File Download
 
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
 
Supplementary

Article: Sociocultural differences in self-construal and subjective well-being: A test of four cultural models
  • Basic View
  • Metadata View
  • XML View
TitleSociocultural differences in self-construal and subjective well-being: A test of four cultural models
 
AuthorsCheng, C2
Jose, PE4
Sheldon, KM11
Singelis, TM10
Cheung, MWL9
Tiliouine, H5
Alao, AA6
Chio, JHM2
Lui, JYM2
Chun, WY7
De Zavala, AG12
Hakuzimana, A3
Hertel, J8
Liu, JT1
Onyewadume, M6
Sims, C12
 
KeywordsCulture
Self-Construal
Societal Modernization
Subjective Well-Being
 
Issue Date2011
 
PublisherSage Publications, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.sagepub.com/journal.aspx?pid=197
 
CitationJournal Of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2011, v. 42 n. 5, p. 832-855 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022110381117
 
AbstractIn this study, the authors tested four cultural models-independence, interdependence, conflict, and integration-that describe the hypothesized relationships between dimensions of self-construal and components of subjective well-being among individualistic and collectivistic countries. Collectivistic countries that have undergone rapid socioeconomic changes (i.e., East Asian countries) and those with limited changes (i.e., African countries) were differentiated. Participants were 791 university students from four Western countries, 749 university students from three East Asian countries, and 443 university students from three African countries. Findings provided some support for the applicability of (a) the independence model to individuals from Western countries and (b) the integration model to individuals from East Asian countries. Mixed results were found among the African countries. The interdependence model is more applicable to African participants from the sub-Saharan region, but the integration model is more applicable to those from the North African region. © The Author(s) 2011.
 
ISSN0022-0221
2013 Impact Factor: 1.746
2013 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.917
 
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022110381117
 
ReferencesReferences in Scopus
 
DC FieldValue
dc.contributor.authorCheng, C
 
dc.contributor.authorJose, PE
 
dc.contributor.authorSheldon, KM
 
dc.contributor.authorSingelis, TM
 
dc.contributor.authorCheung, MWL
 
dc.contributor.authorTiliouine, H
 
dc.contributor.authorAlao, AA
 
dc.contributor.authorChio, JHM
 
dc.contributor.authorLui, JYM
 
dc.contributor.authorChun, WY
 
dc.contributor.authorDe Zavala, AG
 
dc.contributor.authorHakuzimana, A
 
dc.contributor.authorHertel, J
 
dc.contributor.authorLiu, JT
 
dc.contributor.authorOnyewadume, M
 
dc.contributor.authorSims, C
 
dc.date.accessioned2012-10-08T03:41:37Z
 
dc.date.available2012-10-08T03:41:37Z
 
dc.date.issued2011
 
dc.description.abstractIn this study, the authors tested four cultural models-independence, interdependence, conflict, and integration-that describe the hypothesized relationships between dimensions of self-construal and components of subjective well-being among individualistic and collectivistic countries. Collectivistic countries that have undergone rapid socioeconomic changes (i.e., East Asian countries) and those with limited changes (i.e., African countries) were differentiated. Participants were 791 university students from four Western countries, 749 university students from three East Asian countries, and 443 university students from three African countries. Findings provided some support for the applicability of (a) the independence model to individuals from Western countries and (b) the integration model to individuals from East Asian countries. Mixed results were found among the African countries. The interdependence model is more applicable to African participants from the sub-Saharan region, but the integration model is more applicable to those from the North African region. © The Author(s) 2011.
 
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext
 
dc.identifier.citationJournal Of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2011, v. 42 n. 5, p. 832-855 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022110381117
 
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022110381117
 
dc.identifier.epage855
 
dc.identifier.hkuros200279
 
dc.identifier.issn0022-0221
2013 Impact Factor: 1.746
2013 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.917
 
dc.identifier.issue5
 
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-79954489875
 
dc.identifier.spage832
 
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/169086
 
dc.identifier.volume42
 
dc.languageeng
 
dc.publisherSage Publications, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.sagepub.com/journal.aspx?pid=197
 
dc.publisher.placeUnited States
 
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
 
dc.relation.referencesReferences in Scopus
 
dc.rightsJournal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Copyright © Sage Publications, Inc.
 
dc.subjectCulture
 
dc.subjectSelf-Construal
 
dc.subjectSocietal Modernization
 
dc.subjectSubjective Well-Being
 
dc.titleSociocultural differences in self-construal and subjective well-being: A test of four cultural models
 
dc.typeArticle
 
<?xml encoding="utf-8" version="1.0"?>
<item><contributor.author>Cheng, C</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Jose, PE</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Sheldon, KM</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Singelis, TM</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Cheung, MWL</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Tiliouine, H</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Alao, AA</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Chio, JHM</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Lui, JYM</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Chun, WY</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>De Zavala, AG</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Hakuzimana, A</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Hertel, J</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Liu, JT</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Onyewadume, M</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Sims, C</contributor.author>
<date.accessioned>2012-10-08T03:41:37Z</date.accessioned>
<date.available>2012-10-08T03:41:37Z</date.available>
<date.issued>2011</date.issued>
<identifier.citation>Journal Of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2011, v. 42 n. 5, p. 832-855</identifier.citation>
<identifier.issn>0022-0221</identifier.issn>
<identifier.uri>http://hdl.handle.net/10722/169086</identifier.uri>
<description.abstract>In this study, the authors tested four cultural models-independence, interdependence, conflict, and integration-that describe the hypothesized relationships between dimensions of self-construal and components of subjective well-being among individualistic and collectivistic countries. Collectivistic countries that have undergone rapid socioeconomic changes (i.e., East Asian countries) and those with limited changes (i.e., African countries) were differentiated. Participants were 791 university students from four Western countries, 749 university students from three East Asian countries, and 443 university students from three African countries. Findings provided some support for the applicability of (a) the independence model to individuals from Western countries and (b) the integration model to individuals from East Asian countries. Mixed results were found among the African countries. The interdependence model is more applicable to African participants from the sub-Saharan region, but the integration model is more applicable to those from the North African region. &#169; The Author(s) 2011.</description.abstract>
<language>eng</language>
<publisher>Sage Publications, Inc. The Journal&apos;s web site is located at http://www.sagepub.com/journal.aspx?pid=197</publisher>
<relation.ispartof>Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology</relation.ispartof>
<rights>Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Copyright &#169; Sage Publications, Inc.</rights>
<subject>Culture</subject>
<subject>Self-Construal</subject>
<subject>Societal Modernization</subject>
<subject>Subjective Well-Being</subject>
<title>Sociocultural differences in self-construal and subjective well-being: A test of four cultural models</title>
<type>Article</type>
<description.nature>link_to_subscribed_fulltext</description.nature>
<identifier.doi>10.1177/0022022110381117</identifier.doi>
<identifier.scopus>eid_2-s2.0-79954489875</identifier.scopus>
<identifier.hkuros>200279</identifier.hkuros>
<relation.references>http://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-79954489875&amp;selection=ref&amp;src=s&amp;origin=recordpage</relation.references>
<identifier.volume>42</identifier.volume>
<identifier.issue>5</identifier.issue>
<identifier.spage>832</identifier.spage>
<identifier.epage>855</identifier.epage>
<publisher.place>United States</publisher.place>
</item>
Author Affiliations
  1. National Taiwan University
  2. The University of Hong Kong
  3. Kigali Institute of Education
  4. Victoria University of Wellington
  5. Université d'Oran
  6. University of Botswana
  7. Chungnam National University
  8. Technische Universität Chemnitz
  9. National University of Singapore
  10. California State University Chico
  11. University of Missouri-Columbia
  12. Middlesex University