Relationship Context Matters

Abstract

This study compares self-construals in Belgium and Turkey in two different relationship contexts: mother and teacher. Following Kağıtçıbaşı’s model, we measured self-construal along the dimensions of autonomy and relatedness. Belgian (n = 276) and Turkish (n = 153) students completed Self Scales for either the mother or the teacher context. Consistent with previous cross-cultural research, Belgian students were more autonomous and less related than Turkish students, when aggregating across relationship contexts. However, in each culture, reported self-construals differed by relationship context. Moreover, the differences were entirely driven by the teacher context; no cultural differences were found with regard to self-construals in the mother context. One implication is that cultural self-construals are better seen as combined instances of socially situated selves than as stable traits.

Keywords

self-construals cultural differences relationship contexts Belgian Turkish

Self-construals are ways in which individuals define themselves and make meaning of previous and new experiences (Baumeister, 1998; Markus, 1977). Self-construals vary across cultures, because cultural contexts provide different opportunities for engagement, and thus different opportunities to experience the self (Kitayama, Duffy, & Uchida, 2007; Markus & Hamedani, 2007; Markus & Kitayama, 2003; Markus, Mullally, & Kitayama, 1997). In North American contexts, individuals come to see themselves as separate from others and unique because the cultural practices in which they engage (sleeping separately, being praised by others) cast them as unique and separate; in Japanese contexts, individuals come to see themselves as connected, because they engage in practices calling for connection and adjustment (co-sleeping, self-criticism, and acceptance by others). The idea is very close to early symbolic interactionist notions of self (Cooley, 1922; Mead, 1934): We are who we are, because our social environment makes us so. The difference is that early symbolic interactionist theories proposed that our selves mirror the evaluations and judgments of others, whereas contemporary sociocultural theories emphasize how individuals’ engagement in social interactions and collective practices affords and constrains our self-construal.

An individual’s engagement in interactions is facilitated not only by his or her cultural environment at large but also by the particular relationship contexts. Given that each type of relationship is associated with different experiences, we propose that individuals may construe themselves differently depending on the particular relational context of engagement. Moreover, there are cultural differences in habitual interactions and relationships, so that the ways to experience the self in a particular relationship (e.g., with the mother) may differ cross-culturally. This has an important and so far unexplored implication for cross-cultural research on self-construal: It may be more productive to cross-culturally compare the self-construals associated with particular relationship contexts than to assume that self-construal is a monolithic concept or trait within each culture.

In the current study, we map cultural variation in the self-construals of Belgian and Turkish young adults in two relational contexts; namely, in relationship with the mother and the teacher, respectively. We expect that mapping variations in self-construal by relational context will paint a more nuanced picture of cultural differences than can be obtained by only looking at the aggregated differences in self-construal.

Autonomy and Relatedness

Initial cross-cultural approaches to self described cultures in terms of either independent or interdependent selves (e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1991). However, it is probably more accurate to conceptualize the cultural differences in self-construals in terms of the relative focus on autonomy and relatedness, respectively (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2005). The latter conceptualization acknowledges that people across the world define themselves in terms of both autonomy and relatedness (see also Ryan & Deci, 2000), and allows for more nuanced cultural differences in self-construal, as described on both dimensions. A number of studies have shown that self-construals in different cultures vary with respect to the relative levels of both autonomy and relatedness (Georgas, Berry, van de Vijver, Kağıtçıbaşı, & Poortinga, 2006; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2008).

In the current study, we focused on Belgian and Turkish cultural contexts, because these cultures differ with respect to prevalent self-construals: Belgian student samples have been found to be more autonomous and less related than their Turkish counterparts (Güngör & Phalet, 2011). These findings converge with research comparing preferred family models in German and Turkish cultural contexts; Germany is a country neighboring to Belgium. Whereas German mother–child dyads preferred autonomy in the family, urban Turkish mother–child dyads preferred family models that focus equally on autonomy and relatedness—the so-called “emotional interdependent family model” (Mayer, Trommsdorff, Kağıtçıbaşı, & Mishra, 2012). Autonomy and relatedness findings also converge with characterizations of Belgian contexts as individualist and Turkish contexts as collectivist (Güngör & Bornstein, 2010; Kitayama, Park, Sevincer, Karasawa, & Üskül, 2009; Phalet & Claeys, 1993).

Situated Self-Construals

Evidence for situated self-construals comes from several studies showing that people in fact construe the self differently depending on the relationship or activity concerned (Andersen & Chen, 2002; Chen, Boucher, & Tapias, 2006; McConnell, 2011; Neff & Harter, 2003). For instance, in one study, U.S. college students were asked to rate themselves in terms of autonomy and connectedness. Self-ratings differed for their relationship with their mother, their father, their best friends, and their romantic partners (Neff & Harter, 2003): Students rated themselves as more autonomous than related in their relationship with their parents, but this was not the case for their relationships with either friends or romantic partners; in romantic relationships, students described themselves even as more related than autonomous. This and other studies suggest that individuals’ self-construals differ in ways that fit the specific relational contexts, even within U.S. cultural contexts (Markus & Cross, 1990).

Cross-cultural research on self-construals has found self-construals in East Asian contexts to be even more context-bound than self-construals in North American contexts. Although none of these studies measure self-construal in terms of autonomy and relatedness, they converge on the conclusion that East Asians need the context to be able to describe themselves in trait-like terms, whereas North Americans less require such contexts (Cousins, 1989; English & Chen, 2007; Kanagawa, Cross, & Markus, 2001; Suh, 2002). The notion that self-construal may be contextualized thus appears cross-culturally valid.

Self-Construals in Relationship With Mother and Teacher

In the current research, we compare Belgian and Turkish self-construals in two relationship contexts: the relationship with the mother and that with the teacher. These relationship contexts were chosen, because they are universally significant, and they represent major socializing contexts for self (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2007; Keller, 2003). Judging from the scarce literature available on these contexts, we expected cultural differences in self-construals to be more pronounced in the teacher than in the mother context.

Mother context

Self-report studies of Belgian and Turkish adolescents and young adults suggest that self-construals in the mother context might be both autonomous and related. Belgian adolescents rated their relationships with their parents as even more connected than agentic (Beyers, Goossens, Vansant, & Moors, 2003). Similarly, in another study, Belgian college students indicated that they wished to stay in close connection with their parents even though they wanted/needed to become independent (Kins, De Mol, & Beyers, 2014). Relative to their peers from other individualist cultures, Belgian adolescents and young adults may be more related with the mother. For instance, in a cross-cultural study, Belgian adolescents rated themselves as closer to their mothers than their Canadian counterparts (Claes, 1998).

Just like their Belgian counterparts, Turkish adolescents in urbanized settings described their relationship with their mother in terms of both autonomy and relatedness (Imamoğlu & Karakitapoğlu-Aygün, 2004; Kağıtçıbaşı & Ataca, 2005). A general observation is that young family members in Turkish urbanized settings strive for autonomy while they also preserve warm and supportive family ties (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2007). Drawing from all these different studies, we argue the following:

Across Belgian and Turkish urbanized settings, both autonomy and relatedness are important aspects of the self in the relationship with the mother.

Despite characterizations of Belgian culture as individualist and Turkish culture as collectivist, we did not predict any differences for the mother context.

Teacher context

Much less is known about self-construals in teacher contexts. It seems likely that, across cultures, teachers will expect that student learning comes with some degree of autonomy; students should be task oriented, in addition to relationship oriented (e.g., Pianta, Nimetz, & Bennett, 1997). Thus, we would expect that the relationship with the teacher affords higher levels of autonomy than with the mother and this would be true both in the Belgian and the Turkish context. Autonomy, as well as teachers’ autonomy support, benefits Belgian students’ test performance (Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Sheldon, & Deci, 2004). In addition, some degree of relatedness (warmth) is known to be beneficial to Belgian teacher–student relationships (Verschueren & Koomen, 2012).

However, several findings suggest that relatedness with teachers is particularly important in the Turkish context. Turkish teachers emphasize their relationship with their students more than teachers in some individualist cultures: In a cross-cultural study, they reported less conflict and more closeness to their pupils than their U.S. counterparts (Beyazkürk & Kesner, 2005). Moreover, Turkish students’ school belonging was more affected by perceived relationship quality with teachers than by the perceived quality of other aspects of the school environment, such as control (the opposite of autonomy; Cemalcılar, 2010). This too suggests that relatedness is an important defining dimension of Turkish students’ self-concept in the relationship with the teacher.

Taking these findings together, we expected Belgian youth to report higher levels of autonomy in relationship to their teachers than their Turkish counterparts, and we expected Turkish youth to report high levels of relatedness than their Belgian peers.

The Current Study

In sum, we examined the levels of autonomy and relatedness in two cultural contexts, a Belgian and Turkish one, across two relationship contexts, the mother and the teacher contexts. We explored whether the degree of cultural difference was variable across relationship contexts.

Hypothesis 1: First, we hypothesized higher levels of autonomy and lower levels of relatedness in the self-construals of Belgian (vs. Turkish) university students.

Hypothesis 2: Second, we hypothesized no cultural differences in self-construal for the mother context.

Hypothesis 3: Finally, for the teacher context only, we expected Belgian self-construals to be higher on autonomy and lower on relatedness than Turkish self-construals.

The current study contributes a situated approach to the research on cross-cultural differences in self-construals. It also offers insights into two relationship contexts—the mother and the teacher contexts—across two different cultural contexts. Finally, we contribute to cross-cultural research generally by including two cultures not typically studied, and thus extending our knowledge base beyond the traditional East–West comparisons.

Method

Participants

Participants were 276 Belgian psychology undergraduate students (University of Leuven) and 153 Turkish social sciences students (İzmir University, Marmara University, and Middle East Technical University). Belgian students (M = 18.12 years, SD = 2.05) were slightly younger than Turkish students (M = 19.64, SD = 2.21), F(1, 435) = 52.013, p < .001, but gender distributions were similar (80% and 73% female, respectively). Students also reported their income situation and the level of education of their mothers. The majority of Belgian and Turkish students were still financially dependent on their families, χ²(2, N = 438) = 2.125, p = .346. Belgian and Turkish mothers differed with respect to their educational levels, χ²(2, N = 438) = 133.626, p < .001; more than half of the Belgian mothers finished a tertiary education whereas almost half of the Turkish mothers had no/primary education.

Procedure

Participants received either the mother or the teacher version of the questionnaire; in each session, the questionnaires were taken from a randomly mixed stack of mother and teacher questionnaires. In the teacher version of the questionnaire, students were asked to describe themselves in relation with their main teacher from the previous year. All participants answered some demographic questions. Questionnaires were developed in Turkish; they were translated from Turkish to Dutch, and back-translated to Turkish using the successive development method (van de Vijver & Poortinga, 1997). Belgian and Turkish participants completed Dutch and Turkish questionnaires, respectively.

Both Belgian and Turkish students completed the questionnaires during class time; the Belgian students received course credit. In both countries, a research team was present to inform the participants about the general purpose of the study and to answer questions. Confidentiality and anonymity was ensured. Completion of the questionnaire took approximately 20 min.

Measures

Autonomy and relatedness

Autonomy was measured by three items that were adopted from a scale developed by Güngör and Phalet (2011) and validated for both Belgian and Turkish samples (e.g., “I can plan my future without my mother/teacher’s guidance”) and three other items adopted from a scale of autonomy in pupil–teacher relationships that was developed in the Belgian context (e.g., “I usually find it comforting if my mother/teacher chooses in my place what is good for me” [reversed item]; Koomen, Verschueren, & Thijs, 2006).

Relatedness was measured by six items derived from the relatedness scale developed by Güngör and Phalet (2011; for example, “My relationship with my mother/teacher was an important part of who I am”). Both autonomy and relatedness items were rated on a 7-point Likert-type scales (1 = totally disagree, 7 = totally agree). For the current research, all original items were rewritten to pertain specifically to the relationship with the mother/teacher (for a full list of items, see Table 1).

Table 1.

Items of the Autonomy and Relatedness Scales and Unstandardized Parameter Estimates.

Latent factors	Indicators	Parameter estimates (SE)
Autonomy (α = .74)	I am usually afraid of deciding on my personal issues without consulting my mother/teacher.^a	1.00 —
	I can plan my future without my mother/teacher’s guidance.	0.69 (.07)***
(Interitem correlation range = .24-.45)	I usually find it comforting if my mother/teacher chooses in my place what is good for me.^a	0.89 (.09)***
	I would prefer if my mother/teacher tells me precisely how I should do everything.^a	0.81 (.10)*** (BM)
		1.34 (.16)*** (BT)
		0.68 (.18) *** (TM)
		1.03 (.18)*** (TT)
	When I am given a new responsibility, I need my mother/teacher to tell me what I have to do.^a	1.08 (.14)*** (BM)
		1.27 (.15)*** (BT)
		1.00 (.27)*** (TM)
		1.25 (.20)*** (TT)
	I set my own standards and goals for myself rather than my mother/teacher’s.	0.52 (.06)***
Relatedness (α = .88)	My relationship with my mother/teacher was an important part of who I am.	0.89 (.05)***
	When I feel sad I usually like to talk about it with my mother/teacher.	1.00 —
(Interitem correlation range = .42-.73)	Most of the time I would spend time alone rather than spending time with my mother/teacher.^a	0.61 (.06)***
(Interitem correlation range = .42-.73)	I am seldom occupied with the feelings and experiences of my mother/teacher.^a	0.50 (.05)***
	I do not share personal issues with my mother/teacher.^a	0.96 (.08)*** (BM)
		1.10 (.09)*** (BT)
		1.52 (.20) *** (TM)
		1.31 (.23)*** (TT)
	I prefer to keep a certain distance in my relationship with my mother/teacher.^a	0.80 (.05)***

Note. BM = Belgians with their mother; BT = Belgians with their teacher; TM = Turkish with their mother; TT = Turkish with their teacher.

Reverse coded items.

***

p < .001.

To establish the equivalence of the autonomy and relatedness scales across cultures and relationship contexts, we used multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MCFA; Byrne & van de Vijver, 2010). In a first step, we found configural equivalence: χ²(212) = 445.806, p < .001, comparative fit index (CFI) = .87, root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) = .05, and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .06. This means that the six autonomy items loaded for both cultures and relationship contexts on an autonomy factor; and that the six relatedness items loaded on a relatedness factor. Next, we imposed equality constraints on all factor loadings to test metric equivalence. While full metric equivalence was rejected, χ²(242) = 496.366, p < .001, CFI = .86, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .07; Δχ²(30) = 50.561, p = .01, a partially equivalent model showed acceptable fit according to the criteria suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999), χ²(233) = 475.201, p < .001, CFI = .87, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .07; Δχ²(21) = 29.395, p = .11. Based on this model, we constructed autonomy and relatedness scales (see Table A1 in the appendix for more details); the correlations between autonomy and relatedness were −.35 (p < .001), −.37 (p < .001), −.35 (p = .001), and −.27 (p = .01), respectively, for Belgians in relation with their mother and their teacher groups, and Turks in relation with their mother and their teacher groups (see Table 1).

Results

Cultural Differences in Self-Construals

To test the cultural differences in the levels of autonomy and relatedness, we conducted MANOVA on self-orientations (autonomy, relatedness) with cultures (Belgian, Turkish) and relationship contexts (mother, teacher) as between-subjects factors (see Table 2). We controlled for gender and age because in some cases they associated with autonomy or relatedness (see Table A2 in the appendix for correlations between study variables). There were differences in the use of response scales across cultural groups and relationship contexts, F(3, 442) = 44.81, p < .001. This response tendency, combined with the failure to find full scalar equivalence, led us to group mean center autonomy and relatedness scores by culture before conducting group comparisons (Fischer, 2004; Meuleman & Billiet, 2011). As hypothesized, Belgians rated themselves as more autonomous than Turks (M_Belgians = 5.37, SD_Belgians = 1.07 vs. M_Turkish = 5.08, SD_Turkish = 1.10), F(1, 421) = 9.40, p = .002, η² = .02, and less related (M_Belgians = 4.24, SD_Belgians = 1.36 vs. M_Turkish = 4.53, SD_Turkish = 1.16), F(1, 421) = 13.01, p < .001, η² = .03 (see Figure 1). This finding replicates other research on cultural differences in self-construals.

Table 2.

Means and Standard Deviations for Self-Construals.

	Belgium			Turkey
	Mother	Teacher	Total	Mother	Teacher	Total
Autonomy	4.74 (0.92)	5.97 (0.84)	5.36 (1.07)	4.75 (0.95)	5.40 (1.14)	5.08 (1.10)
Relatedness	4.86 (1.3)	3.63 (1.12)	4.24 (1.30)	4.88 (1.18)	4.21 (1.05)	4.53 (1.16)

Note. The values in parentheses refer to standard deviations.

Figure 1.

Levels of autonomy and relatedness across cultures.

These differences were qualified by a significant interaction between culture and relationship context, F(2, 420) = 6.08, p = .002, η² = .03. To explore this interaction further, we contrasted autonomy and relatedness scores within each relationship context, using univariate ANOVAs. Consistent with our hypothesis, there were no cultural differences for the self in relationship with the mother (see Figure 2): Neither autonomy—M_Belgians = 4.74, SD_Belgians = .92 versus M_Turkish = 4.75, SD_Turkish = .95), F(1, 421) = 0.02, ns—nor relatedness levels—M_Belgians = 4.86, SD_Belgians = 1.30 versus M_Turkish = 4.88, SD_Turkish = 1.18), F(1, 421) = 0.72, ns—differed between Belgian and Turkish youth. Yet, for relationship with the teacher, we found significant cultural differences in both autonomy and relatedness (see Figure 3): Belgian students were significantly more autonomous (M_Belgians = 5.97, SD_Belgians = .84 vs. M_Turkish = 5.40, SD_Turkish = 1.14), F(1, 442) = 17.99, p < .001, η² = .04, and significantly less related (M_Belgians = 3.63, SD_Belgians = 1.12 vs. M_Turkish = 4.21, SD_Turkish = 1.05), F(1, 442) = 11.608, p = .001, η² = .03, than Turkish students.

Figure 2.

Levels of autonomy and relatedness in relation to mother.

Figure 3.

Levels of autonomy and relatedness in relation to teacher.

Contextual Differences in Autonomy and Relatedness Within Each Culture

We also followed up on the significant interaction between culture and relationship context by exploring, within each culture, the differences across relationship contexts. To this end, we contrasted the mother to the teacher contexts: In both cultures, students rated themselves as more autonomous in relation to teachers than to the mothers, F(1, 421) = 115.748, p < .001, η² = .22, for Belgian students and, F(1, 421) = 17.244, p < .001, η² = .04, for Turkish students. Conversely, students in both cultures rated themselves as less related to teachers than to mothers, F(1, 421) = 80.884, p < .001, η² = .16, for Belgian students, and F(1, 421) = 11.90, p < .001, η² = .03, for Turkish students. The differences between relationship contexts seem more pronounced for the Belgian than for the Turkish context.

Discussion

There is a large literature showing cultural differences in the relative importance of autonomy and relatedness. However, few studies have addressed the role of relationship contexts. In the current study, we investigated whether cultural differences in self-construals replicated across different relationship contexts. We compared self-construals of Belgian and Turkish samples in relationship with mothers and teachers, respectively.

We adopted a measure of autonomy and relatedness that yielded similar factors of autonomy and relatedness across cultures and relationship contexts, allowing us to create reliable scales including all the items. Although we established only partial equivalence of the scale, the results did not change when only including the items for which we found full equivalence (see Table A1, A2 and A3 in the appendix). Therefore, our findings with these scales inspire confidence.

Consistent with previous studies, aggregated autonomy ratings in the Belgian group were higher than those in the Turkish group, whereas aggregated relatedness ratings were lower. This finding is consistent with other research comparing Western European and Turkish self-construals (e.g., Mayer et al., 2012). However, these aggregated differences did not replicate to both relationship contexts. Belgians did not rate themselves as any more autonomous or any less related in relationship to the mother. Only in the relationship with the teacher did we find cultural differences in self-construals, and these seemed more pronounced than for the aggregated self-construals. Therefore, one conclusion from this research is that overall patterns of self-construals at the cultural level may hide context-specific differences in self-construals.

Another conclusion is that specifically examining self-construals within given relationship contexts may also yield cross-cultural similarities that would have been hidden by the overall patterns of self-construal. In the current study, we found that both Belgian and Turkish students rated themselves as less autonomous and more related in the mother than in the teacher context. This suggests that the relationship with the mother affords different ways of being than the relationship with the teacher, and that the direction of these differences is similar across cultures.

Our research also speaks to research showing cultural differences in context dependency of self-construals. Several studies have found such context dependency in Eastern, but not in Western cultures (e.g., Cousins, 1989; English & Chen, 2007, but also see English & Chen, 2011), suggesting that context dependency is typical of collectivist cultures. Our research does not support this conclusion. We find context dependency in both our individualist and our collectivist sample, and if anything, the contextual differences in self-construal are larger in the Belgian sample. Although this finding may be linked to the particular selection of cultures, this need not be the case: Other studies including North American samples have also found that self-construals differed, depending on the role or relationship context involved (Boucher, 2011; Chen et al., 2006; Church et al., 2012; Church et al., 2008; Church et al., 2013; McConnell, 2011). Based on our own finding, combined with this other evidence, we recommend a more fine-grained analysis of cultural differences in self-construals, in which relationship contexts are taken into account.

Similarity in self-construals in the mother context can be understood from the respective characteristics of the Belgian and Turkish cultures. On one hand, Belgium (just like its neighboring countries) is characterized by a softer variant of individualism than can be found in North American cultures (Boiger, De Deyne, & Mesquita, 2013). This variant simultaneously emphasizes individuals’ self-expression, and the importance of relationships (also called egalitarian self-expression, Schwartz & Ros, 1995), and is manifest in the relationships between Belgian parents and their adolescent children (Beyers, Goossens, Vansant, & Moors, 2003). The finding that Belgian adolescents in our study describe themselves both as autonomous and as related in the mother context fits within the characterization yielded by a number of other studies in this cultural context.

On the other hand, Turkey (especially modern Turkey) combines autonomy and relatedness. Central to Turkish culture is the emphasis on closely knit ties; however, mid-to-high Socio-economic status groups in modern Turkish culture are characterized by psychological interdependence, which is relatedness combined with autonomy (see Kağıtçıbaşı, 2005, 2007, for a review). For instance, Turkish, Greek, and Algerian university students are found to value closeness with family and friends more, but autonomy no less, than do European American, German, or Dutch students (Georgas et al., 2006; Imamoğlu & Karakitapoğlu-Aygün, 2004; Phalet & Hagendoorn, 1996; Pouliasi & Verkuyten, 2011; Üskül, Hynie, & Lalonde, 2004). The findings of a self-construal that is both autonomous and related in the mother context are thus consistent with other findings on self-construals in educated groups of Mediterranean countries.

Cultural differences in self-construals were much more pronounced for the teacher context. This means that self-construals as needed in the relationship with the teacher appear to be “cultured”: Belgian self-construals emphasize autonomy more at the expense of relatedness than Turkish self-construals. The finding resonates with Bourdieu’s view that schools are sources of cultural reproduction (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977; Sullivan, 2002). In the Belgian culture, the relationship with the teacher requires relatively more autonomy, whereas in the Turkish culture, the relationship with the teacher is one of more relatedness. Similar conclusions were reached by research on Belgian and Turkish teachers, respectively, as described in the introduction (Cemalcılar, 2010; Vansteenkiste et al., 2004).

In both relationship contexts, and across contexts, the correlation between autonomy and relatedness was moderately negative. This finding is consistent with previous research (Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2008) and suggests that autonomy and relatedness are somewhat conflicting self-construals at the level of the individual. At the same time, at the cultural level, autonomous and related self-construals co-occur, and this is true in both cultures and for both relationship contexts.

Future research should address the consequences of fit with relationship contexts in different cultures. If cultural differences in self-construals are functional within certain relationship contexts and cultures, we would expect that self-construals lead to personal and social well-being when they fit the requirements of the relationship within a particular culture. This would go beyond literature showing that cultural fit generally predicts subjective well-being (Kitayama, Karasawa, Curhan, Ryff, & Markus, 2010; Kitayama, Mesquita, & Karasawa, 2006), suggesting that it is the fit within a particular relationship within that culture that counts.

Footnotes

Appendix

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a research fund of the University of Leuven to the last author.

Author Biographies

Canan Coşkan is a PhD candidate in social and cultural psychology at University of Leuven, in Belgium. Her PhD work entails investigating cultural as well as relational differences in situated self-construals, the acculturation of self of Turkish minority in Belgium, and the antecedents and consequences of acculturating selves for adjustment outcomes. She received her MSc in social psychology from Middle East Technical University in 2010.

Karen Phalet is a professor of social psychology and education/social sciences at University of Leuven, in Belgium. Her recent work develops comparative perspectives on school diversity and ethnic inequality and on the religious identities of Muslim immigrant youth in European societies. Her current project studies the interplay of social boundaries in European schools with the social ties and identities of Muslim youth. She received her PhD from the University of Leuven in 1993 and has since been the author of numerous publications in ethnic and migration studies, social psychology, and sociology journals and books. She was a 2013 Society for Personality and Social Psychology Fellow.

Derya Güngör is an associate professor of social psychology at Yaşar University, Turkey. She received her PhD in social psychology from Ankara University in 2000, was a Marie Curie postdoctoral fellow at the NICHD (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development), USA and Utrecht University, the Netherlands, and worked as a researcher at the University of Leuven, Belgium, before her appointment at Yaşar University. Her research aims to understand cultural shaping of self and personality as well as cultural transmission, acculturation, and adaptation in immigrant families from cross-cultural, social, and developmental psychological perspectives.

Batja Mesquita is a professor of social and cultural psychology at University of Leuven, Belgium. Her research has focused on social and cultural processes of emotion and motivation. Her most current research is on cultural differences in dyadic emotions, emotions in groups, and acculturation in self, personality, and emotion. She received her PhD from the University of Amsterdam in 1993 and has since been the author of numerous journal publications and book chapters. She was the editor of two volumes, Mind in Context (2010) and Changing Emotions (2013), and was an associate editor for Psychological Science (2011-2015), Emotion Review, and Cognition and Emotion. She is a fellow of the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences, the American Psychological Society, the American Psychological Association, the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, and the Society for Experimental Social Psychology, and a member of the Royal Flemish Academy of Sciences in Belgium.

References

Andersen

S. M.

Chen

(2002). The relational self: An interpersonal social-cognitive theory. Psychological Review, 109, 619-645.

Baumeister

R. F.

(1998). The self. In Gilbert

D. T.

Fiske

S. T.

Lindzey

(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 680-740). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Beyazkürk

Kesner

J. E.

(2005). Teacher-child relationships in Turkish and United States schools: A cross-cultural study. International Education Journal, 6, 547-554.

Beyers

Goossens

Vansant

Moors

(2003). A structural model of autonomy in middle and late adolescence: Connectedness, separation, detachment, and agency. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 351-365.

Boiger

De Deyne

Mesquita

(2013). Emotions in “the world”: Cultural practices, products, and meanings of anger and shame in two individualist cultures. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 867.

Boucher

H. C.

(2011). The dialectical self-concept II: Cross-role and within-role consistency, well-being, self-certainty, and authenticity. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 1251-1271.

Bourdieu

Passeron

J.-C.

(1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London, England: Sage.

Byrne

B. M.

van

Vijver

F. J. R.

(2010). Testing for measurement and structural equivalence in large-scale cross-cultural studies: Addressing the issue of nonequivalence. International Journal of Testing, 10, 107-132.

Cemalcılar

(2010). Schools as socialisation contexts: Understanding the impact of school climate factors on student’s sense of school belonging. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59, 2, 243-272.

10.

Chen

Boucher

H. C.

Tapias

M. P.

(2006). The relational self revealed: Integrative conceptualization and implications for interpersonal life. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 151-179.

11.

Church

A. T.

Alvarez

J. M.

Katigbak

M. S.

Mastor

K. A.

Cabrera

H. F.

Tanaka-Matsumi

. . . Buchanan

A. L.

(2012). Self-concept consistency and short-term stability in eight cultures. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 556-570.

12.

Church

A. T.

Anderson-Harumi

C. A.

del Prado

A. M.

Curtis

Tanaka-Matsumi

Valdez-Medina

J. L.

. . . Katigbak

M. S.

(2008). Culture, cross-role consistency, and adjustment: Testing trait and cultural psychology perspectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 739-755.

13.

Church

A. T.

Katigbak

M. S.

Locke

K. D.

Zhang

Shen

de Jesús Vargas-Flores

. . . Ching

C. M.

(2013). Need satisfaction and well-being: Testing self-determination theory in eight cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 507-534.

14.

Claes

(1998). Adolescents’ closeness with parents, siblings, and friends in three countries: Canada, Belgium, and Italy. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27, 165-184.

15.

Cooley

Charles H.

1922. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Scribner’s.

16.

Cousins

S. D.

(1989). Culture and self-perception in Japan and the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 124-131.

17.

English

Chen

(2007). Culture and self-concept stability: Consistency across and within contexts among Asian Americans and European Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 478-490.

18.

English

Chen

(2011). Self-concept consistency and culture: The differential impact of two forms of consistency. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 838-849.

19.

Fischer

(2004). Standardization to account for cross-cultural response bias: A classification of score adjustment procedures and review of research in JCCP. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 263-282.

20.

Georgas

Berry

J. W.

van de Vijver

F. J. R.

Kağıtçıbaşı

Ç.

Poortinga

Y. H.

(Eds.). (2006). Families across cultures: A 30-nation psychological study. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

21.

Güngör

Bornstein

(2010).Culture-general and -specific associations of attachment avoidance and anxiety with perceived parental warmth and psychological control among Turk and Belgian adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 5,593-602.

22.

Güngör

Phalet

(2011, June). Cultural patterns and developmental pathways of autonomy and relatedness: Turkish and Belgian self-construals in middle and late adolescence. Paper presented at IACCP Regional Conference International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, Istanbul, Turkey. Retrieved from https://lirias.kuleuven.be/handle/123456789/329725

23.

L.-T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

24.

Imamoğlu

E. O.

Karakitapoğlu-Aygün

(2004). Self-construals and values in different cultural and socioeconomic contexts. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 130, 277-306.

25.

Kağıtçıbaşı

. (2005). Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context: Implications for self and family. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 403-422.

26.

Kağıtçıbaşı

. (2007). Family, self, and human development across cultures: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

27.

Kağıtçıbaşı

Ataca

. (2005). Value of children and family change: A three-decade portrait from Turkey. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 317-337.

28.

Kanagawa

Cross

S. E.

Markus

H. R.

(2001). “Who am I?” The cultural psychology of the conceptual self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 90-91.

29.

Keller

(2003). Socialization for competence: Cultural models of infancy. Human Development, 46, 288-311.

30.

Kins

De Mol

Beyers

(2014). “Why should I leave?” Belgian emerging adults’ departure from home. Journal of Adolescent Research, 29, 89-119.

31.

Kitayama

Duffy

Uchida

(2007). Self as cultural mode of being. In Kitayama

Cohen

(Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 136-174). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

32.

Kitayama

Karasawa

Curhan

K. B.

Ryff

C. D.

Markus

H. R.

(2010). Independence and interdependence predict health and wellbeing: Divergent patterns in the United States and Japan. Frontiers in Cultural Psychology, 1, Article 163.

33.

Kitayama

Mesquita

Karasawa

(2006). Cultural affordances and emotional experience: Socially engaging and disengaging emotions in Japan and the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 890-903.

34.

Kitayama

Park

Sevincer

A. T.

Karasawa

Üskül

A. K.

(2009). A cultural task analysis of implicit independence: Comparing North America, Western Europe, and East Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 236-255.

35.

Koomen

H. M. Y.

Verschueren

Thijs

J. T.

(2006). Assessing aspects of the teacher–child relationship: A critical ingredient of a practice-oriented psycho-diagnostic approach. Educational and Child Psychology, 23, 50-60.

36.

Markus

(1977). Self-schemas and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63-78.

37.

Markus

Cross

(1990). The interpersonal self. In Pervin

L. A.

(Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 576-608). New York, NY: Sage.

38.

Markus

Kitayama

(1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

39.

Markus

Mullally

P. R.

Kitayama

(1997). Self- ways: Diversity in modes of cultural participation. In Neisser

Jopling

(Eds.), The conceptual self in context: Culture, experience, self-understanding (pp. 13-61). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

40.

Markus

H. R.

Hamedani

M. G.

(2007). Sociocultural psychology: The dynamic interdependence among self-systems and social systems. In Kitayama

Cohen

(Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 3-46). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

41.

Markus

H. R.

Kitayama

(2003). Models of agency: Sociocultural diversity in the construction of action. In Berman

V. M.

Berman

J. J.

(Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Cross-cultural differences in perspectives on the self (Vol. 49, pp. 1-58). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

42.

Mayer

Trommsdorff

Kağıtçıbaşı

Mishra

R. C.

(2012). Family models of independence/interdependence and their intergenerational similarity in Germany, Turkey, and India. Family Science, 3, 64-74.

43.

McConnell

A. R.

(2011). The multiple self-aspects framework: Self-concept representation and its implications. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 3-27.

44.

Mead

G. H.

(1934). Mind, self & society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist (Edited by Morris

C. W.

). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

45.

Meuleman

Billiet

(2011). Religious involvement: Its relation to values and social attitudes. In Davidov

Schmidt

Billiet

(Eds.), Cross-cultural analysis: Methods and applications (pp. 173-206). New York, NY: Routledge.

46.

Neff

K. D.

Harter

(2003). Relationship styles of self-focused autonomy, other-focused connectedness, and mutuality across multiple relationship contexts. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 81-99.

47.

Phalet

Claeys

(1993). A comparative study of Turkish and Belgian youth. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24, 319-343.

48.

Phalet

Hagendoorn

(1996). Personal adjustment to acculturative transitions: The Turkish experience. International Journal of Psychology, 31, 131-144.

49.

Pianta

R. C.

Nimetz

S. L.

Bennett

(1997). Mother–child relationships, teacher–child relationships, and school outcomes in preschool and kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 263-280.

50.

Pouliasi

Verkuyten

(2011). Self-evaluations, psychological well-being, and cultural context: The changing Greek society. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 875-890.

51.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 1, 68-78.

52.

Schwartz

S. H.

Ros

(1995). Values in the West: A theoretical and empirical challenge to the individualism-collectivism cultural dimension. World Psychology, 1, 99-122.

53.

Suh

E. M.

(2002). Culture, identity consistency, and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 1378-1391.

54.

Sullivan

(2002). Bourdieu and education: How useful is Bourdieu’s theory for researchers? Netherlands Journal of Social Sciences, 38, 144-166.

55.

Tamis-LeMonda

C. S.

Way

Hughes

Yoshikawa

Kalman

R. K.

Niwa

E. Y.

(2008). Parents’ goals for children: The dynamic coexistence of individualism and collectivism in cultures and individuals. Social Development, 17, 183-209.

56.

Üskül

A. K.

Hynie

Lalonde

R. N.

(2004). Interdependence as a mediator between culture and interpersonal closeness for Euro-Canadians and Turks. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 174-191.

57.

van

Vijver

F. J. R.

Poortinga

Y. H.

(1997). Towards an integrated analysis of bias in cross-cultural assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 13, 1, 29-37.

58.

Vansteenkiste

Simons

Lens

Sheldon

K. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic role of intrinsic goals and autonomy-support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 246-260.

59.

Verschueren

Koomen

H. M. Y.

(2012). Teacher–child relationships from an attachment perspective. Attachment & Human Development, 14, 205-211.