Premium
Inter‐ and intra‐cultural variations in self‐other boundary: A qualitative‐quantitative approach
Author(s) -
Li Han Z.
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
international journal of psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.75
H-Index - 62
eISSN - 1464-066X
pISSN - 0020-7594
DOI - 10.1080/00207590244000304
Subject(s) - collectivism , self construal , social psychology , construal level theory , individualism , psychology , ethnography , hofstede's cultural dimensions theory , cross cultural psychology , mainland china , mainland , epistemology , sociology , social science , anthropology , political science , china , philosophy , interdependence , ecology , law , biology
Past research on the theories of self‐construal and individualism‐collectivism in cross‐cultural contexts presents inconsistent and inconclusive results. Some researchers have seriously questioned the validity of major instruments measuring self‐construal across cultural groups. To address the validity issue, this study developed quantitative measures from ethnographic data. In five scenarios mapping self to close‐other boundaries, 171 Anglo‐Canadians and 224 Mainland Chinese were asked to make a decision and offer a reason for the decision. Two intriguing findings emerged from the data. (1) In comparison with Anglo‐Canadians, Mainland Chinese were more likely to share material belongings with close‐others and less likely to share their thoughts/opinions. The first part of this finding provides unequivocal support for the theories of self‐construal and individualism‐collectivism, whereas the latter part challenges an important assumption of these theories, which contends that collectivists should be more likely than individualists to share everything they own (including opinions) with close‐others. This unconventional finding proposes the division of material belongings and thoughts/opinions sharing of the self‐other boundary in future cross‐cultural self‐construal research. (2) There were significant differences in the reasons Canadians and Chinese offered for what they would or would not do in a specific situation. For example, the reasons for not telling the truth about a roommate's nonmatching outfit were “tastes differ from person to person” for a Canadian and “I don't tell others what I think of them” for a Chinese. The Canadians clearly show respect for the other's personal preference and the Chinese were thinking “what can I benefit from telling her the truth?” It was reasoned that underneath the giving and generous Chinese lies a shrewd mind, and underneath the frank Canadian lies a materialistic mind. In conclusion, this article contributes to the field in that it reports pioneering research, via both qualitative and quantitative means, on sharing material belongings and opinions/thoughts in samples from individualistic and collectivistic cultures. The findings of this study illustrate, specify, and challenge the universal utility of the theories of self‐construal and individualism‐collectivism.