Some individuals tend to conceptualize themselves as independent or detached from their social environment, called an independent or personal self construal. Other individuals, in contrast, conceptualize themselves as one constituent of a broader collective, called an interdependent or collective self construal. An independent self construal, relative to an interdependent self construal, is associated with a range of behaviors and preferences. Individuals who adopt an independent self construal prefer shapes with angular, rather than rounded, edges& they tend to be more assertive& they are often more impulsive& and they are sometimes less cooperative (for more information, see Self construal theory).
Self construal seems to vary across individuals (e.g., Singelis, 1994) and cultures (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Nevertheless, self construal can also be manipulated or shaped by the context or environment. For example, anecdotes about family (Trafimow, Triandis, & Goto, 1991), national icons (Briley & Wyer, Jr., 2002), reflections about relationships (Stapel & Koomen, 2001), and collective pronouns (Stapel & Koomen, 2001) have all been shown to prime an interdependent rather than independent self construal.
The self construal of individuals is not entirely constrained by their cultural milieu. Indeed, the self construal of individuals can vary across time and depends on cues in the immediate environment (e.g., Kuhnen & Hannover, 2000;; Stapel & Koomen, 2001;; Trafimow, Triandis, & Goto, 1991). To demonstrate, Trafimow et al. (1991) developed a sequence of procedures that can manipulate the self construal of individuals. Specifically, participants are instructed to read an anecdote. In one condition, this account frequently refers to the concept of I-a procedure that is supposed to activate personal cognitions and thus promote an independent self construal. In the other condition, the account frequently refers to the concept of family, which is assumed to activate collective cognitions and foster an interdependent self construal. This method has indeed been validated and applied extensively (e.g., Gardner, Gabriel & Lee, 1999;; Gardner, Gabriel & Hochschild, 2002;; for a similar manipulation, see Mandel, 2003).
When individuals are exposed to photographs of national icons, such as when Americans are exposed to a US flag, they become more inclined to exhibit qualities that reflect an interdependent self construal (e.g., Briley & Wyer, Jr., 2002). For example, after participants are exposed to these symbols, they become more inclined to value equality over hierarchy. This tendency aligns with the preference of interdependent individuals to maintain harmony.
Similarly, although not a study into self construal per se, Alter and Kwan (2009) uncovered some findings that show how symbols could affect self construal. In their study, some European Americans were exposed to symbols that represent East Asians, such as the yin-yang symbol. After exposure to these symbols, these participants, when instructed to reach decisions about shares and weather, for example, demonstrated inclinations that were more typical of East Asian individuals. That is, they predicted more change and variability.
These extracultural judgments might also, potentially, apply to the domain of self construal. That is, after exposed to yin-yang symbols, for example, European Americans might show more collectivist or interdependent inclinations. Nevertheless, this possibility has not been confirmed empirically.
When individuals reflect upon differences between themselves and their friends, they are more inclined to manifest an independent self construal. For example, after this exercise, the self esteem of these individuals becomes dependent on whether they perceive themselves a unique rather than obliging (Hannover, Birkner, & Pohlmann, 2006). In contrast, after individuals reflect upon similarities between themselves and their friends, they are more inclined to manifest an interdependent self construal. After this exercise, their self esteem primarily depends on the extent to which they perceive themselves as obliging, not unique (Hannover, Birkner, & Pohlmann, 2006).
Other reflections about themselves and their collectives can also determine their self construal. For example, an independent self construal seems to prevail after individuals specify some personal facts about themselves, such as their country of origin (Stapel & Koomen, 2001). An interdependent self construal seems to prevail after individuals specify some facts about their work team, such as the number of females (Stapel & Koomen, 2001). For example, after individuals considered facts about their work team, they were more inclined to manifest an assimilation effect: that is, they perceived themselves more favorably after reading about a successful person (Kemmelmeier & Oyserman, 2001;; Stapel & Koomen, 2001). This assimilation effect might reflect a sense of connection between themselves and other individuals.
Hamilton and Biehel (2005) developed another manipulation of self construal. This manipulation was also utilized by Zhang and Shrum (2009). In the study conducted by Zhang and Shrum (2009), for example, participants completed a short essay, within a duration of five minutes. To prime an independent self construal, participants wrote about the thoughts evoked by the sentence "Remember, enjoying your life is what it is really all about". To prime an interdependent self construal, participants wrote about the thoughts evoked by the sentence "Remember, enjoying relationships with your family and friends is what it is really all about".
As predicted by Zhang and Shrum (2009), when participants wrote about their relationships with their family and friends, they were more likely to control their impulses. Specifically, they were more likely to express negative attitudes towards alcohol consumption if they previously imagined an interaction with friends. Furthermore, a subset of individuals who had written about their relationships with their family and friends, instead of their personal motivations, reported more interdependent cognitions, as gauged by a scale developed by Hamilton and Biehel (2005). Taken together, these findings validate this manipulation of self construal.
Incidental words--that is, words embedded in other tasks--can also affect the self construal of individuals. For example, references to personal pronouns, such as I or mine, can foster an independent self construal. References to collective pronouns, such as "we" or "us", can foster an interdependent self construal. That is, these words generate effects that are comparable to other manipulations of self construal (see Agrawal & Maheswaran, 2005;; Stapel & Koomen, 2001)
Agrawal, N., & Maheswaran, D. (2005). The effects of self-construal and commitment on persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 841-849.
Alter, A. L., & Kwan, V. S. Y. (2009). Cultural sharing in a global village: Evidence for Extracultural cognition in European Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 742-760.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this "we"? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83-93.
Briley, D. A. & Wyer, R. S Jr. (2002). The effect of group membership salience on the avoidance of negative outcomes: Implications for social and consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 400-415.
Brockner, J., De Cremer, D., van den Bos, K., & Chen, Y. (2005). The influence of interdependent self-construal on procedural fairness effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 155-167.
Chen, H., Ng, S., & Rao, A. R. (2005). Cultural differences in consumer impatience. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 291-301.
Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. (2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 791-808.
Cross, S. E., & Morris, M. L. (2003). Getting to know you: Relational self-construal, relational cognition, and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 512-523.
Downie, M., Koestner, R., Horberg, E., & Haga, S. (2006). Exploring the relation of independent and interdependent self-construals to why and how people pursue personal goals. Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 517-531.
Fujita, K., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Levin-Sagi, M. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 351-367.
Gabriel, S., Renaud, J. M., & Tippin, B. (2007). When I think of you, I feel more confident about me: The relational self and self-confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43, 772-779.
Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., & Hochschild, L. (2002). When you and I are "we", you are not threatening: The role of self-expansion in social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 239-251.
Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., & Lee, A. Y. (1999). "I" value freedom, but "we" value relationships: Self-construal priming mirrors cultural differences in judgement. Psychological Science, 10, 321-326.
Goncalo, J. A., & Staw, B. M. (2006). Individualism-collectivism and group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 96-109.
Hackman, M., Ellis, K., Johnson, C., & Stanley, C. (1999). Self-construal orientation: Validation of an instrument and a study of the relationship to leadership communication style. Communication Quarterly, 47, 183-195.
Hamilton, R, W. & Biehal, G. J. (2005). Achieving your goals or protecting their future? The effects of self-view on goals and choices. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 277-83.
Hannover, B., Birkner, N., & Pohlmann, C. (2006). Ideal selves and self-esteem in people with independent and interdependent self-construal. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 119-133.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300.
Holland, R. W., Roeder, U., Van Baaren, R. B., Brandt, A. C., & Hannover, B. (2004). Don't stand so close to me: The effects of self-construal on interpersonal closeness. Psychological Science, 15, 237-242.
Ji, L. J., Nisbett, R. E., & Su, Y. (2001). Culture, change and prediction. Psychological Science, 12, 450-456.
Kemmelmeier, M., & Oyserman, D. (2001). The ups and downs of thinking about a successful other: Self-construals and the consequences of social comparisons. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 311-320.
Kuhnen, U., & Hannover, B. (2000). Assimilation and contrast in social comparisons as a consequence of self-construal activation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 799-811.
Kuhnen, U., Hannover, B., & Schubert, B. (2001). The semantic-procedural interface model of the self: The role of self-knowledge for context-dependent versus context-independent modes of thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 397-409.
Kuhnen, U., & Oyserman, D. (2002). Thinking about the self influences thinking in general: cognitive consequences of salient self concept. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 492-499.
Lee, A. Y., Aaker, J. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). The pleasure and pains of distinct self-construals: The role of interdependence in regulatory focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1122-1134.
Mandel, N. (2003). Shifting selves and decision making: The effects of self-construal priming on consumer risk-taking. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 30-40.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Markus, H. R., Uchida, Y., Omoregie, H., Townsend, S. S. M., & Kitayama, S. (2006). Going for the gold: Models of agency in Japanese and American contexts. Psychological Science, 17, 103-112.
Singelis, T.M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580-591.
Stapel, D. A., & Koomen, W. (2001). I, we, and the effects of others on me: Self-construal level moderates social comparison effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 766-781.
Stapel, D. A., & Koomen, W. (2005). Competition, cooperation, and the effects of others on me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 1029-1038.
Stapel, D. A. & Van der Zee, K. I. (2006). The self salience model of other-to-self effects: Integrating principles of self-enhancement, complementarity, and imitation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 258-271.
Tiedens, L. Z., & Fragale, A. R. (2003). Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 558-568
Trafimow, D., Triandis, H. C., & Goto, S. G. (1991). Some tests of the distinction between the private self and the collective self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 649-655.
Van Baaren, R. B., Holland, R. W., Kawakami, K., & van Knippenberg, A. (2004). Mimicry and prosocial behavior. Psychological Science, 15, 71-74.
Van Baaren, R. B., Horgan, T. G., Chartrand, T. L., & Dijkmans, M. (2004). The forest, the trees, and the Chameleon: Context dependency and mimicry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 453-459.
Van Baaren, R. B., Maddux, W. W., Chartrand, T. L., de Bouter, C. & van Knippenberg, A. (2003). It takes two to mimic: Behavioural consequences of self-construals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1093-1102.
Vohs, K. D., & Faber, R. J. (2007). Spent resources: Self-regulatory resource availability affects impulse buying. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 537-47.
Ybarra, O. & Trafimow, D. (1998). How priming the private self or collective self affects the relative weights of attitudes and subjective norms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 362-70.
Zhang, Y., Feick, L., & Price, L. J. (2006). The impact of self construal on aesthetic preference for angular versus rounded shapes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 794-805.
Zhang, Y., & Mittal, V. (2007). The attractiveness of enriched and impoverished options: Culture, self-construal, and regulatory focus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 588-598.
Zhang, Y., & Shrum, L. J. (2009). The influence of self-construal on impulsive consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 838-850.
Last Update: 6/28/2016