Fiona Ge, Stylianos Syropoulos, Julian Gensler, B. Leidner, S. Loughnan, Jen-Ho Chang, Chika Harada, S. Mari, M. Paladino, Junqi Shi, V. Yeung, Chun-Yu Kuo, Koji Tsuchiya
{"title":"建构主义自我建构:跨文化比较","authors":"Fiona Ge, Stylianos Syropoulos, Julian Gensler, B. Leidner, S. Loughnan, Jen-Ho Chang, Chika Harada, S. Mari, M. Paladino, Junqi Shi, V. Yeung, Chun-Yu Kuo, Koji Tsuchiya","doi":"10.1177/10693971211055276","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Building on independent versus interdependent self-construal theory, three studies provide initial empirical evidence for a third way of construing the self: the constructivist self-construal. People with a constructivist view perceive the self as constantly changing (impermanence), as a collection of distinct phenomena from moment to moment (discontinuity), as lacking an essence (disentification), and as psychologically overlapping with other people and things in the universe (boundlessness/boundaries). In Study 1, we piloted a new Constructivist Self-Construal Scale and established preliminary evidence for the discriminant validity of the scale. Studies 2 and 3 found that across seven countries with diverse cultural backgrounds, the self was consistently cognitively represented on the four dimensions of constructivist self. People from collectivistic cultures where Buddhist philosophy is more prevalent tended to endorse the dimensions of the constructivist self-construal to a greater degree than people from other cultures. Implications regarding the development of the constructivist self-construal and future research recommendations are discussed.","PeriodicalId":47154,"journal":{"name":"Cross-Cultural Research","volume":"56 1","pages":"29 - 61"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Constructivist Self-Construal: A Cross-Cultural Comparison\",\"authors\":\"Fiona Ge, Stylianos Syropoulos, Julian Gensler, B. Leidner, S. Loughnan, Jen-Ho Chang, Chika Harada, S. Mari, M. Paladino, Junqi Shi, V. Yeung, Chun-Yu Kuo, Koji Tsuchiya\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10693971211055276\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Building on independent versus interdependent self-construal theory, three studies provide initial empirical evidence for a third way of construing the self: the constructivist self-construal. People with a constructivist view perceive the self as constantly changing (impermanence), as a collection of distinct phenomena from moment to moment (discontinuity), as lacking an essence (disentification), and as psychologically overlapping with other people and things in the universe (boundlessness/boundaries). In Study 1, we piloted a new Constructivist Self-Construal Scale and established preliminary evidence for the discriminant validity of the scale. Studies 2 and 3 found that across seven countries with diverse cultural backgrounds, the self was consistently cognitively represented on the four dimensions of constructivist self. People from collectivistic cultures where Buddhist philosophy is more prevalent tended to endorse the dimensions of the constructivist self-construal to a greater degree than people from other cultures. Implications regarding the development of the constructivist self-construal and future research recommendations are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47154,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cross-Cultural Research\",\"volume\":\"56 1\",\"pages\":\"29 - 61\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cross-Cultural Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10693971211055276\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cross-Cultural Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10693971211055276","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Constructivist Self-Construal: A Cross-Cultural Comparison
Building on independent versus interdependent self-construal theory, three studies provide initial empirical evidence for a third way of construing the self: the constructivist self-construal. People with a constructivist view perceive the self as constantly changing (impermanence), as a collection of distinct phenomena from moment to moment (discontinuity), as lacking an essence (disentification), and as psychologically overlapping with other people and things in the universe (boundlessness/boundaries). In Study 1, we piloted a new Constructivist Self-Construal Scale and established preliminary evidence for the discriminant validity of the scale. Studies 2 and 3 found that across seven countries with diverse cultural backgrounds, the self was consistently cognitively represented on the four dimensions of constructivist self. People from collectivistic cultures where Buddhist philosophy is more prevalent tended to endorse the dimensions of the constructivist self-construal to a greater degree than people from other cultures. Implications regarding the development of the constructivist self-construal and future research recommendations are discussed.
期刊介绍:
Cross-Cultural Research, formerly Behavior Science Research, is sponsored by the Human Relations Area Files, Inc. (HRAF) and is the official journal of the Society for Cross-Cultural Research. The mission of the journal is to publish peer-reviewed articles describing cross-cultural or comparative studies in all the social/behavioral sciences and other sciences dealing with humans, including anthropology, sociology, psychology, political science, economics, human ecology, and evolutionary biology. Worldwide cross-cultural studies are particularly welcomed, but all kinds of systematic comparisons are acceptable so long as they deal explicity with cross-cultural issues pertaining to the constraints and variables of human behavior.