Conceptual Questions
1
• Social definitions of intelligence and obedience orientation functional in
contexts where old age security value of children is important (ruraltraditional; closely-knit human relations; less specialized tasks)
•
Teaching through demonstration and modeling functional in everyday learning –
apprenticeship (non school – like tasks))
•
School – like tasks (cognitive and language skills) functional in urban life styles
(specialized tasks, school)
•
Autonomy becomes functional with decreased old age security value of children
and urban life styles (specialized tasks requiring decision making)
--------------An integrative - Functional Perspective combines
A contextual approach and Comparative Standards
(Contextualism without relativism)
2
Theories of Intelligence
-You can learn new things, but you
can’t really change your basic
intelligence
- You
can always substantially change
how intelligent you are
Theories about intelligence & students’
achievement goals
• The more students held an entity theory of
intelligence, the more likely they were to
choose a performance goal.
• The more they held an incremental theory, the
more they were likely to choose the learning
goal.
4
Theories about intelligence & students’
achievement goals
Study with 8th graders:
• 80% of students with an entity theory chose a
performance-goal task (with 50% choosing the
very easy task)
• 20% of these students were willing to try to
learn something new when there is a risk of
making errors
• 60% of incremental theorists chose the
learning-goal task
5
Achievement Goals: Looking Smart vs
Learning
• Performance goal: winning positive judgments of
your competence and avoiding negative ones
Ex: When students pursue performance goals they’re
concerned with their level of intelligence: They want
to look smart (to themselves or others) and avoid
looking dumb.
• Learning goal: the goal of increasing your
competence. It reflects a desire to learn new skills,
master new tasks, or understand new things.
6
Helpless vs Mastery-Oriented Responses
• Students with performance goals showed a
helpless pattern in response to difficulty.
Some of them condemned their ability and
their problem solving deteriorated.
• Students with learning goals showed a masteroriented pattern. They remained focused on
the task and maintained their effective
problem-solving strategies in the face of
failure.
7
• Students with learning goals were much more
mastery-oriented when faced with challenging
problems.
• Students with performance goals were thrown
off by novel problems. They worried about
their ability to solve the problems instead of
trying to solve them.
8
Students’ theories of intelligence can have a direct
effect on their goals and concerns.
Theories of intelligence cause students to focus on
performance goals or learning goals.
What was told to the students by the researchers had
an impact on their thinking. Researchers can
influence students’ theories. Thus, people’s theories
of intelligence are malleable.
9
• Students who were led to believe their
intelligence is fixed begin to have concerns
about looking smart and begin to sacrifice
learning opportunuties when there is a threat
of exposing their deficiencies.
10
• Students who are led to believe their
intelligence is a malleable quality begin to take
on challenging learning tasks and to take
advantage of the skill-improvement
opportunities that come their way.
11
• Students’ theories of intelligence affect the
way they see and react to their own successes
and failures, and the way they see and react
to others’ successes and failures.
• In both cases, holding an entity theory leads
students to see performance as a direct
reflection of intelligence.
12
• Holding an entity versus incremental theory
can play a direct causal role in fostering trait
judgments (dispositional attribution)
• When we learn that personality and character
are unchangeable, we may believe that how
people act on one occasion tells us about their
deeper traits.
13
• The majority of helpless children reported
that even with more time or effort they would
not be able to solve any of the puzzles.
• The majority of the mastery-oriented children
were certain that with time and effort they
could conquer the puzzles.
14
• The nonpersistent childen conveyed
significantly more negative emotion than their
persistent counterparts.
15
• When children’s responses for criticism and
punishment from adults were coded, a striking
difference emerged.
• Most of the children who had shown a persistent,
mastery-oriented response on the puzzles roleplayed little or no criticism or punishment from the
adults. They role-played a great deal of praise,
encouragement, and constructive suggestions from
them.
16
Examples:
“She did the puzzles beautiful.”
“He worked hard but he just couldn’t finish
them. He wants to try them again later.”
“You did the best you could. Come sit on my
lap”.
“He didn’t work hard enough. He can try again
after lunch.”
17
• The children who had shown a helpless
response on the puzzles role-played an
alarming amount of harsh criticism and
punishment.
18
Examples:
“She didn’t finish the puzzles. I spanked her but
she keeps on hiding.”
“You better do nothing but sit in your room.”
“He’s punished because he can’t do them and
he didn’t finish.”
“Daddy’s gonna be very mad and spank her.”
19
• For young children, the key issue is goodness,
and that their mistakes and failures are seen
in that light. These children are grappling with
questions about what makes someone good
or bad.
• Helpless and mastery-oriented children
resolve this dilemma in different ways.
20
• 60% of helpless children said they felt they were not
good kids as a result of what happened. 40% said
they felt that they were not nice.
• The whole point of this endeavor was to create a
nice surprise for their teacher. Yet the criticism was
so undermining to them that for many it erased their
good intention and left them feeling culpable.
(deserving punishment)
21
Culture and The Self
22
Maintaining self-esteem requires separating oneself from others
and seeing oneself as different from and better than others.
At 4 years old, children already show a clear self-favorability
bias. When asked to compare themselves with others with
respect to intelligence, friendliness, or any skill, most children
think they are better than most others.
Wylie (1979) reported that American adults also consider
themselves to be more intelligent and more attractive than
average. Myers (1987) found that 70% of students believe
they are above average in leadership ability, and with respect
to the “ability to get along with others”, 0% thought they were
below average, 60% thought they were in the top 10%, and
25% thought they were in the top 1%.
23
Taylor & Brown showed that among Americans, most
people feel that they are more in control and have
more positive expectations for themselves and for
their future than they have for other people.
This tendency for false uniqueness presumably derives
from efforts of those with independent selves to
maintain a positive view of themselves.
24
There were marked differences between the Japanese and the
American students in their estimations of their own
uniqueness; the Americans displayed significantly more false
uniqueness than the Japanese.
American students assumed that only 30% of people on average
would be better than themselves on various traits and
abilities (e.g., memory, athletic ability, independence, and
sympathy), whereas the Japanese students showed almost no
evidence of this false uniqueness.
In most cases, the Japanese estimated that about 50% of
students would be better than they were or have more of a
given trait or ability. This is, of course, the expected finding if
a representative sample of college students were evaluating
themselves in a relatively nonbiased manner.
25
What is a considerate superviser?
What the supervisor might do if a member of
the work team is experiencing personal
difficulties.
To discuss the matter with other members of
the work team in the person’s absence
Japan & Hong Kong: considerate
USA & Britain: inconsiderate
26
27
28
SUGGESTIONS
• Rotenberg: Reciprocal Individualism
• Lykes: Social Individuality
• Chodorow: Relational Individualism
29
Study of self and interpersonal relations in family
context needs to recognize the cultural
embeddedness of these phenomena as well as of the
constructs used to study them.
A great deal of psychological theorizing on the self,
self-other relations and family dynamics reflect the
Western individualistic ethos. This has permeated
theory, research, and applications, extending into
popular psychology.
30
Connected and Separate Selves/Family
Connected
family
Separate
family
31
32
Tips for Crossing Cultures
Individualists interacting with collectivists should:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Pay attention to the other’s group memberships and authorities; these define
important norms, roles, and attitudes.
Seek to persuade by getting the person’s superiors to signal approval and
show how the other’s groups will benefit.
Emphasize harmony and cooperation. Help the other save face. Avoid
confrontation. Criticize gently and in private, after praising.
Patiently cultivate long-term relationships. The other prefers doing business
with old friends. Intimacy develops gradually.
If the others is East-Asian, expect unjustified modesty and self-depreciation.
Begin presentations more modestly than you normally would.
Let the other know your social position, so the other knows how to relate to
you. Expect age to engender respect. Who you are matters more than what
you’ve accomplished.
Regard the other’s accompanying you and spending time with you as
relationship-building, not as an invasion of your privacy.
33
Collectivists interacting with individualists should:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Pay less attention to the other’s groups (when outside the group context)
than to the other’s personal beliefs and attitudes.
Expect the other to be less worried about what superiors think and more
influenced by peers and spouse than in your culture.
Emphasize personal costs and benefits of what you propose. Be aware that
lack of criticism may be interpreted as approval.
Feel free to get right to business, with few preliminaries. Expect relationships
to be good-natured but superficial and short-term.
Feel free to present yourself in a positive light but without obvious boasting.
It’s okay to speak highly of your skills and accomplishments.
Expect the other to care less about status differences, such as your age or
position. Avoid being bossy to those of lower status or servile toward those
of higher status.
Do not expect to be accompanied at all times. Individualists are comfortable
alone, and show their confidence by leaving you on your own.
34
VALUE OF CHILDREN (VOC) STUDY
• A Three-Decade Portrait from Turkey 1975-2003.
Provides evidence for change over time with socioeconomic development and urbanization.
• Recent VOC study results from Korea, South Africa,
France, Germany, Israel, India, Indonesia and China
concur.
Kagitcibasi, C. & Ataca, B. (2005) Value of children and family change : A three-decade portrait from Turkey.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 3, 317-337 (and the whole special issue:
G.Trommsdorff, U. Kim & B. Nauck, Eds.)
35
36
Value of Children (Min:8, Max:24)
37
Old age security as reason for having a child or
wanting another (in percentages)
38
Expectation of Financial Help from Sons and Daughters
39
Characteristics most and second most desired in child
(in percentages)
40
Reasons for Wanting a Child:
1975 VOC Study Mothers vs. 2003 VOC Study Mothers in
Turkey
3.00
2.75
2.50
2.25
2.00
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
Pleasure
Fun to have
To have
Children can
Child helps
To help your
Watching young children someone to help when you around house
family
Children Grow
around
love and care
are old
economically
for
Mothers (1975)
Younger Mothers (2003)
To have a
boy/another
boy
41
Expectations of Financial/Material Help from Sons and
Daughters. 1975 VOC Study Mothers vs. 2003 VOC
Study Mothers in Turkey
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Sons - A
Sons - B
Sons - C
1975
A: Financial assistance to siblings
Daughters A
Daughters - B Daughters - C
2003
B: Help with housework
C: Financial assistance to you
42
43
44
MODEL OF INTERDEPENDENCE
Context
Family systems
Socialization values
– Family/group loyalties
– Emotional/material investment in parents
– Interdependence values
– Utilitarian value of children
economic VOC
old-age security VOC
material expectations from child
– Son preference
Culture
Culture of relatedness
(collectivistic)
Living Conditions
Rural / agrarian
Subsistence / low affluence
Family Structure
- Functionally extended family
structure
- Wealth flows toward parents
- Patrilineal ties
- High ertility
- Low woman’s status
Family Interaction & Socialization
–Authoriatrian parenting
–Obedience/dependence orientation in
childrearing
–Intergenerational/familial independence
–Interpersonal interdependence
–Development of related self
–
causal relationship/influence

Mutual causation/interaction

45
feedback
MODEL OF INDEPENDENCE
Family systems
Context
Socialization values
– Individual loyalties
– Emotional/material investment in child
– Independence values
– Psycholgogical value of children
– Low son preference
Culture
Culture of separateness
(individualistic)
Living Conditions
Urban/industrial
Affluence
Family Structure
- Nuclear family structure
- Wealth flows toward
children
- Nuclear family ties
- Low fertility
- High woman’s status
–
causal relationship/influence

Family Interaction & Socialization
– Relatively permissing parenting
– Autonomy/self-reliance orientation in
childrearing
– Intergenerational/familial independence
– Interpersonal independence
– Development of separate self
Mutual causation/interaction

46
feedback
MODEL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL
INTERDEPENDENCE
Context
Family systems
Culture
Culture of relatedness
(collectivistic)
Socialization values
– Family/group loyalties + individual loyalties
– Emotional investment in parents
– Emotional/material investment in child
– Emotional Interdependence values
– Psychological value of children
– Decreased son preference
Living Conditions
Urbanization
Industrialization
Increased affluence
Family Structure
- Functionally complex family
structure
- Wealth flows toward children
- Nuclear + kin ties
- low fertility
- Increased woman’s status
Family Interaction & Socialization
– Authoritative parenting
Control + autonomy
– Control and autonomy orientation in
childrearing
Intergenerational/familial
emotional interdependence
– Interpersonal interdependence
– Development of autonomous-related self
–
causal relationship/influence

Mutual causation/interaction

47
feedback
FAMILY MODELS, PARENTING AND THE SELF
Interdependence
Independence
Psychological
interdependence
Relatively permissive
Parenting style
Authoritarian
Child rearing
orientation
Control / obedience
Autonomy / self
reliance
Control / autonomy
Heteronomous
Related
Autonomous
separate
Autonomous-related
Self
Authoritative
48
THEORY OF FAMILY CHANGE
Based originally on the Value of Children Study (VOC, 1970s); developed further
and confirmed by the VOC 2003 Study and other research.
Convergence toward the Family Model of Psychological/ Emotional
Interdependence in conjunction with:
- Socio-economic development (increased urbanization, education, affluence)
- Immigration
49
RESEARCH EVIDENCE:
•Stewart, Bond, Deeds & Chung (1999) in Hong Kong found
persistance of family interdependencies together with some
individualistic values; family relatedness and parental control
were seen in “modern” families.
•Kwak (2003) in review of research noted the common
preference of adolescents for both autonomy and family
relatedness.
•Koutrelakos (2004) found decreasing material but continuing
emotional interdependencies in Greek Americans with
acculturation.
•Georgas, Berry, Van de Vijver, Kagitcibasi & Poortinga
(2005) in a 27-country study of the family found evidence for
autonomy and relatedness to coexist in the psychologically
interdependent family.
50
THE SELF MODEL
AUTONOMY- RELATEDNESS DYNAMICS:
A Challenge for Psychology
Because construed as both:
-Basic Human Needs
and as
-Conflicting
Ever since the ‘Conflict Theories of Personality’
(Angyal, 1951 & Bakan, 1966)
51
TWO BASIC HUMAN NEEDS:
- Autonomy
- Relatedness
A. Freud (1930/1961)
Egoistic urge
(toward happiness)
Urge toward union
Angyal (1951)
Autonomy
Surrender
Bakan (1966)
Agency
Communion
Bowen (1966)
Individuality
Togetherness
Bowlby (1969)
Separation
Attachment
Franz & White (1985)
Individuation
Attachment
Guisinger & Blatt (1994)
Self-definition
Interpersonal
relatedness
Ryan, Deci & Grolnick (1995)
Autonomy
Relatedness
Kagitcibasi (1996)
Autonomy
Relatedness
52
The construal of Autonomy and Relatedness
as Conflicting has prevailed over Autonomy
and Relatedness as Basic Needs
Thus, Relatedness is seen as incompatible
with Autonomy or
Separation from others is seen as
necessary for autonomy
(“Separation-Individuation” hypothesis)
53
What is the underlying reason?
Not evolutionary, which rather stresses the
survival value of cooperation and relatedness in
humans and other primates (Euler et al, 2001;
Guisinger & Blatt, 1994).
It is cultural ... Western Individualism as a
‘Cultural Affordance’ (Kitayama, 2002; Poortinga,
1992).
54
Yet, it is neither logically nor psychologically
necessary for Autonomy to mean Separateness if we
recognize the existence of two distinct dimensions:
Agency:
Autonomy
Heteronomy
(dependency)
Interpersonal Distance:
Separateness
Relatedness
55
The two dimensions underlie self, self-other
relations and social behaviors.
They reflect the basic human needs of
autonomy and relatedness.
As distinct dimensions, either pole of each
one can coexist with either pole of the
other one.
Kagitcibasi, C. (1996). The autonomous-relational self: A new
synthesis. European Psychologist, 1, 180-186.
56
Agency
low
Interpersonal
Distance
low
high
high
heteronomous
related
autonomous
related
heteronomous
separate
autonomous
separate
57
A Conceptual Model of Different
Types of Selves
AGENCY
Autonomy
Autonomous-Separate self
Autonomous-related self
INTERPERSONAL
DISTANCE
Separation
Heteronomous-separate self
Relatedness
Heteronomous-related self
Heteronomy
58
This conceptualization renders viable
The Autonomous-Related Self
Despite the consensual agreement that Autonomy
and Relatedness are basic needs, this self construal
has not been readily recognized in psychology, even in
cross-cultural psychology.
Yet, this model promises to be a healthy integration,
since it satisfies both basic needs.
Kagitcibasi, C. (2005). Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context: Implications
for self and family. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 4, 403-422.
59
AGENCY, INTERPERSONAL DISTANCE AND
THE TYPES OF SELVES IN CONTEXT
AGENCY
Autonomy
Family model of
independence
Family model of psychological
interdependence
Self-reliance orientation
Order setting control and autonomy
orientation
INTERPERSONALAutonomous-Separate self
DISTANCE
Autonomous-related self
Separation
Relatedness
Hierarchical neglecting family
Neglecting, indifferent
orientation
Family model of
interdependence
Obedience orientation
Heteronomous-separate self
Heteronomous-related self
Heteronomy
60
Two paths toward the Autonomous-Related
Self
Value of Children Study
Family Change Theory
(Family Model of Psychological/
Emotional Interdependence)
Two basic Human Needs
Model of Autonomous-Related
Self
61
Two different theoretical routes toward the Autonomous-Related self
Theory of Family Change
Model of Self
Context : Culture of relatedness
Two basic human needs:
Urban Life Styles
Family: Model of emotional/
psychological interdependance
Parenting: Control, warmth,
autonomy orientation
Autonomy + Relatedness
Autonomous
Related Self
Two underlying dimensions:
Agency + Interpersonal
Distance
(autonomy/
(separateness/
Heteronomy)
Relatedness)
62
WHAT ARE SOME THEORETICAL ISSUES?
Two Ungoing Debates:
1. Positive or negative association between Autonomy & Relatedness
and the ‘existence’ of autonomy in collectivistic ‘cultures of relatedness’
2. Contrasting views on Parenting and Parent-Child/Adolescent relations
63
RECENT DEBATE
Attachment Theory
Positive association
Self Determination Theory
Between Autonomy &
Kagitcibasi’s A-R Self and Family
Model of Psychological
Interdependence
Relatedness
VERSUS
Psychoanalytic Theory
Nagative association
Between autonomy &
Relatedness
“Conflict”theories
Cross-Cultural values orientation
to I-C
64
The two dimensions of interpersonal distance and
agency can indeed fit together, loading on the same
factor, in sociocultural contexts, such as in Northern
Europe (Beyers et al., 2003), where being both
autonomous and separate is valued, but not in other
sociocultural contexts where being connected is
valued and does not imply lacking autonomy.
(Kagitcibasi, 2005).
65
When Autonomy is accompanied by Relatedness, it may be manifested in
different ways:
- Socially oriented vs. individually oriented achievement motivation
(Phalet & Claeys, 1993; Agarwal & Misra, 1986; Yu & Yang, 1994)
- Duty-centered (communal) vs. individual-centered (voluntaristic) morality
(Miller, 1990, 2003)
- Self-enhancement vs. ingroup enhancement
(Muramoto & Yamagushi, 1997)
66
Conceptual/Measurement Issues
Individualism/Independent Self scales tap
separateness but also autonomy
Collectivism/Interdependent Self scales items tap
relatedness but also heteronomy
By implication, the importance, even the existence
of autonomy in closely-knit collectivistic cultures
has been questioned (Iyengar & Lepper, 1999;
Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Oishi, 2000; Rothbaum
et al., 2000; Miller, 2002).
67
Conceptual/Measurement issues (Cont.)
In much cross-cultural research and theory
individualism is understood as autonomy .
This is especially the case for Normative I-C
(Values)
Thus issues of both conceptualization and
measurement
68
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
Kim, Butzel & Ryan (1998) showed a more positive relation between autonomy
and relatedness than with separateness in both Korean and American samples.
Keller et al (2003) found Greek mothers’ interaction styles with infants to lead to
autonomy and relatedness but German mothers’ to autonomy and separateness.
Beyers, Goossens, Vansant, & Moors (2003) found separation and agency as two
independent dimensions.
Beyers, Goossens (1999); Chen & Dornbush (1998); Garber & Little (2001)
showed separateness from parents to be associated with developmental
problems.
69
RESEARCH EVIDENCE (Cont.)
Chou (2000) in Hong Kong found individuation to be associated with
depression in adolescents.
Phalet & Schonpflug (2001) found among Turkish immigrants in Germany
parental autonomy goals do not imply separateness, and achievement
values are associated with parental collectivism, not individualism.
Aydın & Öztütüncü (2001) found depression to be associated with
separateness in Turkish adolescents, but not with high parental control.
Meeus, Oosterwegel & Vollebergh (2002) found with Dutch, Turkish &
Moroccon adolescents that secure attachment fosters agency.
70
An Autonomy Scale that does not tap/ confound
Separateness and A Relatedness Scale that does not
tap/ confound Heteronomy needed:
SELF and SELF-IN-FAMILY SCALES
 Separate forms for Self and Self-in-Family experience
 Also Autonomous-Related Self Scale (Kagitcibasi,
2005)
71
Autonomous Self Scale
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
People who are close to me have little influence on my decisions.
I do not like a person to interfere with my life even if he/she is very close to
me.
I feel independent of the people who are close to me.
I lead my life according to the opinions of people to whom I feel close. (R)
The opinions of those who are close to me influence me on personal issues.
(R)
While making decisions, I consult with those who are close to me. (R)
On personal issues, I accept the decisions of people to whom I feel very close.
(R)
I usually try to conform to the wishes of those to whom I feel very close. (R)
I can easily change my decisions according to the wishes of those who are
close to me. (R)
Alpha = 0.74
72
Related Self Scale
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
I need the support of persons to whom I feel very close.
I prefer to keep a certain distance in my close relationships. (R)
Generally, I keep personal issues to myself. (R)
The people who are close to me strongly influence my personality.
I think often of those to whom I feel very close.
I do not worry about what people think of me even if they are close to me.
(R)
7. Those who are close to me are my top priority.
8. My relationships to those who are close to me make me feel peaceful and
secure.
9. I do not share personal matters with anyone, even if very close to me. (R)
Alpha = 0.78
73
Autonomous-Relational Self Scale
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
It is important to have both close relationships and also to be autonomous.
Even if the suggestions of those who are close are considered, the last decision
should be one’s own.
A person who has very close relationships cannot make his/her own decisions.
(R)
A person should be able to oppose the ideas of those who are close.
Giving importance to the opinions of those who are close to me means ignoring
my own opinions. (R)
Being very close to someone prevents being independent. (R)
A person can feel both independent and connected to those who are close to
him/her.
In order to be autonomous, one should not form close relationships. (R)
A person may be attached to those who are close, and at the same time, expect
respect for any differences of opinion.
Alpha = 0.84
74
Autonomous-Related Self- in-Family Scales (Kagitcibasi)
Autonomous Self-in-Family Scale
1. I feel independent of my family.
2. I usually try to agree with the wishes of my family. (R)
3. I do not have to think the way my family does.
4. People should receive approval from their families for their future plans. (R)
5. I avoid making decisions with which my family would not agree. (R)
6. On personal issues, I accept the decisions of my family. (R)
7. I would not be close to someone whom my family does not agree. (R)
8. Independent of my family, I can not make my decisions easily. (R)
9. I can easily change my decisions according to the wishes of my family. (R)
Alpha = .84
9 Items, Lowest factor loading: Item 1 : .53
75
Related Self-in-Family Scale
1. I prefer to keep a certain distance in my relationship with my family. (R)
2. During hard times, I would like to know that my family will be with me.
3. The time that I spend with my family is not important for me. (R)
4. Feeling very close to the family is a good thing.
5. My family is my top priority.
6. I feel myself closely attached to my family.
7. My relationship with my family makes me feel peaceful and secure.
8. I am very close with my family.
9. I don’t enjoy spending much time with my family. (R)
Alpha = .84
8 Items, Lowest factor loading: Item 1: .49
76
Autonomous-Related Self-in-Family Scale
1. One should not hesitate to express his/her own ideas, even if he/she values
his/her family.
2. A person may be very close to his/her family and at the same time can
make his/her decisions.
3. A person can feel both independent and emotionally connected to his/her
family.
4. A person may be attached to his/her family, and at the same time, expect
respect for any differences of opinion.
Alpha = .77
4 Items, Lowest factor loading: Item 1: .59
77
A Developmental Perspective and Research
Evidence point to the importance of Parenting
Relations among Parental Control/ Warmth and
Autonomy
The Psychoanalytically informed views which
endorse separation also endorse permissive
discipline and associate strong parental control
with parental hostility (or lack of warmth) and
Authoritarian Parenting. This is the case since the
Authoritarian Personality Theory (Adorno et al,
1950)
78
SHIFTS IN OUR THINKING REGARDING
PARENTAL ORIENTATIONS
From : Parental Control versus Autonomy
To : Parental Control and Autonomy
and
From : Control versus Warmth
To : Control and Warmth
79
CONTROL and AUTONOMY
Empirical Evidence
•
•
•
•
Lau et al. (1990)
Lin & Fu (1990)
Cha (1994)
Phalet & Schonpflug (2001)
Models
Kağıtçıbaşı (1990,1996a,b)
CONTROL and WARMTH
Empirical Evidence
Models
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Baumrind (1980, 1989)
Kağıtçıbaşı (1970)
Rohner & Pettengill (1985)
Trommsdorf (1985)
Ryan & Lynch (1989)
Kim, Butzel & Ryan (1998)
Jose et al. (2000)
Oosterwegel & Vollebergh (2002)
Kwak (2003)
Lansford et al. (2003)
Dekovic, Pels & Model (in press)
Maccoby & Martin
(1983)
80
The implications of these conceptualizations and
research for immigration as an Example:
Immigration most often involves contact between ‘culture
of relatedness’ (immigrants) and individualistic ‘culture of
separateness’ (host society).
Ethnic minority parents tend to be labeled ‘authoritarian’
because of strong parental discipline because it appears very
controlling (Gonzales, et al, 1996). But, this may be a wrong
attribution because there is often also relatedness and
warmth (psychological value of children) in the Family
Model of Psychological Interdependence. Especially those
with higher education who also allow autonomy.
81
Ethnic Minority Research in Europe and the U.S. point to:
 Closely-Knit family relations
and
 Parental control together with care (warmth)
Chao (1994)
Smetana & Gaines (1999)
Jose et al. (2000)
Kwak (2003)
Lansford et al. (2003)
Dekovic et al. (2005)
82
The Explanatory Factor Underlying the Findings: Family Model of
Psychological Interdependence
• Where autonomy and control coexist
• Permissive independence-oriented parenting not
endorsed by immigrants because it carries the risk of
separation (of the child from the family) in adolescenceyoung adulthood
• The goal is not separation but closeness (emotional
interdependence)
• Immigrants disapprove the ‘too lenient’ Dutch
childrearing and the ‘disrespectful’ behavior of Dutch
children (‘on top of their mothers’ heads’’)
83
A TREND TOWARD CONVERGENCE?
From The perspective of Family Change and Self Models, a
convergence toward
- Family Model of Psychological Interdependence and
- Autonomous- Related self may be predicted.
This prediction holds for:
- the Majority World and for immigrants with increased need for
autonomy in child rearing as an adaptation to socio-economic
development and to changing life styles,
- the Minority World with increased need for relatedness.
-A caveat: This trend may be counteracted by cultural diffusion of
dominant Western individualistic models.
84
Proposed Shift Toward the Psychological/Emotional Interdependence Model
and Autonomous-Related Self (Convergence)
Family
Model
Self Model
(Total)
Interdependence
Heteronomous/
Related
Psychological/Emotional
Interdependence
Autonomous/
Related
Independence
Autonomous/
Separate
85
Thus Possibly a Universal Optimal Developmental
Model because of Converging Life Styles and Basic
Human Needs
Involving:
- Autonomous-Related Self
- Psychologically /Emotionally Interdependent
Family
86