple contrasts with Bonferroni adjustment showed that participants in the promotion condition (M = 0.65, SE = 0.11) preferred autonomous help significantly more than their prevention counterparts (M = 0.24, SE = 0.12). These two conditions were not significantly different compared to the control group (M = 0.48, SE = 0.13).
Regarding avoidance of help, there were no significant differences between primed conditions, F(2, 69) = 0.21, ns.
Discussion
The pattern of results suggests that, as predicted, one’s motivational orientation does affect help-seeking behavior, with the promotion focus leading to the seeking of autonomy-oriented assistance and the prevention focus to the seeking of dependency-oriented help.
Taken together, the findings of the first two studies support the first two hypotheses of the model presented. They provide support for the causal link between interdependent/independent self-construal and prevention/promotion regulatory focus and an individual’s preference for dependency or autonomy-oriented assistance, respectively. The third study is designed to assess the validity of the proposed mediation model suggesting that the effects of an interdependent self-construal on seeking dependency-oriented help are mediated by a person’s prevention focus and that of independent self-construal on preference for autonomy-oriented help by the arousal of a promotion regulatory focus.
In Study 1, we adopted the approach used by Trafimow et al. (1991) to measure primed self-construal. A review of the literature shows that this approach is just as popular as Singelis’ (1994) scale for self-construal, which will be used in Study 3 (Cross et al., 2011). Using both of these scales in different studies enhances the generalizability of our results. To assess the mediational model, the third study examined the relationships between participants’ scores on measures of chronic self-construal (Singelis, 1994), regulatory focus (Higgins et al., 2001), and help-seeking style (Harpaz-Gorodeisky & Nadler, 2008).
Study 3: Connection Between Self-Construal and Help-Seeking Behavior and the Mediating Role of Regulatory Focus
Method
Participants
A total of 193 undergraduate psychology students (49 men and 144 women, aged 18 to 36, M = 27 years) volunteered to complete an online survey.
Materials and procedure
Participants completed the Self-Construal Scale (Singelis, 1994), the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (Higgins et al., 2001), and the Autonomy-Oriented and Dependency-Oriented Help-Seeking Styles Questionnaire (Harpaz-Gorodeisky & Nadler, 2008), in that order.
Self-construal
Two self-construal scales were employed: interdependent and independent (Singelis, 1994). The interdependent self-construal scale consists of 12 items measuring the connectedness and relationships with the group (e.g., “It is important for me to maintain harmony within my group”). Some of those items describe the need to make sacrifices for the benefit of the group (“I will sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of the group”). The independent self-construal scale consists of 12 items measuring the individual’s feelings of separateness and uniqueness (e.g., “I enjoy being unique and different from others in many respects”). Ratings were made on a 5-point scale, and participants’ ratings were summed and averaged to yield indices of interdependent self-construal (Cronbach’s α = .68) and independent self-construal (Cronbach’s α = .76).
Regulatory focus
The Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (Higgins et al., 2001) measured regulatory focus with 11 items. The Promotion subscale (six items) measures individuals’ subjective histories of promotion success with items such as “How often have you accomplished things that got you “psyched” to work even harder?” and “I have found very few hobbies or activities in my life that capture my interest or motivate me to put effort into them” (reverse scored). The Prevention subscale (five items) measures individuals’ subjective histories of prevention success with items such as “How often did you obey rules and regulations established by your parents?” and “Not being careful enough has gotten me into trouble at times” (reverse scored). Ratings were made on a 5-point scale, and the means serve as indices for promotion and prevention focus (Cronbach’s αs were .68 and .78, respectively).
Help-seeking styles
Participants were asked to imagine a situation where they have a problem that stands in the way of achieving an important goal and to specify what they usually do or think when encountering difficulty in achieving this goal. Each item was rated on a 7-point scale, ranging from −3 = “not at all true of me” to 3 = “very true of me.” Nine items assessed respondents’ characteristic tendency to cope with difficulty by seeking autonomy-oriented assistance (e.g., “I think the best way to deal with a problem is to receive training that enables you to solve it on your own”), nine items assessed their characteristic tendency to seek dependency-oriented help (e.g.,” I prefer to rely on somebody else who understands the case more than I do, rather than dealing with the problem myself”), and nine items assessed their tendency to not seek help under similar conditions (e.g., “Even though it occasionally hurts my chances of success, I try to cope alone with my problems”).
The 27 items were subjected to exploratory factor analysis using varimax rotation method with Kaizer normalization. According to the criteria of eigenvalue > 1 and Scree test (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006), three factors were extracted. The three-factor model was also supported by parallel analysis. These factors accounted for 43.2% of the common variance, and analysis confirmed the expected division into three groups of statements describing the dependency-oriented (Eigenvalue = 4.57), autonomy-oriented (Eigenvalue = 2.99), and avoidant help-seeking styles (Eigenvalue = 4.57). All items loaded highest on the appropriate factor and had substantive loadings that exceeded .41. No item was found to have cross-loading that exceeded .27 on the non-primary factor. Similar structures solutions had been obtained in previous administrations of the scale in educational and medical contexts.
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the dependency-oriented, autonomy-oriented, and avoidant help-seeking styles were .83, .74, and .84, respectively. The autonomy-oriented and avoidant help-seeking styles were unrelated to the dependency-oriented help-seeking style (r = .09, ns and r = .09, ns, respectively), but the avoidant and autonomy-oriented help-seeking styles were moderately correlated (r = −.36, p < .01).
Results
The correlations between all variables can be found in Table 1. The preliminary results support the expected orthogonality of the two self-construals and of the two foci. More importantly, the correlations provide initial support for the indirect effects: As expected, independent self-construal was positively associated with promotion focus and interdependent self-construal with prevention focus (a paths). In addition, promotion focus was associated with autonomous help-seeking and prevention focus with dependent help-seeking (b paths). As for the predictor-outcome association (c paths), independent and interdependent self-construals were significantly associated with dependent help-seeking, but both self-construals were not significantly associated with autonomous help-seeking. However, a more rigorous approach for assessing the predictor-outcome association (c paths) by using regression analysis indicated that independent and interdependent self-construals were significantly associated with both dependent and autonomous help-seeking. These standardized total effects are presented in Figure 1 in parentheses.
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Mediation Model’s Variables.
p < .05. **p < .01.
The model of help-seeking behavior as determined by self-construal and mediated by regulatory focus.
To test the hypothesized mediation effects, we treated prevention and promotion foci as mediation variables in a multiple-mediation model (self-construals → regulatory foci → help-seeking styles). Both self-construals and both mediators were entered simultaneously (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Preacher & Hayes, 2004, 2008; Shrout & Bolger, 2002). In all analyses, we also controlled for the possible effects of gender and age.
Mediation effects were estimated with 5,000 bootstrapped samples to estimate the bias corrected and accelerated confidence intervals (Dearing & Hamilton, 2006; MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004; Preacher & Hayes, 2004). The bootstrapping method allowed us to enter both proposed mediators into the model simultaneously and test the indirect effect through each mediating variable while controlling for all other variables in the model (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). An SPSS script (“MEDIATE”) developed by Hayes and Preacher (2013) was used to estimate the indirect effects in multiple mediating variables.
The results of the mediation analyses are presented in Figure 1. As expected, independent self-construal significantly predicted promotion focus, which in turn predicted autonomous help-seeking. Interdependent self-construal significantly predicted prevention focus, which in turn predicted dependent help-seeking. The bootstrapping analysis supported the indirect effect of independent self-construal on autonomous help-seeking through promotion focus (unstandardized 95% confidence interval [CI] = [.06, .27]) and the indirect effect of interdependent self-construal on dependent help-seeking through prevention focus (unstandardized 95% CI = [.25, .62]). Because the confidence intervals did not contain zero, we may conclude that these indirect effects are significant, fully confirming our prediction.
Moreover, more significant correlations emerged: as shown in Table 1, independent self-construal was negatively associated with prevention focus, prevention focus was associated with avoidant help-seeking, and promotion focus was negatively associated with dependent help-seeking. Further bootstrapping analysis showed the following indirect effects: promotion focus mediated the association between independent self-construal and dependent help-seeking (unstandardized 95% CI = [–.30, –.03]); prevention focus mediated the association between independent self-construal and dependent help-seeking (unstandardized 95% CI = [–.54, –.16]); prevention focus mediated the association between independent self-construal and avoidant help-seeking (unstandardized 95% CI = [–.29, –.04]); and prevention focus mediated the association between interdependent self-construal and avoidant help-seeking (unstandardized 95% CI = [.04, .36]).
Discussion
As expected, regulatory focus was found to mediate the effect of self-construal on both dependent and autonomous help-seeking behavior. These findings provide full support for our model, as a prevention focus mediated the effect of interdependent self-construal on dependency-oriented help-seeking style, and a promotion focus mediated the effect of independent self-construal on autonomy-oriented help-seeking style.
Moreover, while establishing the proposed mediation model, additional mediation paths emerged, adding to the complexity of the relations between the correlated variables in the multivariate model, where both self-construals and both mediators were entered simultaneously. Out of all of the paths that emerged in the present study and may be understood and explained in light of our basic model, one in particular calls for our attention: Prevention focus mediated the effect of interdependent self-construal on avoidance of help. This mediation is based on significant associations revealed in the present study between self- reported interdependency, prevention focus, and individuals’ unwillingness to seek help. We can reason that a vigilant prevention strategy aimed at maintaining the status quo and avoiding the risk of mistakes leads individuals with dominant interdependency to a greater avoidance of help. This suggests that the avoidance of outside help reflects a cautious attitude toward coping with a problem. The person in need either requests a full solution to his or her problem or does nothing.
This preference of not-seeking help is somehow inconsistent with the findings of the first experiment where an independent self-construal was associated with the seeking of autonomy-oriented help or the avoidance of seeking outside help. This pattern suggests that the avoidance of help by independent person reflects an eagerness for personal achievement. The person in need either seeks partial assistance that will facilitate his/her independent coping or chooses to cope alone and forego outside help altogether. Thus, the decision to not seek help may reflect both eager and vigilant coping strategy. Self-construal is only one determinant of either of these two meanings of the decision to not seek help.
Indeed, closer post hoc inspection of the operational definitions of the no-help option in the first and third study revealed this difference in perceived meaning of help avoidance. In the first study, the operational definition of the avoidance of help appeared more to the independency-primed participants, probably due to its self-reliant flavor (the choice of the option “you prefer to continue solving the problem on your own”). However, in the third study, some no-help statements reflected more vigilant attitude toward other’s assistance; thus appealing more to the participants with dominant interdependency (e.g., “The only good advice is the one a person gives herself,” “God helps those who help themselves”). Although this argument could not be considered conclusive based on this data, and lies beyond the scope of the current research, the discrepancy in no-help preferences should be an interesting direction for future research.
General Discussion
Three studies demonstrated the systematic impact of an individual’s chronic or induced self-construal on help-seeking behavior mediated through the activation of regulatory focus. This model was tested by measuring self-reported self-construals, regulatory foci, and help-seeking styles (Study 3); and by priming self-construal (Study 1) and regulatory focus (Study 2) and assessing help-seeking behavior in an experimental setting. The results show that people with an independent self-construal and a dominant promotion focus—whether a chronic disposition or situationally induced—prefer autonomy-oriented help. Conversely, people with an interdependent self-construal and a dominant prevention focus seek dependency-oriented help. Mediation analysis (Study 3) shows that regulatory focus is a mediator between self-construal and help-seeking behavior.
Integrating our model into the findings about social emotions characterizing different self-construals and regulatory foci offers an interesting explanation for the patterns observed. The experience of ego-focused emotions (e.g., anger, pride) is more intensive for independent self-construal, whereas other-focused emotions (e.g., shame, fear of failure) are stronger for interdependent self-construal (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Based on this distinction, we propose that pride in achievement as an ego-focused emotion led independent individuals to seek autonomous ways of coping with their problems (autonomy-oriented help-seeking) or to avoid asking for help altogether. Shame and fear of failure, on the other hand, led interdependent individuals to seek more secure solutions by relying on experts (dependency-oriented help-seeking) or to avoid any help. As for self-regulation-influenced emotions, research has demonstrated that promotion but not prevention focus induced an illusion of control over an outcome that was in reality determined by chance and was independent of an individual’s behavior (Langens, 2007). Furthermore, it was found that this illusion of control buffered against the emotional consequences of failure experiences. We suggest that in our model, illusion of control stands as a buffer against feelings of failure and therefore allows promotion-focused individuals to use autonomy-oriented help-seeking, conjugated with the risk-taking inherent in new learning. Further research is needed to provide evidence for the role of social emotions and perceptions of control in this context.
Self-concept and self-regulation have their roots in cultural learning during childhood (Higgins & Silberman, 1998; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). In individualistic cultures, the key assumption is that well-functioning people formulate personal goals and make choices in pursuit of these goals without interference from others (Jacobson, 1987). In collectivistic societies, however, the social world remains somewhat unsusceptible to efforts by a lone individual to change things (e.g., Chiu, Dweck, Tong, & Fu, 1997). Power and agency tend to be concentrated in groups or are mandated by the role that an individual fulfills. Thus, there are many domains in which people are unable to exert much direct influence. As a Russian proverb teaches, “Let the cook bake pies and the cobbler mend boots.” In interdependent cultural contexts, greater relevance is assigned to social goals (e.g., harmony with others) than to individual goals (e.g., to be successful; van Horen et al., 2008), and a stronger prevention focus directs their attention to avoiding loss of face in social situations. “Face” is a critical resource in interdependent cultural contexts, and because face is more easily lost than gained, children are raised to habitually attend to avoidance information (Heine, 2005). These different upbringings lead to different help-seeking habits. An independent child would actively learn to fix a problem by acquiring new solutions, whereas his interdependent counterpart would turn to a parent or other adult for a perfect result and avoidance of failure.
This emphasis on the cultural antecedents of interdependent and independent self-construal emphasizes the need for a future research on the socio-cultural determinants of help-seeking preferences. For the most part, previous research on help-seeking was based on the Western assumption that people value individualism and adopts an independent self-construal that gives high premium to autonomy and individual achievement (Nadler & Halabi, in press). However, what looks to be beneficial when seen through an independent worldview—namely, learning new ways of solving a problem—may be seen as unnecessary risk-taking from an interdependent worldview. Accordingly, the present research suggests that in an interdependent worldview, seeking the full solution from an expert is perceived as being more instrumental and beneficial than learning to do it by oneself.
Our ongoing research on differences between Israelis socialized in the individualistic secular Israeli society and immigrants who had been socialized in the Soviet Union supports the importance of considering the role of socio-cultural variables in this context (Komissarouk & Nadler, 2008, 2009, 2013). In one study we had found that Israelis socialized in an urban individualistic environment had an independent self-construal and when faced with a difficulty preferred to seek autonomy-oriented help. A comparable sample of individuals who had been socialized in the Soviet Union had an interdependent self-construal and preferred to seek dependency-oriented help for a presented difficulty. Another study found that individuals socialized in the Soviet union who were characterized as possessing a promotion focus sought jobs that matched their professional qualifications (e.g., an MD seeking a job as a physician), and a comparable sample of individuals who had a prevention focus sought jobs below their level of qualification (e.g., an MD seeking a job as a lab technician). This finding is echoed in a finding, reported in the Israeli media, that while 11% of the population in Israel are entrepreneurs, only 5% of all immigrants from the former Soviet Union are entrepreneurs (Heruti, 2010, May 23). Apparently, unlike immigrants worldwide (for example, 50% of start-ups and 25% of public companies established with venture capital in the United States were founded by immigrants), immigrants from the former Soviet Union in Israel do not tend to take risks (Heruti, 2010). In terms of the present model, this suggests that individuals who had been socialized in the Soviet Union adopted an interdependent self-construal and a prevention focus that motivated them to make more “secure” choices (Schwartz & Bardi, 1997). This difference in help-seeking preferences can be an obstacle to successful social acclimatization of non-Western immigrants in the Western world. To further examine and generalize these findings, future studies should test the proposed mediation model of help-seeking preferences by exploring help-seeking preference of individuals from different socio-cultural contexts as affected by their self-construals and mediated by their prevention or promotion foci.
The present findings have important applied implications for a variety of contexts. One such context is the way in which people prefer to make decision in medical context. Research indicates that although a shared decision-making (SDM) approach is popular and desirable to some, it is not universally favored. Some patients prefer to leave final treatment decisions up to the doctor (Kaplan & Frosch, 2005). This finding shows a moral pluralism, which requires special attention in multicultural societies (Rodriguez-Osorio & Dominguez-Cherit, 2008). In order to explore the dimensions of a patient’s involvement in a joint decision about treatment, professionals such as physicians and psychologists must understand the patient’s motives and feelings about the process of cooperation (Graham & O’Connor, 2006). This requires a complete review of the patient’s values, the degree of patient preference for autonomy in decision making, the patient’s locus of control in health, and the patient’s willingness to take an active part in a joint decision (Schneider et al., 2006). On the other hand, Swenson, Zettler, and Lo (2006) hypothesize that a patient’s attraction to the classical paternalistic model, in which the decision is made by a specialist (as opposed to SDM), is based on the motivation to avoid damage related to amateur unprofessional participation in decision making and to rely on the experience and competence of the doctor. The present research provides a parsimonious account of this argument. Taking an active part in shared decision making about treatment (autonomy-oriented help) is suitable for patients who value their autonomy and have a promotion focus. In contrast, those patients who prefer to rely on the experts are likely to construe their selves in an interdependent manner, adopt a prevention focus, and seek dependency-oriented help.
Overall, the empirical patterns found in our research suggest that there is substantial variability in the universal phenomenon of help-seeking behavior. The observed construal and motivational differences in support-seeking have much relevance both for expanding our understanding of how people cope with problems, and for providing relevant assistance to clients from various cultural backgrounds by all types of professionals. These differences in help-seeking preferences need to be addressed in academic, organizational, health, and social welfare domains.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.