The relational interdependent self construal and relationships

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology2000, Vol. 78, No. 4, 791-808

Copyright 2000 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.0022-3514/00/$5.00 DOI: 10.1O37//0O22-3514.78.4791

The Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal and Relationships

Susan E. Cross, Pamela L. Bacon, and Michael L. MorrisIowa State University

Three studies describe the development and validation of a measure of the relational-interdependentself-construal, which is defined as the tendency to think of oneself in terms of relationships with closeothers. Study 1 reports the development, psychometric properties, and tests of validity of this newmeasure. Individuals who scored high on the Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal (RISC) Scalecharacterized their important relationships as closer and more committed than did individuals who scoredlow on diis measure (Study 1) and were more likely to take into account the needs and wishes of otherswhen making decisions (Study 2). In Study 3, using a dyadic interaction paradigm with previouslyunacquainted participants, the partners of persons who scored high on the RISC scale viewed them asopen and responsive to their needs and concerns; these perceptions were related to positive evaluationsof the relationship.

Cross-cultural psychologists have recently identified a basicdimension that differentiates how people think about themselves—the degree to which elements of the social world (such as closerelationships, contexts for behavior, or important group member-ships) are included in the self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Shwe-der & Bourne, 1984; Triandis, 1989). They argue that members ofcollectivist cultures, such as Japan or India, tend to think ofthemselves as interdependent with close others and as defined byimportant roles and situations. In contrast, members of Westerncultures, such as the United States, tend to think of themselves asindependent of relationships and as autonomous or separated fromothers.

There may be considerable variation within North Americanculture with respect to the self-construal, however. Members ofmany ethnic and religious groups tend to think of themselves asinterdependent or relational (Allen, Dawson, & Brown, 1989;Marin & Triandis, 1985; McCombs, 1985; Oved, 1988). Womenare more likely than men in American society to construct aninterdependent or relational self-view (Cross & Madson, 1997;Markus & Oyserman, 1989). The nature of this Western version ofthe interdependent self-view is likely to be somewhat differentfrom the group-oriented interdependence that characterizes theself-views of members of collectivist societies; North Americansand Western Europeans are more likely to include representationsof close relationships rather than group membership into the self

Susan E. Cross, Pamela L. Bacon, and Michael L. Morris, Departmentof Psychology, Iowa State University.

This research was supported by National Institute of Mental HealthGrant MH 54540-01. We wish to thank Dan Russell for his help with theanalyses and Dan Russell and Carolyn Cutrona for their helpful commentson the manuscript. We also wish to thank Angela Anderson, Paige Boland,Summer Brunscheen, Frindee Daly, John Egan, Angela Fontanini, AmyMcGregor, Alyssa Puffer, Carrie Rosentrater, Becky Schmidt, KellySouthwell, and Laura Wright for their help with the data collection.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Susan E.Cross, Department of Psychology, W112 Lagomarcino Hall, Iowa StateUniversity, Ames, Iowa 50011. Electronic mail may be sent to scross®iastate.edu.

(we explain this further below). Although this difference in self-structure has been identified by other researchers (e.g., Lykes,1985; Surrey, 1991), a measure of the interdependent self-construal appropriate for Western populations has not been avail-able for interested researchers. In this article we describe thedevelopment and validation of a new measure of the interdepen-dent self-construal.

Individual Differences in the Self-Construal

For years, Western researchers have assumed a single model ofthe self—what has been termed the independent self-construal(Markus & Kitayama, 1991). This understanding of the self isbased on Euro-American beliefs about individualism, personalrights, and the autonomy of the individual from social groups(Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985; Guisinger &Blatt, 1994; Markus & Kitayama, 1994; Sampson, 1985). Theunderlying principle that shapes the independent self-construal isthe premise that the person is essentially separate from others. Theprimary components of the independent self-construal are one'sunique traits, abilities, preferences, interests, goals, and experi-ences, and these are differentiated from social contexts, interper-sonal relationships, and group memberships. To maintain andenhance this independent view of the self one must maintain asense of autonomy from others and "be true to one's own internalstructures of preferences, rights, convictions, and goals" (Markus& Kitayama, 1994, p. 459).

In contrast, the underlying principle that shapes the interdepen-dent self-construal is the premise that the person is connected toothers, so that the self is defined, at least in part, by importantroles, group memberships, or relationships. For individuals withthis self-construal, representations of important relationships androles share the self-space with abstract traits, abilities, and prefer-ences. To maintain and enhance this interdependent view of theself, individuals will tend to think and behave in ways that em-phasize their connectedness to others and that strengthen existingrelationships.

These differences in self-construals raise many issues with re-gard to self-related processes. For example, cognitive processes

791

792 CROSS, BACON, AND MORRIS

may vary depending on one's self-construal. Specifically, infor-mation for close others that is closely linked to information aboutthe self may function much like self-relevant information in cog-nitive processes. As a result, individuals with an interdependentself-construal may attend more closely to information about closeothers than will individuals with an independent self-construal.Similarly, individuals with an interdependent self-construal mayremember information about close others better than individualswith an independent self-construal.

Motivational processes may also vary for individuals with di-vergent self-construals. It is generally assumed that the desire topromote or enhance the self is a central motivator of behavior.However, self-promotion or self-enhancement will depend on thenature of the self-construal. For individuals with an independentself-construal, standing out, being better than others on self-defining domains, and maintaining a positive ratio of successes-to-aspirations contribute to a positive view of the self and toenhanced self-esteem (Blaine & Crocker, 1993; Harter, 1993;James, 1890/1983; Tesser, 1988). In contrast, for the person withan interdependent self-construal, positive feelings about the selfwill in some part derive from developing and maintaining closerelationships with others. Indeed, a variety of evidence suggeststhat positive feedback from others and harmonious relationshipsare more important for women's self-esteem than for men's (e.g.,Moran & Eckenrode, 1991; Roberts & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1989,1994; Shwalbe & Staples, 1991; Zuckerman, 1989).

Individuals with interdependent self-construals may also ap-proach relationships differently than those with independent self-construals. If maintaining close relationships is central to main-taining a stable sense of self and self-esteem for people withinterdependent self-construals, then these individuals should striveto develop skills and abilities that foster close relationships. Forexample, these persons may be more likely to self-disclose onintimate topics or to consider the implications of their decisions forclose others, relative to individuals with an independent self-construal. In addition, the needs and wishes of close others maystrongly influence the thoughts and behaviors of these individuals.These and other implications of differences in self-construals forcognition, emotion, motivation, and social relationships are re-viewed by Cross and Madson (1997).

Two Forms of Interdependence

Due to cultural differences between collectivist and individualistcultures, the specific form of the interdependent self-construaldeveloped by members of these different types of cultures willvary. In collectivism-based interdependence, the individual's po-sition in the group or situation dictates behavior; therefore, know-ing one's place, behaving according to one's role, and putting theneeds of the group before one's own needs are central dictums thatshape the self-construal. Measures designed to tap this self-construal, such as Yamaguchi's Collectivism scale (Yamaguchi,1994; Yamaguchi, Kuhlman, & Sugimori, 1995), include itemssuch as, "I am prepared to do things for my group at any time, eventhough I have to sacrifice my own interest" and "I respect deci-sions made by my group" (see also Matsumoto, Weissman, Pres-ton, Brown, & Kupperbusch, 1997). This group-oriented notion ofinterdependence, however, does not adequately describe therelationship-centered conception of interdependence that charac-

terizes North Americans. Group memberships are relatively unim-portant to U.S. adults as compared with members of East Asiancultures (Triandis, 1989). Americans treat group membershipsrather casually and have relatively little loyalty to in-groups.American in-groups are larger, place relatively fewer demands onmembers, and are more voluntary than in collectivist cultures(Triandis, 1989). Rather than in-groups, Americans are more likelyto include individual relationships (e.g., a spouse, mother, bestfriend, or colleague) in their self-representations.1

Indeed, Kashima et al. (1995) contrasted collectivist-orientedself-construals with the concept of relatedness to argue that the twoconcepts are not the same. They created a 4-item measure ofrelatedness that focused on the emotional relatedness of the selfwith other individuals (a sample item is, "I feel like doing some-thing for people in trouble because I can almost feel their pains.").Comparing samples from Australia, the United States, Japan, andKorea, they found that individualism, collectivism, and relatednesswere empirically separable. Cultures were most likely to be dif-ferentiated on the individualism/collectivism dimension, but menand women were best differentiated on the relatedness dimension.It is necessary, therefore, to differentiate between the collectivist-oriented interdependence that characterizes members of cultureslike Japan and China from the relational-interdependence thatcharacterizes many North Americans.

In addition, some measures of interdependence that have beenbased on East Asian collectivist ideology are multi-dimensional.2

For example, Kashima et al. (1995) report that a factor analysis ofa collectivism scale revealed three factors: a factor they called"collectivism," which can be described as the willingness to sac-rifice self-interest for the sake of the group; "agency," which ischaracterized by items indicating a willingness to be independentof the group; and "assertiveness," which is the willingness to speakup in opposition to the group. Other scales, such as the Singelis(1994) interdependent self-construal measure, include additionaldimensions of collectivism, such as respect for authority figures,that are conceptually independent of the concept of the self asconnected or related to specific others (see also Realo, Allik, &Vadi, 1997). A measure that taps a relational form of interdepen-dence is needed to further explore the variation of the self-construal and its function among Western populations.

Currently, no measure of relational interdependence operation-alizes this construct in terms of the self-concept.3 Other measures,such as the one used by Kashima et al. (1995), tap emotionalconsequences of investment in close relationships. Although thisemotional sensitivity to others may be a characteristic of individ-uals with a relational-interdependent self-construal, these items donot directly assess the extent to which others, especially closerelationships, are a part of one's personal identity or self-concept.Similarly, the Communal Orientation Scale (Clark, Ouellette,Powell, & Milberg, 1987) focuses on the individual's desire for

1 Brewer & Gardiner (1996), however, argued that a collectivist orgroup-oriented interdependence is characteristic of men in American cul-ture.

2 See Triandis (1995) for an overview of the development and use ofvarious measures of individualism and collectivism.

3 We do know of one related yet unpublished measure by Rude, Welch,and Sandere (1998).

RELATIONAL-INTERDEPENDENT SELF-CON STRUAL 793

reciprocity and expectations of equity in close relationships, butdoes not assess the person's self-views as relational or connectedto others. If the relational-interdependent self-construal is concep-tualized in terms of the self-concept, then an adequate measuremust include this cognitive component of thinking of oneself interms of close others or identifying with close others.

In a related line of research, Aron and his colleagues haveargued that individuals often include representations of a particu-larly close relationship into their mental representations of them-selves (Aron, Aron, & Smo 11 an. 1992; Aron, Aron, Tudor, &Nelson, 1991). In their work, individuals who include a specificpartner in the self are more likely to view themselves as sharingperspectives, resources, and characteristics of the other (Aron etal., 1991). We agree that most people will include specific rela-tionships (e.g., one's mother or spouse) as part of the self, butindividuals differ markedly in the degree to which other relation-ships are self-defining—such as friendships or relationships withsiblings. The Aron et al. (1991) measure, the Inclusion of Othersin the Self Scale, focuses on a single relationship, whereas ouremphasis is on interdependence as a general orientation towardrepresenting oneself in terms of close relationships. In addition,our goal is a better understanding of the structure and function ofthe self in contrast to Aron's focus on understanding the conse-quences of close relationships.

Although our discussion thus far has represented relational-interdependent and independent self-construals as two types, werecognize that these constructs represent two continuous dimen-sions. Our assumption of two dimensions (rather than one bipolardimension) is based on previous research with other measures,such as the Singelis (1994) measures of the interdependent andindependent self-construals. Singelis reports that these two scalesare orthogonal. Other studies also find a similar lack of correlationbetween measures of these constructs (Cross, 1995). The primaryfocus of the research reported here was the development of ameasure of the relational-interdependent self-construal; therefore,we focus on people who think of themselves in very relational orinterdependent terms compared to those who do not. We do notassume that persons who do not think of themselves as relationalor interdependent have necessarily constructed very independentself-views. Additional theorizing and research is necessary to spellout the implications of these two dimensions for self-relatedprocesses.

Research Aims

The first step in examining the role of the relational-interdependent self-construal in psychological phenomena is todevise a reliable and valid measurement tool. In much earlierwork, interdependence has not been measured directly; instead,gender or cultural background have been used as proxies for theinterdependent self-construal. More careful tests of the hypothesesrelated to individual differences in self-construal can be conductedif this construct can be reliably and validly measured. Our firstgoal was to develop a new measure that directly conceptualizes therelational-interdependent self-construal in terms of the degree towhich individuals include close relationships in their self-concepts.In Study 1 we describe the development of this measure, itspsychometric properties, and its relations to other personalityconstructs.

Our second goal was to assess the relation between this opera-tionalization of the interdependent self-construal and individuals'experiences with relationships. If the self is defined, at least in part,in terms of one's close relationships, then the individual should bemotivated to develop and nurture close relationships. Conse-quently, individuals who view themselves as interdependent withothers may be more likely to self-disclose and to permit closeothers to influence how they think or behave. They are expected tobe more likely to include close others in the self, in Aron's terms,and to be strongly committed to important relationships. In Stud-ies 1, 2, and 3 we examine these hypothesized associations be-tween interdependence and orientations toward relationships.

Study 1: Scale Development and Validation

In Study 1 we report the development and psychometric prop-erties of the Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal Scale(RISC). Eight samples of students were used to examine theproperties of the measure, its reliability, and its convergent anddiscriminant validity. The convergent validity of the Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal scale was examined by assessing itsassociation with measures related to thinking of oneself as inter-dependent with others, such as the Communal Orientation Scale(Clark et al., 1987) and the Interdependent Self-Construal measure(Singelis, 1994). Because other research indicates that measures ofthe independent self-construal and collectivism are not correlated,we expected the RISC scale to be unrelated to measures of inde-pendence or individualism. Women are more likely to includeclose relationships in their self-concepts than are men, so weexamined its association with a measure of traditional sex roles,the Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp (1974) Personal AttributesQuestionnaire (PAQ). The PAQ taps self-views related to femininesex roles (termed "expressivity") and masculine sex roles (termed"instrumentality"). According to Helgeson (1994), the expressivitysubscale is a useful measure of a communal orientation, whereasthe instrumentality subscale can be viewed as a measure of theindependent self-construal. Thus we expected the RISC scale to bepositively correlated with the expressivity scale and uncorrelatedwith the instrumentality scale.

We also examined the relations between the RISC scale andseveral personality measures. Theorists have argued that a criticalmark of the relational-interdependent self-construal is empathy forothers (Surry, 1991), so we examined the relations between theRISC scale and measures of empathy and perspective taking. Thetendency to think of oneself in terms of close relationships may bea consequence of underlying personality structure; therefore, mea-sures of the five-factor model of personality were included in thisresearch (Costa & McCrae, 1992). We expected the RISC scale tobe moderately related to the interpersonal traits, agreeableness andextroversion, but to be unrelated to neuroticism and openness toexperience. (We had no hypothesis concerning conscientiousness.)We also examined the association of the RISC scale with thetendency toward responding in a socially desirable fashion.

Some researchers have argued that very relational or interde-pendent persons may be vulnerable to depression or to reducedwell-being due to their sensitivity to the distress of others (e.g.,Belle, 1982; McGrath, Keita, Strickland, & Russo, 1990). There-fore, several measures of well-being, such as depression, self-esteem, and life satisfaction, were included in this research.


Table 1Descriptive Statistics and Gender Differences for the RelationalInterdependent Self-Construal Scale

Sample

12345678

M

54.1056.1254.9154.0156.8454.1258.1056.08

Total

SD

9.2910.2510.3910.11,9.279.92

10.689,58

N

271299940609735535621273

M

52.8954.2753.9052.2054.2750.8554.7354.48

Men

SD

8.079.56

10.2510.039.17

10.3410.179.38

n

111128406253341221248111

U

55.1157.4455.6655.7259.1356.4860.4957.78

Women

SD

10.0310.56L0.399.938.768.87

10.479.50

n

152165525315383285362143

Difference

-1.92*-2.65**-2.59**-4.19***—7.29***-6.59***-6.76***-2.76**

d

-.24.32

-.17-.35-.52-.57-.56-.35

Note. All t tests were one-tailed. Because of participants who failed to indicate their gender, the total numberof participants may be greater than the number of women and men listed.*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Finally, we used a version of the known groups validationtechnique (i.e., examining gender differences) to assess criterionvalidity. We followed this with regression analyses aimed at ex-amining the unique predictive power of scores on the RISC scale.

We began to examine the relations between scores on the RISCscale and individuals' descriptions of their close relationships inthis study. When relationships are self-defining, the individualshould desire to develop and maintain close and supportive tieswith others. Thus, it is likely that they will develop a greaternumber of important relationships than will individuals who havenot constructed an interdependent self-construal. Individuals withan interdependent view of themselves may also describe theirimportant relationships as closer than do others. Measuring close-ness, however, is not entirely straightforward. Some researchershave defined closeness in terms of the impact of a relationship onthe person's life. For example, Berscheid, Snyder, and Omoto(1989) draw upon Kelley et al.'s (1983) definition of a closerelationship as one in which the partners are interdependent. Intheir view, the three most important aspects of a close or interde-pendent relationship are frequency of contact, involvement in adiverse array of activities together, and strong impact on theindividual's decisions, plans, and behaviors. Other researchershave focused on intimacy of discussion and self-revelation ascentral to a close relationship (Reis & Shaver, 1988). For example,Airman and Taylor's (1973) theory of social penetration posits thatclose and rewarding relationships are characterized by extensiveand intimate self-disclosure.

A newer conceptualization of closeness has been suggested byAron and his colleagues, who argue that closeness can be under-stood as "including the other in the self (Aron et al., 1991). Asdescribed earlier, Aron and his colleagues have investigated thecognitive consequences of incorporating specific close relation-ships into the self, and they have developed a simple, Venn-diagram-like measure in which the self and other are representedas overlapping circles (Aron et al., 1991). We included measuresof each of these representations of closeness in this study in orderto assess the concept broadly.

In addition, if a relationship is self-defining, the individualshould desire to protect and maintain it. The loss of a closerelationship may be especially threatening or difficult for the

person who has staked some of his or her identity in it. Thus weexpected individuals who scored high on the RISC scale to bemore committed to their close relationships than low scorers.

In summary, we hypothesized that individuals who scored highon the RISC scale would view more relationships as important tothem than would others. We also hypothesized that they wouldseek out frequent and diverse contact with close relationshippartners, would be more likely to permit those relationships toinfluence their lives, and would be more likely to open up andreveal personal or intimate information about themselves in orderto promote the relationship. We also expected that these individ-uals with a very interdependent self-construal would tend to in-corporate their close relationships into the serf and would be morecommitted to their close relationships than other individuals. Oneconsequence of this commitment to relationships may be thatindividuals who think of themselves as interdependent with othersmay also perceive higher levels of social support than do others.

Method

Participants

Eight samples of undergraduate students from introductory psychologycourses completed the RISC scale along with a packet of questionnaires, aspart of large data collection efforts. Students received extra course creditfor their participation. Due to time constraints, participants in each samplecompleted a subset of the measures described below. Sample sizes rangedfrom 267 to 956; the sample sizes and numbers of men and women in eachsample are presented in Table 1. To reduce the possible influence ofcultural differences in self-construal, non-American participants and par-ticipants who did not indicate their citizenship were excluded from theanalyses (except for Samples 5, 6, and 7, where citizenship informationwas not obtained). This resulted in the exclusion of 22 to 40 participantsper sample.4

4 A comparison of the American students' scores (n = 2,374) on theRISC scale with the noncitizens' scores (n = 109) across all the samplesrevealed that the Americans tended to score higher than the noncitizens,AfA^oan, = 54.89, SD = 10.11, Moonddzcn9 = 50.85, SD = 9.52,f(2481) = 4 . 0 8 , p < .001.

RELATIONAL-INTERDEPENDENT SELF-CONSTRUAL 795

Measures

For all the measures described below (except where noted), participantsresponded using a 7-point Likert-type scale. Indexes were created so thathigh scores indicate high levels of the construct (e.g., high scores on theRISC scale indicate higher levels of the interdependent self-construal).

Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal Scale (RISC). Many of theinitial items were generated by the authors, based on the conceptualizationof the relational form of the interdependent self-construal as includingclose others in the self-concept. Additional items were created by modi-fying items from measures of conceptually related constructs, such ascross-cultural measures of the interdependent self-construal. The modifi-cation typically included changing the focus of the question from one'srelationship with people in general or a group to a close friend or familymembers. During the development phase, some items were changed, otherswere dropped, and new items were constructed. Using data from the firstsample, we examined the individual questions to identify items that (a) hadlow item-total correlations, (b) were strongly associated with social desir-ability, or (c) were worded poorly. When an item consistently violatedthese criteria, it was eliminated. Using this system, we narrowed thenumber of items from 28 to 11 (see Table 2). Of these 11 items, 2 werephrased negatively and are reverse-scored in the data analyses.

When completing the RISC scale, participants were instructed to "indi-cate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of these state-ments." Participants responded using a Likert-type scale, ranging from 1(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The possible range of scores wasfrom 11 to 77.

Measures related to interdependence and independence. The Commu-nal Orientation Scale (Clark et al., 1987) consists of 14 items; individualshigh in communal orientation feel responsible for the welfare of closeothers and are responsive to their needs. An example of an item from theCommunal Orientation scale is, "I believe people should go out of theirway to be helpful." The reliability of this scale was .78 (Clark et al., 1987).

Singelis (1994) developed orthogonal, 12-item measures of the interde-pendent and independent self-construals based on. the Markus andKitayama (1991) conceptualization of cultural differences in the self.Examples of these items are, "It is important for me to maintain harmonywithin my group" (Interdependent Self-Construal subscale) and "I prefer tobe direct and forthright when dealing with people I've just met" (Indepen-

dent Self-Construal subscale). The reh'abilities of the Interdependent andIndependent subscales were .73 and .69, respectively (Singelis, 1994).

The Collective Self-Esteem Scale (CSB; Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992) isa 16-item measure that assesses collective self-esteem along four dimen-sions: Private Collective Self-Esteem, Public Collective Self-Esteem, Im-portance to Identity, and Membership Esteem (each subscale is composedof 4 items). The general positivity of one's social identity is assessed bytotaling all 16 items. Examples of items from the CSE are, "I feel goodabout the social groups I belong to" (Private subscale; Cronbach's a =.74); "In general, others respect the social groups that I am a member o f(Public subscale; a = .80); "The social groups I belong to are an importantreflection of who I am" (Importance to Identity subscale; a = 76); and "Iam a worthy member of the social groups I belong to" (Membershipsubscale; a = .73). Luhtanen and Crocker (1992) also report that thereliability for the total CSE scale was .85.

The Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ; Spence et al., 1974) iscomposed of eight traits related to instrumentality (or a communal orien-tation) and eight traits related to expressivity (or an independence orien-tation), which are thought to be independent constructs. The items arepresented in a 5-point bipolar format (e.g., 1 = not at all aggressive; 5 =very aggressive). Helmreich, Spence, and Wilhelm (1981) report Cronbachalphas ranging from .67 to .77 for the Instrumentality scale and .72 to .80for die Expressivity scale.

Two additional items were included to assess the validity of the RISCscale. First, participants were asked, "When you think about yourself, howimportant are your relationships with others for your self-concept?" Sec-ond, participants were asked, "Some people tend to see themselves as veryindependent and separate from others, whereas others are more likely tothink of themselves as interdependent and connected in important ways totheir close friends. Which type of person do you think you are?" Partici-pants responded using a 5-point Likert-type scale that ranged from 1 (veryindependent) to 5 (very interdependent). These questions allowed us toassess the associations between the RISC scale and these alternativeapproaches to tapping the relational-interdependent self-construal.

Personality measures. The 7-item Empathic Concern subscale of theInterpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 19S0) assesses feelings of concernand sympathy for others, whereas the 7-item Perspective Taking subscale

Table 2Final Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal Scale Items WithCorrected Item-Total Correlations

ItemCorrected item-

total r

1. My close relationships are an important reflection of who I am. .682. When I feel very close to someone, it often feels to me like that person is an

important part of who I am. .693. I usually feel a strong sense of pride when someone close to me has an important

accomplishment. .544. I think one of the most important parts of who I am can be captured by looking at

my close friends and understanding who they are. .645. When I think of myself, I often think of my close friends or family also. .636. If a person hurts someone close to me, I feel personally hurt as well. .537. In general, my close relationships are an important part of my self-image. .698. Overall, my close relationships have very little to do with how I feel about

myself.3 .549. My close relationships are unimportant to my sense of what kind of person I am.a .52

10. My sense of pride comes from knowing who I have as close friends. .5611. When I establish a close friendship with someone, I usually develop a strong sense

of identification with that person. .60

Note. N = 4,288. Response scale ranges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).a Reverse-keyed item.


measures respondents' ability to see things from another person's view-point. Cronbach's alpha ranged from .70 to .78 (Davis, 1980).

The NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1992) was used to assess the dimen-sions of the five-factor model: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness toExperience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Costa and McCrae(1992) report Cronbach's alphas of .89 to .95 for the scales, which havebeen widely validated and have shown good convergent and discriminantvalidity.

Socially desirable responding was assessed using the 33-item Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). Participantsresponded 'True" or "False" to each item. The Kuder-Richardson 20(KR-20) reliability of the Social Desirability Scale was .88 (Crowne &Marlowe, 1960).

Measures of well-being. The 20-item CES-D depression scale (Rad-loff, 1977) assesses the frequency of depressive symptoms, such as de-pressed mood, feelings of guilt and worthlessness, problems sleeping, andloss of appetite. The CES-D correlates strongly with the number of nega-tive life events and other measures of depression, such as the BeckDepression Inventory (Beck, 1967) and the Self-Rating Depression Scale(Zung, 1965; see Shaver & Brennan [1991] for further information on thescale properties). Participants responded using a 4-point scale (1 = rarelyor none of the time; 4 = most of the time). Cronbach's alpha for this samplewas .91.

The Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin,1985) is a 5-item scale that has been used extensively and has goodpsychometric properties. Participants responded to the items using a5-point scale (1 = very slightly or not at all; 5 = extremely). Cronbach'salpha in this sample was .84.

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965), is a com-monly used 10-item measure of global self-esteem. Reliabilities of theRSES were .77 and .88 (reported in Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991).

The Life Orientation Test (LOT; Scheier & Carver, 1985) is an 8-itemmeasure of dispositional optimism. Scheier and Carver (1985) report aCronbach's alpha of .76 for the LOT.

Evaluations of relationships. The social network diagram (Antonucci,1986) was used to assess the number of important relationships in partic-ipants' social networks. This measure consists of four concentric circles,the innermost one marked "YOU." Participants were asked to write in thenames of people with whom they had personal relationships according tothe following instructions. In the inner circle, they were to write the namesof people so close and important that "it is hard to imagine life withoutthem"; in the middle circle, they were to write the names of people whowere not quite as close but still important to them; and in the outermostcircle, they were to write the names of people who were important enoughthat they should be placed somewhere in the network. This diagram hasbeen used with a variety of samples that varied across age, class, andculture and has been found to support theory in the social support literature(Antonucci, 1986).

Participants selected the most important person in their social networkand completed the following measures with that relationship in mind. First,they described their closeness to this person using the Relationship Close-ness Inventory (RCI). The RCI (Berscheid et al., 1989) was developed asa multidimensional measure of closeness for specific relationships. Theparticipant was asked to categorize the type of relationship into one of thefollowing categories: work, family, romantic, friend, or other. Thirty-threepercent of the most important relationships were categorized as closefriends; 32% were romantic partners; 24% were family members; and 11%were categorized in the "other" category.

Participants rated the average amount of time they had spent with thetarget in the mornings, afternoons, and evenings of the past week. Partic-ipants were then presented with a list of activities and were asked to checkall those that they had initiated with the target in the past week. This wasa change from the original RCI, which asks participants to check activitiesthat they had done alone with the target. Both the total amount of time

spent with the target and the activities data were converted to 1 to 10 scalesas in Berscheid et al. (1989). Next, participants responded to a series of 27items concerning the target's influence on the participant's thoughts, feel-ings, and behavior. Examples of influence items include "X influencesimportant things in my life" and "X influences how I spend my free time."Cronbach's alpha was .89 in this sample. Participants also responded to 7items concerning the degree to which the target influenced their futuregoals and plans. Responses were made on a scale ranging from 1 (not atall) to 7 (a great extent), and items included "my marriage plans" and "myplans for achieving a particular standard of living." Cronbach's alphawas .89.

The 10-item self-disclosure scale (Miller, Berg, & Archer, 1983) askedparticipants to indicate the extent to which they talked with this person

- about several topics. Examples of items included "My personal habits" and"My deepest feelings." Responses were made on a 4-point scale rangingfrom 1 (discuss not at all) to 4 {discuss fully and completely). Due to lowcorrelations with other items, the "personal habits" item was dropped. Withthis 9-item scale, Cronbach's alpha was .91.

The Inclusion of Other in the Self scale (IOS) is a single-item pictorialmeasure of closeness (Aron et al., 1992). Participants selected a picturefrom a set of Venn-like diagrams that present two circles with varyingdegrees of overlap; the circles represent the self and the relationshippartner. The IOS scale has good test-retest and alternate form reliability,and has been shown to predict how long romantic couples stay together,with no relation to social desirability.

Rusbult's (1983) 4-item scale was used to measure commitment. Exam-ples of items included "How likely is it that you will end your relationshipwith person X in the near future?" and "To what extent are you 'attached'to person X?" Responses were made on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 {notat all likely) to 7 {extremely likely). Due to low correlations with otheritems, the "end your relationship" item was dropped, leaving a total of 3items. Cronbach's alpha was .65.

The Social Provisions Scale (SPS; Cutrona & Russell, 1987) was used toassess participants' overall level of social support. This 24-item measuretaps 6 dimensions of social support identified by Weiss (1974): guidance,reliable alliance, attachment, social integration, reassurance of worth, andopportunity to provide nurturance. Evidence of the scale's validity isprovided by Cutrona (1989) and Cutrona and Russell (1987). A 4-pointscale was provided for the participants' responses (1 = strongly disagree;4 = strongly agree). Cronbach's alpha for the combined scale in thissample was .92.

Results

Basic Psychometric Properties

Factor structure. Principal components analysis was used toconduct an exploratory factor analysis on the pooled data from theeight samples. Negatively phrased items were recoded, resulting inpositive factor loadings. Only one factor emerged with an eigen-value greater than 1.0. All 11 items loaded between .59 and .77 onthe first factor. The scree plot for the factor analysis also supporteda single factor, with the elbow of the plot occurring after the firstfactor. The first factor accounted for 47% of the total variance.

Descriptive statistics. To create an index, the negative itemswere reversed and responses to the 11 items were summed. Table 1shows the mean RISC scale scores across the eight samples.Skewness ranged from —.805 to —.289 across these samples, andkurtosis ranged from —.017 to 1.41.

Reliability

Internal consistency. Evaluating the samples individually, thecoefficient alphas ranged from .85 to .90, with a mean of .88. The


means of the inter-item correlations ranged from .35 to .46. Theitem-total correlations from the eight samples ranged from .54 to.73. When the samples were combined the coefficient alpha was.88 (N = 4,288), and the inter-item correlations ranged from .25 to.66, with a mean of .41. Table 2 presents the corrected item-totalcorrelations for the pooled sample.

Test-retest reliability. Stability over time was assessed byadministering the RISC scale to participants in Samples 3 and 5twice in either a one- or two-month interval. The test-retest reli-abilities over the 2-month interval in the two samples were .73,n = 67, p < .001 and .63, n = 317, p < .001. The test-retestreliability over one month was .74, n = 405, p < .001 and .76,n = 46, p < .001.

Convergent Validity

Other measures of collectivism and interdependence. TheRISC scale is intended to provide a better measure of therelational-interdependent self-construal for Americans than currentmeasures of collectivism or the interdependent self-construal,which tend to focus on group identity. It should, however, becorrelated with these other measures. As shown in Table 3, theRISC scale correlated moderately with the Communal OrientationScale (r = .41), and Singelis's (1994) group-oriented Interdepen-dent Self-Construal Scale (r = .41). The RISC scale was moder-ately related to the total Collective Self-Esteem score (r = .37). Itwas most strongly related to the Identity subscale (r = .47) and thePrivate subscale (r = .22). Similarly, the correlation of the RISCscale with the PAQ measure of expressivity (which has also beendescribed as a measure of communal orientation) was .32. Thesemoderate correlations suggest that although the RISC is related toother measures of collectivism or communal orientation, it isclearly not identical to those measures.

Because individuals with a very interdependent self-construalshould find relationships more important to how they think ofthemselves than do others, we expected a positive correlationbetween the RISC scale and the item that asked "When you thinkabout yourself, how important are your relationships with othersfor your self-concept?" The correlation was .56, indicating that theRISC taps this relational dimension of the self-concept. In addi-tion, the correlation between RISC scores and degree of self-reported categorization as independent or interdependent was .31.

Measures of independence. The interdependent self-construaland the independent self-construal have been described as twoorthogonal constructs (Singelis, 1994); therefore, we predicted thatour measure would not be related to a measure of the independentself-construal. Supporting our prediction, the RISC was not relatedto Singelis's (1994) Independent Self-Construal measure (r = .08).Hotelling tests showed that the relation between the RISC andSingelis's measure of the interdependent self-construal (r ~ .41)was stronger than the relation between the RISC and his measureof the independent self-construal (r - .08), r(601) = 6.67, p =.001. The RISC scale was also unrelated to the instrumentalitydimension of the PAQ, which has been described as indicating anorientation toward independence (r = —.06). A Hotelling testshowed that the relation between the RISC and the expressivitydimension of the PAQ was stronger than the relation between theRISC and the instrumentality dimension, r(601) = -6.79, p <.001.

Table 3Correlations of the Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal(RISC) Scale With Other Scales

Measure

Measures of collectivism and interdependenceCommunal Orientation ScaleInterdependent Self-Construal Scale (Singelis)Collective Self-Esteem Scale

PrivatePublicIdentityMembershipTotal

Personal Attributes Questionnaire—ExpressivityImportance of relationships itemSelf-categorization item

Measures of independence or individualismIndependent Self-Construal Scale (Singelis)Personal Attributes Questionnaire—Instrumentality

Personality measuresInterpersonal Reactivity Index

Empathic ConcernPerspective Taking

NEO-FFIAgreeablenessExtraversionConscientiousnessNeuroticismOpenness to Experience

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability ScaleMeasures of well-being

DepressionSatisfaction With LifeRosenberg Self-Esteem ScaleLife Orientation Test (Optimism)

Evaluation of closest relationshipRCI time spent togetherRCI activitiesRCI influenceRCI future plansSelf-disclosure1OSCommitmentSocial Provisions Scale (Social Support)

Correlationwith RISC

.41

.41

.22

.20

.47

.16

.37

.32

.56

.31

.08- .06

.34

.13

.35

.28

.23

.08

.09- .05

.03

.07

.01

.17

.12

.11

.27

.15

.26

.26

.22

.26

N

5981,219

1,2181,2181,2171,2191,219

6041,2161,212

604604

2,7262,986

628628628628628

1,785

235235

3,555749

165"247247246245243247235

Note. Eight samples are represented in this table. None of the measureswas administered to every sample, which accounts for the differences insample size for each correlation. RCI = Relationship Closeness Inventory;IOS - Inclusion of Other in the Self; NEO-FFI = NEO Five-FactorInventory.a This correlation excludes participants whose closest relationship partnerlived in another city.

Personality measures. In order to maintain self-defining rela-tionships, individuals with highly interdependent self-construalsshould be aware of the feelings and thoughts of close others. Thus,we predicted that the RISC scale would be related to empathicconcern and perspective-taking. As predicted, the RISC was pos-itively related to empathic concern (r = .34), but had a weakrelation to perspective taking (r = .13). Hotelling tests revealedthat the relation between the RISC scale and empathic concern wassignificantly stronger than the relation with perspective taking,*(2723) = \i.92,p< .001.

The RISC scale was also correlated with each of the fivesubscales of the NEO-FFI measure of the Five Factor Model. As


expected, the RISC scale was positively correlated with Agree-ableness (r = .35) and Extraversion (r = .28). It was also posi-tively correlated with Conscientiousness (f = ,23); but it was notcorrelated with Neuroticism (r = .08) or Openness to Experience(r = .09). Hotelling tests revealed that the correlations of the RISCscale with agreeableness, extraversion, and conscientiousness weresignificantly stronger than the relations with neuroticism and open-ness to experience, rs(625) > 2.44, ps < .02.

There was not a significant relationship between the RISC andthe Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability scale (r = —.05). Theseresults suggest that respondents are not attempting to presentthemselves in socially approved ways when they answer the RISCscale, thus demonstrating discriminant validity.

Measures of well-being. The RISC scale was unrelated to themeasures of depression (r = .03), life satisfaction (r = .07), andself-esteem (r = .01). There was a weak correlation between theRISC scale and the measure of optimism (the LOT; r = .16). Thus,individuals with a very interdependent self-construal appear nomore at risk of reduced well-being than are others.

Group differences. The relational-interdependent self-construal isthought to be more characteristic of Western women than of men(Cross & Madson, 1997). In all eight samples, women scored signif-icantly higher than men on the RISC scale (see Table 1). The size ofthese differences ranged from small (d = —.17) to moderate (d —-.57). In the pooled sample, d = - . 41 .

Examination of Incremental Utility

Although the zero-order correlations presented in Table 3 pro-vide some evidence that the Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal Scale is related to other measures as predicted, it isunclear from these analyses the extent to which this measure tapsa unique construct. We expected that the RISC scale would ac-count for additional variance in relevant dependent variables be-yond that accounted for by related constructs, such as expressivity,empathic concern, and a measure of the group-oriented interde-pendent self-construal. In these analyses, our criterion variableswere the relatively global measures of collective self-esteem andcommunal orientation. We selected these measures because theytap constructs that are fairly broad or inclusive in scope (i.e.,attitudes toward relationships and evaluations of one's in-groups).In these analyses we examined the incremental predictive power ofthe RISC scale in predicting these constructs, controlling for theexpressivity subscale of the PAQ, empathic concern, and theSingelis Interdependent Self-Construal Scale. In separate hierar-chical regression equations, the criterion variable was regressed onthe covariates in Step 1, and scores on the RISC scale were addedat Step 2. The correlations among the variables are presented inTable 4, and the results of the hierarchical regressions are pre-sented in Table 5. As shown in Table 5, the RISC scale is asignificant predictor of these criterion measures after controllingclosely related constructs.

Evaluations of Relationships

In the final phase of this study, we examined the relationsbetween the RISC scale and participants' perceptions of theirsocial network and closest relationship. The social network dia-gram, consisting of a set of concentric circles with "YOU" in the

Table 4Correlations Among the Variables in the HierarchicalRegressions (Stuiiy 1)

Variable

1. RISC scale2. PAQ Expressivity3. Empathic Concern4. Singelis Interdependent

Self-Construal5. Collective Self-Esteem6. Communal Orientation

1

_.32.28.40

.30

.41

2

—.61.34

.24

.61

3

—.33

.33

.67

4

—

.30

.40

5

—.43

6

—

Note. N = 582. RISC = Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal;PAQ = Personal Attributes Questionnaire. All correlations are significantat p < .001.

center, was used to assess the hypothesis that individuals whoscored high on the RISC scale would view a greater number ofrelationships as very important to them than would others. Asexpected, scores on the RISC scale and the number of people listedin the inner circle (i.e., people it is hard to imagine life without)were positively associated (r = .24, p < .05). There were noassociations between the RI^C scale and the number of people inthe middle and outer circles (r = .12, p > .05 for the middle circle,r = .09, p > .05 for the outer circle). This suggests that highscorers on the RISC scale tend to have more close and importantrelationships than others, but have similar numbers of more distantrelationships.

Based on their responses to the social network diagram, partic-ipants picked their most important relationship. We predicted thatpeople who scored high on the RISC scale would view their mostimportant relationship as closer than would others (as indicated bythe RCI subscales, the self-disclosure scale, and the IOS scale) andas more committed than would others. As shown in Table 3, theRISC scale was positively related to the degree to which theindividual reported being influenced by their relationship partner(r = .27), their self-disclosure in the relationship (r = .26), thedegree to which the other is included in the self (the IOS scale; r -.26), and commitment to the relationship (r = .22). There were not,however, strong relations between the RISC scale and the timespent with the relationship partner, the number of activities initi-ated with this person, or the degree to which this person influencedthe participant's future plans.

If individuals with an interdependent self-construal are morecommitted to and close to their relationship partners, they may alsoperceive higher levels of social support than others. As predicted,individuals who described themselves as high on the RISC scaletended also to perceive higher levels of social support from others,r = .26. The correlations with the individual subscales of theSocial Provisions Scale ranged from a low of r = .13 with thereassurance of worth subscale to a high of r = .30 with theopportunity for nurturance subscale.

Discussion

The results of Study 1 indicate that the relational-interdependentself-construal is a relatively stable individual difference constructthat can be measured with self-report items. Factor analyses indi-cated that a single factor underlies the RISC scale. The scale also


Table 5Hierarchical Regression of Collective Self-Esteem andCommunal Orientation on PAQ Expressivity, EmpatkicConcern, Singelis Interdependent Self-Construal Scale,and RISC Scores: Beta Weights and R2 (Study 1)

Predictor

Step 1PAQ ExpressivityEmpathic ConcernSingelis Interdependent

Self-ConstrualStep 2

RISC scaleTotal/?2

CollectiveSelf-Esteem

j3 Aft2

.0324***

.21***.02***

17***27***

CommunalOrientation

/3 AR2

.54***.28***,45***

.15**.02***

.17**.56***

Note. N = 582. PAQ = Personal Attributes Questionnaire; RISC =Relational-Independent Self-Construal.**/> < .01. ***p < ,001.

exhibited both high internal consistency and good test-retest sta-bility. In addition, the results provided evidence of the scale'sconvergent and discriminant validity. As expected, the RISC scalewas moderately associated with other measures of conununalismand interdependence and was unassociated with measures of in-dependence. The scale related as expected to other personalityconstructs: Scores on the RISC scale were moderately related tomeasures of empathy, agreeableness, and extroversion, but wereunrelated to neuroticism and social desirability. In addition, RISCscale scores did not correlate with measures of well-being, such asdepression or satisfaction with life. Criterion validity was alsoshown in the pattern of sex differences: Women consistentlyscored higher on the RISC scale than did men. When controllingfor closely related constructs, the RISC scale predicted a signifi-cant proportion of incremental variance in relatively global mea-sures of relatedness (collective self-esteem and communal orien-tation), thus demonstrating its discriminant validity.

Scores on the RISC scale were also related to the size ofparticipants' social networks and to their evaluations of theirclosest relationship. Persons with a very interdependent self-construal reported a greater number of relationships that were veryimportant to them and higher levels of social support than didothers. High scores on the RISC scale were also associated withhigh levels of self-disclosure, perceived closeness, and commit-ment in the relationship. Unexpectedly, scores on the RISC scalewere not related to the amount of time participants spent with theirrelationship partner or to the number of activities they initiatedwith this person. These results suggest that whereas most peopleenjoy being with close friends and seek out opportunities to dothings together regardless of the degree of interdependence of theirself-construal, the quality of that time together may differ depend-ing on individuals' self-construals. Individuals with very interde-pendent self-construals may be more likely than others to spendtheir time with significant relationship partners disclosing impor-tant or sensitive information and may be more responsive to theirpartner's needs and desires (as evidenced by their willingness to lettheir partner influence their choices and behaviors).

In the studies that follow, we examine the implications of therelational-interdependent self-construal for relationship processes.A key assumption of this perspective is that when others areincluded in one's self-representations, attention to these relation-ships and efforts to maintain and enhance them will serve tomaintain and enhance the self. In Study 2, we examine the processof making important decisions in terms of the relational-interdependent self-construal.

Study 2: The Role of Relationship Considerations inDecision Making

For individuals with an interdependent self-construal, the wishesand opinions of close relationship partners are likely to be takeninto account when the individual is making important decisions.For example, the student who is considering going out of state fora summer job may think of the implications of the decision for aromantic relationship. The student making a decision about takinga summer job versus going to summer school may consider his orher family's wishes in the matter. The person who is low ininterdependence may not be as likely to consider other people'swishes or reactions or to consult other people for information oradvice.

Consequently, in this study we asked students to describe animportant decision they were in the process of making and toelaborate the factors that were influencing their decision. Afterdescribing their decision, they were asked several follow-up ques-tions about it. Embedded in the list of items were questionsdesigned to elicit directly the extent to which close others influ-enced their decisions. We hypothesized that individuals whoscored high on the Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal scalewould tend to list relational factors that had influenced theirdecision making and to indicate on the close-ended items that otherpeople and close relationships were taken into account in then-decision process.

Method

Participants

Participants were introductory psychology students who participated inexchange for extra course credit. Two hundred sixty-six participants (120men, 145 women, and 1 unstated) provided complete data for all portionsof the study. The open-ended descriptions of 18 participants could not becoded either due to poor handwriting or failure to follow directions.

Procedure and Materials

The RISC scale and the decision questionnaire were administered inlarge group sessions of 30 to 200 as part of a mass-testing process. The firstpacket that the students completed included the RISC scale and severalother instruments, many of which were designed for other studies. Cron-bach's alpha for the RISC scale was .89.

The participants were given the decision questionnaire last. On the firstpage, they were asked to "Describe a decision that you are in the processof making. Please describe a decision that has a fairly significant impact onyour life." The instructions went on to give several examples of possibledecisions one might be making (e.g., how to spend one's summer or withwhom to room next year). The participants were asked to describe asthoroughly as possible the factors that they were considering in makingtheir decision—both major factors and relatively minor factors. No men-


tion was made of the potential influence of others in this decision. Theparticipants were encouraged to be explicit and to write in essay style, notto simply list pros and cons. Students who could not think of a decisionthey were in the process of making were encouraged to describe a recentdecision they had already made. Most of the first page was empty forstudents to write out their thoughts.

On the second page, participants answered several questions about theirdecision. They were enjoined not to add anything to their written descrip-tion after beginning these items. First they were asked if this was a decisionthey were still making or had already made. Then they were asked tocategorize the decision as to whether it had to do with personal relation-ships, academics, family, jobs, housing, or other. They were allowed toselect as many categories as were appropriate. The remainder of thequestionnaire consisted of items that assessed their decision. Crucial to thisinvestigation were three items that addressed the role of others in thedecision. They were "To what extent do you take into account the needsand wishes of others when thinking about this decision?" "How importantin your decision process are the opinions of your close friends?" and "Howimportant in your decision process are the opinions of your family mem-bers?" These items were embedded with other filler items (e.g., "Howimportant are financial concerns in your decision making?").

Coding the Open-Ended Descriptions

Each of the factors mentioned by participants as an influence on theirdecision was coded into one of two categories: a relational category or anonrelational category. (Statements that were not factors in the decisionwere not coded.) Examples of relational statements were "I'd like to beclose to my family" and "My roommates wanted the first apartment."Examples of nonrelational statements were "I could get a better job here"and "The second apartment was cheaper." Two trained judges coded thedescriptions; 25 percent of the protocols were coded by both judges toestablish interrater reliability. (The coders were blind to participants'scores on the RISC scale.) The number of relational and nonrelationalfactors in each protocol was determined independently by the two judges;interjudge reliability was .92 for the relational factors and .89 for thenonrelational factors.

Results

Participants generated an average of 3.3 relational factors thatinfluenced their decisions (SD = 3.96, range = 0 to 23) and anaverage of 5.3 nonrelational factors (SD = 3.71, range = 0 to 19).As hypothesized, the RISC scale was correlated with the numberof relational factors that were described (r = .18, p < .01,two-tailed), but it was not related to the number of nonrelationalfactors included in the descriptions (r = .01). The RISC scale wasalso related to the extent to which the participants took intoaccount the needs and wishes of others when making the decision(r = .24, p < .01) and the importance of the opinions of family(r = .27, p < .01) and friends (r = .21, p < .01) in the decision.

We also reasoned that the relation between the RISC and theextent to which others are considered when making decisionswould be stronger for decisions that did not directly concern arelationship (e.g., where to work for the summer or whether to takesummer school classes). When making decisions about relation-ships or family issues, virtually everyone is likely to mention theinfluence of the other persons involved in the decision. Whenmaking decisions that are not explicitly relational, however, indi-viduals with more interdependent self-construals may be morelikely to think about and take into account the opinions or desiresof their friends or family members. To look at these types of

decisions separately, decisions that were coded by the participantsinto either the relational or family category were included togetherin a single relational category (n = 126); all other decisions wereincluded in a nonrelational category (n = 135). There were nogender differences in the type of decision described, x2 = .00.

As expected, the correlations between the RISC scale and theitems indicating the influence of others were generally stronger fornonrelational decisions than for the relational decisions. Whendescribing nonrelational decisions, the RISC scale was positivelyrelated to the number of relational factors mentioned (r = .21versus r = .11 for relational decisions) and to the importance offamily members' opinions (r = .37 compared with r = .15 forrelational decisions). Although the relation between the RISC scaleand reports of the extent to which the needs and wishes of otherswere taken into account was larger for the nonrelational decisions(r = .24) than for the relational decisions (r = . 18), this differencewas small. The exception to this pattern was the item assessing theimportance of friends' opinions. For this item, the relation withinterdependence was stronger for the relational decisions (r = .25)than for the nonrelational decisions (r = .11), indicating thatstudents who scored high on the RISC scale were more likely toturn to their friends for advice when making decisions about theirrelationships than when making other sorts of decisions.5

Discussion

This study supported the hypothesis that individuals who tendedto think of themselves in relational, interdependent terms would bemore likely to consider the consequences of their decisions forother people or to take into account the opinions or needs of closeothers. When describing an important decision, individuals whoscored high on the RISC scale were more likely than those whoscored low to freely generate relationship-oriented factors in theirdecision. The instructions for the decision description task werecarefully designed to permit the generation of a wide variety offactors that could influence decisions; relational factors were notspecifically prompted in the instructions to the participants. Thus,any mention of the role of others in this decision was self-generated by the respondents and not likely to have been a con-sequence of subtle demand factors. In addition, participants who

5 We also examined the extent to which the relational-interdependentself-construal mediated sex differences in the ratings of the influences onnonrelational decisions. Independent sample t tests revealed sex differencesin ratings of the extent to which others were taken into account,Wwt>men = 3.07, SD = 1.09, Mmen = 2.66, SD = 1.12, «133) = -2.15,p <.04, d = — .37; in the importance of family members' opinions,Mwomeo = 3.58, SD = 1.01, Mmen = 3.11, SD = 1.00, /(133) = 2.68, p <.01, d = - .47; and on the RISC scale, Mwomen = 55.19, SD = 8.11,Wmcn = 48.36, SD = 10.16, f(133) = -4.35, p < .001, d = -.15. Sexalone accounted for 3% of the variance in the extent to which the needs andwishes of others were considered in the decision. When the RISC wasadded to the equation, sex was reduced to accounting for only an additional1% of the variance in the extent variable. TTius, scores on the RISC scaleaccounted for 71% of the relation between sex and the criterion variable.For the item assessing the importance of family members' opinions, sexalone accounted for 5% of the variance in the dependent variable. When theRISC was added to the equation, sex was reduced to accounting for only1% of the variance. Thus, scores on the RISC scale accounted for 78% ofthe relation between sex and the criterion variable.


scored high on the RISC scale also indicated on the experimenter-provided items that they were more likely to take others intoaccount when making their decision.

This study supported the hypothesized role of the relational-interdependent self-construal in decision-making. Study 3 exam-ines the association between the self-construal and relationship-development strategies.

Study 3: The Relational-Interdependent Self-Construaland Relationship Development

Two key components of the process of relationship building areself-disclosure and responsiveness to one's partner's needs andconcerns (Reis & Patrick, 1996; Reis & Shaver, 1988). Cross andMadson (1997) hypothesized that individuals with an interdepen-dent self-construal would be more likely to self-disclose to others,to be sensitive to others, and to describe their relationships asclose, and the studies described above provide self-report evidencein support of these claims. But do other people concur with theseself-descriptions? In this study of dyadic interactions, we exam-ined the degree to which individuals' self-construals were associ-ated with their partners' evaluations of their openness and respon-siveness in the interaction and to their general evaluation of therelationship.

To address this issue, one might look at long-term relationships,asking the partners of people who are high or low in the RISCscale to describe them. Although close friends or romantic partnerscan provide helpful information on these dimensions, their re-sponses may be biased. Individuals tend to choose friends andrelationship partners who are similar to themselves (Byrne, 1971)and who see them as they see themselves (Swann, De La Ronde,& Hixon, 1994). As a result, a close friend of a person with a veryinterdependent self-construal may also have a very interdependentself-construal and may tend to project his or her attitudes andbeliefs onto the person. The friend also may be aware of thetarget's self-views, and respond as he or she thinks the targetwould.

One way around this problem is to provide an experimentalsetting in which randomly paired individuals take time to get toknow each other, much like two acquaintances might begin to forma friendship. Using this approach, researchers can simulate theprocess of developing a friendship but reduce some of the biasesinherent in the perceptions of close friends or partners. Fortu-nately, Aron, Melinat, Aron, Vallone, and Bator (1997) haveshown that a temporary feeling of closeness among two previouslyunacquainted individuals can be developed in an experimentalcontext. Drawing on research emphasizing self-disclosure as thedefining feature of a close relationship, they describe a structuredset of activities that asks participants to describe their thoughts,feelings, and experiences during a 45-min period. They found thatthe participants in the experimental group described their relation-ships as closer than did members of a control group, in whichparticipants engaged in relatively superficial small talk for thesame amount of time. Certainly the closeness generated in thelaboratory is not the same as that created in the context of anongoing relationship, but this method permits one to model theprocesses involved in the development of close relationships andto reduce some of the biases inherent in ongoing relationships.

We hypothesized that the partners of individuals who scoredhigh on the RISC scale would perceive them as disclosing moreabout themselves and as more responsive than would the partnersof individuals who scored low on the self-construal measure.Given that self-disclosure and sensitive responding are centralingredients in the development of a satisfying or close relationship,we reasoned that individuals paired with a high scorer on the RISCscale would also tend to evaluate the relationship and the interac-tion more positively than would others. Therefore, we examinedthe direct relationship between individuals' RISC scale scores andtheir partners' satisfaction with the interaction, their liking for theindividual, and their perceptions of closeness to their partner. Inaddition, we examined a mediational model, in which this ex-pected relation between one individual's self-construal and herpartner's evaluations of the relationship are mediated by the indi-vidual's self-disclosure and her partner's perceptions of her re-sponsiveness. Previous research has shown that perceptions thatone's partner is responsive to one's needs mediate the effects ofself-disclosure on the closeness of a relationship (Laurenceau,Barrett, & Pietromonaco, 1998). Thus, we hypothesized that indi-viduals who score high on the RISC scale will be more likely toself-disclose and will consequently be viewed as responsive bytheir partners in a get-acquainted task. As a result, their partnerswill evaluate their relationship more positively than will partnersof low scorers.

This study, therefore, goes beyond self-reports to examine in-formants' ratings of an interaction designed to promote closenessin a controlled setting. It permits us to test the question posedearlier: Do the partners of individuals with a very interdependentself-construal concur with their self-reports of open self-disclosureand sensitivity to their relationship partners? In addition, this studyallows us to examine the processes whereby individuals with aninterdependent self-construal begin building a relationship. Weexpect that these individuals will view this situation much like anyother opportunity to get to know a new acquaintance and so willopen up about themselves and will be perceived as responsive bytheir partners, resulting in positive evaluations of the relationshipby their partners.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Participants were 181 women from introductory psychology classes whoparticipated in exchange for course credit. They signed up for the study ingroups of four, and when they arrived at the lab, they were told that thestudy addressed problem solving by pairs. Specifically, they were told thatthe study addressed whether or not knowing one's partner had any impacton how effectively pairs solved problems. Participants then providedinformed consent. The experimenter checked at this point to determine ifany of the participants knew each other. Participants were randomlyassigned to partners (except for instances in which two participants kneweach other previously; in this case, they were randomly assigned to one ofthe two remaining participants).

After completing the RISC scale in individual cubicles, the participantswere seated in cubicles with their randomly assigned partner. (When anodd number of participants showed up for the study, one person was pairedwith a confederate. These participants' responses were dropped from allanalyses.) Participants were told that they had been assigned to the con-dition in which the partners spent some time getting to know each otherbefore the problem solving task (in fact, all participants got to know eitheranother participant or a confederate).


The procedure for the interaction task was adapted from the Aron et al.(1997) closeness task. Each partner was given a set of cards, and each cardhad a different question on it, such as "Given the choice of anyone in theworld, whom would you want as a dinner guest?" The Aron et al. (1997)questions range in the sensitivity of the information elicited; after pilotingthese questions On a separate group of participants, we selected a set of 15questions that varied in the degree of disclosure elicited. (The cards werearranged with the least revealing questions first.) Members of the pairswere asked to alternate asking and answering the questions, with eachperson responding to every question. Participants were instructed that theycould take as long as they wanted on any single question and should feelfree to skip any questions mat they preferred not to answer. They weregiven a maximum of 15 min to work through the set of questions.

After the interaction, participants returned to separate cubicles andcompleted several questionnaires about their interactions. They were as-sured that these evaluations would not be seen by their partner. Followingcompletion of these questionnaires, participants were carefully and thor-oughly debriefed and dismissed.

Measures

For all instruments except one of the selection variables (see below)responses were provided on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with responsesranging from 1 (not at all/strongly disagree) to 5 (very much/stronglyagree).

Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal (RISC). Responses to the11-item RISC scale demonstrated a good internal consistency with aCronbach's alpha of .84.

Disclosure. Disclosure was measured with eight items from the Self-Disclosure Index (Miller et al., 1983). (Two items that were judged to beinappropriate for this situation were dropped from the scale.) Participantswere asked to complete this scale twice, once for themselves and once forhow much their partner disclosed. Cronbach's alpha was .76 for owndisclosure and .83 for perceptions of one's partner's disclosure.

Partner's responsiveness. In this study, responsiveness was operation-alized as the demonstration that one understands, cares for, and valuesone's partner (Reis & Shaver, 1988). Perceptions of the partner's respon-siveness were measured with six items adapted from a scale by Cutrona,Hessling, & Suhr (1997), In addition, the authors created six items de-signed to tap the perceptions that one has been understood, cared for, andvalidated (Reis & Patrick, 1996). The items are listed in the Appendix.Cronbach's alpha was .92.

Liking. Liking was assessed with three items from Miller et al. (1983)and one additional item constructed by the current researchers. The addi-tional item was "How much would you like to work with your partner onthe upcoming problem solving task?" Cronbach's alpha was .88.

Satisfaction. Satisfaction was measured with five commonly useditems. Examples of the items included "How much did you enjoy theinteraction with your partner?" and "How satisfied were you with yourinteraction with this partner?" Cronbach's alpha was .88.

Closeness. The Subjective Closeness Index (Berscheid et al., 1989)was used to measure perceived closeness. This measure includes the items"Relative to all your other relationships, how would you characterize yourrelationship with this person?" and "Relative to what you know about otherpeople's close relationships, how would you characterize your relationshipwith this person?" A third item added by the current authors was "Rightnow, how close do you feel to your partner?" Cronbach's alpha of the3-item scale was .84.

Selection variables. As a check on participants' attitudes toward theinteraction task, they were asked to rate the extent to which they and theirpartners took the discussion time seriously. If either member of a pairindicated that they did not take the discussion time seriously, the couplewas excluded from all analyses. A total of three couples were excluded forthis reason. Participants were also asked how well they knew their partners

before the interaction. Responses were made on a 6-point Likert-type scaleranging from 1 (not at all) to 6 (we knew each other pretty well). Noparticipants indicated that they knew their partners pretty well. Five cou-ples were dropped for failing to follow directions appropriately. The finalsample was comprised of 68 pairs.

Results

The first issue addressed in these analyses was whether an

actor's RISC scale score was related to her partner's perceptions of

the actor's degree of self-disclosure and responsiveness. Kenny

(1996) recommends that when analyzing data from interchange-

able dyad members, researchers should first examine the correla-

tions between the two dyad members1 scores on the variables of

interest to test for nonindependence. As one would expect, pair-

wise intraclass correlations (Griffin & Gonzalez, 1995) revealed

significant correlations between partners' scores for self-disclosure

(r = .31), perceptions of one's partner's disclosure (r = .34),

perceptions of one's partner's responsiveness (r = .44), satisfac-

tion with the interaction (r = .37), liking for the partner (r - .39),

and closeness to the partner (r — .19) (all ps < .05).

To examine dyadic effects, Kenny (1996) recommends the use

of pooled regressions, which allow for the computation of the

effect of an actor's characteristics on her own evaluations of the

interaction (termed the "actor effect") and the effect of her part-

ner's characteristics on the actor's evaluations (termed the "partner

effect"). The values computed in this analysis represent unstand-

ardized regression coefficients. As the first two lines of Table 6

show, participants whose partners scored high on the RISC scale

perceived their partners as disclosing more about themselves and

as being more responsive to their needs and concerns than did

participants whose partners scored low on the RISC scale (sum-

marized in the "partner effect" column). In addition, an individu-

al's own RISC score was related to how she perceived her partner

(summarized in the "actor effect" column).

Table 6

Estimation of Actor and Partner Effects of the RISC Scale on

Evaluations of the Dyadic Interaction (Study 3)

Dependent variable

Perceptions of partner'sdisclosure

Perceptions of partner'sresponsiveness

Self-disclosureSatisfactionLiking of partnerCloseness to partner

Actoreffect*

.54

.69

.45

.55

.55

.40

7 22***

13.26***

6.74***7 JI***6.54***4.45***

Partnereffect*

.19

.36

.25

.44

.42

.17

t

2.55**

6.97***

3.75***6.17***4.98***1.90*

df

70

71

70707069

Note. N = 68 pairs. RISC = Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal.The values in the actor effect and partner effect columns represent un-standardized regression coefficients. The formula suggested by Kenny(1996) to approximate the degrees of freedom results in different values foreach analysis.11 The actor effect is the effect of an actor's RISC scale score on her ownevaluations of the interaction.b The partner effect is the effect of an actor's partner's RISC scale score onthe actor's evaluations of the interaction.*p < .05. **p < .01. ***/? < .001, one-tailed.


Participants' scores on the RISC scale were positively related totheir own ratings of their self-disclosure (see Table 6 under "actoreffect"), replicating the findings of Study 1. There was also asignificant partner effect on ratings of self-disclosure: Individualspaired with a person who scored high on the RISC scale describedthemselves as self-disclosing more than did individuals paired witha low-scoring partner. Table 6 also shows that participants' ratingsof their satisfaction with the discussion, their liking of their part-ner, and feelings of closeness to their partner were significantlyrelated to their own RISC scale scores and to their partner's scores.As hypothesized, individuals paired with a person who scored highon the RISC scale were more satisfied with the interaction, likedtheir partner more, and felt closer to their partner than did indi-viduals paired with a person who scored low on the RISC scale.

We hypothesized that an actor's self-disclosure and her part-ner' s ratings of the actor's responsiveness would mediate the directeffects of the actor's self-construal on her partner's overall eval-uations of the interaction. To create a single index of participants'overall evaluations of the interaction, the measures of satisfaction,liking, and closeness were standardized and summed together. Thereliability for this composite satisfaction score was .95. The hy-pothesized relations among partners' RISC scale scores, self-disclosure, perceptions of their partner's disclosure, and overallsatisfaction with the relationship are shown in Figure 1. Thismodel includes the direct effects of an actor's RISC scale scores onher partner's overall satisfaction (paths a), as well as mediators ofthis relation. The most important relations in the model are cap-tured by paths b, c, and d: An actor's RISC scale scores areexpected to be related to her own self-disclosure (paths b), whichwill in turn predict her partner's perceptions of the actor's respon-siveness (paths c). Perceptions of one's partner's responsiveness

were expected to predict the individual's overall satisfaction (pathsd). In addition, we examined the possible direct effects of anactor's RISC scale scores on her perceptions of her partner'sresponsiveness (paths e) and on her partner's perceptions of theactor's responsiveness (paths f). We also included possible directeffects of an actor's self-disclosure on her perceptions of herpartner's responsiveness (paths g), on her own overall satisfactionwith the relationship (paths h), and on her partner's overall satis-faction (paths i).

To test this model, structural equation analyses were conductedusing maximum likelihood estimation from the LISREL 8 pro-gram. Members of the dyads were randomly assigned to be per-son 1 (PI) or person 2 (P2); Table 7 presents the correlation matrixand the standard deviations for the variables used in this model. Inthese analyses, the path coefficients for the two participants wereconstrained to be equivalent (e.g., the path from Pi 's RISC scoreto Pi 's self-disclosure score was set to be equivalent to the pathfrom P2's RISC score to P2's self-disclosure score). In addition,the model included the correlations between the parallel measuresfrom the two participants (e.g., the correlation between Pi ' s self-disclosure and P2's self-disclosure was included in the model).Although this initial model presented a relatively good fit to thedata, the modification indices and the path coefficients indicatedthat the paths from RISC scores to perceptions of the partner'sresponsiveness (paths f) and the paths from self-disclosure to one'spartner's overall satisfaction score (paths i) were nonsignificantand should be dropped from the model.

This revised model was found to fit the data well, ^ (16 , JV =68) = 26.83, p < .05, GFI = .92, CFI = .93. The standardizedpath coefficients from this model are presented in Figure 2. Par-ticipants' RISC scale scores were directly related to their partner's

Pis perception ofher partner's

responsiveness

P2 s perception ofher partner's

responsiveness

Pi's overallsatisfaction with the

relationship

P2's overallsatisfaction with the

relationship

Figure 1. Initial path model. The bold arrows represent the paths in the hypothesized mediation model. RISC =Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal scale; PI = Partner 1; P2 = Partner 2.


Table 7Correlations and Standard Deviations of Partner 1 (PI) and Partner 2 (P2) Variables Used inthe Mediation Model Predicting Overall Satisfaction With the Interaction (Study 3)

Variable 1

1. PI RISC scale2. PI self-disclosure3. PI perceptions of partner's

responsiveness4. PI overall satisfaction5. P2 RISC scale6. P2 self-disclosure7. P2 perceptions of partner's

responsiveness8. P2 overall satisfaction

(-56).23*.13

.17

.19-.08-.03

(.58).32**

.31**

.26*

.25*51**

(-55)

.77**- .04

.0431**

(2.23).13.10.40**

(.47).22*.40**

(-60).45**

.05 ,38** .27* .24* .24* .54*

(-47)

.64* (2.21)

Note. RISC = Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal. Standard deviations of each variable are on thediagonal.*p < .05. **p < .01, one-tailed.

overall satisfaction with the relationship such that individualspaired with a person who had a very interdependent self-construalwere more satisfied and liked their partner more than did individ-uals paired with a partner who scored low on the RISC scale. Inaddition, there were significant indirect effects of RISC scalescores on participants' partners' composite satisfaction scores,

Ppi RISC-P2 evaluation = - ^ 0P2 RISC-PI evaluation = -03> P» < .05,one tailed. As shown by the bold arrows in Figure 2, individualswho scored high on the RISC scale tended to self-disclose morethan did others (path b); the self-disclosure scores were signifi-

cantly related to their partner's perceptions of their responsiveness(path c), which were strongly related to their partner's satisfactionwith the relationship (path d).

Discussion

Disclosing personal information about oneself and being sensi-tive and responsive to one's partner's disclosures are central pro-cesses in the development of relationships (Laurenceau et al.,1998; Reis & Shaver, 1988). We hypothesized that individuals

Pi's perception ofher partner's

responsiveness

P2 s perception ofher partner's

responsiveness

Pi's overallsatisfaction with the

relationship

P2's overallsatisfaction with the

relationship

Figure 2. Final path model. All paths are significant atp < .05, one-tailed. The bold arrows represent the pathsin the hypothesized mediation model. RISC = Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal scale; PI = Partner 1;P2 = Partner 2. Correlations among the parallel measures for PI and P2 were as follows: RISC scale, r = .18,ns; self-disclosure, r = .20, ns; perceptions of partner responsiveness, r = .21, p < .05; overall evaluation,r = .07, ns.

RELATIONAL-INTERDEPENDENT SELF-CON STRUAL 805

who scored high on the RISC scale would be more likely thanothers to use these strategies to develop new relationships. Toavoid the biases inherent in ongoing relationships, we asked ran-domly assigned strangers to take some time becoming acquaintedand then to indicate how open and responsive their partners hadbeen. As expected, individuals' RISC scale scores were positivelyrelated to their partner's ratings of the person's self-disclosure andresponsiveness. In addition, participants who were paired with aperson who scored high on the RISC scale evaluated their rela-tionship with their partner more positively than did participantswho were paired with a person who scored low on the RISC scale.

Structural equation analyses showed that the relation betweenindividuals' RISC scale scores and their partners' overall satisfac-tion with the interaction and liking of their partner were mediatedby the individual's degree of self-disclosure and the partner'sperceptions of the individual's responsiveness. This model sug-gests that persons with a very interdependent self-construal aremore likely to self-disclose than are others; individuals who arevery disclosing are in turn evaluated as responsive by their part-ners. Finally, participants who view their partners as responsiveand sensitive to their concerns evaluate the relationship morepositively. In short, these results suggest that individuals with avery interdependent self-construal develop and nurture new rela-tionships by being open about themselves and by showing sensi-tivity and concern for their relationship partners, even when thesepartners are randomly assigned strangers.

General Discussion

We report the development of a self-report measure that focuseson individuals' self-representations as relational or interdependentwith close others. In Study 1, we found strong evidence of thescale's reliability and validity. The 11-item measure taps a single,general factor and evidences good internal and test-retest reliabil-ity. An examination of the RISC scale's associations with othermeasures of interdependence, independence, and personality at-tests to its convergent and discriminant validity. The RISC scalepredicted unique variance in global measures of collective self-esteem and communal orientation when other related constructswere controlled. Thus, we have good evidence that the RISC scalemeasures a construct that is reasonably distinct from other similarmeasures.

These results revealed no zero-order correlations between theRISC scale and measures of well-being or self-esteem. Otherresearch has found that individuals who are very needy or depen-dent on others tend to be vulnerable to depression (Rude &Burnham, 1995). Our results suggest that defining oneself in termsof close relationships need not necessarily lead to these negativeconsequences. Further research is necessary, however, to explorethe conditional relationships between the interdependence of theself-concept and well-being. For the person with a very interde-pendent self-construal, overall well-being may depend at least inpart on the well-being of close relationships. If close relationshipsare threatened or undergoing periods of difficulty, the person witha very interdependent self-construal may suffer more than theperson whose self-concept is not based on close relationships.

These studies also supported the hypothesis that women wouldbe more likely to define themselves in terms of their close rela-tionships than would men. The effect sizes for the RISC scale in

these studies ranged from fairly small (d = -.17) to moderate(d - -.57). These effect sizes are similar in magnitude to manyother gender differences in behavior (Hyde, 1996).

We have mentioned throughout the article that individuals whohave a very interdependent self-construal should be motivated todevelop and maintain close relationships, but we unfortunatelyoverlooked measures of related motives, such as the intimacymotive or the need for affiliation, in our examination of theconvergent and discriminant validity of the RISC scale. Me Adamsdescribes the intimacy motive as "the desire for warm, close, andcommunicative relations with others" (1989, p. 53), and we wouldexpect the RISC scale to correlate fairly highly with a measure ofthis motivation. This relation should not be symmetric, however: Aperson who has constructed an interdependent self-construalshould also score high on the measure of intimacy motivation, butthe reverse may not be true. As McAdams (1989) explains, manypeople who score high on intimacy motivation may not haveidentified this tendency or have incorporated it into theirself-views.

We focused the remainder of the research on the associa-tion between the relational-interdependent self-construal andrelationship-oriented thoughts and behaviors. Consistent with thehypothesis that individuals with a very interdependent self-construal will have a larger social network, we found that individ-uals who scored high on the RISC scale listed more people whowere very important to them and perceived higher levels of socialsupport than did lows (Study 1). Individuals who scored high onthe RISC scale also described their most important relationships ascloser and more committed than did others. These results providecriterion validity for the RISC scale in that they support thehypothesis that individuals with a very interdependent self-construal should be especially motivated to develop and maintainclose relationships. Additional research is necessary to uncovermore about the processes and motivations underlying these asso-ciations. The findings of Study 1, however, suggest that quality(i.e., self-disclosure and mutual influence), not quantity, of timespent with close others differentiates the approach to relationshipsadopted by very interdependent persons from that adopted by thosewho do not think of themselves as interdependent with others.

If close relationships are part of the self, then individuals shouldtake care to promote and protect these relationships. In Study 2,highly interdependent persons were more likely than others to takeinto account the opinions or needs of friends and family whenmaking important decisions. When close relationships are self-defining, then the needs and wishes of close others may be nearlyas important or salient as one's own needs and wishes. In addition,decisions made without heeding their implications for close othersmay cause conflict or threaten relationships.

Study 3 supported the findings of Studies 1 and 2, showing thatwhen individuals with a very interdependent self-construal wereasked to get to know a new person, they were more likely to revealinformation about themselves and to be viewed as respondingsensitively to their relationship partners than were others. Theseconclusions were based not only on self-reports, but also on thereports of their partners in these interactions. Thus, this studyprovides important criterion validity for the RISC scale.

In addition, Study 3 begins to answer the question of howindividuals with an interdependent self-construal create and main-tain close relationships. The structural equation analyses of these


dyadic interactions revealed that individuals with a very interde-pendent self-construal tended to self-disclose more, which wasrelated to their partners' perceptions that they were concerned andcaring; these perceptions that one's partner was responsive werestrongly related to positive evaluations of the relationship. Thus,individuals' RISC scale scores are not only related to their ownperceptions and evaluations of themselves and their relationships,but also to others' perceptions of them. These findings are cross-sectional and based on a sample of college women; replication inlongitudinal studies with a more diverse sample will promotefurther understanding of the role of the self-construal in relation-ship processes. Future studies should also examine the relationshipof the self-construal to other relationship-enhancing processes inongoing close relationships.

Research Applications

When a relational orientation is conceptualized at the level ofthe self-concept, researchers can draw upon the extensive researchon the self to more clearly specify the mechanisms and processesthat underlie the relations between interdependence and otherphenomena. There has been much speculation about how viewingoneself as relational or interdependent may influence behavior, butempirical tests of these hypotheses have been thwarted by the lackof an appropriate measure. For example, Cross and Madson (1997)suggest that many theories and research findings in the area ofself-enhancement processes have assumed an independent self-construal. They argue that the strategies used to enhance the selfmay vary, depending on the structure of the self. With this newmeasure, researchers are better equipped to test these and otherhypotheses specifically, thus better understanding the sources ofsocial behavior. Similarly, some theorists have attributed genderdifferences in behavior to differences in the self-construal (Cross& Madson, 1997; Markus & Oyserman, 1989; Surrey, 1991), butothers contend that most gender differences in behavior are due todifferences in status or power (Ridgeway, 1988; Snodgrass, 1992).With this measure, researchers can more carefully identify theindependent and joint effects of the self and the situation in socialbehavior.

A critical next step is to examine the relation between thisconstruct and individuals' self-views as independent and autono-mous. As Trafimow, Triandis, and Goto (1991) have suggested,these two types of self-representations may be stored separatelyfrom each other in memory and accessed with different frequen-cies. The effects of the interdependent self-construal onrelationship-oriented behavior may depend on the extent to whichan individual has developed independence-related self-views. Forexample, the person with a very interdependent self-construal whoalso has well-elaborated self-views as independent and self-reliantmay be best able to balance the needs of relationship partners withhis or her own needs (see Helgeson, 1994, for a review). Aconsideration of the relational-interdependent self-construal mayopen the doors to new understanding of the role of the self incognition, motivation, well-being, and social interaction.

References

Allen, R. L., Dawson, M. C , & Brown, R. E. (1989). A schema basedapproach to modeling an African American racial belief system. Amer-ican Political Science Review, 83, 421-442,

Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development ofinterpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Antonucci, T. C. (1986). Hierarchical mapping technique. Generations, 10,10-12.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollen, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the selfscale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 63, 596-612.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M , & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationshipsas including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 60, 241-253.

Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., & Bator, R. J. (1997).The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness: A procedureand some preliminary findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-letin, 23, 363-377.

Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression: Causes and treatment. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press.

Bellah, R. R , Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M.(1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in Americanlife. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Belle, D. (Ed.). (1982). Lives in stress: Women and depression. BeverlyHills, CA: Sage.

Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (1989). The relationshipcloseness inventory: Assessing the closeness of interpersonal relation-ships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 792-807.

Blaine, B., & Crocker, J. (1993). Self-esteem and self-serving biases inreactions to positive and negative events: An integrative review. In R. F.Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self-regard (pp. 55-85). New York: Plenum Press.

Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. In J. P.Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures ofpersonality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 115-160). San Di-ego, CA: Academic Press.

Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this "we"? Levels ofcollective identity and self-representations. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 71, 83-93.

Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.Clark, M. S., Ouellette, R., Powell, M. C, & Milberg, S. (1987). Recipi-

ent's mood, relationship type, and helping. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 53, 94-103.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Professional manual: Revised NEOPersonality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five factor inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Cross, S. E. (1995). Self-construals, coping, and stress in cross-culturaladaptation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 673-697.

Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals andgender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5-37.

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (I960). A new scale of social desirabilityindependent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24,349-354.

Cutrona, C. E. (1989). Ratings of social support by adolescents and adultinformants: Degree of correspondence and prediction of depressivesymptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 3-14.

Cutrona, C. E., Hessling, R. M., & Suhr, J. (1997). The influence ofhusband and wife personality on marital social support interactions.Personal Relationships, 4. 379-393.

Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D. (1987). The provisions of social relationshipsand adaptation to stress. In W. H. Jones and D. Perlman (Eds.), Advancesin personal relationships (Vol. 1, pp. 37-68). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differ-ences in empathy. JSAS: Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychol-ogy, 10, 85.

Deiner, EM Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). TheSatisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49,71-75.


Griffin, D., & Gonzalez, R. (1995). Correlational analysis of dyad-leveldata in the exchangeable case. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 430-439.

Guisinger, S., & Blatt, S. J. (1994). Individuality and relatedness: Evolu-tion of a fundamental dialectic. American Psychologist, 49, 104-111.

Harter, S. (1993). Causes and consequences of low self-esteem in childrenand adolescents. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem: The puzzle oflow self-regard (pp. 87-116). New York: Plenum Press.

Helgeson, V. S. (1994). Relation of agency and communion to well-being:Evidence and potential explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 412-428.

Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., & Wilhelm, J. A. (1981). A psychometricanalysis of the Personal Attributes Questionnaire. Sex Roles, 7. 1097-1108.

Hyde, J. (1996). Half the human experience. Lexington, MA: Heath.James, W. (1890/1983). The principles of psychology. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.Kashima, Y., Yamaguchi, S., Kim, U., Choi, S. C , Gelfand, M. J., & Yuki,

M. (1995). Culture, gender, and self: A perspective from individualism-collectivism research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,925-937.

Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J. H., Huston, T. L.,Levinger, G., McClintock, E., Peplau, L. A., & Peterson, D. R. (1983).Close relationships. New York: Freeman.

Kenny, D. A. (1996). Models of non-independence in dyadic research.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 279-294.

Lauxenceau, J.-P., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as,an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partnerdisclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal ex-changes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1238-1251.

Luhtanen, R., &. Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one's social identity. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 18, 302-318.

Lykes, M. B. (1985). Gender and individualistic vs. collectivistic bases fornotions about the self. In A. J. Stewart & M. B. Lykes (Eds.), Genderand personality: Current perspectives on theory and research (pp.268-295). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Marin, G., & Triandis, H. C. (1985). Allocentrism as an important char-acteristic of the behavior of Latin Americans and Hispanics. In R.Diaz-Guerrero (Ed.), Cross-cultural and national studies in social psy-chology (pp. 69-80). Amsterdam: North Holland.

Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications forcognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1994). A collective fear of the collective:Implications for selves and theories of selves. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 20, 568-579.

Markus, H., & Oyserman, D. (1989). Gender and thought: The role of theself-concept. In M. Crawford & M. Hamilton (Eds.), Gender andthought (pp. 100-127). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Matsumoto, D., Weissman, M. D., Preston, K., Brown, B. R., & Kupper-busch, C. (1997). Context-specific measurement of individualism-collectivism on the individual level: The Individualism-CollectivismInterpersonal Assessment Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychol-ogy, 28, 743-767.

McAdams, D. P. (1989). Intimacy: The need to be close. New York:Doubleday.

McCombs, H. (1985). Black self-concept: An individual/collective analy-sis. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 9, 1-18.

McGrath, E., Keita, G. P., Strickland, B. R., & Russo, N. F. (1990). Womenand depression: Risk factors and treatment issues. Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

Miller, L. C , Berg, i. H., & Archer, R. L. (1983). Openers: Individualswho elicit intimate self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 44, 1234-1244.

Moran, P. B., & Eckenrode, J. (1991). Gender differences in the costs andbenefits of peer relationships during adolescence. Journal of AdolescentResearch 6, 396-409.

Oved, Y. (1988). Two hundred years of American communes. New Bruns-wick, NJ: Transaction Press.

Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale forresearch in the general population. Applied Psychological Measure-ment, 1, 385-401.

Realo, A., Allik, J., & Vadi, M. (1997). The hierarchical structure ofcollectivism. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 93-116.

Reis, H. T., & Patrick, B. C. (1996). Attachment and intimacy: Componentprocesses. In E. T. Higgins and A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psy-chology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 523-563). New York: Guil-ford Press.

Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Studying social interaction with theRochester Interaction Record, In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in exper-imental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 269-318). San Diego, CA:Academic Press.

Ridgeway, C. L. (1988). Gender differences in task groups: A status andlegitimacy account. In M. Webster and M. Foschi (Eds.), Status gener-alization: New theory and research (pp. 188-206). Stanford, CA: Stan-ford University Press.

Roberts, T., &. Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1989). Sex differences in reactions toevaluative feedback. Sex Roles, 21, 725-747.

Roberts, T., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1994). Gender comparisons in re-sponsiveness to others' evaluations in achievement settings. Psychologyof Women Quarterly, 18, 221-240.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rude, S. S., & Burnham, B. L. (1995). Connectedness, neediness: Factorsof the DEQ and SAS dependency scales. Cognitive Therapy and Re-search, 19, 323-340.

Rude, S. S., Welch, N., & Sanders, B. (1998). The development andvalidation of a scale measuring the construct of connectedness. Unpub-lished manuscript, University of Texas.

Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: Thedevelopment (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment inheterosexual involvement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 45, 101-117.

Sampson, E. E. (1985). The decentralization of identity: Toward a revisedconcept of personal and social order. American Psychologist, 40, 1203-1211.

Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health:Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies.Health Psychology, 4, 219-247.

Schwalbe, M. L., & Staples, C. L. (1991). Gender differences in sources ofself-esteem. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 158-168.

Shaver, P. R., & Brennan, K. A. (1991). Measures of depression andloneliness. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. W. Wrightsman (Eds.),Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 195-290). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Shweder, R. A., & Bourne, E. J. (1984). Does the concept of the personvary cross-culturally? In R. A. Shweder & R. A. LeVine (Eds.), Culturetheory: Essays on mind, self, and emotion (pp. 158-199). Cambridge,England: Cambridge University Press.

Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdepen-dent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20,580-591.

Snodgrass, S. E. (1992), Further effects of role versus gender on interper-sonal sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62,154-158.

Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1974). The Personal AttributesQuestionnaire: A measure of sex-role stereotypes and masculinity-


femininity. Journal Supplement Abstract Service Catalog of SelectedDocuments in Psychology, 4, 43-44.

Surrey, J. (1991). The "Self In-relation": A theory of women's development. InJ. V. Jordan, A. G. Kaplan, J. B. Miller, I. P. Stiver, & J. L. Suirey (Eds.),Women's Growth in Connection (pp. 51-66). New York: Guilford Press.

Swann, W. B., Jr., De La Ronde, C , & Hixon, J. G. (1994). Authenticityand positivity strivings in marriage and courtship. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 66, 857-869.

Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of socialbehavior. In L. Berfcowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psy-chology (Vol. 21, pp. 181-227). New York: Academic Press.

Trafimow, D., Triandis, H. C , & Goto, S. G. (1991). Some tests of thedistinction between the private self and the collective self. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 60, 649-655.

Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing culturalcontexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506-520.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO:Westview Press.

Weiss, R. S. (1974). The provisions of social relationships. In Z. Rubin(Ed.), Doing unto others (pp. 17-26). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Yamaguchi, S. (1994). Collectivism among the Japanese: A perspectivefrom the self. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, andG. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism (pp. 175-188). NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Yamaguchi, S., KuhJman, D. M., & Sugimori, S. (1995). Personalitycorrelates of allocentric tendencies in individualist and collectivist cul-tures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 658-672.

Zuckerman, D. M. (1989). Stress, self-esteem, and mental health: Howdoes gender make a difference? Sex Roles, 20, 429-444.

Zung, W. W. K. (1965). A self-rating depression scale. Archives of GeneralPsychiatry, 12, 63-70.

Appendix

Items Used to Assess Perceptions of One's Partner's Supportiveness (Study 3)

1. I felt as if my partner really cared about me."2. My partner behaved warmly toward me.a

3. My partner listened carefully when it was my turn to talk.4. My partner tried to see things from my point of view.5. My partner made me feel comfortable about myself and my feelings.3

6. My partner seemed sensitive to my feelings.8

7. My partner seemed uncaring.8. My partner showed respect for my capabilities and talents.0

9. My partner did not seem to take my concerns seriously.3

10. My partner seemed sincere during our interaction.11. My partner made me feel valued as a person.12. My partner seemed to understand my concerns.

1 From the Interaction Supportiveness Scale. Copyright 1997 by C. E. Cutrona. Printed with permission.

Received June 28, 1999Revision received September 2, 1999

Accepted November 2, 1999