UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Social values and self-construal in the expression of social anxiety : a cross cultural comparison Hong, Janie J. 2005

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2005-105038.pdf [ 9.63MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0099846.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0099846-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0099846-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0099846-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0099846-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0099846-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0099846-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0099846-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0099846.ris

Full Text

SOCIAL V A L U E S A N D SELF-CONSTRUAL FN THE EXPRESSION OF SOCIAL A N X I E T Y : A CROSS C U L T U R A L COMPARISON by • JANIE J. HONG B.Sc , The University of British Columbia, 1999 M.A. , The University of British Columbia, 2001 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL F U L F I L L M E N T OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES (Psychology) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A August, 2005 © Janie J. Hong, 2005 Abstract Past research findings suggest East Asians are more socially anxious than their Western counterparts (e.g., Norasakkunkit, V . & Kalick, S.M., 2002; Okazaki, S., 1997). Given that these findings stem primarily from Western-based self-report questionnaires, the noted difference may reflect a cultural bias in measurement. Higher endorsement of social anxiety symptoms may be, at least partially, explained by a cultural variation in beliefs about the self, the social context and appropriate social behaviour. Drawing from community samples of Koreans (age M=34.6) and Westerners (age M=35.3), a total of 501 participants completed a battery of 12 questionnaires designed to tap levels of social anxiety, the ways in which individuals view the self in relation to others (i.e., self-construal), and values typically endorsed by East Asian cultures (i.e., self-criticism, self-flexibility, saving face and self-monitoring of behaviour). A l l Korean participants (n=251; female=177) spent 4 or less years in a Western country and completed the back-translated questionnaires in their own native language. The Western sample (n=250; female=181) was comprised of individuals of European descent and individuals who were at least 3 r d generation Canadian. Between-group analyses confirmed expected cross-cultural differences; the Korean sample reported higher levels of social anxiety, more interdependent and less independent self-views, and greater degrees of self-criticism, self-flexibility, and face-saving concerns. Using structural equation modeling procedures, several lines of evidence suggested endorsement of traits, behaviours and self-views that are characteristic of East Asian cultures promote endorsement of social anxiety symptoms. First, interdependent self-construal (i.e., viewing the self as connected with others and emphasizing the maintenance of group harmony) and face-saving concern measures failed to differentiate from social anxiety measures. Second, affiliation with an independent self-construal (i.e., viewing the self as separate from others and emphasizing autonomy), which is more frequently endorsed by Western cultures, negatively predicted social anxiety ratings for both samples. Finally, mediation model analyses indicated that social values typically upheld within East Asian cultures (i.e., self-criticism, self-flexibility) explained the relationship between independent self-construal and social anxiety. Overall, the results appear to suggest that higher social anxiety ratings may be more normative within East Asian cultural frames. iv Table of Contents Abstract ii Table of Contents iv List of Tables vii List of Figures viii Acknowledgements ix Introduction 1 Social Anxiety 3 Theory 4 Research with East Asians 5 Cross-cultural Differences in Social Goals 7 Views of the Self 8 Interdependent and Independent Self-construals 9 Self-construal and Social Anxiety 12 Sociotropy and Autonomy 13 Social Values 16 Self-enhancement 16 Self-Criticism 17 Self-consistency 22 Self-Monitoring 23 Face-saving 24 Explaining Cross-cultural Differences in Social Anxiety 29 Method 33 Participants 33 Materials 34 Self-construal measures 34 Western Social Anxiety Measures 43 East Asian Social Values 48 Procedure 54 Results 57 Assumption 1: Group differences on social anxiety measures 58 Assumption 2: Group differences on self-construal measures 59 Interdependent Self-construal 62 Assumption 3: Group differences on East Asian social values measures 63 Measurement Model 69 Structural Model 70 Model Evaluation 73 Internal Consistency 74 Confirmatory Factor Analysis 76 Convergent Validity Analysis 81 Western Social Anxiety 81 Independent Self-Construal 81 Interdependent Self-Construal 82 V East Asian Social Values 83 Convergent Validity Analysis: Summary of Findings 85 Discriminant Validity Analysis 85 Interdependent Self-construal and Independent Self-construal 86 Interdependent Self-construal and Western Social Anxiety 87 Interdependent Self-construal and East Asian Social Values 89 Independent Self-construal and Western Social Anxiety 92 Independent Self-construal and East Asian Social Values 93 Western Social Anxiety and East Asian Social Values 95 Discriminant Validity Analysis: Summary of Findings 97 Interdependent Self-construal 99 Independent Self-Construal 99 Western Social Anxiety 100 East Asian Social Values 100 Construct Validity of the Measures? 100 Step 1: Establishing Baseline Measurement Models 101 Step 2: Testing for Measurement Equivalence 105 Independent Self-construal as a Direct Predictor 112 East Asian Social Values and Western Social Anxiety 115 Mediation Model 117 Mediation Model: Korean Sample 120 Discussion 123 Step 1: Evaluating the Construct Validity of Measures 124 Convergent Validity 124 Revised Self-Monitoring Scale 125 Beck Autonomy Scale 128 Discriminant Validity 129 Loss of Face Scale: Failing to Capture the Intended Factor 131 Interdependent Self-construal Factor: Failing to Capture the Intended Factor 132 Interpretation 2: Overlapping Features among Target and Non-target Factors 142 Western Social Anxiety 143 Interdependent Self-construal 144 Fears of Losing Face 145 Overlapping Features 146 Step 2: Self-construal as a Predictor of Western Social Anxiety 147 Self-construal and distress 150 Step 3: East Asian Social Values as a Mediating Variable 152 What is Culturally Normative? 154 East Asian Social Values within a Western context: Self-consistency 154 East Asian Social Values within an East Asian Context: Self-consistency 155 East Asian Social Values within a Western Context: Self-criticism 157 East Asian Social Values within an East Asian Context: Self-criticism 159 Interpretations 160 Directionality of Findings 161 Current Limitations and Future Directions 163 vi Defining Interdependent Self-Construal 164 Generalizability of Findings 165 Measurement Considerations 165 Sample Considerations 166 Issues of Functional Equivalence 167 References 170 Appendix A 194 VII List of Tables Table 1 Mean Scores on Western Social Anxiety Measures 58 Table 2 Mean Scores on Independent Self-construal Measures 59 Table 3 Mean Scores on the Beck Autonomy Scale and Bieling-Independence 61 Table 4 Mean Scores on Interdependent Self-construal Measures 63 Table 5 Mean Scores on East Asian Social Values Measures 64 Table 6 Internal Consistency of Measures 75 Table 7 Inter-correlations of Measures ....79 Table 8 Convergent Validity Analysis: Western Social Anxiety Measures 81 Table 9 Convergent Validity Analysis: Independent Self-Construal Measures 82 Table 10 Convergent Validity Analysis: Interdependent Self-Construal Measures 83 Table 11 Convergent Validity Analysis: East Asian Social Values Measures 84 Table 12 Discriminant Validity Analysis: Independent and Interdependent Self-construal... 87 Table 13 Discriminant Validity Analysis: Interdependent Self-construal and Western Social Anxiety 89 Table 14 Discriminant Validity Analysis: Interdependent Self-construal and East Asian Social Values 91 Table 15 Discriminant Validity Analysis: Independent Self-construal and Western Social Anxiety 93 Table 16 Discriminant Validity Analysis: Independent Self-construal and East Asian Social Values 95 Table 17 Discriminant Validity Analysis: Western Social Anxiety and East Asian Social Values 96 Table 18 Goodness-of-Fit Indices for the Re-specified Measurement Model: Calibration Samples 103 Table 19 Fit Statistics for Tests of Measurement Invariance across Western and Korean samples 109 Vlll List of Figures Figure 1. Self-Construal as a Predictor of Social Anxiety 31 Figure 2. East Asian Social Values as a Mediating Variable 32 Figure 3. A Priori Measurement Model 72 Figure 4. A Priori Structural Model 73 Figure 5. Measurement Model Following Post-hoc Tests of Convergent and Discriminant Validity 98 Figure 6. Re-specified measurement model specifying unstandardized factor coefficients found to be invariant across the Western and Korean Samples 110 Figure 7. Constrained structural model specifying relations between Independent Self-Construal and Western Social Anxiety: Unstandardized path and factor coefficients for the Korean and Western Samples 113 Figure 8. Constrained structural model specifying relations between Independent Self-Construal and East Asian Social Values: Unstandardized path and factor coefficients for the Korean and Western Samples 114 Figure 9. Constrained structural model specifying relations between East Asian Social Values and Western Social Anxiety: Unstandardized path and factor coefficients for the Korean and Western Samples 116 Figure 10. East Asian Social Values as a full mediating variable for the relationship between Independent Self-Construal and Western Social Anxiety 117 Figure 11. East Asian Social Values as a Partial Mediating Variable for the Relationship Between Independent Self-Construal and Western Social Anxiety 118 Figure 12. Unstandardized Path and Factor Coefficients for the Western Sample Unconstrained Mediation Model: East Asian Social Values as a Partial Mediating Variable 120 Figure 13. Unstandardized Path and Factor Coefficients for the Korean Sample Unconstrained mediation model: East Asian Social Values as a Full Mediating Variable. 122 Figure 14. Independent Self-construal as a Predictor of Western Social Anxiety 148 ix Acknowledgements Confucius says: Study, review from time to time and then, study some more- now isn't it that pleasurable? I remember these words vividly as my father would often use the phrase to prompt and renew my interests in learning. My father never failed to inspire curiosity and perseverance through hardships; more than by words, I learned by his example. From the time when he spent sleepless nights helping with my school science project to the moments when he skipped lunch at work to spend the hour with me, I sensed the meaning of tenacity and sacrifice, and thank him for these lessons. My mother and my brother remain strong figures of encouragement and support. From wrapping "candy gift bags" for the study to offering confidence when I had none to offer, they selflessly helped move this journey to completion. Without either of them, I suspect this trek would hold little meaning and would have ended prematurely. I am surrounded by individuals who, over the years, have unfailingly provided patience, understanding and wisdom. Although there are many in number, Sheila Woody stands most prominently among them. I greatly owe my growth not only as a student but also as a person to her guidance and sincere interest in my development. Through the years, Sheila generously offered countless hours, thoughtful words of advice, and an ever-ready listening ear. I feel fortunate to have experienced the meaning of "being mentored". Knowing that a dissertation is not the work of only one individual, I fully appreciate the efforts of those directly involved in making this project a reality. I acknowledge the contributions of my research assistants- particularly Minsun Kim- who tirelessly helped recruit participants, translate questionnaires, and collect and enter data. Bruce Hardy and Hokyung Hong offered, without complaint, invaluable help in connecting the project to various community resources and sacrificed several hours to participant recruitment. I am also grateful to my committee members for shaping the study design and write-up with their helpful and insightful comments. 1 Social Values and Self-construal in the Expression of Social Anxiety: A Cross-cultural Comparison A natural consequence of living in a social milieu is the potential for experiencing social anxiety. Several researchers have developed theories and programs of research devoted to explaining the antecedents, symptomatology, and maintaining factors of social anxiety. Though several conceptualizations of its exact nature are offered, there is shared agreement on its general definition. "Social anxiety" encompasses feelings of uneasiness and apprehension that arise when an individual interacts with or performs in front of others and perceives the potential for negative evaluation. Individuals will experience social anxiety when the negative evaluation of others is viewed as holding some measure of personal cost (e.g., social rejection) and as likely to occur. Individuals, when in a social situation, will maintain particular social goals (e.g., appear witty, intelligent, poised) that reflect the demands of the context and the desires of the acting individual. Whether a social interaction is viewed as a success or failure rests on how well a social goal is met and, given that social situations inherently include the perceived presence of others, social success is also contingent upon perceptions of others' evaluations of performance. Implicit to individual perceptions of social success is the understanding (or assumption) that others, within a social situation, share a similar evaluative set of social expectations and standards of appropriate social behaviour. Socially anxious individuals are driven to achieve a particular social goal but doubt their ability to meet perceived standards of social performance (i.e., be evaluated positively by others) and, consequently, be socially successful. Thus, social anxiety arises from contexts that are not only personally meaningful 2 but also include a shared system of social values, beliefs and expectations that shape perceptions of social success or failure. The social contexts of East Asian cultures often markedly deviate from those characteristic of Western cultures (Hofstede, 1980). East Asian social values and goals tend to underscore the connectedness of individual cultural members and emphasize external public features such as social roles, status and obligations. The self is seen as inextricably tied to one's relationships with others, which appears to foster the social goal of group harmony and maintenance of peaceful relations. By contrast, Western cultures are frequently described as promoting the self as separate from others and embracing goals of autonomy and self-efficacy (Triandis, 1995). i Prompted by cross-cultural differences in social rules and structure, researchers have developed increased interest in the culturally sensitive aspects of social anxiety. Several studies have compared East Asian and Western samples on reports of social anxiety (e.g., Norasakkunkit & Kalick, 2002; Okazaki, 1997, 2002; Zane & Yeh, 2002). One consistent observation from this research is that East Asians report higher levels of social anxiety than Westerners. Given that the East Asian social milieu appears to differ greatly from that of Western cultures, it may be premature to accept East Asian reports of greater social distress at face value. Current explanations and measurement methods of social anxiety are primarily Western-based and may not account for cross-cultural differences in social beliefs and expectations. When considering the definition of social anxiety, which highlights the importance of the interpersonal context for its expression, differences in beliefs about the self and appropriate social behaviour likely qualify when and to what level social anxiety 3 symptoms are endorsed. The current study aims to examine and articulate the potential link between East Asian social goals and values with social anxiety symptoms. This link may clarify reasons why East Asians report higher levels of social anxiety. Social Anxiety At present, our understanding of social anxiety stems primarily from Western research arenas. A brief overview of current conceptualizations of social anxiety will help anchor any questions relating culture to social anxiety expression, and will act as a foundation to apply findings from the cross-cultural literature. In particular, I highlight how social differences between East Asian and Western cultures may inform interpretations of (Western-based) social anxiety measures. Prior to any discussion of the social anxiety literature, it is important to note that though researchers distinguish discrete and expected instances of social anxiety from more chronic forms, they argue that the cognitive and emotional processes underlying these experiences are similar. Following this logic, several lines of social anxiety research draw on data from individuals diagnosed with social phobia. Social phobia is a debilitating clinical condition marked by persistent and excessive fears of humiliation or negative evaluation before, during, and after performance situations or social interactions. Individuals with social phobia avoid or endure with extreme distress their feared social situations and experience marked functional impairment from their symptoms (for review see Heimberg, Leibowitz, Hope, & Schneier, 1995). The following review includes data from both normal and social phobia populations and, unless otherwise noted, assumes findings from one sample apply to the other. 4 Theory Social anxiety is thought to arise when individuals are highly motivated to attain a particular social goal (and social reward) but also expect they will fail to achieve that goal (Clark & Wells, 1995; Schlenker & Leary, 1982). Only when the drive to create a positive impression is coupled with high levels of self-doubt does a person become socially anxious (Schlenker & Leary, 1982). Thus, i f one component of this coupling - either the personal meaningfulness of the situation or the level of self-doubt - is rendered low, high levels of social distress should not occur. Drawing from previous research and formulations of social anxiety processes, Clark and Wells (1995) propose a model to explain how the fears and behaviours of socially anxious individuals may be maintained. They argue that socially anxious individuals maintain two primary assumptions: 1) I am in danger of acting in an inept or unacceptable manner; and 2) poor performance will result in disastrous social consequences (e.g., social rejection). Similar to other cognitive conceptualizations (Rapee & Heimberg, 1997; Schlenker & Leary, 1982), they use these assumptions as a springboard to predict several maladaptive processes and behaviours that act to exacerbate and maintain high levels of social anxiety. These predictions somewhat rest, however, on interpretations of these assumptions that are likely influenced by cultural factors. How an individual defines "acting in an unacceptable manner" or "disastrous social consequences" is invariably linked to a set of social standards, within a particular cultural context. For example, socially anxious individuals are thought to engage in behaviours that they believe will protect them from feared social outcomes (Clark & Wells, 1995). It is argued that socially anxious individuals often try to protect themselves by being reticent and 5 submissive, which they believe will prevent the unmasking of negative self-characteristics and the experience of social disapproval (Clark & Wells, 1995). Instead, these strategies may actually increase the likelihood of negative social outcomes by creating an impression that appears aloof and distant. Consistent with an emphasis on one's individuality and unique identity, these predictions partially rest on Western-based interpretations that revealing negative self-characteristics to others as well as being submissive and reticent can result in social failure. Unlike their Western counterparts, East Asians more readily endorse negative self-characteristics (Heine & Lehman, 1997, 1999) and prefer less dominant, more avoidant-type communication strategies (Kim, 1994;Oetzel, 1998a, 1998b). The very strategies and behaviours that appear to be unfavourable to Westerners may be socially advantageous to East Asians. Research with East Asians Although culture plays a salient and integral role in the development of self-identity and the shaping of interpersonal relationships, theories have failed to consider its role in social anxiety. For example, the use of submissive strategies to avoid social disapproval may be more effective in cultures other than the Western social world. Researchers have just started to question whether current theories and measures of social anxiety generalize cross-culturally, particularly to East Asian cultures (TsTorasakkunkit & Kalick, 2002; Okazaki, 1997, 2000, 2002). Okazaki and colleagues have recently developed a line of research examining differences between East Asians and Westerners on various social anxiety measures; using a range of methodologies, the data consistently indicate East Asians showing greater 6 endorsement of social anxiety symptoms (Okazaki, 1997, 2000, 2002; Okazaki, & Kallivayalil, 2002; Okazaki, Liu, Longworth, & Minn, 2002). Using the Social Avoidance and Distress (SAD; Watson & Friend, 1969) and the Fear of Negative Evaluation (FNE; Watson & Friend, 1969) self-report questionnaires, Okazaki (1997) compared Asian American and White American college students on social anxiety. The SAD scale is designed to measure the degree to which an individual avoids social situations and feels anxious while in these situations, whereas the FNE scale assesses levels of worry about and distress from perceived negative interpersonal evaluations. In addition, participants completed the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) to assess for symptoms of depression. On all measures of distress, the Asian American sample scored significantly higher than the White American sample. Using hierarchical multiple regression procedures, Okazaki examined whether ethnicity predicted scores on a single measure, when controlling for the variance shared with the other two measures. Ethnic differences on the BDI and FNE disappeared when the effects of the other measures were co-varied out. Differences, however, remained on the SAD scale; after controlling for levels of depression and negative evaluation fears, Asian Americans were still more likely to endorse avoidance of and distress from social situations. Okazaki and colleagues have also found similar score elevations among Asian Americans, when compared to their Western counterparts, using the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory (SPAI; Okazaki, 2002; Okazaki & Kallivayalil, 2002; Okazaki et al., 2002). The SPAI is a self-report questionnaire designed to evaluate the degree to which an individual experiences cognitive, physiological and behavioural aspects of social anxiety across a variety of social contexts (Turner, Beidel, Dancu, & Stanley, 1989). In one study, 7 the effect size for the ethnic difference in SPAI scores was 0.77 and, in accordance with the screening guidelines suggested by Turner et al. (1989), the mean SPAI score for the Asian American sample fell within the "possible social phobia" range (Okazaki et al., 2002). Other researchers have reported similar differences between East Asians and Westerners on social anxiety measures (Tvforasaklainkit & Kalick, 2002; Singelis, & Sharkey, 1995; Zane & Yeh, 2002). For example, Singelis and Sharkey (1995) compared American undergraduates of either European or Asian descent on the degree to which they would experience embarrassment in a variety of social situations. The study showed that the Asian American sample reported being more easily embarrassed than the Western sample. Furthermore, endorsement of group harmony over autonomy as a social goal significantly predicted reported sensitivity to embarrassment. Overall the data suggest East Asians are more likely to endorse symptoms of social anxiety than their Western counterparts. These symptoms include fears of negative evaluation, avoidance of unfamiliar situations and individuals, and sensitivity to embarrassment. Cross-cultural Differences in Social Goals Many of the social pathways and strategies preferred by East Asians appear to be distinct from those found in Western cultures. East Asians often emphasize strategies that encourage greater focus on others and the social context, and promote elaboration of negative self-characteristics (Heine & Lehman, 1997, 1999; Kim et al., 2001; Miyahara, Kim, Shin, & Yoon, 1998). These strategies are thought to shape a path towards the culturally endorsed goal of group harmony (Heine, Kitayama, & Lehman, 2001; Kitayama et al., 1997), and 8 differ from those strategies used to achieve the goal of autonomy that typifies Western social environments. East Asians' beliefs about themselves and their social goals appear to stand in direct contrast to those prototypical of Westerners (Cousins, 1989; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001). Thus, one difficulty with interpreting the difference in social anxiety scores found between East Asians and Westerners is that available social anxiety measures are based on Western conceptualizations of social distress and normed on Western samples. Endorsement of social anxiety symptoms may be more consistent with East Asian social norms and may, at least partially, be explained by cultural variation in beliefs about the self, the social context and appropriate social behaviour. To the extent that an individual's cultural context influences social perceptions, the individual's perception of and response to social threat will also be shaped by culture. The ways in which an individual defines the self and the degree to which different social values are emphasized should provide a greater context for interpreting the cultural difference found on social anxiety measures. The following sections offer a brief overview of self-views, traits and behaviours that are typically promoted within East Asian and Western cultural frames and provide potential clues as to how scores on Western-based social anxiety measures may be explained. Views of the Self The constructs of individualism and collectivism are commonly used to articulate the contrast in social values found between East Asian and Western cultural contexts, particularly in relation to beliefs about the self, personal and communal goals, cognitions, and relationships (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1989, 1994, 1995). Individualistic cultures view 9 the self as independent, unitary and separate from others and tend to emphasize personal autonomy, personal control, and personal responsibility. By contrast, collectivistic cultures endorse views of the self that highlight the inter-relatedness of group members and incorporate social roles into one's self-concept. Collectivistic cultures focus on conforming to social norms, upholding obligations and duties, and prioritizing the importance of one's relationships with others. East Asian cultures are classically characterized as more collectivistic, whereas Western cultures are viewed more individualistically. Interdependent and Independent Self-construals The characteristic features of individualistic and collectivistic cultural orientations. are thought to be internalized by the members of a particular culture and influence an individual's formulation, evaluation and knowledge of the self. Stemming from the goals of their respective cultural orientations, individuals primarily adopt either more independent or interdependent self-construals, which, in turn, influence personal social goals and standards. An independent self-construal emphasizes the individual's internal attributes, thoughts and feelings, whereas an interdependent self-construal emphasizes external, public features such as social status, roles and relationships and the importance of behaving in accord with one's social position and maintaining peaceful relations (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Singelis, Bond, Sharkey, & Lai, 1999). Rather than polar ends of a single self-construal dimension, independent and interdependent self-construals appear to be better conceptualized as orthogonal constructs (Kim, Kim, Aune, Hunter, & Kim, 2001; Oetzel, 1998; Singelis, 1994). Each type of self-construal is thought to coexist within an individual and vary in relative strength as a function of the cultural orientation of the individual's culture. Loosely speaking, individualistic 10 societies tend to promote the development of independent self-construals, whereas collectivistic societies tend to foster the growth of interdependent self-construals (Singelis, 1994; Singelis & Brown, 1995). Western, particularly North American, individuals consistently demonstrate patterns of thought and behaviour reflective of an independent self-construal and the goal of achieving autonomy (Cousins, 1989; Oetzel, 1997; Singelis, 1995). Self-efficacy, self-awareness and positive self-views are considered synonymous with social maturity and success. The independent self is seen as an integrated set of attributes, abilities and preferences that transcend particular situations or relationships (Kanagawa, Cross, & Markus, 2001; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Consistency across different situations is valued as an appropriate portrayal of the self. The belief that an individual's attributes and abilities are central to his or her self-definition promotes the social goal or desire to affirm and elaborate characteristics of the self that are considered unique and positive (Kanagawa et al., 2001). Consistent with this belief, Western individuals frequently demonstrate cognitive biases that help sustain a positive self-view. For example, the self-serving bias found within North American research samples is well established and is characterized by the attribution of personal successes to enduring personal traits and of failures to transient contextual factors (Gilbert, & Malone, 1995). Western individuals are also inclined to describe themselves as more unique (Meyers, 1987; Taylor & Brown, 1988), and more likely to experience positive future life events than their peers (Chang, Asakawa, & Sanna, 2001; Heine & Lehman, 1995; Oishi, Wyer, & Colcombe, 2000). Self-enhancing biases appear to help Western individuals realize the social goals of being perceived as distinct and confident. Conversely, self-11 criticism impedes achievement of such goals and is consequently associated with negative affect and distress (Beck, 1983; Pyszczynski & Greenberg, 1986). East Asians tend to endorse goals of maintaining group harmony or peaceful relations, which are consistent with an interdependent self-construal. Although the interdependent self acknowledges a set of internal attributes and abilities, these characteristics are viewed as context specific and expressed in relation to others and the situation (Cross & Madson, 1997; Cross, Morris, & Gore, 2002; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). The self is embedded within a larger whole and is largely defined in terms of relationships with significant others and predefined obligations and roles (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Behaviour is shaped and regulated by expectations of an assumed role and the demands of others in a given situation; expression and elaboration of inner attributes and opinions are secondary. Given that significant relationships and group membership represent core facets of the interdependent self, affirmation and elaboration of that sense of self is sought through the pursuit of harmony in relationships and of a sense of connectedness with group members (for review see Markus & Kitayama, 1991) In contrast to the self-serving bias seen among Westerners, East Asians appear to show cognitive biases about personal relationships. The data suggest enhancement of one's relationships may serve a similar function to the interdependent self as the self-serving bias does to the independent self. For example, in a comparison of student samples from Canada and Japan, the study found Japanese participants holding more positive biases in their evaluations of their personal relationships (Endo, Heine, & Lehman, 2000). Unlike the Canadian sample, these positive biases did not generalize to evaluations of personal attributes, which is consistent with previous findings (Heine & Lehman, 1997, 1999). 12 Self-construal and Social Anxiety Several cross-cultural studies of social anxiety have assessed the relationship between self-construal patterns and social anxiety ratings (Dinnel, Kleinknecht & Tanaka-Matsumi, 2002; Norasakkunkit & Kalick, 2002; Okazaki, 1997, 2000; Singelis et al., 1999). Overall, findings indicate interdependent self-construal ratings positively predict social anxiety whereas independent self-construal ratings negatively predict social anxiety. In Okazaki's (1997) comparison of Asian and White American students, self-construal appeared to be a better predictor of social distress than ethnicity alone. When controlling for the variance associated with the other measures of distress, ethnicity failed to predict differences in depression and fears of negative evaluation. Self-construal, however, significantly predicted differences on both administered measures of social distress. Specifically, those who placed greater value on autonomy and the elaboration of personal characteristics (i.e., independent self construal) and lower emphasis on maintaining peaceful relations with others (i.e., interdependent self-construal) were less likely to report social avoidance, distress in social situations and fears of negative social evaluation. Similarly, Dinnel and colleagues (2002) conducted a study comparing native Japanese and American university students on the Social Phobia Scale and the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and did not find significant ethnic differences on the Social Phobia Scale. Moreover, in contrast to previous findings (Okazaki & Kallivayalil, 2002; Sue, Sue, & Ino, 1990), the Japanese participants reported lower fears of interpersonal interactions than the Western sample. The results suggest ethnicity acted as a poor predictor of differences on social anxiety measures. 13 Analysis of the relationship between self-construal and social anxiety yielded, however, results in the expected direction. Dinnel and colleagues found a significant inverse relationship between independent self-construal and social anxiety and positive relationship between interdependent self-construal and social anxiety. The findings are similar to those found by other researchers using different measures of social anxiety (Norasakkunkit & Kalick, 2002; Okazaki, 1997, 2000), and suggest differences on social anxiety measures may be better explained by self-construal patterns. Sociotropy and Autonomy Within the Western clinical literature, several researchers have sought to find different personality traits and belief systems that may increase an individual's risk for developing a particular disorder. Two personality constructs have received particular research attention: sociotropy and autonomy (Bieling, Beck, & Brown, 2000; Clark & Beck, 1991; Robins et al., 1994). Although these constructs are sometimes referred to with different names and presented with slightly different conceptualizations (Areti & Bemporad, 1980; Beck, 1983; Blatt & Zuroff, 1992), there is general agreement on their core features and both are presented as vulnerability factors for distress. Sociotropy is characterized by a drive to maintain positive interactions with other people, whereas autonomy is marked by a need to preserve one's independence, mobility and freedom (Beck, 1983). Although the conceptualization of these personality constructs developed independently of cultural considerations, the defining characteristics of these dimensions markedly overlap with those identified for independent and interdependent self-construal patterns. In addition, similar to self-construal, sociotropy and autonomy appear to represent orthogonal dimensions (Beck, 1983; Robins et al., 1994). Similar to individuals identified as 14 having an interdependent self-construal, sociotropic individuals focus on the perceived quality of their interpersonal relationships in determining personal esteem or satisfaction (Beck, 1983). They are described as being socially dependent, with a high motivation to please and avoid disapproval from others; the possibility of conflict or social rejection is of primary concern, as it is seen as a loss of social acceptance. Emphasis on individuality, self-reliance, and personal needs and rights hallmarks both the independent self-construal and the construct of autonomy (Beck, 1983; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Highly autonomous individuals strive for independence, value accomplishments, and derive feelings of self-worth from goal achievement and perceptions of control over the environment (Beck, 1983). Similar to the sociotropy construct, autonomy was originally forwarded as a vulnerability factor for depression. Several researchers have, however, failed to demonstrate a relationship between autonomy and depression levels (Gilbert & Reynolds, 1990; Robins & Block, 1988; Robins, Block & Peselow, 1989), though others have reported positive findings (Hammen, Ellicott, & Gitlin, 1989; Peselow, Robins, Sanfilipo, Block, & Fieve, 1992). One of the suggested reasons for the inconsistency is the poor association among the subfactors thought to reflect autonomy: individual achievement, preference for solitude, and freedom from the control of others. Factor analytic studies suggest the individual achievement factor is unrelated to the other two factors and more closely resembles features associated with an independent self-construal (Bieling et al., 2000; Sato & McCann, 1997). Although the research traditions of self-construal and the constructs of sociotropy and autonomy have been distinct, the findings are highly similar. For example, researchers have shown that sociotropy positively correlates with self-reports of depression (Gilbert & 15 Reynolds, 1990) and that sociotropy interacts in combination with negative interpersonal events to predict depression (for review see Clark, Beck, & Alford, 1999). Similarly, interdependent self-construal patterns are linked to lower self-esteem scores (Hetts & Pelham, 1999; Norasakkunkit & Kalick, 2002) and higher levels of depression (Okazaki, 1997, 2000). Independent self-construal patterns are associated with perceptions of subjective well-being (Diener & Suh, 2000) and hold an inverse relationship with self-esteem ratings (Hetts & Pelham, 1999; Norasakkunkit & Kalick, 2002). Similar to measures of independent self-construal, the independence achievement autonomy subfactor negatively correlates with depression and overall psychopathology (Bieling et al., 2000; Sato & McCann, 1997). Parallel to cross-cultural findings, research suggests a positive relationship between sociotropy and social anxiety scores (Brown, Juster, Heimberg, & Winning, 1998; Bruch, Rivet, Heimberg, Hunt, & Mcintosh, 1999). For example, Bruch and colleagues (1999) found that sociotropy scores predicted unique variance on three measures of interpersonal fears. Moreover, sociotropy negatively correlated with participants' perceived competence in situations that involved conversation initiation (r= -0.32) and assertion (r= -0.38) and acted in an additive fashion with shyness to predict interpersonal anxiety. Similarly, social phobic patients high on sociotropy tend to report higher levels of social anxiety and distress than those patients low on the trait (Brown et al., 1998). Research with both cross-cultural and clinical samples suggests patterns of self-construal can predict differences on social anxiety measures. Those who endorse characteristics that emphasize the importance of interpersonal dependency and group harmony appear to be more likely to endorse symptoms of distress. In contrast, those who 16 subscribe to a more individualistic and independent self-view are less likely to show signs of distress. Social Values In addition to how one views the self, an individual's social values shape beliefs about interpersonal interactions and the strategies used to pursue social goals. "Social values" is used here to-denote the internalized system of beliefs and attitudes about appropriate social behaviour. The socially sanctioned rules of a particular culture help provide the defining framework for each member's network of social values. Among the values that appear to culturally differ, self- enhancement, self-criticism, self-consistency, self-monitoring and face saving appear to hold direct relevance to how East Asians and Westerners formulate social success and modify their social behaviour (Heine et al., 1999; Kitayama et al., 1997; Suh, 2002). Self-enhancement Positive self-image and high self-esteem are valued in Western cultures. Given that Western cultures are typified by the goal of achieving autonomy, social strategies that involve elaboration of one's positive characteristics and enhancement of one's unique abilities and traits are likely effective and are expected to be widely used. The vast literature on self-enhancement consistently shows the preference of Westerners to define positive traits, abilities and outcomes in a self-descriptive manner (for review see Banaji & Prentice, 1994). For example, Dunning and colleagues (1991) asked participants to identify both positive and negative self-descriptive traits and found that participants rated their own self-identified positive traits as highly prototypical of what defines a positive self-attribute (e.g., intelligence and creativity) and rated their negative traits as minimally related to the 17 prototype of a negative trait or ability (e.g., submissiveness). Similarly, Kunda and colleagues (1989) demonstrated that American subjects who are led to believe a particular trait is associated with success will rate themselves higher on that trait and access trait-related memories more readily than subjects led to believe an opposing trait predicted success. Evidence for the described prototype-matching strategy appears to be more robust among those high in self-esteem (Setterlund & Niedenthal, 1993); this suggests self-enhancing strategies may serve to protect and maintain a positive sense of self among Westerners. Self-Criticism Until recently, researchers considered self-enhancement a pancultural phenomenon. East Asians, however, do not appear to engage in the same systematic self-enhancing biases found within Western cultures. Self-enhancing tendencies and emphases on maintaining a positive self-image appear to be consistent with and limited to the autonomous goals of those from Western cultures. To the extent that individuals are motivated to pursue positive social feedback, enhancement of personal attributes is not likely conducive to achieving the social goal of group harmony typically endorsed by East Asians. Heine and Lehman (1999) asked students from Japan and Canada to rate the accuracy of different traits in describing their actual self, ideal self and the average student of the same gender and from the same university. The list of traits was derived from a previous sample of Japanese and Euro-Canadian individuals who had been asked to identify traits considered important for succeeding within their respective cultures. In the 1999 study, the Euro-Canadians rated the traits as more accurate of themselves and their ideal selves than the Japanese, whereas the Japanese rated the traits as more accurate of the average student than 18 did the Euro-Canadians. Moreover, Japanese participants rated their actual selves as further from their ideal selves than did the Euro-Canadian sample. In another study comparing native Japanese and Euro-Canadian samples, Heine and Lehman (1997) asked participants to estimate the percentage of the general population (of the same gender and age) who are higher than them on different independent and interdependent personality traits. Although findings from the study supported a strong self-serving bias among the Euro-Canadian subjects, such a bias was not found among the Japanese. Further research indicates East Asians are equally likely to make internal attributions for successes and failures (Kitayama, Takagi, & Matsumoto, 1995 as cited in Kitayama et al., 1997), and consistently display lower ratings on self- esteem measures (Hetts, Sakuma, & Pelham, 1999; Kitayama et al., 1997; Singelis, Bond, Sharkey, & Lai, 1999). There is also evidence to suggest increased exposure to North American culture is related to subsequent increases in self-esteem ratings while increased exposure to Japanese culture is associated with subsequent decreases (Heine, Lehman, Markus, & Kitayama, 1999). Evidence suggests East Asians may use self-criticism, rather than self-enhancement, to facilitate psychological well-being and positive social feedback. A self-critical orientation among East Asians may serve to achieve the cultural goal of group harmony in a manner that is parallel to the role of a self-enhancing orientation among North Americans. Current interpretations of the data attribute the tendency for self-criticism to a process of self-improvement that allows the individual to fit in socially with others (Heine, Kitayama, & Lehman, 2001). Attention to and elaboration of negative self-aspects promote the achievement of interpersonal harmony by allowing the individual to mend personal deficits 19 that may potentially harm the sanctity of his or her social relationships (Heine et al., 2001; Kitayama et al., 1997). Kitayama and colleagues (1997) assert that within more collectivistic cultures (e.g., Japan) the individual is inextricably embedded within a network of social relationships that must be maintained by adjusting to the dynamic needs of the group and its members. They further argue that the task of maintaining group harmony requires individual members to continually improve on their shortcomings. Maintaining a self-critical orientation protects the interdependent self by increasing an individual's awareness of his/her weaknesses, which pose a threat to the stability of the group. The functional role of a self-critical or self-improving orientation in maintaining group harmony may be paralleled to maintenance checks for a piece of machinery. Car owners routinely take their vehicles to check for potential problems and maintain them with frequent part changes or improvements (e.g., oil change, tire rotations). It is to the owner's (and arguably the car's) advantage to regularly replace unitary parts in hopes of preventing a more costly breakdown of the entire vehicle. Similarly, East Asians may view self-related traits as contributing to the overall functioning of the groups to which they belong and find that it is to their benefit to be aware of and improve self-characteristics that could potentially threaten the more important livelihood of their groups. In support of these assertions, Kitayama and colleagues (1997) asked native Japanese and U.S. participants to rate the degree to which success and failure situations would affect their self-esteem. The authors conceptualized a self-criticizing tendency as a greater change in self-esteem ratings from failure situations relative to success situations and found that 86% of their Japanese respondents showed a self-criticizing tendency. In contrast, 87% of U.S. 20 respondents endorsed the self-enhancing pattern of greater changes in self-esteem from the success situations relative to the failure ones. Self-Criticism and Social Anxiety A n individual's likelihood of experiencing and degree of social distress is consistently linked to lower self-esteem ratings, memory biases for negative self-referent information and self-critical beliefs (Alden & Wallace, 1995; Bouvard et al., 1999; Mansell & Clark, 1999). For example, Mansell and Clark (1999) compared high socially anxious with low socially anxious individuals in their ability to remember lists of words either associated with social success (e.g., confident, imaginative, intelligent) or social threat (e.g., boring, indecisive, insecure). In addition, participants rated the degree to which they thought the words described themselves (private self-referent), described how others view them (public self-referent) and described others (other-referent). The authors screened all participants for depression and excluded those who endorsed extremely low mood (i.e., BDI scores greater than 20). Although the high socially anxious subjects did not significantly differ in reported depression from the low socially anxious participants, they rated negative traits, for both the public and private self-referent conditions, as more self-descriptive and remembered fewer positive self-referent words (Mansell & Clark, 1999). Conversely, low socially anxious subjects rated positive self-referent traits as more self-descriptive and recalled more positive public self-referent traits. The results suggest that individuals who report high levels of social distress are less likely to view themselves in a positive manner and more likely to endorse a self-critical orientation. 21 To the extent self-enhancement promotes mental health within Western contexts, Western-based measures of social distress may include items that screen for the presence (or absence) of a self-enhancement bias. Norasakkunkit and Kalick (2002) compared Asian American and Euro-American participants on measures of social avoidance and fears of negative evaluation, and investigated whether score differences could be accounted for by differences in self-enhancing tendencies and self-construal. Although the Asian American sample rated themselves as significantly more socially avoidant, they showed no difference with the Euro-American group on interpersonal evaluation fears. Similar to previous findings (Okazaki, 1997, 2002), the data did reveal a significant relationship between self-construal and all administered measures of distress. In addition, self-enhancement tendencies showed a significant inverse relationship with social distress. Using hierarchical multiple regression procedures, ethnicity acted as a significant predictor of social avoidance. But when self-construal variables and self-enhancement were hierarchically entered into the model prior to ethnicity, ethnicity as a predictor failed to remain significant. Although the authors found a significant positive relationship between self-enhancement and independent self-construal, they failed to find a relationship between self-enhancement and interdependent self-construal. The results are consistent with the notion that self-enhancement tendencies are more closely related to the goals of an individualistic orientation. Overall, the findings replicate previous findings that suggest cultural differences may be better explained by differences in self-construal (i.e., Dinnel et al., 2002). Moreover, it appears differences in social anxiety ratings may be further explained by the degree to which an individual demonstrates a self-enhancement bias. Thus, the data raise the possibility that 22 elevated social anxiety scores found among East Asians may be partially accounted for by self-criticism and lack of self-enhancement biases. Self-consistency The characteristically high importance East Asians place on the social context in defining the self and the high degree of variability across these self-defining relationships and situations demand the ability to align one's behaviour to the expectations of each situation and reduce emphasis on conveying a consistent self-concept (Doi, 1986; Rosenberger, 1992; Suh, 2002). Research using Western-based samples identifies cross-situational consistency and a unitary self-view as a central element of psychological well-being. Greater experiences of distress and anxiety are reported among those who view themselves as inconsistent across social roles (Donahue et al., 1993; Roberts & Donahue, 1994). Westerners appear to actively attempt to validate and maintain their personal self-views across a variety of social contexts (Swann & Read, 1981). These attempts are congruent with the defining features of an independent self-construal: personal attributes are unique, self-defining and stable. Suh (2002) recently conducted a cross-cultural comparison of Korean and US-based samples investigating the degree to which identity consistency is considered important across social contexts, the degree to which identity consistency is associated with feelings of subjective well-being, and the degree to which consistent behaviour is favoured within the same respective culture. U.S. respondents reported viewing themselves more consistently across situations. In addition, measures of life satisfaction and positive affect correlated positively, and negative affect correlated negatively, with identity consistency for the U.S. 23 sample. In contrast, for the Korean sample, consistency ratings correlated more modestly with life satisfaction and were unrelated to measures of positive and negative affect. Suh also collected ratings of social skill and general likeability from two informants (one family member and one friend) for each respondent. Identity consistency ratings correlated significantly with ratings of social skill and general likeability for U.S. participants, whereas the Koreans showed no relationship between social skill and general likeability with identity consistency. Self-Monitoring The Western research literature identifies a subset of individuals, referred to as "high self-monitors", who are highly responsive to social and interpersonal cues and regulate their self-presentations according to a desired public presentation or image (Snyder, 1979, 1987). These individuals particularly value and are invested in projecting a favourable public self-image, and achieve this goal by monitoring and regulating their expressed behaviours. Carver and Scheier (1981) argue that increased attention to the self may be part of a functional process that drives an individual to modify his/her behaviour in response to threat and move towards his/her desired social goal. Research indicates that those who monitor their expressive behaviour and regulate their self-presentation to project a desired self-image (i.e., high self-monitors) are more likely to perform well in settings that require flexible and adaptive behaviour (Caldwell & O'Reilly, 1982). Similarly, among East Asians social success appears to be determined by an individual's ability to recognize the nature of the context, including those present within the situation. Closely linked to achieving the goal of group harmony is the ability to adapt to the changing demands of a social situation and to the dynamic interplay of needs and desires of 24 all participating group members (Gao, 1998; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Given that the explicit expression of personal opinions and desires is considered unfavourable, the ability to implicitly infer the wants of and "read the minds" of others is a valuable social skill (Doi, 1986). In addition, recognition of one's proper place with respect to status, duties and relationships, is emphasized (Hofstede, 1980); socially sanctioned and established roles with defined responsibilities help-Structure the boundaries of the interdependent self and promote behaviour appropriate to the publicly assigned role (Su et al., 1999). Within a collectivistic context, greater situational flexibility in self presentation and identity translates into a higher probability of social success. Although past research on self-monitoring with East Asian samples has produced somewhat inconsistent results (e.g., Gudykunst, Yang, & Nishida, 1987; Suh, 2002), conceptually, the goal of modifying one's self-presentation to accommodate situational demands is shared by East Asians and high self-monitors alike. Both groups theoretically place high value on public expressions of self-image and are highly sensitive to the demands of the social context. Given the similarity in each group's underlying goals, it may be that the stated inconsistency in research findings reflects the original self-monitoring scale's limited ability to encapsulate the culturally sensitive definition of a favourable public self-presentation. A more recent, modified version of the original self-monitoring scale (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984) may offer greater utility in articulating the theoretical overlap of the two groups. Face-saving The concept of "face" or "saving face" features prominently in East Asian cultures (Chang & Holt, 1994; Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998; Ting-Toomey et al., 1991). "Face" can 25 be defined as an individual's perceived view of a favourable self-image within a relational context or network (Ting-Toomey, 1988). Embedded within this network is a responsibility by all its members to engage in "facework"; facework encompasses communicative behaviours and strategies that are used to preserve personal face and uphold the face of others. Face is associated with respect, honour, status, reputation, credibility, family/group connection, and.obligation issues (Ting-Toomey, 1998). Although Ting-Toomey (1988) asserts that facework occurs in all cultures, the framework of its original conceptualization stems primarily from East Asian cultures. Within East Asian cultures, the greater goal of group harmony is promoted by active attempts to support the face of the group members and prevent the loss of personal face. Cross-cultural differences in the utilization of and preference for specific conversation and conflict resolution strategies appear to reflect the guiding principles of facework that are distinct to East Asian cultures (Gudykunst, 1987; Gudykunst et al., 1996; Kim, 1994; K i m & Kim, 1997; Oetzel, 1998; Leung, 1987; Peng & Nisbett, 1999). For example, East Asians tend to adopt avoidant and cooperative conversational strategies, which include remaining silent to hide disagreement with others and conceding to the goals of the group over their own, and that Western individuals are more likely to engage in competitive tactics, which include requests for compliance and persuasion (Oetzel, 1998a, 1998b; Ting-Toomey, 1991). For example, when given vignettes of a conflict situation East Asians tended to dodge expressing a preference for a particular position and to promote resolution through compromise. In contrast, their Western counterparts preferred to resolve conflicts with convincing argument (Peng & Nisbett, 1999). Ting-Toomey (1988) describes the indirect and 26 compromising communication strategies favoured by East Asians as prototypical of "Face-honoring" moves. Kim (1994) proposed the following five conversational constraints as generating different conversation strategies according to the relative degree of emphasis placed on each constraint by the speaker: 1) concern for avoiding hurting the hearer's feeling, which refers to the speaker's perceived obligation to support a hearer's desire for approval or the hearer's positive self-image; 2) concern for minimizing imposition, which refers to the desire to avoid utterances that impose on the hearer and the hearer's freedom of action; 3) concern for avoiding negative evaluation by the hearer, which refers to the desire to avoid utterances that cause dislike, devaluation or rejection by the hearer; 4) concern for clarity, which refers to the desire of increasing the likelihood that an utterance clearly explicates the speaker's intentions; and 5) concern for effectiveness, which refers to the concern for achieving the end results desired by the speaker These conversational constraints act as the perceived boundaries for an interaction. Emphasis on the first two constraints relate to the goals of an interdependent self-construal and of maintaining face, whereas concerns for clarity and effectiveness are more typical of independent self-construal goals. Data support preference for conversation strategies that align with these constraints in culturally expected ways. For example, Kim (1994) found that Korean subjects placed greater importance on the conversational constraints of not hurting the hearer's feelings and minimizing imposition on the hearer, whereas their U.S. counterparts placed the greatest amount of emphasis on concern for clarity. The data appear to suggest that the indirect and self-effacing communication strategies frequently used by 27 East Asians are organized within a framework of conversation goals that help maintain face and help the individual engage in facework. Indirect Communication and Social Anxiety Closely tied to the Western value placed of self-enhancement and the elaboration of positive self-characteristics is the value placed on self-disclosure. Social approval is based, in part, on an individual's ability to adequately demonstrate his/her self-confidence and disclose his/her strengths of character. Socially anxious individuals, however, often hold negative views of themselves and are fearful others will discover their perceived negative traits; these beliefs and fears reduce their willingness to disclose personally revealing information. Walters and Hope (1998) compared those diagnosed with social phobia to non-anxious subjects on a variety of social behaviours during an interaction task with a research confederate. In addition to the task, participants completed the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory (SPAI), which assesses symptoms of social anxiety (Turner, Beidel, Dancu, & Stanley, 1989). The authors found that non-anxious participants faced the confederate more often and provided more information about themselves. In addition, SPAI scores correlated positively with submissive behaviours; socially anxious participants were less likely to interrupt the confederate, brag or give commands. Alden and Bieling (1998) tested whether socially anxious individuals are more likely to engage in non-self disclosure and other self-protective behaviours, and whether the use of these strategies is contingent upon the perceived dangerousness of the social situation. High and low socially anxious participants were assigned to either socially threatening or non-socially threatening conversation conditions. During the interaction, both the confederate conversation partner and an independent observer behind a one-way mirror rated each 28 participant's disclosure duration and level of intimacy. In addition, Alden and Bieling examined whether the use of safety behaviours increased the likelihood of negative reactions by the confederate conversation partner. The confederate rated her partner on likeability, friendliness, attractiveness, and how interesting he/she was during the conversation. Data from the socially threatening condition indicated results consistent with the proposed sequelae of safety behaviours, where socially anxious participants disclosed less personal information than their non-anxious counterparts. Under the non-socially threatening condition, the study did not find group differences in degrees of self-disclosure and likeability, which supports the idea that safety behaviours are contingent upon perceptions of social threat. Comparisons of the two socially anxious groups (i.e., those in the non-socially threatening condition vs. the socially threatening condition) revealed greater use of verbal safety behaviours and significantly more negative ratings by the conversation partner among those in the socially threatening condition. Given that the two socially anxious groups did not differ in reported levels of anxiety, the differences found in partner perceptions may be attributed to the lower levels of self-disclosure shown by socially anxious participants in the threat condition. Lack of self-disclosure, presumably used to protect the self from disapproval, appears to elicit more negative interpersonal reactions and produce the very outcome socially anxious individuals are often trying to avoid. Within Western contexts, (positive) self-disclosure contributes to social success, and is likely related to an individual's level of self-confidence and use of self-enhancement strategies. By contrast, within East Asian contexts, indirect 29 communication is typically promoted and viewed as an effective strategy to achieve face-work related social goals. Explaining Cross-cultural Differences in Social Anxiety Direct comparisons of social anxiety and cross-cultural research findings highlight a marked overlap in features that characterize socially anxious individuals with those that are promoted by East Asian cultures. Measures differentiating the culturally different orientations of East Asians and Westerners indicate East Asians as construing the self as less independent and more interdependent, as being more self-critical, as using more indirect, face saving communication strategies and as placing greater emphasis on being sensitive to (and shifting behaviour according to) the perceived wants of others. In parallel fashion, Western individuals identified as socially anxious by social anxiety measures endorse similar self-construal patterns, exhibit self-critical orientations, are less likely to self-disclose than their non-anxious counterparts, and are highly concerned about the opinions of others. The apparent overlap may help explain why East Asians tend to report higher levels of social anxiety than their Western counterparts. Given that conceptualizations and descriptions of social anxiety draw primarily from Western cultural frames, (Western) social anxiety measures may not account for the markedly different social goals and strategies endorsed by East Asian cultures. East Asian reports of social anxiety may be better understood by investigating how these reports relate to views of the self and social values that are typically emphasized within East Asian cultural frames. Reports of higher of social anxiety among East Asians may reflect aspects of social anxiety that are sensitive to cross-cultural differences related in self-views and social values. The present study examines three 30 potential lines of evidence, in a step-wise manner, that relate cross-cultural differences in self-views and social values to score differences on (Western) social anxiety measures. First, the overlap in characteristics attributed to socially anxious and East Asian individuals may be indicative of a measurement problem. Given the marked overlap in features describing East Asians and socially anxious Westerners, their similarly elevated social anxiety ratings may indicate that beliefs, behaviours, and attitudes that are consistent with East Asian cultural norms are embedded within Western social anxiety measures. In other words, social anxiety measures may reflect a construct that is not justifiably different from those tapped by measures differentiating self-views and social values of Western and East Asian groups. To the extent that evidence of poor discriminant validity among these measures exists, East Asians' endorsement of social anxiety symptoms may be indicative of an overlapping endorsement of concerns typical of East Asian cultures. If, however, social anxiety, self-construal and social values measures do form separable constructs, then the similarity between East Asians and socially anxious Westerners may be explained by the ways these constructs relate to one another. As a second step to understanding East Asian reports of higher social anxiety, the study examines whether self-construal patterns that feature more prominently in East Asian cultures directly predict the (Western) social anxiety construct (see Figure 1). Should self-views typically promoted by East Asian cultures (i.e., high interdependence, low independence) account for levels of social anxiety, the results would support the importance of cultural factors when interpreting social anxiety ratings. 31 Figure 1. Self-Construal as a Predictor of Social Anxiety Support for the predicted relationship between self-construal and social anxiety would then allow a more in-depth examination of how these constructs relate with one another, possibly offering further explanation for East Asian reports of higher social anxiety than Westerners. Although both cultures appear to encourage elaboration and strengthening of their respective self-views, the contrast in self-construal preferences may be related to the use of different social strategies and acceptance of different social values. As shown in Figure 2, normative East Asian social values may account for the relationship between self-construal and (Western) social anxiety. Individuals showing self-construal patterns typically endorsed by East Asian cultures may report higher social anxiety by way of social values that are also promoted by East Asian cultures. Examination of such a pathway would mark the final, third step toward understanding the role of culturally-based social beliefs and attitudes when interpreting East Asian reports of social anxiety. Figure 2. East Asian Social Values as a Mediating Variable Independent \ (-) ( East Asian Self-Construal ) I Social Values 33 Method Participants A total of 505 individuals, comprising the Korean (n=251) and Western (n=254) samples, participated in the study. Participants included undergraduates at the University of British Columbia, academic exchange students from Korea University, staff at a local non-profit organization and a local grades kindergarten to 12 school, mature students at a local community college, patrons of various Vancouver-based Korean organizations/churches, and those who responded directly to community posters. Prior to their decision to participate, individuals received a brief presentation outlining the nature of the study and the study's eligibility criteria. Following the presentation, participants voluntarily agreed to complete the study questionnaires. To prevent potential biasing of the participants' responses, the study was described as a way to evaluate how participants viewed themselves and how they reacted to various social situations; references to the cross-cultural interests of the study were not made until after participation. Selection criteria for the Korean sample asked that individuals identify themselves as being of Korean heritage, speak Korean as their first language, have spent no more than 4 consecutive years in Canada or another Western country (e.g., U.S.) and have spent less than a total of 7 years in any non-Asian country. To meet selection criteria for the Western sample, participants had to identify themselves as being either of European descent or at least 3 r d generation Canadian or American, speak English as their first language, and have spent no more than a total of 7 years in a non-Western country. To be included the study also required all participants be fluent in both written and spoken forms of their native language and be over 18 years of age. 34 Materials The study employed 12 self-report measures designed to assess the following latent constructs: Independent Self-construal, Interdependent Self-construal, East Asian Social Values, and Western Social Anxiety. In addition, participants provided demographic information using a self-report background questionnaire. Independent translators fluent in both Korean and English translated, and subsequently back-translated measures unavailable in Korean. The primary investigator met with all translators and resolved translation inconsistencies through deliberation. Participants completed all measures and forms in their native language (i.e., Korean or English). Participants randomly received one of three versions of the questionnaire packet; the versions differed only by the ordering of the questionnaires. Self-construal measures Although independent and interdependent self-construals are found across cultures, East Asians typically place greater importance on features characteristic of an interdependent self-construal, whereas Westerners tend to value characteristics associated with an independent self-construal. The following measures are designed to assess the degree to which an individual endorses one or both of these self-construal patterns. The Singelis Self-Construal Scale (Singelis-SCS; Singelis, 1994) is a 24-item self-report questionnaire, consisting of a 12-item interdependent self-construal subscale and 12-item independent self-construal subscale. Items on the interdependent subscale assess the degree to which an individual defines the self as connected to the social situation and one's relationship with others. Example items on the interdependent subscale include the following: / will sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of the group I am in; I have respect 35 for the authority figures with whom I interact; Even when I strongly disagree with group members, I avoid an argument; My happiness depends on the happiness of those around me; If my brother or sister fails, Ifeel responsible. By contrast, the independent subscale measures the degree one views the self as unique and separate from the social context. Items from the independent subscale include the following: I enjoy being unique and different from others in many respects; Speaking up during.class is not a problem for me; I prefer to be direct and forthright when dealing with people I have just met; I am comfortable with being singled out for praise or rewards; My personal identity, independent of others, is very important to me; I act the same way no matter who I am with. Responses are made on a 7-point Likert-type scale with anchors of "strongly agree" and "strongly disagree". The Singelis-SCS was initially standardized using 2 different samples of multiethnic Hawaiian undergraduates (Singelis, 1994) and later tested on Euro-American, Chinese American, Filipino American, Japanese American and Korean American samples (Singelis & Sharkey, 1995). Cronbach's alpha reliabilities from both studies ranged between 0.68-0.78 for the independence subscale and 0.69-0.74 for the interdependence subscale. Subsequent studies using the SCS report similar reliability ratings (e.g., Kleinknecht & Tanaka-Matsumi, 2002; Norasakkunkit & Kalick, 2002; Sato & McCann, 1997), though lower ratings ranging from 0.51 to 0.63 have also been reported (Okazaki, 2000). Despite the popularity of this measure in assessing self-construal, little data on the validity of the scale or on other measures of reliability are currently available. Consistent with theoretical conceptualizations, however, research consistently indicates that those from East Asian cultural backgrounds endorse greater levels of interdependent self-construal and 36 lower levels of independent self-construal when compared to those from a Western culture, which offers some support for the construct validity of the scale (Singelis, 1994). The Takata Self-Construal Scale (Takata-SCS; Takata, 1999), originally constructed in Japanese and standardized using Japanese participants, consists of 20 items designed to assess beliefs and attitudes associated with independent and interdependent self-construals. Each self-construal pattern is represented by a 10-item subscale. Example independent self-construal items include: The best decisions for me are the ones I made by myself; If I think something is good, then I do not really care what others think; Even when others around me disagree with me, I stick to my own opinions; In general I make my own decisions; I think whether something is good or bad depends on how I feel about it; I always speak and act confidently. Example interdependent self-construal items include: I am concerned about what people think of me; Sometimes when I do things I get so anxious thinking about how everything will turn out, that I have trouble even getting started; Whenever I think about what others think of me, I am concerned how I appear to them; In my own personal relationships I am concerned about the other person's status compared to me and the nature of our relationship; How Ifeel depends on the people who I am with and the situation I am in I avoid having conflicts with members of my group; When my opinion is in conflict with that of another person's, I often accept the other opinion. Items are rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale that asks the degree to which the respondent agrees with each statement. Takata (1999) conducted a series of studies examining the reliability and validity of the Takata-SCS with both child and adult samples. In the first study, Japanese high school (n=1020) and elementary school (n=957) completed the Takata-SCS using a modified 5-point rating scale. Factor analyses of the data from both samples supported a two-factor 37 solution that corresponded to the independent-interdependent self-construal distinction. Takata investigated the 2-month test-retest reliability of the scale for subgroups of sixth grade (n=73) and junior high (n=56) students and found moderate to high correlations that ranged from r = 0.37 to 0.86. The scale also demonstrated good internal consistency, with Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranging between 0.71 and 0.77 for the two self-construal scales for the elementary and junior high school samples. Findings from the study also supported the construct validity of the scale. Scores on the interdependent self-construal subscale correlated highly (r = 0.71) with scores on a Japanese measure of public self-consciousness and inversely correlated (r = -0.20) with self-esteem. The independent self-construal subscale showed modest, though significant inverse correlations with the public self-consciousness measure (r= - .23) and moderate correlation with self-esteem (r = 0.47). In a second study, Takata examined the cross-cultural reliability and validity of the scale by collecting data from adult samples in Canada, Japan and Australia. The study included four university student samples: Euro-Australians (n=310), Euro-Canadians (n= 161), Asian-Canadians (n=182) and native Japanese (n=597). Similar to findings from the first study, factor analyses of each of the samples supported a 2-factor solution, with independent self-construal and interdependent self-construal as the primary factors. The results indicated that participants responded to the Takata-SCS in culturally expected ways. Within-sample analyses of the Japanese sample indicated that participants endorsed interdependent self-construal items more strongly than they endorsed independent items. When compared to the Western samples (i.e., Euro-Australian and Euro-Canadian), the Japanese sample demonstrated significantly lower independent self-construal scores. 38 Beck's Sociotropy-Autonomy Scale (Beck-SAS; Beck et al., 1983),consists of 60 statements rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (0%) to 4 (100%) and is constructed to measure two personality dimensions: sociotropy (i.e., social dependency) and autonomy. Those with elevated scores on the sociotropy dimension tend to depend on social feedback for gratification, seek approval and acceptance from others, and be highly motivated to please others in.an effort to maintain close interpersonal relations. Example sociotropy items from the Beck scale include: It is important to be liked and approved by others; I am uneasy when I cannot tell whether or not someone I've met likes me; I get uncomfortable when I am not sure how I am expected to behave in the presence of other people; I censor what I say because I am concerned that the other person may disapprove or disagree; I am afraid of hurting other people's feelings; Ifind it difficult to be separated from the people I love; Being able to share experiences with other people makes them much more enjoyable for me. By contrast, highly autonomous individuals strive for independence from others, prefer solitary activities and value directing their own activities and attaining meaningful, personal goals (Beck et al., 1983). Example autonomy items include: If a goal is important to me I will pursue it even if it may make other people uncomfortable; The possibility of being rejected by others for standing up for my rights would not stop me; I set my own standards and goals for myself rather than accepting those of other people; If I think I am right about something, I feel comfortable expressing myself even if others don't like it; I prize being a unique individual more than being a member of a group; I don't like people to invade my privacy; When I have a problem, I like to go off on my own and think it through rather than being influenced by others; I prefer to make my own plans, so I am not controlled by others. 39 Although the conceptualization of these personality constructs developed independent of cultural considerations, the defining characteristics of these dimensions markedly overlap with those identified for independent and interdependent self-construal patterns. Sato and McCann (1998) found, with a large sample of undergraduates, that total scores on the sociotropy subscale of the Beck-SAS correlated significantly with scores on the interdependent self-construal subscale of the Singelis-SCS (r =0.47), and scores representing the individualistic achievement factor of the Beck-SAS autonomy subscale correlated significantly with scores on the independent self-construal subscale of the Singelis-SCS (r=0.52). The 30-item sociotropy and autonomy total scales show high internal reliability, with coefficient alphas of .90 and .83, respectively (Beck et al., 1983). Concurrent validity of the Beck-SAS sociotropy total scale is high, with consistent evidence of significant correlations with various measures of interpersonal dependency (Barnett & Gotlib, 1988 as cited in Clark & Beck, 1991; Bieling, Beck, & Brown, 2000). Studies comparing the Beck-SAS sociotropy subscale with the Personality Style Inventory-Sociotropy subscale found a significant correlation of r=0.76 between the two measures, lending support for its convergent validity (Sato & McCann, 1997, 1998). Data from psychometric studies of the SAS-autonomy subscale are less consistent, which may be explained by the lower intercorrelations found among the three originally identified factors of the scale (i.e., individualistic achievement, freedom from control by others, and preference for solitude; Beck et al., 1983; Robins, 1985). Recent factor analyses suggest the individualistic achievement factor is conceptually distinct from other identified factors of the SAS-Autonomy scale and, unlike these other factors, correlates negatively with measures of distress and psychopathology (Bieling et al., 2000; Sato & McCann, 1997). To 40 the extent that Western individuals are characterized by an independent self-construal, the findings are consistent with the negative relationship found between individualistic achievement and psychological distress. Further evidence for construct similarity is offered by the higher correlation between the Singelis-SCS independent subscale and the individualistic achievement factor than between the Singelis-SCS independent subscale and other Beck-SAS autonomy factors (e.g., interpersonal insensitivity; Sato & McCann, 1998). Originally developed in Japanese as a 10-item scale, the Yamaguchi Collectivism Scale (YCS; Yamaguchi, 1994) was constructed to measure collectivism at an individual level, which Yamaguchi defined as the tendency to place priority for group goals over personal goals when the two goals are in conflict. Cronbach's alphas from the six samples of Japanese undergraduates (n=608) who completed the original Y C S ranged from 0.77 to 0.88. The original Y C S correlated positively with measures of sensitivity to rejection and affiliative tendency, public self-consciousness, and self-monitioring, and correlated negatively with the Need for Uniqueness scale (Yamaguchi, 1994). The Y C S was developed within a collectivist culture, and Yamaguchi later added four items to the scale (e.g., I stick to my opinions even when others in my group don't support me) to increase its applicability to those from more individualistic cultures. Yamaguchi, Kuhlman, and Sugimori (1995) administered the 14-item scale to American, Japanese and Korean undergraduate samples, in each sample's native language. Cronbach's alphas for the samples ranged between 0.69 and 0.77 and factor analysis of the data supported the unidimensionality of the scale. Similar to the original Y C S , the 14-item version correlated significantly and positively with sensitivity to rejection and affiliative tendency measures for each sample, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.23 to 0.55. The Need for 41 Uniqueness scale correlated negatively with Y C S , with rs ranging between -0.30 to -0.56 across samples. Most recently, Yamaguchi and colleagues (1995) expanded the 14-item version by including 14 new items and 2 filler items, creating a total of 30 items. Individuals from five different cultures (i.e., Japan, Korea, Hawaii, U.S. and Australia) completed the newly constructed scale in their native language. Factor analysis of the data suggested a three-factor solution of 19 items. The first factor, labeled collectivism, included most of the original 14 items and represented characteristics of an interdependent or collectivistic self-construal. The second factor, labeled as agency, included items emphasizing independence of action and opinion and negatively loaded items stressing the importance of conformity to the group, and the third factor, labeled assertiveness, also included items characteristic of an independent self-construal but focused more on the verbal (vs. behavioural) expression of personal opinions and wants. Yamaguchi and colleagues (1995) found significant cross-cultural differences for all three factors of the Y C S scale. Those from Korea and Japan scored the highest on the collectivism factor and lowest on the agency and assertiveness factors, whereas individuals from the U.S. and Australia obtained the lowest means on the collectivism factor and the highest on the assertiveness and agency factors; those within the Hawaiian sample scored intermediate between the Japan-Korea and U.S- Australia samples on all three factors. The current study utilized the most recent version of the Y C S , incorporating all 19-items supported by the factor analysis. Items assess the degree to which each statement is descriptive of the respondent and are each rated along a 5-point scale (describes me very well to does not describe me at all). Items from the scale represent the interdependent self-42 construal factor of collectivism and the independent factors of agency and assertiveness. Example collectivism items include: I am prepared to do things for my group at any time, even though I have to sacrifice my own interest; I stick with my group even through difficulties; I think it is desirable for members of my group to have the same opinions; I don't want to stand out in my group. Example agency and assertiveness items include: I do things in my way regardless of what my group members expect me to do; I base my actions more upon my own judgments than upon the decisions of my group; I stick to my opinions even when others in my group don't support me. The Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal Scale (RISC; Cross, Bacon, & Morris, 2000) is an 11-item measure that asks respondents to rate on a 7-point Likert-type scale the degree to'which they agree with each item; ratings range from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Items from the RISC include the following: My close relationships are an important reflection of who I am; When Ifeel very close to someone, it often feels to me like that person is an important part of who I am; I usually feel a strong sense ofpride when someone close to me has an important accomplishment; 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; My sense ofpride comes from knowing who I have as close friends. Cross and colleagues (2000) argue that previous measures of interdependent self-construals are limited to only one facet of this construct, namely those that are sensitive to the extent to which individuals behave according to the demands of a group and place greater priority on group (vs. personal) goals. According to Cross and colleagues, previous measures fail to adequately assess the relationship-centered component of an interdependent self-construal, which emphasizes others, particularly those close to the individual, as integral to 43 one's personal identity or self-concept. The relational component of an interdependent self-construal is conceptualized as being relatively resistant to the influence of culture and more sensitive to gender differences (Cross et al., 2000; Cross & Madson, 1997). Cross and colleagues (2000) developed the RISC scale to specifically assess the relational component of the interdependent self-construal and recruited eight samples of undergraduate students (n=2,374) from the U.S. to validate the measure. Factor analysis of the data indicated a one-factor solution, with the 11 items loading between 0.59 and 0.77 on the first factor. The coefficient alphas ranged from 0.85 to 0.90 across the samples, with a mean of .88, and the mean inter-item correlations ranged from 0.35 to 0.46. Two of the eight samples repeated the RISC scale either one or two months after the initial administration; the 2-month test-retest reliabilities were 0.73 and 0.63, respectively, and the 1-month test-retest reliabilities were 0.74 and 0.76, respectively. The RISC scale moderately correlated with measures of interdependence that focus more on group identity. For example, the correlation between the RISC scale and the Singelis-SCS interdependent subscale was r=0.41. The RISC scale was unrelated to measures of independence, neuroticism and social desirability. In addition, when controlling for closely related constructs, the RISC scale further demonstrated discriminant validity by predicting a significant proportion of incremental variance in relatively global measures of relatedness (e.g., communal orientation). High scorers on the RISC endorsed higher levels of social disclosure and perceived closeness and commitment in their closest relationship. Western Social Anxiety Measures Several measures designed to assess the behavioural, somatic and cognitive symptoms of social anxiety are currently available. The vast majority of these scales are 44 based on Western conceptualizations of social distress and are normed on Western samples; it is unclear whether these Western-based measures generalize across cultures. Accordingly, the following Western-developed measures will be used to assess the latent construct labeled Western Social Anxiety. The measures have demonstrated good psychometric properties and have previously been administered to East Asians, primarily to those living within North America. Mattick and Clarke (1998) developed the Social Phobia Scale (SPS) as a companion to the concomitantly developed Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS). The SPS is comprised of 20 items rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 0 (not at all characteristic or true of me) to 4 (extremely characteristic or true of me) and is structured to measure anxiety symptoms related to performing various tasks while potentially being observed by others (e.g., eating in public, using a public restroom). Each SPS item is negatively worded and the total score is calculated by summing the ratings of all the items. Items from the SPS include: I become anxious if I have to write in front of other people; I get nervous that people are staring at me as I walk down the street; I fear I may blush when I am with others; I feel self-conscious if I have to enter a room where others are already seated; I worry about shaking or trembling when I am watched by other people; I would get tense if I had to sit facing other people on a bus or a train; I am worried people will think my behavior odd; It would make me feel self-conscious to eat in front of a stranger at a restaurant; I would get tense if I had to carry a tray across a crowded cafeteria. Mattick and Clarke (1998) administered the SPS (along with the SIAS) to five different samples: patients diagnosed with DSM-III social phobia, college undergraduates, community volunteers, patients with agoraphobia and patients with simple phobia. 45 Cronbach's alphas from the five samples ranged from 0.89 - 0.94 for the SPS; test-retest correlations in the samples of DSM-III social phobics exceeded 0.90 at intervals of up to 13 weeks (Mattick & Clarke, 1998). Moreover, participants with social phobia obtained higher scores on each scale when compared with either the combined normal groups or those with agoraphobia. The SPS did not correlate with ratings of social desirability but correlated positively with measures of social interaction and performance, anxiety. Several other studies similarly support the convergent and discriminant validity of the SPS (e.g., Brown et al., 1997; Habke, Hewitt, Norton, & Asmundson, 1997; Heimberg, Mueller, Holt, Hope, & Liebowitz, 1992; Osman et al., 1998). For example, Heimberg and colleagues (1992) found significant correlations between the SIAS and SPS for samples of social phobics (r= 0.41), community volunteers (r= 0.89) and undergraduate students (r= 0.52) and moderate to high correlations with other measures of anxiety. The correlation between repeated administrations (of either a one or two week interval) for their sample of undergraduates was r= 0.66 for the SPS (Heimberg et al., 1992). Studies using the SPS with East Asian samples have found similar psychometric properties. For example, using a sample of Japanese undergraduates, Dinnel et al. (2002) reported a Cronbach's alpha of .92 for the SPS. Data from this Japanese sample also supported the SPS as representing a single factor, which mimic results found by researchers using Western samples (Habke et al., 1997; Osman et al., 1998). Social Avoidance and Distress Scale (SAD; Watson & Friend, 1969) is a 28-item true-false measure that assesses level of discomfort and avoidance associated with interpersonal interactions. SAD scale items include:; I try to avoid situations which force me to be very sociable; It is easy for me to relax when I am with strangers; I try to avoid talking 46 to people unless I know them really well; I often feel nervous or tense in casual get-togethers in which both sexes are present; I often want to get away from people; Being introduced to people makes me feel tense and nervous; I avoid walking up and joining a large group of people; I often think up excuses in order to avoid social engagements. The SAD scale is commonly used to measure social anxiety among college students and was initially validated using a college sample (Heimberg, 1988; Watson & Friend, 1969). Watson and Friend (1969) report a one month test-retest reliability coefficient alpha of 0.68 with the original validation sample. Heimberg et al. (1992) found that SAD correlated significantly with SIAS scores (r= 0.76) but not SPS scores (r= 0.28), which supports its assessment of social interaction fears. A correlational analysis of SAD scores and personal diary ratings of daily behaviours found a significant correlation with ratings of general social distress (r= 0.47) but not distress from disturbing thoughts (r= 0.08; Beidel, Turner, Stanley &Dancu, 1989.). Arkowitz, Lichtenstein, McGovern, and Hines (1975) found SAD scores to be negatively related to global ratings of social skills by familiar peers (r= -0.70) and to behavioural measures of social skills, which included speech latency (r= 0.48) and number of words spoken (r= -0.31). In anticipation of a social interaction, high scorers tend to report greater preference for working alone (Watson & Friend, 1969) and report more negative self-statements (Cacioppo, Glass, & Merluzzi, 1979) and fewer positive self-statements (Heimberg, Acerra, & Holstein, 1985) than low scorers. The Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory (SPAI; Turner et al., 1989) is a 45-item measure of social phobia and agoraphobia symptoms; each item is scored on a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (always). The Social Phobia subscale (SPAI-sp) 47 consists of 32 items, and the Agoraphobia subscale (SPAI-Ago) has 13 items. Seventeen of the SPAI-sp items assess the frequency of anxiety symptoms within different social contexts and the degree to which the presence of strangers, authority figures, the opposite sex and people in general influence the frequency of these symptoms; other items assess cognitive and physiological domains of social anxiety. The SPAI-Ago is designed to help differentiate those individuals whose avoidance stems more from fears of having a panic attack, rather than fears of social situations. The Difference subscale score (SPAI-Diff), which is obtained by subtracting the SPAI-Ago score from the SPAI-sp scale score, however, shows little advantage in its ability to tap social anxiety concerns when compared to using the 32-item SPAI-SP alone. Correlations between the two scale scores frequently exceed r = 0.90 (e.g., Osman et al., 1996). In the interest of brevity without the sacrifice of utility, participants only completed the SPAI-sp subscale of the SPAI. Example items include: Ifeel anxious when I am in a social situation and I become the center of attention; I feel anxious when I am in a social situation and I am expected to engage in some activity; Ifeel anxious when making a speech in front of an audience; Before entering a social situation, I think about all the things that could go wrong. The types of thoughts I experience are: Will I be dressed properly?; I will probably make a mistake and look foolish; What will I do if no one speaks to me?; If there is a lag in the conversation what can I talk about? In its initial investigation, the SPAI demonstrated high test-retest reliability over a 2-week interval and good internal consistency and appeared to show sensitivity in differentiating those with specific social anxiety concerns from those with more generalized forms of anxiety (Turner et al., 1989). Beidel, Turner, Stanley, and Dancu (1989) found that 48 socially anxious college students scored higher on the SPAI than did their non-socially anxious counterparts, and individual SPAI scores significantly correlated with daily ratings of general distress in social situations (r= 0.47) and with ratings made by significant others of the individual (r= 0.63). Correlation analyses indicate high correlations between the SPAI-sp and other measures of social anxiety (Herbert, Bellack, & Hope, 1991; Osman et al., 1996; Peters, 2000). For example, one study found that the SPAI-SP produced significant and high correlations with the SADS (r= 0.73), Interaction Anxiousness scale (r= 0.79), Fear Questionnaire-Social Anxiety (r= 0.65), Fear of Negative Evaluation scale (r= 0.60) and SUDS ratings during an impromptu speech (r= 0.61) (Herbert et al., 1991). Similarly, high correlations with the SPS (r= 0.72) and the SIAS (r= 0.85) have been shown (Peters, 2000). The data suggest the SPAI-sp corresponds well with scales that measure various aspects of social anxiety and support its utility as an assessment tool. SPAI-sp and SPAI-Diff have demonstrated discriminant validity by their low association with measures of trait anxiety, depression and agoraphobia (Herbert et al., 1991) and better ability to predict social phobia group membership compared to the SPS and SIAS (Peters, 2000). Confirmatory factor analysis on data from a nonclinical population supports the two-factor structure of the SPAI (Osman et al., 1996). East Asian Social Values Recent research with East Asian populations suggests a greater emphasis on particular social values that oppose many of those found within Western societies. The following selected measures assess behaviours, beliefs and values typically endorsed by East Asian cultures, including self-criticism, identity-flexibility, self-monitoring, and saving face. 49 The Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (DEQ; Blatt et al., 1976) is a 66-item questionnaire that assesses the respondent's thoughts and feelings towards the self and others. Based on factor analyses, the DEQ can be scored for three different factors: dependency, self-criticism and efficacy. The dependency and self-criticism subscales are thought to represent orthogonal constructs and are scored using factor-score coefficients derived from a large college sample (Blatt et al., 1976). A common criticism of the original DEQ is its use of factor-derived scale scores rather than the use of unit-weighted composite scale scores, which are easier to score and interpret (Bagby, Parker, Joffe & Buis, 1994; Viglione, Lovette & Gotlieb, 1995; Welkowitz, Lish & Bond, 1985). Santor and colleagues (1997) attempted to improve the utility of the DEQ by shortening the measure and adopting unit-weighted item measures of the Dependency and Self-criticism subscales, while still maintaining the orthogonality of the two constructs. The authors first used stepwise regression models to select items based on their contributions to predicting original factor-derived scale scores for Dependency and Self-Criticism scale scores. They then evaluated the incremental contribution of items to predicting original scale scores and to maintaining between-scale orthogonality as a function of scale length. On the basis of these analyses, Santo et al. maintained the first 30 items of the stepwise regression models for Dependency and Self-criticism. The authors referred to the revised scales as the McGil l Dependency and McGil l Self-criticism scales (Santor et al., 1997). Following construction of the McGi l l scales, the authors evaluated the psychometric properties of the scales with a clinical and a nonclinical sample and compared the scales with the original version and other revisions of the DEQ. The McGi l l Self-criticism scale showed acceptable internal consistency, with reliability coefficients ranging between 0.69 and 0.72 50 among men and women in the two samples. Data from the nonclinical sample evidenced high convergent validity; the McGi l l Self-criticism scale correlated highly with the original factor-derived DEQ self-criticism scale (r= 0.97), the revised Clarke Institute of Psychiatry Self-criticism scale (r = 0.80; Bagby et al., 1994), and the N Y U Self-criticism scale (r = 0.90; Welkowitz et al., 1985). Also, unlike other DEQ revisions, the McGil l Self-criticism scale did not correlate highly with its dependency counterpart among both its male (r = 0.03) and female (r = 0.06) participants. The McGi l l Self-criticism scale consists of 30 items from the original DEQ; items are rated along a 7-point Likert scale, anchored by strongly agree and strongly disagree endpoints. Items on the scale describe personality traits related to concerns over failing to meet expectations and standards and to tendencies to blame and be critical toward the self. The scale's items include the following: I often find that I don't live up to my own standards or ideals; If Ifail to live up to expectations, Ifeel unworthy; Many times Ifeel helpless; There is a considerable difference between how I am now and how I would like to be; I tend not to be satisfied with what I have; Often, Ifeel I have disappointed others; Even if the person who is closest to me were to leave, I could still "go it alone."; I often feel guilty; I have a difficult time accepting weaknesses in myself; I tend to be very critical of myself; I very frequently compare myself to standards or goals. Given that the McGi l l Self-criticism scale is comprised of DEQ items only, from this point forward for the sake of clarity, I refer to the scale the DEQ- self-criticism subscale. The Identity Consistency Index (ICI; Suh, 2002) is a list of 20 different personality traits that are rated along a 8-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (not at all descriptive) to 7 (very much descriptive). Participants rate how accurately each of the trait describes them in 51 general and across five different interpersonal contexts (i.e., with parents, a close friend, a professor/teaching assistant, stranger and a younger person). Suh (2002) generated the list of traits and interpersonal situations from an initial pilot study with Korean and American college students and from Wiggins's (1979) circumplex of interpersonal traits. In the pilot study, participants provided their five most self-defining social roles and their ten most self-descriptive personality traits; particular consideration was given to traits likely to vary across social situations. The final list is as follows: emotional, modest, cold, friendly, cooperative, talkative, impatient, impulsive, open-minded, outgoing, introverted, dominant, business-like, calculating, honest, two-faced, cheerful, kind, rational and cranky. Suh (2002) administered the ICI to both Korean and American college students (in their native languages) and found the U.S. respondents viewed themselves more consistently across situations. In addition, the ICI correlated significantly with measures of life satisfaction (r= 0.49), positive affect (r= 0.31) and negative affect (r= -0.50) for the U.S. sample. For the Korean sample, ICI ratings correlated more modestly, though significantly, with life satisfaction ratings (r= 0.22) and were unrelated to measures of positive and negative affect. Suh also collected ratings of social skill and general likeability from two informants (one family member and one friend) for each respondent. For the American sample, the ICI correlated significantly with informant ratings of social skill (r= 0.37) and general likeability (r= 0.33). No relationship between ratings of social skill (r= 0.12) and general likeability (r= -0.02) and the ICI were found, however, for the Korean sample. Correlations between personality ratings by the informants and general self-views of the respondents were significantly lower for the Korean sample when compared with those of the American sample. Taken together, the data support the existence of cross-cultural differences in the value of identity consistency across social situations and offers some evidence for ICI's construct validity. Further psychometric data are currently unavailable. The Loss of Face scale (Zane & Yeh, 2002) consists of items that assess 'loss offace' concerns in four domains: social status, ethical behaviour, social propriety, and self-discipline. Each of the 21 items is rated on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree), and scored in the direction of face loss concern. Example items from the scale include the following: I maintain a low profile because I do not want to make mistakes in front of other people; I downplay my abilities and achievements so that others do not have unrealistically high expectations of me; I do not criticize others because this may embarrass them; I carefully watch others' actions before I do anything; Even when I know another person is at fault, I am careful not to criticize that person. Zane and colleagues (2002) used a sample of Asian American undergraduates (n= 81) and a sample of Caucasian American undergraduates (n=77) to validate the scale. The Asian American sample consisted of both US-born (n=29) and foreign-born (n=52) individuals and included those of Chinese (n=34), Japanese (n=7), Korean (n=22), Filipino (n=10), and Vietnamese (n=8) descent. Consistent with hypothesized cultural differences, the Asian American sample scored significantly higher on concerns of face loss than the Caucasian sample (d= 0.64). The observed difference remained significant even after controlling for ethnic differences on levels of social anxiety, self-monitoring and White-cultural identification. The Loss of Face measure showed good internal consistency with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.83. The authors also argued support for the measure's concurrent validity; as predicted, 53 the measure correlated positively with other-directedness (Asian-American: r = 0.44 and White: r = 0.33) and public self-consciousness (Asian-American: r = 0.42 and White: r = 0.56), and negatively with extraversion (Asian-American: r = -0.28 and White: r = -0.23). The scale also held moderate correlations with social anxiety (Asian-American: r = 0.54 and White: r = 0.54). As evidence of discriminant validity, the scale correlated minimally with maladjustment ratings (Asian-American: r = 0.10 and White: r = 0.13). In addition, the scale did not significantly relate to response acquiescence (Asian-American: r = 0.03 and White: r = 0.11). Factor analysis of the measure supported a single factor solution for both samples, which accounted for 26% of the variance (Zane & Yeh, 2002). The Revised Self-Monitoring Scale (RSMS; Lennox & Wolfe, 1984) marks a departure from the original Self-Monitoring scale (Snyder, 1974) and is defended as psychometrically superior in tapping the self-monitoring construct (e.g., Briggs & Cheek, 1988; Lennox, 1988). The original Self-Monitoring scale was devised with the intention of assessing five hypothetical components of the self-monitoring: 1) concern for appropriateness of social behaviour; 2) attention to social comparison information; 3) ability to control or modify self-presentation; 4) use of this ability in particular situations; and 5) cross-situational variability of social behaviour. Subsequent factor analytic studies did not, however, support such a model and consistently indicated a 3-factor solution of acting ability, other-directedness and extraversion (e.g., Briggs & Cheek, 1988; Briggs, Cheek, & Buss, 1980; Lennox, 1988). The lack of congruence between the emerging factors and the intended construct components, and inadequate ratings of internal consistency (Briggs et al., 1980; Lennox, 1988; Lennox & Wolfe, 1984) prompted its revision. 54 The RSMS has thirteen 6-point (0-"strongly disagree" to 5- "strongly agree") Likert-type items that tap two self-monitoring styles: (1) Ability to Modify Self-Presentation (AMSP) and (2) Sensitivity to the Expressive Behaviour of Others (SEBO). Example items from the 7-item A M S P subscale include the following: In social situations, I have the ability to alter my behaviour if I feel that something else is called for; I have the ability to control the way I come across to people, depending on the impression I wish to give them; I can usually tell when I've said something inappropriate by reading it in the listener's eyes; I have found that I can adjust my behavior to meet the requirements of any situation Ifind myself in. Example items from the 6-item SEBO subscale include the following: I am often able to read people's true emotions correctly through their eyes; In conversations, I am sensitive to even the slightest change in the facial expression of the person I'm conversing with; My powers of intuition are quite good when it comes to understanding others' emotions and motives; I can usually tell when others consider a joke to be in bad taste, even though they may laugh convincingly. Lennox and Wolfe (1984) showed that the AMSP and SEBO subscales correlate modestly with one another (r= 0.22) and demonstrated reasonable internal consistency estimates (alpha=0.77 and 0.70, respectively). Anderson (1991), using a sample of nurses, reported alpha coefficients of 0.90 (AMSP), 0.80 (SEBO) and 2-year test-retest correlations of r= 0.53 (AMSP), r= 0.52 (SEBO). Procedure As a way to gain access to Korean community members, I received written permission from the directors of a local non-profit organization serving Korean immigrants, a local Korean community centre and several Korean churches to solicit participation during 55 established meeting or class times. In addition, exchange students from Korea University studying at the University of British Columbia were approached for recruitment during a scheduled group meeting, following receipt of written permission from the Chair of the exchange program. For the Western sample, written permission was received from program directors or class instructors to present, at regularly scheduled meeting times, the opportunity to participate to the following individuals: 1) staff and volunteers of over 15 different non-profit social service programs; 2) teachers and staff at a local private school (serving grades kindergarten to 12); 3) mature students at a local community college; and 4) undergraduate students attending the University of British Columbia. Potential participants learned of the study through a brief, scripted oral description of the study procedures in their own native language. The presentation included the approximate length of time to complete the questionnaires, the voluntary and confidential nature of the task, and the general study intention of learning how individuals view the self and how they behave in various social situations. To prevent potential biasing of responses to questionnaire items, descriptions of the study did not include mention of the intended cross-cultural comparison until after study completion. Persons who expressed interest in the study either agreed to participate immediately after the presentation or to choose from a list of pre-scheduled time slots that indicated when the experimenter would return to their location. In addition to community presentations, Korean and English postings advertising the study were placed at select locations on the University of British Columbia campus. The postings provided a general description of the study's intention (i.e., We are conducting a questionnaire-based study that asks how you view yourself and how you would respond to 56 different social situations) and outlined the study's eligibility criteria. Individuals who directly responded to university postings received a description of the study protocol that was similar to that presented at the community meetings before deciding whether to participate. Prior to beginning the questionnaire packet, participants completed the consent form and were reminded of the study procedures (see Appendix A for example script of the instructions). Individuals completed the .questionnaires either alone or in groups of 2 - 25 and in one sitting. Refreshments of juice and cookies were provided; participants were encouraged to take breaks at will during completion. Although the length of time to complete the questionnaire packet ranged from 30 minutes to 2 hours, the average completion time was approximately 1 hour. While completing the questionnaires, an experimenter remained available to answer any questions and respond to concerns. Following completion, the questionnaire packets were reviewed for missing items and a debriefing form was provided. A l l participants received a small bag of candy with a gift card and were offered the opportunity to enter a random draw to win 1 of 20 gift certificates that were valued at $50.00 each. Participants were fully informed of the 1 in 25 odds of winning. Interested participants provided their contact information, which remained separate from the questionnaires, and chose from one of five locations (i.e., Safeway, Future Shop, Han-nam Grocery, Milestones restaurant and Starbucks Coffee) to redeem the certificate in the event their name was drawn. Data were analyzed using SPSS and/or the complementary structural equation modeling program A M O S . 57 Results Sample Characteristics A total of 505 individuals participated in the study. Four participants, originally included in the Western sample, were excluded from all analyses either due to failure to complete a whole questionnaire from the packet or inappropriate completion of a questionnaire. For example, three participants answered items on the Loss of Face scale using a true/false response format rather than using the provided Likert scale. A l l described analyses are of the remaining 501 participants. The Korean sample consisted of 251 participants (177 females), ranging between the ages of 18 and 65 years, with a mean age of 34.59 years (SD= 12.03). A l l Korean sample participants identified Korea as their country of birth, spoke Korean as their first language and spent 4 or less years in a Western country; the average length of stay in a Western country was 1.79 years (SD= 1.14). The Western sample (n= 250; 181 females) spanned the ages of 18 and 82 years, with a mean age of 35.22 years (SD = 12.85). The two samples did not significantly differ in their average age (t(499)= 0.57; p> .57) or gender distribution (X2(l)=0.22;p>.64). Initial Analyses Prior to testing explanations for higher social anxiety ratings among East Asians, hypothesized group differences between East Asians and Westerners on the measured variables (forming the latent constructs) were examined and confirmed. In line with past research findings, the following assumptions were drawn: 1) the Korean sample will endorse higher ratings of social anxiety; 2) the Korean sample will report higher degrees of an interdependent self-construal and lower degrees of an independent self-construal; and 3) the 58 Korean sample will score higher on measures of the East Asian Social Values construct (i.e., self-criticism, identity flexibility, self-monitoring, and loss of face). Given the sizeable sample of the study, the power to detect small group differences is high; to better understand the meaning of the findings, effect size estimates were also examined. Assumption 1: Group differences on social anxiety measures. As predicted, the Korean sample endorsed greater levels of social anxiety than the Western sample. As shown in Table 1, the Korean sample scored higher on the following social anxiety measures: 1) Social Phobia Scale (t(499)= -8.12, p<0.0001); 2) Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory (SPAI-sp)-social phobia scale score (t(499)= -5.00, p<0.0001); and 3) Social Avoidance and Distress scale (SAD; t(499)= -10.62, p<0.0001). The effect size estimates indicate "medium" to "large" group differences (Cohen, 1988) on the selected social anxiety measures. Score distributions for both the Western and Korean samples fell within an acceptable range of normality, with no significant indication of skewness or kurtosis for each measured variable. Table 1 Mean Scores on Western Social Anxiety Measures Western Korean Measure M SD M SD ES (d) SPS 15.47 12.02 25.38 15.10 0.74 SPAI-sp 66.06 33.87 80.32 29.87 0.45 SAD 7.74 6.99 13.83 5.77 0.97 Note. SPS= Social Phobia Scale; SPAI-sp= Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory-social phobia scale; SAD= Social Avoidance and Distress scale 59 Assumption 2: Group differences on self-construal measures Independent Self-construal Significant differences between the Korean and Western samples on measures of self-construal fell in the expected direction and held effect sizes within the "medium" to "large" range (Cohen, 1988). A n analysis of the score distributions indicated that issues of skewness and kurtosis are not present for either of the two samples. Table 2 outlines differences found on measures of independent self construal; the Western sample held significantly higher scores on the Singelis independent self-construal subscale (t(499)= 10.36, p<0.0001), the Takata independent self-construal subscale (t(499)= 6.16, p<0.0001), the Yamaguchi Collectivism Scale (YCS)- assertiveness subscale (t(499)= 14.79; pO.OOOl), and the Y C S - agency subscale (t(499)= 14.60, pO.OOOl). Table 2 Mean Scores on Independent Self-construal Measures Western Korean Measure M SD M SD ES (d) Singelis-Ind SC 59.25 8.79 51.55 7.82 0.93 Takata-Ind SC 48.89 8.07 44.34 8.45 0.55 C- assertiveness 18.16 3.63 13.50 3.42 1.33 C-agency 23.45 4.85 17.55 4.17 1.31 Beck-Aut 70.42 12.32 70.18 11.74 0.00 Note. Singelis-Ind SC= Singelis Independent Self-construal subscale; Takata-Ind SC= Takata Independent Self-construal subscale; C-assertiveness= Yamaguchi Collectivism Scale-assertiveness subscale; C-agency= Yamaguchi Collectivism Scale-agency subscale; Beck-Aut= Beck Autonomy scale. 60 One notable exception is how the sample scores did not differ on the Beck Autonomy scale (t(499)= 0.23, ns), which may be explained by the nature of the scale. Past factor analytic studies have described the Beck Autonomy scale as tapping distinguishable subfactors that, when combined, may not reflect a single, higher-order construct (Bieling, Beck, & Brown, 2000; Clark, Steer, & Beck, 1995; Sato & McCann, 1997). Among the factors identified, the Beck Autonomy scale appears to include an independence-achievement subfactor that more closely resembles features of the independent self-construal. For example, similar to alternate independent self-construal measures, the Beck Autonomy- independence-achievement subfactor correlates positively with self-efficacy (Clark et al., 1995; Sato & McCann, 1997) and negatively with overall psychopathology (Bieling et al., 2000). It may be that a subset of items from the Beck Autonomy scale, reflecting the independence-achievement factor, better captures the intended Independent Self-construal construct. Although there is general agreement that an independence-achievement subfactor exists, opinion differs on which items from the Beck Autonomy scale best captures the factor. Thus, I first examined the degree of overlap among factor solutions derived from three different studies (i.e., Bieling et al., 2000, Clark et al., 1997, and Sato & McCann, 1997) before selecting one particular Beck Autonomy independence subfactor solution of the entire scale. Scores derived from the three factor solutions correlated highly with one another for the Western (r= 0.87 - 0.97) and Korean (r= 0.90 - 0.98) samples, which suggested the solutions tap the same factor. The multicollinearity of the measures justified comparison of only one independence subfactor solution to the entire Beck Autonomy scale as a measure of independent self-construal. Unlike the alternate solutions, the Bieling et al. (2000) is based 61 on a factor analysis of the Beck Autonomy scale excluding other autonomy measures, so this solution was selected. Although Bieling independence scores (i.e., composite scores of independent subfactor items on the Beck Autonomy scale) correlated highly with total Beck Autonomy scale scores for the Western (r= 0.71) and Korean (r= 0.88) samples, the subfactor solution revealed a significant cultural group difference (t(499)= 6.58; p<0.0001; see Table 3) in the expected direction and of similar magnitude to the Independent Self-construal measures. Moreover, the Bieling-independence measure demonstrated stronger relations than the Beck Autonomy Scale with independent self-construal measures (correlation range: r=0 .28 - 0.62 vs. r= 0.06 - 0.61) for both samples. The results suggest that the failure to find differences on the entire Beck Autonomy scale are likely due to other measured subfactors that are not closely related to the independent self-construal construct. Given that the independence subfactor of the Beck Autonomy scale appeared to tap the independent self-construal construct more closely than the total Beck Autonomy scale, I replaced the Beck Autonomy scale with the Bieling-independence solution as an indicator of Independent Self-construal. Table 3 Mean Scores on the Beck Autonomy Scale and Bieling-independence Western Korean Measure M SD M SD ES (d) Beck Autonomy Total score 70.41 12.32 70.17 11.74 0.00 Bieling- independence 28.48 5.17 25.37 5.39 0.59 score 62 Interdependent Self-construal Similar to differences found with the independent self-construal measures, the interdependent self-construal measures indicated findings consistent with past research. As shown in Table 4, Korean participants reported greater affiliation with features of an interdependent self-construal than their Western counterparts. Significant group differences are indicated by the following self-construal (SC) measures: the Singelis Interdependent SC subscale (t(499)= -5.56; p<0.0001), the Takata Interdependent SC subscale (t(499)= -4.75, p<0.0001), the Y C S - collectivism subscale (t(499)= -2.65, p < 0.008), and the Beck Sociotropy scale (t(499)= -3.90, p<0.0001). The Relational Interdependence Self-construal scale (RISC) did not show significant group differences (t(499)= 1.23, ns) . Results from the RISC are not, however, completely unexpected. The authors of the scale have asserted that the scale taps into features of the interdependent self-construal that are relatively independent of cultural influence (Cross, Bacon, & Morris, 2000). The current findings support the authors' assertions and suggest the alternate measures of interdependent self-construal may comprise the more culturally sensitive aspects of the construct. Despite indications that the relational component of the interdependent self-construal may operate independently of the assumed cross-cultural difference (Cross et al., 2000; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002), I originally included the RISC scale in the study design to create a more comprehensive definition of the construct. 63 Table 4 Mean Scores on Interdependent Self-construal Measures Western Korean Measure M SD M SD ES {d) Singelis-Inter SC 56.41 8.03 60.18 7.13 0.50 Takata-Inter SC 44.79 8.56 48.18 7.34 0.43 YCS-collectivism 22.86 4.41 23.93 4.57 0.24 Beck-Soc 62.15 16.28 67.55 14.70 0.35 RISC 54.60 9.85 53.63 7.83 0.11 Note. Singelis-Inter SC= Singelis Interdependent Self-construal subscale; Takata-Inter SC= Takata Interdependent Self-construal subscale; YCS-collectivism= Yamaguchi Collectivism Scale- collectivism subscale; Beck-Soc= Beck Sociotropy scale; RISC=Relational Interdependent Self-construal Scale. Assumption 3: Group differences on East Asian social values measures In support of the 3 r d assumption, Table 5 suggests that, when compared to their Western counterparts, Koreans maintain a greater fear of losing face (t(499)= -11.70, p<0.0001), hold more self-critical orientations (t(499)= -5.43, pO.OOOl), and view their self-identity as more inconsistent across situations (t(499)= 13.23, p<0.0001). Although both subscales of the Revised Self-Monitoring scale revealed significant group differences, the differences lay in a direction opposite to that predicted. Specifically, the results suggest Westerners tend to view themselves as more adept at modifying their self-presentation (t(499= 5.44, p < 0.0001) and as more sensitive to the expressive behaviours of others (t(499= 5.62, p < 0.0001). 64 Table 5 Mean Scores on East Asian Social Values Measures Western Korean Measure M SD M SD_ ES (d) LOF 82:85 18.63 100.49 14.92 1.05 DEQ-self-criticism 111.98 19.64 120.48 15.12 0.50 ICI 78.70 14.28 60.53 16.39 1.30 RSMS-AMSP 22.78 5.87 20.14 4.92 0.49 RSMS-SEBO 21.50 - 4.19 19.29 4.59 0.50 Note. LOF= Loss of Face scale; DEQ-self-criticism= Depressive Experiences Questionnaire-sell-criticism subscale; ICI= Identity Consistency Index; RSMS-AMSP= Revised Self-Monitoring Scale-Ability to Modify Self-presentation; RSMS-SEBO= Revised Self-Monitoring Scale-Sensitivity to the Expressive Behaviours of Others. Overall the data appear to support the specified assumptions and to signal an analysis of how these constructs are related and how relations among these constructs may differ across the two samples. Prior to describing results from the structural equation modeling analysis, a brief introduction to structural equation modeling and a review of the current study's aims are presented. Structural Equation Modeling: Background Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a statistical technique that models relations among directly observed variables and latent constructs (i.e., factors). S E M uses data to test a set of relations (i.e., model) that is specified a priori and that is usually based on theoretical expectations. Unlike other, more exploratory statistical procedures, S E M offers the 65 advantage of specifying directionality among variable relations. Thus, S E M takes a confirmatory approach to data analyses by evaluating the consistency of the proposed structural model with the relations demonstrated by the study sample. When constructing a model for S E M analysis, several conventional symbols are used to delineate variables and their relations with one another. Traditionally, latent variables or constructs are denoted by ovals, whereas measured or observed variables are marked by squares or rectangles. For example, in the current study, the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory-Social Phobia subscale is one of the measured or observed variables selected to tap the Western Social Anxiety construct (see Figure 3). Arrows are used to denote relations among the variables; a double-headed arrow indicates covariance between two variables whereas a single-headed arrow specifies one variable as predicting another. One common method to approaching a SEM analysis is the testing of two separate models: the measurement model and the structural model. Also known as the two-step approach, the first step is to evaluate the measurement model and determine whether the measures reflect their intended constructs. Within the measurement model, the latent variables are each defined by the variance shared among its indicators (i.e., observed variables); variance unique to each indicator is not assigned to the latent variable but is instead labeled as measurement error. By investigating whether the specified indicators load well onto their respective factors, the measurement model serves a test of discriminant and convergent validity. Indicators that do not converge onto their intended constructs or do not load differentially onto the hypothesized latent variables will reduce the viability or fit of the model. 66 If the measurement model fails to fit well with the sample data, the model is then re-specified using exploratory post-hoc procedures. Given that differences in the factorial structure of the measurement model may exist across the two samples, the original model is tested with each sample separately. If the original model holds for both samples, then subsequent tests of measurement invariance across the groups are conducted. If the proposed model does not hold well for one or both of our samples, the model is modified for each sample separately. After the best-fitting model is found for each sample, tests of measurement invariance can be conducted on portions of the models that overlap and are the same in structure. When multiple groups are investigated, S E M offers the ability to test whether the specified measurement model is invariant across the groups. Establishing measurement invariance is prerequisite to understanding measured group differences; i f the selected measures tap different constructs or operate according to a different metric, scores on the measures cannot be justifiably compared among the tested groups. As in the current study, cross-cultural research is particularly prone to questions related to measurement invariance. When conducting an S E M analysis, the following levels of measurement invariance can be established by testing the measurement model across the studied groups: 1) configural invariance and 2) metric invariance (for review see Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998). Configural invariance relates to the structure of the measurement model and addresses the degree to which the proposed model fits well with the groups being tested. Within an S E M context, configural invariance marks the least stringent form of measurement invariance and demands only the following be established: 1) a measurement model that specifies zero-loadings on non-target factors by the indicators fits well for all 67 groups being tested; 2) the indicators hold significant and substantial loadings onto their intended factors; and 3) correlations between factors in the model are not indicative of multicollinearity and the factors are justifiably different and show discriminant validity with one another. When configural invariance is established, the only equality constraint is that the indicators do not load onto the non-target factors (i.e., zero-loading) for each group. Given that the magnitude of the loadings of the indicators onto their intended factors (i.e., non-zero loading) is not tested as equal, the researcher can only conclude that the factor structure is similar for each group and cannot argue that the groups are responding to the indicators in the same way. Metric invariance among the tested groups allows meaningful comparison of relative between-group differences on the indicators. In essence, metric invariance indicates the measures hold equal metrics or scale intervals for the tested groups. Within an S E M context, metric invariance is tested by constraining salient (i.e., non-zero) factor loadings to be equal for each tested group. Following adequate testing of the measurement model, tests of the structural model are conducted to examine the ways in which the latent variables relate to one another by assessing how closely the actual data overlap with the theoretically-driven models. The structural model provides maximum flexibility in modeling relations among the variables and allows the simultaneous estimation and evaluation of both the measurement and structural portions of the model. Within a multi-group study, tests of invariance, similar to those conducted with the measurement model, can be conducted on the structural portions of the model, in which path coefficients are constrained as equal across groups. Assuming 68 measurement invariance is already established, evidence of structural invariance suggests the factors relate similarly to one another across the tested groups. Study Objectives The present study examines reasons for East Asian reports of higher social anxiety and specifies three explanations to be tested in a step-wise manner. The first explanation argues that self-report measures of social anxiety, self-construal, and traits typically valued by East Asian cultures (i.e., self-criticism, face-saving, self-monitoring, and self-flexibility) overlap and do not represent separable factors; thus, social anxiety ratings may inherently include self-views and social beliefs that feature more prominently in East Asian contexts. The second explanation builds on findings related to the first explanation. If results indicate the measures do not overlap and, instead, distinctly reflect the factors of Independent Self-construal, Interdependent Self-construal, Western Social Anxiety, and East Asian Social Values then the analysis moves to examine whether a direct relationship exists between self-construal variables and Western Social Anxiety. The second explanation suggests cross-cultural differences in self-views help account for social anxiety ratings. Tests of the third explanation are contingent upon evidence suggesting views of the self predict social anxiety. To the extent that a relationship between self-construal and social anxiety is supported, it may be that East Asian-endorsed traits, beliefs, and attitudes (East Asian Social Values) mediate this relationship. Support for the third explanation would suggest that aspects of an individual's self-view that are related to East Asian Social Values drive the relationship between self-construal and social anxiety. 69 Proposed Models Models were developed to address the study's three explanations for cross-cultural differences in social anxiety expression. Proposed relationships among the measured and latent variables are first presented as a measurement model and are then tested as a full structural model, in which the directionalities of hypothesized variable relations are depicted. Measurement Model As shown in Figure 3, the measurement model specifies four different latent constructs or variables that covary: Western Social Anxiety, Independent Self-construal, Interdependent Self-construal, and East Asian Social Values. As indicated by the one-sided arrows, each of these constructs is defined by a set of measures or indicators. The smaller circles denote the variance unique to each indicator and are treated as measurement error. Each substantive construct (i.e., big circle) is formed by the shared variance of its indicators. The Social Phobia Scale, the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory-social phobia scale, and the Social Avoidance and Distress Scale are used to reflect Western Social Anxiety. The subscales of the Beck Sociotropy-Autonomy Scale, the Collectivism Scale, and the Takata and Singelis Self-Construal scales represent their respective self-construal constructs. In addition to these measures, the Relational Interdependent Self-Construal Scale was selected as a measure of Interdependent Self-construal. The variable East Asian Social Values is defined by measures of self-criticism (i.e., Depressive Experiences Questionnaire-self criticism subscale), face-saving (i.e., Loss of Face scale), self-monitoring (Revised Self-Monitoring Scale) and self-flexibility (i.e., Identity Consistency index). Evaluations of the measurement model help address the first explanation for higher social anxiety ratings among East Asians. Specifically, it may be that (Western) social 70 anxiety measures, self-construal measures and East Asian Social Values measures hold poor convergent and discriminant validity, suggesting they do not adequately capture the proposed factors and may reflect factors that are indistinguishable from one another. If, however, the model factors are tenable then tests of group invariance will assess whether the measures operate similarly across the two samples and whether tests of the structural model are defensible. Structural Model Figure 4 displays proposed relations among the latent constructs. Consistent with the aims of the study, Western Social Anxiety is depicted as the outcome or dependent variable and is not predicted to influence any of the other latent variables within the model. The structural model outlines different pathways by which the Interdependent Self-Construal, Independent Self-Construal and East Asian Social Values variables may relate to the end point of Western Social Anxiety and accounts for the remaining two explanations offered by the study. One explanation is that the way an individual views the self in relation to others (i.e., self-construal) is directly related to social anxiety ratings. This model suggests greater internalization of an interdependent self-construal in combination with decreased acceptance of an independent self construal predicts increased endorsement of social anxiety symptoms. The remaining or third explanation forwarded by the study elaborates on the relationship between self-construal variables and social anxiety. This explanation posits the self-construal-social anxiety relationship is mediated by social traits and behaviours characteristically endorsed by East Asian cultures. The proposed mediation model accounts for the possibility that higher levels of social anxiety found among East Asians may result 71 from perceptions of social anxiety symptoms as more normative and consistent with social rules and values typifying East Asian cultures and that these rules and values are more likely to be adopted by individuals who endorse less independent and more interdependent views of themselves. 72 Figure 3. A Priori Measurement Model. Note. Singelis-Inter= Singelis Interdependent Self-construal subscale; Takata-Inter = Takata Interdependent Self-construal subscale; YCS-collectivism= Yamaguchi Collectivism Scale- collectivism subscale; B -Sociotropy= Beck Sociotropy scale; RISC=Relational Interdependent Self-construal Scale; Singelis-Ind = Singelis Independent Self-construal subscale; Takata-Ind = Takata Independent Self-construal subscale; C-assert= Yamaguchi Collectivism Scale-assertiveness subscale; C-agency= Yamaguchi Collectivism Scale-agency subscale; Bieling-Ind=Bieling Independence subfactor; SPS= Social Phobia Scale; SPAI= Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory-social phobia scale; SAD= Social Avoidance and Distress scale; LOF= Loss of Face scale; DEQ-SC= Depressive Experiences Questionnaire-sell-criticism subscale; ICI= Identity Consistency Index; RSMS-AMSP= Revised Self-Monitoring Scale-Ability to Modify Self-presentation; R S M S - S E B O Revised Self-Monitoring Scale-Sensitivity to the Expressive Behaviours of Others. 73 Figure 4. A Priori Structural Model Model Evaluation Conventionally, the first step in evaluating the fit of a model is to compute a % statistic with the null hypothesis being that the proposed model fits the data. Thus, a % that is non-significant at a p-level less than 0.05 suggests the model fits the data well. This hypothesis testing situation presents a particular dilemma when applying S E M procedures. Chi-square values are largely dependent upon sample size and S E M requires relatively large sample sizes for the results to be considered valid (Boomsma, 1987; Joreskog, 1993). Although rejection of the null hypothesis is undesired because it indicates poor fit, the x 2 test may declare minor or trivial differences between the fitted covariance matrix and the sample covariance matrix to be statistically significant solely as a function of large sample size. The shortcomings of the %2 test statistic have led to the development of several 74 different overall fit indices that attempt to account for the effect of sample size. The current study included the following fit indices provided by A M O S to assess the fit of specified models: j^/df ratio, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), the Normed Fit index (NFI), the Incremental Fit index (IFI) and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). SEM Analysis: Measurement Model Evaluation Tests of the measurement model assess whether the observed indicators converge and hold salient loadings on their target latent variable and whether the indicators show zero loadings on their non-target factors. In the present study, participants completed self-report measures thought to tap one of the following latent variables: Independent Self-construal, Interdependent Self-construal, Western Social Anxiety, and East Asian Social Values. Internal Consistency Prior to conducting S E M procedures, I examined the internal consistency of the measures for both samples. Of note, given that the Identity Consistency Index is scored using factor analytic procedures, coefficient alphas could not be calculated for the measure. As shown in Table 6, coefficient alphas for all other selected measures fell within an acceptable range (i.e., alpha >.64) and were similar across the two cultural groups. Although each measure evidenced moderate to high internal consistency, the possibility remained that the measures selected for each factor, despite the intentions of their design, did not reflect the same underlying construct. Table 6 75 Internal Consistency of Measures Western Korean Measure Cronbach Alphas Western Social Anxiety Social Phobia Scale SPAI-social phobia scale Social Avoidance and Distress Independent Self-construal Singelis-Ind SC Takata-Ind SC C- assertiveness C-agency Bieling-Independence Interdependent Self-construal Singelis-Inter SC Takata-Inter SC YCS-collectivism Beck-Sociotropy Scale Relational Inter SC scale East Asian Social Values .92 .97 .94 .67 .78 .74 .76 .77 .65 .78 .76 .89 .86 .94 .97 .85 .64 .83 .65 .70 .78 .72 .76 .77 .89 .82 Loss of Face Scale .87 .85 76 Western Korean Measure Cronbach Alphas DEQ-self-criticism .80 .72 RSMS-AMSP .83 .79 RSMS -SEBO .77 .82 Note. SPAI = Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory; Ind-SC= Independent Self-construal; Inter SC= Interdependent Self-construal; DEQ-self-criticism= Depressive Experiences Questionnaire-sell-criticism subscale; RSMS -AMSP= Revised Self-Monitoring Scale-Ability to Modify Self-presentation; RSMS - S E B O Revised Self-Monitoring Scale-Sensitivity to the Expressive Behaviours of Others. Confirmatory Factor Analysis The similarly high reliability estimates across the two samples allowed the opportunity to test, using S E M procedures, whether the measures converged to form their intended constructs. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) began by evaluating the fit of the original measurement model (see Figure 3), which included indicators of all latent variables. The model was assessed by testing the significance of the %2 value and examining values of various goodness-of-fit indices provided by A M O S . For the Western sample, the model proved a poor fit (%2 (129)= 657.6; p<0.0001) and yielded the following fit indices: X 2/df = 5.10; CFI=0.74, GFI=0.76, IFI=0.74, NFI=0.70, RMSEA= 0.13. These values fall far from the suggested criteria of 3.0 for the x2/df ratio, 0.95 or higher for the CFI, GFI, NFI and IFI, and 0.05 or lower for the RMSEA; these criteria are used to signal high overlap between the hypothesized model and relations observed within the sample data. For the Korean sample, the model not only fell well below the suggested fit criteria (x2 (129)= 660.5; p<0.001; x2/df = 5.10; CFI= 0.71, GFI= 0.76, NFI=0.70, IFI= 0.71, RMSEA= 0.13) but also failed to produce an admissible solution (i.e., non-positive definite covariance matrix). 77 The poor C F A model fit suggests that the hypothesized factor structure does not adequately capture the samples' data and that various measures within the model may not have sufficient construct validity. Given the high number of variables in the original measurement model, I conducted a more in-depth validity analysis of the constructs by examining the inter-correlations and factor structures of the measures. Removing measures that failed to demonstrate adequate convergent and discriminant validity would help re-specify the model and gain a clearer picture of what factors appear to be distinct for both cultural groups. To the extent that a theoretically defensible model remained, the model would then be tested for measurement equivalence across the two samples. Failure to find a theoretically viable measurement model or failure to support measurement invariance of the re-specified model would preclude tests of the structural model and the remaining two explanations of the study. Inter-correlations of Measures The inter-correlations of all administered measures are shown in Table 7; the inter-correlations for the Western sample are highlighted in grey. Measures of Western Social Anxiety and Independent Self-construal show similarly high to moderate correlations with measures of the same factor for both cultural groups. The Interdependent Self-construal and East Asian Social Values measures appear, however, to cohere less well with one another and discriminate more poorly against measures of alternate factors. Although the directions of the inter-correlations were similar across the two groups, the Interdependent Self-construal and Western Social Anxiety factors and the indicators comprising East Asian Social Values appeared to be more distinct for the Korean sample than the Western sample. First, despite the fact that, across the cultural groups, the Takata 78 Interdependent Self-construal scale and Beck Sociotropy scale evidenced stronger relations with one another than that that found with or between other Interdependent Self-construal measures, the Korean sample evidenced greater convergence among the Interdependent Self-construal measures than the Western sample. Second, the Korean sample held lower inter-correlations among measures of East Asian Social Values than the Western sample, which may suggest greater sensitivity to differences among the represented constructs .(i.e., self-criticism, self-flexibility, face-saving concerns, self-monitoring). Finally, the inter-correlations between measures of Interdependent Self-construal and Western Social Anxiety, East Asian Social Values and Western Social Anxiety, and Interdependent Self-construal and East Asian Social Values were higher for the Western sample, which suggests features of these factors may overlap more highly for Westerners than for Koreans. The correlation analysis points to convergent and discriminant validity concerns, particularly with measures of Interdependent Self-construal and East Asian Social Values, that may be driving the poor fit of the original measurement model. To better address the possibility that social anxiety ratings overlap with and include features tapped by Interdependent Self-construal and East Asian Social Values measures, a factor analyses testing the measures' convergent and discriminant validity were conducted. Results from the correlation analysis are further reviewed, when relevant, within the context of the factor analyses findings. Table 7 Inter-correlations of Measures 79 80 Factor Analyses of Measures Along with post-hoc model re-specification processes runs the potential risk of capitalizing on chance factors that are driven by characteristics of a particular sample. One approach to addressing problems associated with multiple post-hoc model specifications is to use a cross-validation strategy. When employing a cross-validation strategy, a final model is derived from post-hoc analyses with one independent sample. This final model is then tested on a second independent sample from the same population. If the final model fits well with the validation sample, it serves as confirmatory evidence for the viability of model. Given that alternate independent samples for the Koreans and Westerners were not available, I randomly split each sample into two (Korean Sample A : n=125, Korean Sample B: n=126; Western Sample A : n=125, Western Sample B: n=125). Sample A from each ethnic group served as a calibration sample that underwent exploratory factor analytic procedures to re-specify the original model. The re-specified model was then tested on the validation sample (i.e., Sample B) of each ethnic group by using the later described invariance testing procedures described below (Byrne, 2001). The validity analysis began by subjecting indicators of each latent variable to an exploratory factor analysis thus, investigating the degree to which the indicators represented a single, identifiable factor. Subsequent to the initial one-factor analyses, further factor analyses were conducted to assess the discriminant validity of the indicators. Factor solutions were comprised of factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and were confirmed by examining the scree plots of each analysis. For multiple factor solutions, it was expected that the identified factors would likely correlate with one another and, accordingly, an oblique rotation method to extract the factors 81 (i.e., Promax with Kaiser normalization method) was employed. Given the assumption that the measures likely correlate with one another, an indicator with multiple substantive cross-loadings was retained when the highest loading fell on the intended latent variable and was markedly higher than its other loadings. Factor loadings that were greater than 0.40 were considered substantive and are shown in boldface type. Convergent Validity Analysis Western Social Anxiety Factor analyses of the Social Phobia Scale, Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory, and Social Avoidance and Distress scale revealed all three indicators loaded highly onto a single factor for both samples. Factor loadings for each social anxiety indicator are presented in Table 8. The suggested underlying social anxiety factor accounted for 83.2% of the variance for the Western sample and 74.9% of the variance for the Korean sample. Table 8 Convergent Validity Analysis: Western Social Anxiety Measures Factor Loadings Measure Western Korean SPS .91 .84 SPAI-sp .94 .90 SAD .89 .74 Note. SPS= Social Phobia Scale; SPAI-sp= Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory-social phobia scale; SAD= Social Avoidance and Distress scale. Independent Self-Construal As shown in Table 9, the selected independent self-construal indicators converged and formed a single factor solution. The Independent Self-construal factor accounted for 82 59.2% of the variance for the Western sample and 61.3% of the variance for the Korean sample. Table 9 Convergent Validity Analysis: Independent Self-Construal Measures Factor Loadings Measure Western Korean Singelis-Ind SC .79 .75 Takata-Ind SC .80 .87 Bieling-Ind .79 .82 C- assertiveness .77 .66 C-agency .69 .68 Note. Singelis-Ind SC= Singelis Independent Self-construal subscale; Takata-Ind SC= Takata Independent Self-construal subscale; Bieling-Ind SC= Bieling Independent/ achievement f actor from Beck Autonomy scale; C-assertiveness= Yamaguchi Collectivism Scale-assertiveness subscale; C-agency= Yamaguchi Collectivism Scale-agency subscale. Interdependent Self-Construal Results from factor analyses of the interdependent self-construal indicators indicated a 2-factor solution best fit the data for each sample (see Table 10). The first factor accounted for 45.4%o of the variance for the Western sample and 52.3% of the variance for the Korean sample, whereas the second factor accounted for 24.1% of the variance for the Western sample and 21.3% of the variance for the Korean sample. As shown in Table 10, the Y C S -collectivism subscale fell onto a second, separable factor and did not load onto the first factor formed by the other measures. The Singelis-Interdependent subscale also loaded highly onto 83 the second factor but, unlike the YCS-collectivism subscale, showed adequate loading onto the first factor formed by the other indicators. The Relational Interdependent Self-construal scale showed near equal loadings on both factors for both samples. Although the observed factor structure was similar across the two samples, results from the correlation analysis suggested that the measures cohered to a greater degree for the Korean sample than for the Western sample (see Table 7). Table 10 Convergent Validity Analysis: Interdependent Self-Construal Measures Factor Loadings Measure Western Korean Singelis-Inter SC .41 .84 .49 .89 Takata-Inter SC .89 .23 .90 .34 Beck-Soc .91 .23 .88 .47 YCS-collectivism 03 .85 .28 .88 RISC .44 .50 .62 .68 Note. Singelis-Inter SC= Singelis Interdependent Self-construal subscale;. Takata-Inter SC= Takata Interdependent Self-construal subscale; YCS-collectivism= Yamaguchi Collectivism Scale- collectivism subscale; Beck-Soc= Beck Sociotropy scale; RISC=Relational Interdependent Self-construal Scale. East Asian Social Values Using an eigenvalue criterion of 1.0 to assess the factor structure of the East Asian social values data, the results suggested a 2-factor solution best fit both samples. As shown in Table 11, the Revised Self-Monitoring subscales (i.e., Ability to Monitor Self-presentation 84 and Sensitivity to the Expressive Behaviors of Others) formed a factor separate from the other indicators. Although, for both cultural groups, the Revised Self-Monitoring subscales emerged as a distinct factor, separate from the other East Asian Social Values indicators, the factor structure differed between the two samples. The self-monitoring factor formed the first East Asian Social Values factor for the Korean sample and the second factor for the Western sample. Given that these scales failed to converge with the other indicators for both samples and indicated group differences opposite to the predicted direction, they were dropped as indicators of the East Asian Social Values construct for all subsequent analyses. For the Western sample, the 2-factor solution accounted for 62.69% of the variance, with the self-monitoring factor accounting for 2539% of the variance. For the Korean sample, the two-factor solution accounted for 55.21% of the variance; the self-monitoring factor accounted for 31.28% of the variance. Table 11 Convergent Validity Analysis: East Asian Social Values Measures Factor Loadings Measure Western Korean LOF .69 -.18 -.05 .50 DEQ-self-criticism .78 -.08 .08 .72 ICI -.79 .12 -.20 -.75 RSMS-AMSP -.21 .84 .85 .05 RSMS-SEBO -.08 .84 .85 .14 Note. LOF= Loss of Face scale; DEQ-self-criticism= Depressive Experiences Questionnaire-sell-criticism subscale; ICI= Identity Consistency Index; RSMS-AMSP= Revised Self-Monitoring Scale-Ability to Modify Self-presentation; RSMS-SEBO= Revised Self-Monitoring Scale-Sensitivity to the Expressive Behaviours of Others. 85 Convergent Validity Analysis: Summary of Findings The preceding factor analyses suggested that the majority of the chosen indicators converged to measure their intended latent variables. Measures of Independent Self-construal and Western Social Anxiety loaded highly onto and accounted for a substantial portion of the variance of their respective factors. The East Asian Social Values and Interdependent Self-construal indicators produced, however, factor solutions that were contrary to prediction. For both samples, the Revised Self-Monitoring subscales emerged as a distinct factor, separate from the other East Asian Social Values indicators and appeared to fail as an appropriate measure of the intended construct. The Interdependent Self-construal construct unexpectedly held a 2-factor structure. The factor solution suggested the YCS-collectivism subscale, the Singelis interdependent self-construal subscale, and, to a lesser degree, the Relational interdependent self-construal scale formed a factor separate from that formed by the other interdependent self-construal measures. With the exception of the YCS-collectivism subscale, the indicators did show, however, substantive loadings (i.e., estimates greater than .40) on the first factor. To further evaluate the nature of the Interdependent Self-construal construct, all interdependent self-construal measures were included in the discriminant validity analysis. I assessed whether the 2-factor solution remained when indictors of other factors were included in the analysis and examined the ways in which Interdependent Self-construal measures of each implicated factor related to the other study measures. Discriminant Validity Analysis. Taking a step-by-step approach to assessing the discriminant validity of the selected indicators, analysis began by entering indicator combinations that represented two latent 86 variables only. Holding the assumption that the latent variables are not orthogonal, I did not expect the indicators to lack relations with alternate latent variables but only to have higher loadings on the intended factor. Interdependent Self-construal and Independent Self-construal. Factor analysis of the combined independent self-construal and interdependent self-construal measures produced a 3-factor solution, of similar structure, for both samples, which accounted for 68.5% of the Western sample variance and 10.9% of the Korean sample variance. As shown in Table 12, the independent self-construal indicators converged to form a single identifiable factor for both samples and accounted for 39.4% of the variance for the Western sample and 42.5% of the variance for the Korean sample. Despite evidence for convergent validity, the data appeared to suggest the YCS-independence subscales may hold poorer discriminant validity when compared to the other independent self-construal indicators. The YCS-independence subscales (i.e., C-agency, C-assertiveness) cross-loaded to a near equal degree onto the other identified factors and varied in the pattern of their cross-loadings across the two samples. The remaining two factors appeared to each reflect the intended Interdependent Self-construal variable for both samples. As shown in Table 12, the Singelis Interdependent Self-construal subscale and the Relational Interdependent Self-construal scale held substantial cross-loadings on each interdependent self-construal factor but varied in relative estimate sizes for each factor and for each sample. Similar to the convergent validity analysis findings, across the two samples, the YCS-collectivism subscale loaded primarily on one factor, whereas the Takata and Beck scales loaded primarily on another. 87 Table 12 Discriminant Validity Analysis: Independent and Interdependent Self-construal Measure Western Factor Loadings Korean Ind SC Inter SC Inter SC Ind SC Inter SC Inter SC Singelis-Inter SC -.19 .40 .82 -.03 .55 . .83 Takata-Inter SC -.38 .86 .22 -.31 .88 .30 Beck-Sociotropy -.33 .88 ' .25 -.40 .83 .47 YCS-collectivism -.39 -.03 .82 -.40 .31 .88 RISC .22 .49 .54 .08 .71 .40 Singelis-Ind SC .79 -.28 -.09 .85 -.18 -.06 Takata-Ind SC .79 -.09 -.32 .86 -.18 -.31 Bieling-Ind SC .74 -.25 -.23 .79 -.44 -.24 C- assertiveness .73 • -.24 -.60 .49 -.50 -.53 C-agency .69 -.40 -.13 .56 -.27 -.62 Note. Inter SC= Interdependent Self-construal; Ind SC= Independent Self-construal; YCS-collectivism= Yamaguchi Collectivism Scale- collectivism subscale; RISC=Relational Interdependent Self-construal Scale; C-assertiveness = Yamaguchi Collectivism Scale-assertiveness subscale; C-agency= Yamaguchi Collectivism Scale-agency subscale. Interdependent Self-construal and Western Social Anxiety Although the combination of the interdependent self-construal indicators with the Western social anxiety indicators revealed a two factor solution for both samples, the factor 88 structure differed between the two samples. The first Western sample factor, accounting for 41.0% of the variance, appeared to reflect the Western Social Anxiety factor whereas the first Korean sample factor, accounting for 43.5% of the variance, appeared to capture the Interdependent Self-construal factor. The indicators of the interdependent self-construal factor also behaved differently in the relative strength of their cross-loadings for each sample. As shown in Table 13, the Takata interdependent self-construal subscale and the Beck sociotropy scale loaded more highly on the social anxiety factor than on the interdependent self-construal factor for the Western sample. In contrast, for the Korean sample, the Takata and Beck scales converged with the other Interdependent Self-construal indicators and held lower cross-loadings on the Western Social Anxiety factor. The findings are consistent with the inter-correlation analysis, which suggested greater convergence among the Interdependent Self-construal indicators for the Korean sample. Despite evidence suggesting convergence of the Interdependent Self-construal indicators onto a single factor, the relatively high cross-loadings of the Takata and Beck scales and relatively low cross-loadings of the other interdependent self-construal indicators onto the Western Social Anxiety factor, again, indicated a lack of coherence among the measures. The poor discriminant validity of the Takata interdependent self-construal scale and the Beck sociotropy scale (particularly for the Western sample) suggested possible overlap with features defining the Western Social Anxiety factor. 89 Table 13 Discriminant Validity Analysis: Interdependent Self-construal and Western Social Anxiety Factor Loadings Western Korean Measure Social Anxiety Inter SC Inter SC Social Anxiety Singelis-Inter SC Takata-Inter SC Beck-Sociotropy YCS-collectivism RISC .11. .65 .72 -.05 .08 .84 .53 .53 .65 .63 .82 .68 .75 .68 .77 -.01 .33 .51 .22 .01 SPS SPAI-sp SAD .88 .90 .83 .01 .05 -.04 .30 .32 -.11 .83 .89 .74 Note. Inter SC= Interdependent Self-construal; YCS-collectivism= Yamaguchi Collectivism Scale- collectivism subscale; RISC=ReIational Interdependent Self-construal Scale; SPS= Social Phobia Scale; SPAI-sp= Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory-social phobia scale; SAD= Social Avoidance and Distress scale. Interdependent Self-construal and East Asian Social Values As shown in Table 14, combining Interdependent Self-construal measures with the East Asian Social Values measures produced a 2-factor solution for both samples. Although the identified factors resembled the intended Interdependent Self-construal and East Asian Social Values variables, the factor solutions produced for each sample differed in factor structure and the indicators that comprised each factor. 90 For the Western sample, the Takata and Beck scales, again, showed poor discriminant validity. The first identified factor, accounting for 36.8% of the variance, was defined by the Takata Interdependent Self-construal scale, the Beck-Sociotropy scale and all the East Asian Social Values indicators (i.e., Loss of Face scale, DEQ-self-criticism scale, Identity Consistency Index). The second Western sample factor accounted for 23.1% of the variance and held substantive loadings from the remaining interdependent self-construal indicators as well as from the DEQ-self-criticism scale. Unexpectedly, the DEQ-self-criticism scale loaded negatively, and the Identity consistency index, to a lesser degree, loaded positively onto the second factor. These findings contradict predictions of a positive relationship between self-criticism and interdependence and of a negative relationship between self-consistency and interdependence. For the Korean sample, the first factor, which accounted for 39.2% of the variance, carried high loadings from all the Interdependent Self-construal scales and the Loss of Face scale whereas the second factor, which accounted for 17.1% of the variance, was comprised of the Takata and Beck interdependent scales and the DEQ-self-criticism scale and Identity Consistency Index. The Takata and Beck scales loaded highly on both factors, providing further evidence of the scales' poor discriminant validity. Also, for the Korean sample, the YCS-collectivism scale held a negative (albeit small) loading on the second factor, which, similar to findings from the Western sample, stands at direct odds with predictions of a positive relationship between East Asian Social Values and Interdependent Self-construal indicators. In sum, the current analysis further challenged the proposed coherent, unitary structure of the Interdependent Self-construal construct for the two samples. The Takata and 91 Beck scales offered little discrimination with its relations to the East Asian Social Values indicators, which, similar to findings with Western Social Anxiety indicators, suggest marked overlap in features defining the target factors. By contrast, the Singelis Interdependent Self-construal scale and the YCS-collectivism subscale evidenced relations with the East Asian social values indicators that opposed theoretical prediction. Table 14 Discriminant Validity Analysis: Interdependent Self-construal and East Asian Social Values Factor Loadings Western Korean Measure 1 2 1 2 Singelis-Inter SC .24 .82 .82 -.03 Takata-Inter SC .81 .35 .67 .54 Beck-Sociotropy .77 .39 .74 .58 YCS-collectivism -.05 .74 .73 -.27 RISC .11 .60 .71 .14 Loss of Face .76 .23 .60 .29 DEQ-self-criticism .68 -.40 .15 .76 ICI -.70 .32 -.006 -.66 Note. Inter SC= Interdependent Self-construal; YCS-collectivism= Yamaguchi Collectivism Scale- collectivism subscale; RISC=Relational Interdependent Self-construal Scale; DEQ-self-criticism= Depressive Experiences Questionnaire-sell-criticism subscale; IC1= Identity Consistency Index. 92 Independent Self-construal and Western Social Anxiety Indicators of the Western Social Anxiety variable converged to form a factor separate from that formed by the Independent Self-construal indicators for both samples. Although the order of the factors differed, the indicator loading patterns and estimates for each factor were highly similar between the samples. Also, in line with expectations, the Independent Self-construal indicators related negatively with social anxiety indicators for both samples. As shown in Table 15, the Western Social Anxiety factor formed the first factor for the Western sample (50.7%, of the variance), and the second factor for the Korean sample (16.5% of the variance). The reverse was true for the Independent Self-construal factor, with its place as the second factor (18.22% of the variance) for the Western sample and as the first factor for the Korean sample (48.76% of the variance). Although substantive cross-loadings were indicated; all included indicators held the highest loadings on their intended factors. One exception appeared to be the Y C S scale-assertiveness subscale (C-assertiveness), which showed near equally high loadings on both factors across the samples. The finding is consistent with other factor analyses suggesting poor discriminant validity of the scale. 93 Table 15 Discriminant Validity Analysis: Independent Self-construal and Western Social Anxiety Factor Loadings Western Korean Measure Social Anxiety Ind SC Ind SC Social Anxiety Singelis-Ind SC Takata-Ind SC Bieling-Ind SC C- assertiveness C-agency .48 .45 .38 .24 .62 .76 .82 .82 .79 .63 .74 .86 .83 .69 .66 -.43 -38 -.37 -.14 -.47 SPS SPAI-sp SAD .90 .91 .89 -.36 -.49 -.37 -37 -.53 .21 .81 .89 .77 Note. Ind SC= Independent Self-construal; C-assertiveness= Yamaguchi Collectivism Scale-assertiveness subscale; C-agency= Yamaguchi Collectivism Scale-agency subscale; SPS= Social Phobia Scale; SPAI-sp= Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory-social phobia scale; SAD= Social Avoidance and Distress scale. Independent Self-construal and East Asian Social Values As shown in Table 16, subjecting all Independent Self-construal and East Asian Social Values indicators to a single factor analysis produced a 2-factor solution that was similar in structure for both samples. Each factor appeared to reflect one of the intended constructs and carried the expected indicators. The Western sample factor solution 94 accounted for 60.4% of the variance whereas the Korean sample factor solution accounted for 55.7%o of the variance. The first factor for both samples represented Independent Self-construal, with all independent self-construal measures converging onto the first factor (Western: 43.2% of the variance; Korean: 41.2% of the variance) and holding nominal cross-loadings onto the second. The second factor, representing the East Asian Social Values variable, held high loadings from the DEQ- self-criticism scale and the Identity Consistency Index. Contrary to prediction, however, the Loss of Face scale appeared to affiliate more highly with the first factor (i.e., Independent Self-construal). The indicated poor convergent and discriminant validity of the Loss of Face scale is similar to findings of the factor analysis combining East Asian Social Values indicators with Interdependent Self-construal indicators. 95 Table 16 Discriminant Validity Analysis: Independent Self-construal and East Asian Social Values Factor Loadings Western Korean Measure IndSC E A S Y Ind SC E A S Y Singelis-Ind SC Takata-Ind SC Bieling-Ind SC C- assertiveness C-agency .75 .84 .78 .69 .68 ,07 .22 .17 .15 .40 .74 .83 .78 .70 .68 -.02 -.05 -.12 .09 -.15 Loss of Face DEQ-self-criticism ICI -.60 -.15 .22 .17 .79 .77 -.56 -.02 .11 .17 .81 -.72 Note. EASV= East Asian Social Values; Ind SC= Independent Self-construal; C-assertiveness= Yamaguchi Collectivism Scale-assertiveness subscale; C-agency= Yamaguchi Collectivism Scale-agency subscale; DEQ-self-criticism= Depressive Experiences Questionnaire-sell-criticism subscale; ICI= Identity Consistency Index. Western Social Anxiety and East Asian Social Values As shown in Table 17, factor analysis of the combination of East Asian Social Values and Western Social Anxiety indicators confirmed a two-factor solution that reflected the intended constructs. A similar factor structure across the two samples was found; the first Western Social Anxiety factor accounted for 58.2% of the Western sample variance and 44.7% of the Korean sample variance, whereas the second East Asian Social Values factor 96 accounted for 15.5% of the Western variance and 16.9% of the Korean variance. Nearly all the indicators showed substantive cross-loadings on their non-measured factor but held the highest loadings on their intended factor. The Loss of Face scale acted as the one exception. The scale failed to converge with the other East Asian social values indicators (i.e., DEQ-self-criticism scale, Identity Consistency Index) and demonstrated the highest loading on the Western Social Anxiety factor for both samples. Results of the current and previous analyses including the Loss of Face scale suggest the scale may serve as a better measure of the Western Social Anxiety, Interdependent Self-construal and Independent Self-construal constructs than the intended East Asian Social Values construct. Table 17 Discriminant Validity Analysis: Western Social Anxiety and East Asian Social Values Factor Loadings Western Korean Measure Social Anxiety E A S V Social Anxiety E A S V SPS .88 .44 .82 .47 SPAI-sp .94 .45 .89 .41 SAD .86 .46 .74 .17 Loss of Face .78 .34 .66 .10 DEQ-self-criticism .39 .85 .34 .71 ICI -.43 -.84 -.16 -.80 Note. SPS= Social Phobia Scale; SPAI-sp= Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory-social phobia scale; SAD= Social Avoidance and Distress scale; DEQ-self-criticism= Depressive Experiences Questionnaire-sell-criticism subscale; ICI= Identity Consistency Index. 97 Discriminant Validity Analysis: Summary of Findings Results from the discriminant validity analysis suggested the Interdependent Self-construal measures, the Loss of Face scale and the Y C S independence subscales failed to distinguish themselves as uniquely contributing to their intended factors and loaded, at times to a greater degree, onto non-target factors. Despite the poor discriminant validity of these measures, the Independent Self-Construal, East Asian Social Values, and Western Social Anxiety factors held indicators that distinctively tapped them as target factors. Moreover, the remaining factors represented a nested portion of the original model (see Figure 5), which preserved the theoretical defensibility of proceeding with tests of the remaining explanations offered by the study. The following sections briefly describe findings of the discriminant validity analysis for each of the factors included in the a priori measurement model. 98 Note. Singelis-Ind SC= Singelis Independent Self-construal subscale; Takata-Ind SC= Takata Independent Self-construal subscale; Bieling-Ind SC=Bieling Independence subfactor; SPS= Social Phobia Scale; SPAI-sp= Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory-social phobia scale; SAD= Social Avoidance and Distress scale; DEQ-SC= Depressive Experiences Questionnaire-sell-criticism subscale; ICI= Identity Consistency Index. 99 Interdependent Self-construal Similar to findings from the convergent validity analysis, the chosen Interdependent Self-Construal indicators failed to form a single, identifiable construct and, instead, consistently formed a 2-factor solution. The Takata and Beck scales, which formed one of the Interdependent Self-Construal factors, consistently held high cross-loadings onto the East Asian Social Values and Western Social Anxiety factors. The other Interdependent Self-Construal factor, formed by the Singelis Interdependent Self-construal scale, Y C S -collectivism scale, and the Relational Interdependent Self-construal scale, did not show such overlap with the non-target factors and evidenced unexpected relations with some of the non-target factor indicators (e.g., negative relationship with self-criticism). In addition, the Interdependent Self-Construal measures related with one another and with the other indicators to different degrees for the Western and Korean samples; the results suggested that Interdependent Self-Construal measures held better convergent and discriminant validity for the Korean sample. Independent Self-Construal Across all factor analyses, the independent self-construal measures served well in defining the Independent Self-construal construct. Unlike the other independent self-construal indicators, however, the agency and assertiveness subscales of the Yamaguchi Collectivism scale demonstrated signs of poor discriminant validity, as they often cross-loaded onto alternate factors at near equal degrees. In addition, the scales, at times, evidenced different factor loading patterns for the Westerners and Koreans, which questions their ability to tap the same construct across the two samples. 100 Western Social Anxiety In the presence of alternate indicators, the Western Social Anxiety indicators maintained good convergent validity and formed a separable factor across all analyses and for both samples. Despite evidence of cross-loadings onto alternate factors, the social anxiety measures carried their highest loadings on their intended factor and related to the alternate factors in the expected direction. East Asian Social Values Subsequent to the convergent validity analysis, only the DEQ-self criticism scale, the Loss of Face scale, and the Identity Consistency Index remained available for the discriminant validity analysis of the East Asian Social Values variable. Findings from the analysis suggested the Loss of Face scale as a poor measure of the construct. The Loss of Face scale consistently held higher or near equal loadings on alternate factors. Of particular note, when the East Asian Social Values indicators were combined with Western Social Anxiety indicators into a single factor analysis, the Loss of Face scale failed to converge with the other East Asian Social Values indicators and loaded most highly on the Western Social Anxiety factor for both samples. Construct Validity of the Measures? Partial support for the first explanation of the study is offered by the failure of the Takata and Beck Interdependent Self-construal measures, and the Loss of Face scale to discriminate against alternate factors in the model. In particular, the near equal or higher loadings of Interdependent Self-construal measures (i.e., Takata Interdependent Self-construal scale, Beck Sociotropy scale) and the Loss of Face scale Onto the Western Social 101 Anxiety factor suggest the social anxiety construct may include features considered socially advantageous within East Asian cultures. Findings supported the tenability of the Independent Self-construal, East Asian Social Values, and Western Social Anxiety factors. Measures remaining in the measurement model uniquely tapped their target factors and evidenced a similar factor structure across the two samples. Despite the exclusion of the Interdependent Self-construal factor and other factor measures, the culturally viable re-specified model held substantive theoretical meaning and offered a way to test the remaining two explanations for higher social anxiety ratings among the Koreans. Testing for Factorial Invariance Step 1: Establishing Baseline Measurement Models Given that a nested portion of the a priori measurement model evidence adequate convergent and discriminate validity, the possibility of evaluating how the remaining constructs related with one another was available. Prior to testing relations among the constructs, factorial invariance of the model variables was required. The process of establishing factorial invariance addresses issues of both measurement and structural equivalence. When assessing for measurement equivalence across different samples, the following questions are asked: 1) do the included measures similarly converge onto their target factors and discriminate against their non-target factors? (i.e., configural invariance) and 2) for each sample, do the measures load to a similar degree onto each of their respective factors? (i.e., metric invariance). Affirmative responses to the above questions would suggest the observed measures tap the same underlying constructs for each sample and hold 102 equal scale or metric intervals across samples. Investigations of structural equivalence focus on the degree to which structural paths between factors are group-equivalent. Traditionally, the first step towards establishing factorial invariance across multiple samples is to establish measurement models that best fit the data for each group being tested (for review see Byrne, Shavelson & Muthen, 1989). As previously mentioned, I randomly split the original Korean (n=251) and Western (n=250) samples in half. The first randomly split halves (Western Sample A : n=125; Korean Sample A: n=125) acted as the calibration samples and were subjected to exploratory factor analyses to re-specify the original model. The second randomly split halves served as the validation samples (Western Sample B: n=125; Korean Sample B: n=126) and were used to determine whether the re-specified model from the calibration samples could be replicated and confirmed. Upon testing the re-specified model (see Figure 5), the non-significant %2 values for Western Sample A (n= 125; %2 (17)=18.89; p> .34) and Korean Sample A (n=125; (17)=18.39; p> .37) suggested the re-specified model fit well for both calibration samples. Consistent with the %2 model test findings, the goodness-of-fit indices indicated an excellent fit with the sample data; as shown in Table 18, the x 2/df value fell below the 3.0 fit criterion, and the GFI, NFI, IFI, and CFI all exceeded the .95 criterion. The R M S E A value in combination with the PCLOSE values 1 (Western Sample A= .644; Korean Sample A= .672) also supported a close fit between the model and the observed sample data. 1 PCLOSE tests the null hypothesis that RMSEA is no greater than .05. If PCLOSE is less than .05, the null hypothesis is rejected and the computed RMSEA is likely greater than .05, which would indicate a lack of close fit. 103 Table 18 Goodness-of-Fit Indices for the Re-specified Measurement Model: Calibration Samples Fit Indices Western Sample A (n= 125) Korean x 2/df 1.11. 1.08 GFI .965 .965 NFI .960 .946 IFI .996 .996 CFI .996 .996 RMSEA .030 .026 Note. GFI= Goodness of Fit Index; NFI= Normed Fit Index; IFI= Incremental Fit Index; CFI= Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA= Root Mean Square Error of Approximation The next step taken was evaluating the fit of the re-specified model with the validation sample data of each ethnic group. Rather than testing the model with each validation sample, I ran an analysis that simultaneously tested the fit of the model for the validation and calibration samples of each ethnic group. Given that the %2 statistics (and its corresponding degrees of freedom) is summative in nature, the overall %2 value for a multi-group model should equal the sum of the % values obtained when the model is tested separately for each group. As such, the simultaneously tested multi-group model produced a %2 statistic that represented the sum of the %2 values that would be found if the model parameters were freely estimated for each sample separately. The benefits of testing the model on the samples simultaneously include: 1) having a single set of fit statistics for the overall model fit; 2) obtaining a %2 value (and its corresponding degrees of freedom) for a model where all parameters are estimated freely across the groups; and 3) gaining a 104 benchmark value (i.e., the x 2 statistic) against which a fully constrained model can be compared. When the model was simultaneously tested for Korean Sample A and Korean Sample B, I obtained a x value of 56.2, with 34 degrees of freedom, which served as the baseline value against which I tested whether the model was invariant across the two samples. The CFI, GFI and R M S E A values of the baseline, freely estimated model were .97, 95, and .05, respectively; the fit indices suggested the model fit well across Sample A and Sample B of the Korean group. To test whether the model was equivalent across the two Korean samples, I constrained all model parameters to be equal and evaluated the change in x 2 value and in the degrees of freedom. From the model equivalence analysis, I obtained a x 2 value of 66.4, with 45 degrees of freedom, that, when compared to the baseline x 2 value of 56.2, produced a X 2 difference value of 10.2 with 11 degrees of freedom. The x 2 difference value obtained was non-significant (p> .65), which suggested the model was equivalent across the calibration (Korean Sample A) and validation (Korean Sample B) samples. In similar fashion, I simultaneously tested the re-specified model on the calibration and validation samples of the Western group. The resulting baseline x 2 statistic was 41.3, with 34 degrees of freedom; the model fit indices suggested the overall model fit was excellent (CFI=.99; GFI=.96; RMSEA=.029). The model parameters were then constrained to be invariant across Western Sample A and Western Sample B, which resulted in a x 2 statistic of 50.1 with 45 degrees of freedom. The non-significant X 2 difference statistic was 8.8 with 11 degrees of freedom, which suggested the model was invariant across the two samples. 105 In sum, the model derived from the calibration sample data was replicated and was found to be equivalent for the validation samples of each ethnic group. The findings lend strong support for use of the re-specified model when conducting tests of model equivalence between the Korean and Western samples and challenge arguments that the final model is a reflection of chance fluctuations and sample specific characteristics. Step 2: Testing for Measurement Equivalence Given that the same re-specified (cross-validated) model fit well with both for the Western and Korean samples, a test of full measurement invariance or equality across the groups was possible. The process began by identifying the baseline %2 value against which %2 values from all subsequent analyses of the model are to be compared. To achieve the baseline x2 value, the re-specified model was assessed simultaneously for the Korean and Western groups, without imposition of any cross-group equality constraints. When the groups were tested simultaneously, the results indicated a well-fitting model with ax 2 value of 72.34 with 34 degrees of freedom. The x2/df ratio value fell below the suggested 3.0 criterion (x2/df= 2.12), goodness-of-fit indices all exceeded the .95 criterion (CFI= 0.98; GFI=0.97;IFI= 0.98; NFI= 0.96), and the R M S E A was non-significant (PCLOSE=0.583) and fell below the .05 cut-off value (RMSEA= .048). Moreover, all factor loadings were highly significant (p<0.001) for both samples, and 14 out of the total 16 (within-sample) standardized factor loadings exceeded 0.60 (with a minimum loading of 0.41). The results suggest the three-factor measurement model fits well for both samples (configural invariance was established) and can be used as a baseline model to compare subsequent models that include the constrained parameters. 106 In SEM, parameters are tested for invariance by placing constraints on the parameters of interest and specifying the constrained parameters to be equal across groups. As shown in Figure 5,1 assessed whether the baseline measurement model (Model A) was invariant across the two samples by constraining a) all factor loadings, b) all factor variances, and c) all factor covariances to be equal. The fully constrained model yielded a x 2 value of 109.3 with 45 degrees of freedom; when compared to the unconstrained baseline model, a chi-square difference (A%2) value of 37.0 with 11 degrees of freedom (A df) is found, which is statistically significant at the .05 probability level. The results indicate that some (if not all the equality) constraints imposed do not hold across the two groups. As outlined in Table 19,1 took a step-by-step approach to investigating which model parameters were not invariant across groups. I first tested for metric invariance by constraining all factor loadings to be equal across groups. The analysis suggested metric invariance for the entire measurement model was not present and a lower-order analysis was needed. As the next step, I examined each factor within the model separately and assessed whether factor loadings for the chosen construct were invariant across samples. Beginning with the East Asian Social Values construct, I constrained the factor loading of the Identity Consistency Index to be equal across groups* and allowed all other indicator loadings to be freely estimated. As shown in Table 19, the analysis indicated that, when compared to Model A (i.e., the original baseline model), constraining East Asian Social Values factor loading parameters did not significantly change the model fit. It is important to note that as factor parameters are found to be invariant across groups their equality * Across the two samples, the same reference variable was used to anchor each factor in the model and was constrained to have a loading of 1.0. Given that the DEQ-self-criticism scale served as the reference variable for East Asian Social Values factor, the parameter was already constrained by the imposed 1.0 factor loading. 107 constraints are retained, cumulatively, through the remainder of the invariance-testing process (Byrne et al., 1989; Byrne, 2001), which provides a more rigorous test of equality across groups. As such, I maintained the equality constraints imposed onto the East Asian Social Values indicator loadings when testing for invariance with the other factors and used the newly formed model, Model B, as the comparative model for the subsequent model tested. The Independent Self-construal variable was then tested by taking the constraints imposed in Model B and adding equality constraints to the factor loadings of the Independent Self-construal indicators. The %2 difference statistic found by comparing the newly constrained model with Model B suggested the indicator loadings of both the East Asian Social Values and Independent Self-construal factors are invariant across the two samples. Thus, the newly constrained model (i.e., Model C) was forwarded to the next step of invariance-testing Given that Model C imposed equality constraints on factor loadings of the Independent Self-construal and East Asian Social Values variables and that the model fit poorly when all factor loadings in the model were constrained, I approached the Western Social Anxiety invariance analysis by examining each indicator separately. The change in model fit was significant when Model C was tested with an additional equality constraint on the factor loading of each Western Social Anxiety indicator separately. Despite evidence suggesting a lack of cross-sample invariance for the Western Social Anxiety construct, I recognized the stringency of the invariance testing strategy and noted the how the combination of an equality constraint on the Social Phobia Scale (or on the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory) factor loading with Model C became non-significant when compared to the original baseline model (vs. Model C). Given that the %2 difference test 108 suffers from the same sample size dependent problems of the %2 test, Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1998) have recommended including an examination of the change in R M S E A , CFI, and TFI (Tucker-Lewis Index) fit indices when addressing the question of metric invariance. When an equality constraint was placed on the Social Phobia scale factor loading (or on the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory), the suggested fit indices showed no change when compared to values found with Model C alone (CFI=.98, TLL-.97; RMSEA=.048). In contrast, imposing a group equality constraint on the Social Avoidance and Distress scale factor loading decreased the fit of Model C on all suggested indices (CFI=.97, TLI=.95; RMSEA=.052). Taken together, the results suggest factor loadings of the Social Phobia Scale and the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory can justifiably be considered invariant across the two samples, whereas the factor loading of the Social Avoidance and Distress scale does not appear to hold cross-sample invariance. 109 Table 19 Fit Statistics for Tests of Measurement Invariance across Western and Korean samples T Model Description Comparativ x' e Model df A% A df p-value Baseline Model (Model A) Factor Loadings, Variances, Covariances constrained equal 72.3 34 Model A 109.3 45 37.0 11 pO.OOl Factor Loadings constrained equal Model A 96.8 39 24.5 5 pO.OOl Factor Loadings on EASV constrained equal (Model B) Model A 72.7 35 0.4 ns Model B with factor loadings on ISC constrained equal (Model C) Model B 73.8 37 0.9 ns Model C with factor loading of Social Anxiety and Distress scale on SocAnx constrained equal Model C with factor loading of Social Phobia scale on SocAnx constrained equal Model C 84.2 38 10.4 1 pO.OOl Model C 79.2 38 5.4 1 p<0.05 Model C with factor loading of Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory on SocAnx constrained equal Model C 79.2 38 5.4 1 p<0.05 Note: A X2, difference between X 2 values between models; A df, difference in the number of degrees of freedom between models; ISC, Independent Self-Construal; EASV, East Asian Social Values; SocAnx, Western Social Anxiety ns, non-significant at the p<0.05 level Results of the measurement invariance analysis supported partial metric invariance of the model. Cross-group invariance was found for indicators of the Independent Self-construal 110 latent variable and the East Asian Social Values latent variable, and for two of the three indicators of the Western Social Anxiety latent variable (i.e., Social Phobia Scale and Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory). In light of the current findings, subsequent tests of structural invariance between the Western and Korean samples constrained indicator factor loadings found to be group invariant and allowed non-invariant indicator factor loadings (i.e., Social Avoidance and Distress scale) to be estimated freely across groups. The final model specifying the unstandardized estimates of the factor coefficients are shown in Figure 6. Figure 6. Re-specified measurement model specifying unstandardized factor coefficients found to be invariant across the Western and Korean Samples. 111 Testing the Relationship between Self-construal and Social Anxiety One explanation forwarded to explain the Korean sample's higher scores on social anxiety measures is that self-construal variables (i.e., Independent Self-construal and Interdependent Self-construal) are directly related to Western Social Anxiety. Given that the Interdependent Self-construal latent variable was removed from the measurement model, the hypothesis was modified to specify only the Independent Self-construal construct as directly predicting the Western Social Anxiety factor. Independent Self-construal as a Mediator Given that the measures forming the latent variables evidenced both cross-group measurement equivalence and expected group differences, Independent Self-construal may predict Western Social Anxiety as a function of ethnicity. This possibility was tested by specifying a relationship between ethnicity and Western Social Anxiety that was mediated by Independent Self-construal. The modeled relationship stipulates that ethnic differences in the degree to which an independent self-construal is endorsed is carried through to reflect ethnic differences in the degree to which social anxiety symptoms are reported. In essence, the model posits that an individual's cultural orientation is a function of his or her ethnicity and is similarly reflected by all culturally sensitive measures. Results from the analysis indicated that the specified structural model fit poorly with the data. The analysis produced a %2 value of 471.02 with 14 degrees of freedom and fit indices that fell well below the cut-off criteria (%2/df = 33.64, CFI= 0.74; GFI=0.86;IFI= 0.74; NFI= 0.74; RMSEA= 0.26). The findings suggest that ethnic differences found on Western Social Anxiety measures are not explained by or carried through ethnic differences on measures of Independent Self-construal. 112 Independent Self-construal as a Direct Predictor Alternatively, I tested the possibility that, regardless of ethnic background, self-views characteristic of East Asian cultures (i.e., less independent) would predict elevated levels of Western Social Anxiety. This model was tested by examining whether the specified relationship was equivalent across the two cultural groups. The hypothesized model was submitted to be simultaneously evaluated for the Western and Korean samples. Although indicator loadings found to be invariant in previous analyses were constrained, the initial baseline model allowed the structural path between the Independent Self-construal and Western Social Anxiety factors to be freely estimated. The resulting %2 value served as a benchmark to compare the %2 value yielded from the subsequent constrained structural model. The overall fit of the baseline model was excellent (X2/df= 1.94; CFI=.99, GFI=.98, NFI=.98, IFI=.99; RMSEA= .043) and suggested a relationship between the two factors existed for both samples. As a way to test whether the proposed causal structure was equivalent across the two groups, I constrained the structural path between the two factors to be equal. The resulting x2 value of 37.4 with 20 degrees of freedom was not significantly different from the baseline x2 value of 36.9 (with 19 degrees of freedom), which not only supported group invariance but also suggested that the relationship • of Independent Self-construal as predicting Western Social Anxiety is tenable for both the Western and Korean samples The unstandardized path coefficients of the invariant model is shown in Figure 7. 113 Figure 7. Constrained structural model specifying relations between Independent Self-Construal and Western Social Anxiety: Unstandardized path and factor coefficients for the Korean and Western Samples l E R 1 V ^_ I Singelis-lnd S C Takata-lnd S C Bieling Ind-SC i i East Asian Social Values as a Mediating Variable With results supporting a relationship between the Independent Self-construal and Western Social Anxiety latent variables, I held the opportunity to investigate whether the East Asian Social Values factor acted as a mediating variable. With this relationship at hand (for both samples), I attempted to validate the hypothesized mediation model by establishing the following requisite conditions in a step-wise fashion: 1) a relationship exists between the Independent Self-construal factor and the hypothesized mediating latent variable, East Asian Social Values; 2) a relationship exists between the hypothesized mediating latent variable, East Asian Social Values and Western Social Anxiety; and 3) the direct relationship between Independent Self-construal and Western Social Anxiety is no longer apparent when controlling for the effects of the East Asian Social Values variable (Baron & Kenny, 1986). 114 Independent Self-construal and East Asian Social Values. In line with the first requisite to establishing the mediation model, I specified the Independent Self-construal variable as predicting the East Asian Social Values variable and tested the model with both samples simultaneously. The structural path was initially left to be freely estimated, while the group invariant indicators were constrained as equal across the two samples. The resulting baseline model yielded % value of 10.0 with 11 degrees of freedom and, as suggested by the non-significant %2 value and other fit indices (CFI=1.00, GFI=.99, NFI=.98, IFI=1.00; RMSEA= 0.00), held an excellent fit with the data. Imposing an equality constraint on the structural path resulted in a statistically non-significant change in model fit (A %2=0.7; A df= 1; ns). The analyses support the proposed relationship between Independent Self-construal and East Asian Social Values and indicate the relationship is invariant across the two samples (see Figure 8) Figure 8. Constrained structural model specifying relations between Independent Self-Construal and East Asian Social Values: Unstandardized path and factor coefficients for the Korean and Western Samples. 115 East Asian Social Values and Western Social Anxiety Similar to the previous analyses establishing directional relationships between the model factors, I specified the East Asian Social Values factor as predicting the Western Social Anxiety factor. The specified model was simultaneously tested for both samples, while allowing freely estimating the structural path between the factors. Although the model fit less well than the two previously tested relationships (i.e., Independent Self-construal-Western Social Anxiety; Independent Self-construal-East Asian Social Values), the goodness-of-fit values fell within acceptable range (x2/df= 3.20; CFJ=.98, GFI=.98, NFI=.97, IFI=.97; RMSEA=.066) and the model was tested for invariance. After constraining the structural path as group invariant, I found a %2 value of 32.6 with 11 degrees of freedom, which was not significantly different from the baseline %2 value of 32.0 with 10 degrees of freedom Cd %2=1.3, A df=l; ns). The data support the relationship between East Asian Social Values and Western Social Anxiety as equivalent in structure across the two samples. 116 Figure 9. Constrained structural model specifying relations between East Asian Social Values and Western Social Anxiety: Unstandardized path and factor coefficients for the Korean and Western Samples. 117 Mediation Model Given that all three factors evidenced relations with one another (in the hypothesized direction), I proceeded by testing the fit of the mediation model, in which the relationship between Independent Self-construal and Western Social Anxiety is fully explained by East Asian Social Values (see Figure 10). Figure 10. East Asian Social Values as a full mediating variable for the relationship between Independent Self-Construal and Western Social Anxiety. I then compared the fit of the mediation model with the fit of the same model but with the added specification of a direct relationship between Independent Self-construal and Western Social Anxiety (see Figure 11). If adding the specification of a direct relationship between the two factors did not significantly change the fit of the model then the East Asian Social Values construct fully mediates the relationship between Independent Self-construal and Western Social Anxiety. If, however, the added specification of a direct path between Independent Self-construal and Western Social Anxiety improves the fit of the model, then the East Asian Social Values factor may be viewed as only a partial mediator of the relationship between the two factors. In addition, as another way to test the mediating role of .118 East Asian Social Values, the Sobel test of significance was conducted. The Sobel test assesses whether the indirect effect of the independent variable (i.e., Independent Self-construal) on the dependent variable (i.e., Western Social Anxiety) via the proposed mediator (i.e., East Asian Social Values) is significantly different from zero (Preacher & Hayes, 2001; Sobel, 1982). Sobel tests of the mediation model were conducted using a calculation tool available via the Internet (see Preacher & Leonardelli, 2001). Figure 11. East Asian Social Values as a Partial Mediating Variable for the Relationship Between Independent Self-Construal and Western Social Anxiety. The mediation model was first tested with both the Korean and Western sample simultaneously. I allowed all structural paths to be estimated freely across the two samples, which yielded a %2 statistic of 96.7 with 36 degrees of freedom. The resulting %2 statistic served as the comparative baseline value to evaluate the fully constrained model statistic. Imposing group-equivalent constraints on the structural paths significantly reduced the fit of the model (A % — 6.7, A df=2; p<0.05) and suggested the specified path structure was not invariant across the two groups. Given evidence for a lack of structural invariance, I tested the mediation model for each sample separately. 119 Mediation Model: Western Sample The full mediation model with the Western sample data yielded a%2 statistic of 48.7 with 18 degrees of freedom (x2/df=2.70). Although the x 2 value was significant, the fit indices suggested the model fit fell within acceptable range (CFI=0.97, GFJ=0.95, NFJ=0.95, IFI=0.97, TLI=0.95; RMSEA=0.083), which indicated that the East Asian Social Values factor may mediate the relationship between the Independent Self-construal and Western Social Anxiety factors. When I added the specification of a direct path between Independent Self-construal and Western Social Anxiety, however, the model fit significantly improved (A X2=19.9, A df=\; p<0.0001). In addition to the significant x 2 difference statistic, the new model bettered the alternate model fit indices (CFI=.99, GFI=.97, NFI=97, IFI=.99, TLI=.98; RMSEA=.053). The Sobel test confirmed findings suggested by the SEM analyses. When examining the mediation model without the specification of a direct path between Independent Self-construal and Western Social Anxiety, the Sobel critical z-value of -3.80 was significant (p<0.001), which supports the existence of an indirect relationship that is carried by East Asian Social Values. The addition of the direct path between Independent Self-construal and Western Social Anxiety did not, however, reduce the mediating relationship to non-significance (Sobel's z value = -2.77; p<0.005); thus, again suggesting aspects of Independent Self-construal not accounted for by East Asian Social Values are contributing to Western Social Anxiety for the Western sample. Taken together, the analyses indicate that the East Asian Social Values construct acts as a partial mediator of the relationship between Independent Self-construal and Western Social Anxiety. Figure 12 provides the unstandardized path coefficients of the partial mediation model for the Western sample. 1 2 0 Figure 12. Unstandardized Path and Factor Coefficients for the Western Sample Unconstrained Mediation Model: East Asian Social Values as a Partial Mediating Variable. (ER17) Mediation Model: Korean Sample The mediation model with the Korean sample yielded ax2 statistic of 48 with 18 degrees of freedom (x2/df=2.67) and demonstrated an acceptable fit (CFI=0.96, GFI=0.96, NFI=0.94, IFI=0.96, TLI=.94; RMSEA=.082). Adding the path specification between Independent Self-construal and Western Social Anxiety yielded x2 difference value that was notably lower than that found with the Western sample (A x2=4.5, Adf=\). Although the x2 difference statistic was significant (p=.03), the added specification produced little or no 121 change to the alternate model fit indices (CFI=.96, GFI=.96, NFI=.94, IFI=.96; RMSEA=.079). Given the sensitivity of the %2 difference statistic to small differences in large sample size contexts, the lack of change among the alternate fit indices help clarify the current findings and strongly suggest the added specification offers little improvement to the mediation model. Further support for the full.mediation model is offered by the Sobel test. When examining the mediation model without the specification of a direct path between Independent Self-construal and Western Social Anxiety, the significant Sobel critical z-value of -2.16 (p<0.05) supported the mediating role of East Asian Social Values. Moreover, the addition of the direct path between Independent Self-construal and Western Social Anxiety reduced the mediating relationship to non-significance (Sobel's z value = -1.73; ns), which substantiated East Asian Social Values as a full mediating variable for the Korean sample. Figure 13 presents the unstandardized path coefficients of the full mediation model for the Korean sample. Thus, East Asian Social Values appears to carry the relationship between Independent Self-construal and Western Social Anxiety for the Korean sample. For the Korean sample, it appears that perceptions of the self as being less independent lead to higher scores on Western-based social anxiety measures directly through increased endorsement of traits typically endorsed by East Asian cultures (e.g., self-critical orientation, self-flexibility). 122 Figure 13. Unstandardized Path and Factor Coefficients for the Korean Sample Unconstrained mediation model: East Asian Social Values as a Full Mediating Variable. 123 Discussion The study began with the overriding question: Why do East Asians consistently score higher than Westerners on measures of social anxiety? Although the findings, at face value, suggest East Asians as being more socially anxious, such interpretation is limited by the Western-based development and design of social anxiety measures and does not account for the potential role of cultural factors. Social anxiety arises partially as a function of an individual's level of doubt in his or her ability to act appropriately in social situations and to prevent negative social consequences (Schlenker & Leary, 1982). Given that perceptions of appropriate social behaviour are invariably linked to contextual demands, the ways individuals develop social goals and assess their success in attaining them are likely influenced by the larger cultural context in which they live. The cultural psychology literature documents marked cross-cultural differences in how East Asians and Westerners view the self and in the degree to which they endorse various social traits and behaviours. Moreover, traits and behaviours frequently associated with social anxious individuals in Western cultures are often promoted within East Asian cultural contexts. Given the overlap, reports of social anxiety may include features that are sensitive to culture-specific social goals and values. The present study examined whether culturally variant beliefs about the self and appropriate social behaviour help explain ratings on social anxiety measures. Results from the study replicated cultural group differences in reports of social anxiety as well as differences in views of the self, and social values considered characteristic of East Asian cultures (i.e., self-criticism, face loss concerns, and self-flexibility; East Asian Social Values). The Korean sample endorsed higher levels of social anxiety, reported more 124 interdependent and less independent views of the self, and demonstrated greater affiliation with East Asian Social Values. One notable exception to the expected East Asian Social Values difference was the Western sample's reports of higher self-monitoring. Overall, however, the differences painted a picture directly in line with that indicated by the literature. Given that self-views, traits and attitudes typically promoted by East Asian cultures are often endorsed by socially anxious individuals, the present study examined three possible ways self-construal and East Asian Social Values may help explain social anxiety ratings. Specifically, the study aimed to answer the following three questions: 1) Do self-construal and East Asian Social Values measures tap factors that are justifiably different from social anxiety? 2) Does the way an individual defines himself or herself in relation to others (i.e., self-construal) predict social anxiety? 3) Does the East Asian Social Values factor account for the relationship between self-construal and social anxiety? The analyses proceeded in a step-wise by manner by first assessing the construct validity of measures and then by investigating how these factors relate to one another. The following sections discuss, in turn, results found at each level of the analyses and contextualize the current findings within the backdrop of the existing research literature. Step 1: Evaluating the Construct Validity of Measures Convergent Validity Following evidence of a poor model fit, post-hoc analyses of the measures within the model were conducted and tested for construct validity. The validity analysis began by assessing the convergent validity of the measures, which included the examination of inter-correlations among and the factor loadings of measures of the same construct. With the exception of the Revised Self-Monitoring Scales and the Beck Autonomy Scale, the 125 measures evidenced adequate convergent validity. Before discussing results of the discriminant validity analysis, the following section discusses potential reasons why the above mentioned scales failed to tap their intended factors. Revised Self-Monitoring Scale In line with self-monitoring theory (Snyder, 1974, 1979, 1987), a 30-year history of research supports contentions that meaningful differences exist in the degree to which individuals monitor and actively regulate their expressive behaviours and, consequently, their self-presentations (for review see Gangestad & Snyder, 2000). Individuals who are invested in acting appropriately and according to situational demands (i.e., high self-monitors) strategically cultivate their self-presentation to achieve desired public appearances. Driven to project socially favourable images, high self-monitors tend to be sensitive and responsive to social and interpersonal cues of appropriate performance and regulate their behaviour accordingly. Relatively speaking, low self-monitors are, instead, less concerned with situational appropriateness and guide behaviour according to personal dispositions, attitudes and emotions. Initially, high self-monitoring appeared to capture the value East Asians place on adapting their behaviours according to social cues of others and the social context, a value that is subsumed under the overarching goal of group harmony (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). As measured by the Identity Consistency Index, past findings highlight an East Asian tendency to characterize the self as inconsistent across interpersonal contexts (Suh, 2002). Unlike their Western counterparts, in both the present and Suh's study, Koreans viewed the expression of different personality traits (e.g., honest, kind, two-faced) to be functionally related to context demands rather than a reflection of a context-free, true inner self. In 126 parallel fashion, self-monitoring theory asserts that the self-presentations of low self-monitors can be readily predicted from personality trait measures, whereas high self-monitors'1 self-presentations can be best predicted from features of their situations (Snyder, 1974). Based on this conceptualization, the current study predicted that the Revised Self-monitoring subscales would tap the flexibility of East Asians' self-identity, and find Koreans as higher self-monitors than Westerners. Contrary to expectation, the Western sample scored significantly higher than the Korean sample on both subscales of the Revised Self-Monitoring Scale (RSMS). In addition, exploratory factor analyses of the East Asian Social Values construct revealed the RSMS subscales formed a distinct factor that was orthogonal to East Asian Social Values scales. At first glance, the results seem to threaten the viability of a unitary East Asian Social Values construct. The findings also contradicted theoretical assertions of an East Asian emphasis on self-monitoring and challenge past reports of higher RSMS scores among Chinese individuals (Hamid, 1994). Self-monitoring helps individuals alter their behaviour and project a desired social image. Thus, the distinction between high and low self-monitors rests on the degree to which the individual emphasizes or engages in self-presentation altering strategies. To the high self-monitor, monitoring one's behaviour and tailoring one's self-presentation according to situational demands increases the likelihood of social favour. To the low self-monitor, acting in a way that reflects one's inner attitudes, personality, and emotions (across situations) is socially favourable. While the strategies used to achieve social success may differ, the motivation to achieve social success is, arguably, present for both high and low self-monitors alike. 127 What is social success? Within Western cultural frames, individuals are viewed as autonomous social agents and achieve social success when their personal efforts are recognized and gain social favour by others (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). For example, telling a joke is a successful social strategy if others view the joke-teller as funny. Within East Asian cultural frames, however, individuals share the common goal of group harmony and each strives not to gain personal distinction but, instead, to achieve a harmonious social interaction (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Using the same example, within East Asian contexts, telling a joke is a successful social strategy if it facilitates a smooth and enjoyable interaction for all those involved. Self-monitoring scales are designed to differentiate individuals who alter their self-presentations according to perceived situational demands from those who do not (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000). While descriptions of high self-monitoring mirror conceptions of East Asian emphases on self-flexibility and the cross-situational variability of behaviour, the features of self-monitoring are specified from a Western perspective. To the extent that Westerners hold different social goals from that of East Asians, Western views of social adaptability and situational sensitivity likely also differ. What appear to be embedded within self-monitoring scales are Western conceptions of social success. The Revised Self-Monitoring Scale (RSMS) is designed to tap the likelihood an individual will alter his behaviour and respond to social cues in a way that increases favourable treatment by others and improves others' impressions of him as the acting agent (Wolfe, Lennox, & Cutler, 1986). Similarly, Gangestad and Snyder (2000) describe the high self-monitor as someone who is "willing and able to project social images designed to impress others". The following RSMS item highlights these assertions: I have 128 the ability to control the way I come across to people, depending on the impression I wish to give them. The underlying assumption appears to be that the social spotlight lands directly on the individual; others are formulating an "impression" of the independent social agent. Within this context, self-monitoring is driven by the goal of achieving personal social success, not social harmony. Individuals scoring high on the RSMS self-monitor as a way to project a desired social image (Wolfe et al., 1986), which is consistent with Western emphases on independence and social autonomy. By contrast, the cross-situational variability of East Asian self-images or identities (Suh, 2002) is driven by the goal of creating satisfactory (and harmonious) interchanges for all those involved. Given that the RSMS subscales appear to reflect more Western-based motivations for self-monitoring, evidence suggesting the RSMS as inconsistent with other measures of East Asian Social Values does not threaten the unitary conception of the construct nor do the observed higher RSMS scores of the Western sample fall at odds with Western-based social goals of achieving personal social success and favour. Beck Autonomy Scale Past research findings suggest that the Beck Autonomy scale may not serve as a coherent measure of Independent Self-construal and appears to include an independence-achievement subfactor that, unlike the other subfactors identified, negatively correlates with distress (Bieling et al., 2000; Clark, Steer, Haslam, Beck, & Brown, 1997; Sato & McCann, 1997), which is consistent with relations found between other independent self-construal measures and distress. The present study failed to find significant group differences on the Beck Autonomy scale (d=0.002). As a way to test whether the independence-achievement subfactor better 129 captured the intended independent self-construal construct, I drew the subfactor solution of the factor analysis of the Beck Autonomy scale conducted by Bieling and colleagues (2000). The employed independence-achievement subfactor solution showed greater sensitivity to cultural group differences and correlated more highly with alternate measures of independent self-construal. In addition, the subfactor solution maintained a high correlation with the original Beck Autonomy measure, which suggested the subfactor solution did not differ greatly from the original scale and, given its relationship with the alternate independence measures, appeared to focus on aspects of the autonomy construct more congruent with the independent self-construal. Given the suggested conceptual and empirical superiority of the independence-achievement subfactor, I included only those items from the Beck-Autonomy scale representing the independence subfactor. Subsequent analyses substantiated the decision and indicated the independence-achievement subfactor converged well onto Independent Self-construal and discriminated against the other model factors. Discriminant Validity One notable finding from the convergent validity analysis was the way measures of the Interdependent Self-construal factor failed to form a unitary construct and, instead, emerged as a 2-factor solution. The 2-factor structure was confirmed by the discriminant validity analysis, as the factors evidenced differing relations with indicators of their non-target factors. One factor, formed by the Takata Interdependent Self-construal scale and the Beck Sociotropy scale, appeared to overlap highly with measures of Western Social Anxiety and East Asian Social Values, whereas the other factor held relations with the non-target measures in unexpected ways (e.g., negative relationship with self-criticism). The Loss of 130 Face scale also evidenced poor discriminant validity and appeared to serve as a better indicator of Western Social Anxiety than the intended East Asian Social Values construct. The analyses also appeared to suggest these East Asian-based concepts were more distinct (and perhaps more familiar) to the Korean sample. Although both samples evidenced a similar 2-factor Interdependent Self-construal structure, the inter-correlation and factor analytic data indicated that the measures converged more highly and discriminated against alternate factors to a greater degree for the Korean sample. Similar to findings with Interdependent Self-construal measures, the Loss of Face scale overlapped more highly with the Western Social Anxiety among the Westerners. For the Korean sample the Loss of Face scale appeared to tap a more distinct factor that was associated with both Western Social Anxiety and East Asian Social Values. The poor construct validity of the Interdependent Self-construal and Loss of Face measures may indicate two possible interpretations. First, the measures may have failed to capture a distinct underlying factor, which would suggest weaknesses in the measures' and/or study design. Second, as suggested by the first study explanation, the measures may have failed to discriminate against alternate (non-target) factors in the model because features of their target factor overlap with features of the other factors in the model. For example, the analyses indicated that measures of Interdependent Self-construal loaded highly onto Western Social Anxiety. These findings may indicate poor construction of the interdependent measures or they may indicate that aspects of Western Social Anxiety and Interdependent Self-construal coincide with one another. To the extent that interdependent self views and loss of face concerns feature more prominently in East Asian cultures, an overlap with Western-based conceptions of social anxiety may help explain East Asian reports of higher 131 social anxiety. The following section considers both interpretations as they relate to the Loss of Face scale and Interdependent Self-construal measures. Loss of Face Scale: Failing to Capture the Intended Factor The Loss of Face scale (LOF) was designed to measure the face loss concerns and face saving strategies characteristic of East Asian cultures (Zane & Yeh, 2002). According to the LOF scale authors, the East Asian concept of face incorporates claims concerning not only an individual's social character (i.e., his traits, values, and attitudes) but also the social position or prestige that is gained from his assumed social roles/duties. The importance of social roles and position in defining face features prominently in East Asian cultures and reflects the culture-based goal of maintaining group harmony and minimizing disruption to social order (Ho, 1991). Within East Asian contexts, face-saving behaviours work to respect and uphold the social order of the group, which, in turn, helps foster smooth relations among its members. In line with the suggested cross-cultural difference, Zane and Yeh (2002) reported that their Asian-American sample scored significantly higher on the LOF scale than their Euro-American sample (d= 0.64). Similarly, the current study found a large between-group difference in LOF scores (d=1.05); the Korean sample reported greater concerns about losing face and maintaining the face of their social partners than did the Western sample. Further analyses of the scale, however, questioned the scale's ability to capture its intended factor. Although the LOF scale converged with alternate measures of East Asian Social Values, the scale failed to discriminate against other constructs included in the study and appeared to converge more highly with measures of Western Social Anxiety and Interdependent Self-construal. 132 Although the LOF scale failed to differentiate from Western Social Anxiety measures, it may be premature to deem face-saving strategies as purely symptomatic of social anxiety. One possible reason for the apparent measurement overlap is the manner in which the LOF scale was designed to assess face-saving concerns. Several items on the LOF scale appear to measure the degree to which an individual fears losing face and how an individual responds to this fear (e.g., "Before doing anything in public, I prepare myself for any possible consequences"; "During a discussion, I try not to ask questions because I may appear ignorant to others"). Conceptually, fears of losing face (i.e., losing one's claimed sense of self-worth) are synonymous with fears of embarrassment that characterize social anxiety. Increasing the number of items that specify strategies used to maintain face of the self and others- similar to those already present on the scale (e.g., "I prefer to use a third party to help resolve our differences")- may better preserve the theoretical distinction between face-saving strategies preferred by East Asians and symptoms of social anxiety. Interdependent Self-construal Factor: Failing to Capture the Intended Factor When comparing the Interdependent Self-construal data of the Korean sample with that of the Western sample, the findings signal differences that are consistent with theory and expectation: Koreans held more interdependent views of the self. Initial validity concerns developed when Interdependent Self-construal measures produced an unexpected factor structure. Rather than a single, underlying Interdependent Self-construal factor, the scales diverged to form two separate factors for both samples. Moreover, the relationship between the two factors was nominal; all four scales lacked significant affiliation with their alternate factor. 133 Another validity concern was the way the Yamaguchi Collectivism scale and, to a lesser degree, the Singelis Interdependent Self-construal subscale held unexpected relations with measures of the East Asian Social Values construct. Contrary to a body of past findings and current theoretical conceptions, the results suggested that individuals who are more self-critical and more self-flexible are less likely to hold interdependent views of the self. Overall, the findings cast doubt on the viable use of Interdependent Self-construal measures and added to a growing debate over the psychometric soundness of self-construal measures (Bresnahan et al., 2005; Levine et a l , 2003a, 2003b; Matsumoto, 1999). Since the introduction of interdependent and independent self-construals (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), the utility of these constructs in accounting for various cross-cultural differences has been researched extensively and, more recently, increasingly challenged. Meta-analytic and qualitative reviews of the cross-cultural literature have shown a less than consistent story about self-construal; several studies comparing East Asian with Western samples show self-construal differences that are either non-significant or opposite to the predicted direction (for review see Levine et al., 2003a and Matsumoto, 1999). Also of note, similar to the present study results, inconsistent and contradictory findings appear to occur more frequently when using interdependent self-construal (vs. independent self-construal) measures (Levine et al., 2003a). Repeated findings contradicting or falling short of theoretical expectations have prompted several researchers to concede that the exact nature of independent and, in particular, interdependent self-construals is far from being well-established and well-measured (Bresnahan et al., 2005; Kim & Raja, 2003; Levine et al., 2003b). 1 3 4 A growing body of evidence explains the variable findings as, at least in part, a measurement problem. Research indicates that different self-construal measures do not tap the same underlying 2-factor (i.e., independent-interdependent) structure but, instead, each capture multiple factors that vary in number and in the degree to which they are measured (Bresnahan et al., 2005; Hackman, Ellis, Johnson, & Stanley, 1999; Oyserman et al., 2002). For example, Levine and colleagues (2003a) conducted five separate measurement studies assessing the degree to which the Leung and Kim (1997), Gudykunst et al. (1996) and Singelis (1994) self-construal scales tapped the proposed two-factor independent-interdependent self-construal structure. Confirmatory factor analyses of each scale indicated that a two-factor structure is not defensible with American samples; the authors replicated the findings with East Asian samples and found a similarly poor (if not worse) fit for a 2-factor structure. The construct validity of self-construal measures is often defended by referring to evidence of expected cross-cultural differences and/or expected relations with various outcome measures (Gudykunst & Lee, 2003; Singelis, 1994). For example, Singelis (1994) argued that, when compared to his Western sample, the higher interdependent self-construal scores and lower independent self-construal scores among his East Asian samples offered support for the construct validity of the (Singelis) Self-Construal Scale. Although this approach contributes important information about the nature of the scales, the approach remains vulnerable to spurious correlations between measures with high content overlap and to the possibility that group differences do not reflect differences on the intended construct. As highlighted by the present study, the Interdependent Self-construal measures corroborated previous contentions of their validity by showing expected cultural group differences and 135 only after employing more stringent factor analytic strategies did they evidence poor construct validity. Recognizing the shortcomings of past validation strategies, Bresnahan and colleagues (2005) adopted a more rigorous test of construct validity by taking the Campbell and Fiske (1959) Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix (MTMM) approach. The study asked participants from the U.S., Korea and Japan to complete the (Singelis) Self-Construal Scale (1994), the Twenty Statements Test (TST; Kuhn & McPartland, 1954) and the Relational Interdependent Self-Construal scale (RISC; Cross et al., 2000) as measures of the self-construal constructs. Unlike the (Singelis) Self-Construal Scale and the RISC, which both use Likert-type rating scales, the TST is a qualitative, open-ended measure that codes participant responses to the question "Who am I?" Measures of alternate constructs (i.e., communication style) with either a Likert-type response scale format or an open-ended format similar to the TST were also administered. Overall, the tested self-construal measures did not tap the same underlying factors. The self-construal scales failed to correlate significantly with one another and tended to correlate more highly with measures of communication style or measures of similar response format. The results replicate previous findings by Grace and Kramer (2003), who also found little support for convergent validity of the TST and the (Singelis) Self-Construal Scale. Past research inconsistencies may be further explained by citations of poor internal consistency among self-construal measures (Bresnahan et al., 2005; Dinnel et al., 2002; Levine et al., 2003a). For example, using the (Singelis) Self-Construal Scale, Dinnel and colleagues reported overall Cronbach alphas of 0.51 for the Independence factor and 0.58 for the Interdependence factor, which mimic the low Cronbach alpha ranges of 0.54 to 0.58 for 136 the Independence factor and 0.50- 0.53 for the Interdependence factor found among the Korean, U.S., and Japanese samples of the Bresnahan et al. study. These findings in combination with other noted psychometric weaknesses likely point to the complex, multifaceted conceptualizations of each, particularly the interdependent, self-construal type that serve to create these measures and suggest the self-construal constructs may encompass traits that do not cohere well with one another. A recent 20-year review of self-construal measures highlights the wide variety of features thought to characterize "interdependence" and the high number of attempts to capture this construct in measurable ways (Oyserman et al., 2002). In efforts to condense the content of the reviewed scales, Oyserman and colleagues identified seven representative domains. The possible contradictory features of these domains provides insight into past research findings and the difficulty associated with measuring interdependent self-construal as a single, unitary factor. The interdependent self-construal is presented as valuing 1) relationships with others when defining the self, 2) group membership and group oriented work, 3) the duties and responsibilities of being a group member, 4) group harmony, 5) advice from others when making a decision, 6) sensitivity to contextual and situational cues, and 7) a system of hierarchy and status. In recognition of the heterogeneous aspects of the interdependent self-construal, researchers have posited that the interdependent self-construal is better described as encompassing two justifiably different (albeit related) factors rather than a single, unitary construct (Cross & Madson, 1997; Cross, Morris & Gore, 2002; Kashima & Hardie, 2000). Within this two-factor framework, one factor, referred to as the Collective interdependent self-construal, is centrally defined by social roles, responsibilities to others, and group 137 memberships whereas the other factor, known as the Relational interdependent self-construal, highlights an individual's tendency to consider close others as an integral part of the self (Cross & Madson, 1997; Kashima & Hardie, 2000). The Collective interdependent self-construal captures features of the self thought to be most salient to East Asian individuals (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Although the interdependent self-construal is typically associated with East Asian cultures, proponents of the two-factor framework argue that Western individuals also adopt interdependent views of the self but in a way that is more congruent with Western norms. According to Cross and colleagues (1997, 2000, 2002), features of the Relational interdependent self-construal fit well with Western interdependent views and help differentiate gender-related self-perceptions. The authors further argue that, unlike the Collective interdependent self-construal, the Relational interdependent self-construal operates independently of the East-West self-construal difference. Similar to these assertions and to past research findings (Oyserman et al, 2002), the current study found the Korean sample did not differ from the Western sample on the Relational Interdependent Self-Construal scale (RISC). In the present study, the pattern of cultural group differences on Interdependent Self-construal measures appeared to support the proposed two-factor structure; all measures but the RISC showed the expected cross-cultural difference. Although factor analyses of the measures' data also produced a two-factor Interdependent Self-construal structure, the structure bore little resemblance to the suggested Collective interdependent self-construal and Relational interdependent self-construal demarcation. The proposed Collective Interdependent Self-construal measures diverged to form two separate orthogonal factors and 138 the RISC, thought to tap the Relational Interdependent Self-construal factor, held near equal and substantive loadings on both identified factors. The failure to substantiate the two-factor conception of Interdependent Self-construal in combination with findings of poor convergent and discriminant validity of the Interdependent Self-construal measures points to measurement difficulties that stem from more than a lack of coherence among the construct's subfactors. Further explanation is offered by the inconsistent and contradictory findings that occur more frequently with measures of interdependent self-construal than measures of independent self-construal (Bresnahan et al., 2005; Levine et al., 2003; Oyserman et al., 2002). Interdependent self-construal measures appear to have weaker construct validity than do measures of independent self-construal. As an example, a meta-analysis of studies that compared national samples from East Asia with those from a Western country (i.e., U.S., Canada, or Australia), the interdependent self-construal scales yielded the expected cultural differences in less than one-third of the comparisons (Levine et al., 2003). By contrast, the independent self-construal scales' comparisons showed significant differences and all were in the expected direction. Similarly, in the present study, the cross-cultural group difference on Interdependent Self-construal measures held an average effect size (avg. d =0.32) that was notably smaller than that found with Independent Self-construal measures (avg. d=0.93). One reason for the more consistent cultural differences on independent self-construal measures may be the higher degree of agreement about the characteristics of the construct. Among the scales cited over the last 20 years of individualism-collectivism research, Oyserman et al. (2002) observed that all individualism scales carried the common component 139 of valuing personal independence whereas the collectivism scales were more heterogeneous in content. Given the history of individualism-collectivism research, greater agreement in conceptualizing individualism is not surprising. Initial conceptualizations of the East-West cultural difference grew out of assertions that collectivism was equivalent to low levels of individualism (Hofstede, 1980). Following conceptions of interdependence or collectivism as orthogonal to independence or individualism, theorists (and scale authors) faced the task of defining distinct features of the interdependent self. Given (by definition) the dynamic and characteristically shifting nature of the interdependent self, finding a cohesive set of traits and behaviours that taps the construct is likely more than challenging. Interdependent individuals formulate the self by identifying with social roles and features of the group of which they are members (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Oyserman et al., 2002). Given that group membership and duties are salient features of the self, interdependent individuals seek to maintain harmony and their status within their respective groups. Self-formulations of the independent individual are strikingly different from that of the interdependent individual; when defining the self, less importance is placed on group membership and social responsibilities and greater emphasis lies on the personal traits and attributes of the autonomous individual. Given that the boundaries of the independent self-construal are restricted to the individual, specific features and behaviours characteristic of this formulation maybe more clearly articulated. The independent self-construal is not tied to context-dependent features and is characterized by relatively stable, identifiable traits and values. For example, the following items from the (Takata) Self-Construal Scale and the (Singelis) Self-Construal Scale highlight how aspects of the independent self-construal rest on the individual: In 140 general I make my own decisions; I prefer to be direct and forthright when dealing with people I have just met; My personal identity, independent of others, is very important for me. For interdependent individuals, the boundaries of the self extend beyond the individual to incorporate features of the groups they represent. Given that social groups vary in their social expectations and hierarchical structure, each interdependent individual holds a unique compilation of group memberships and social positions. What naturally follows such sets of memberships and positions are a wide and idiosyncratic variety of group-valued traits and contextually-based behaviours, and a varying degree of affiliation with each represented group. These distinct repertoires of contextually-based behaviours and group affiliations do not readily generalize from one interdependent individual to the other and pose difficulty for creating a coherent definition of the interdependent self-construal. Descriptions of the interdependent self-construal are, thus, limited to referencing the more general importance of group concerns and, given the highly variant nature of these concerns, are unable to specify specific traits or behaviours common to all groups represented. The following interdependent self-construal items highlight how the ambiguous term "group" fails to capture the multiplicity of group memberships held by interdependent individuals and appears to assume that contextual demands do not vary across different group settings: I will stay in a group if it needs me, even when I am not happy with the group; I avoid having conflicts with members of my group. In addition to difficulties specifying the nature of the interdependent self-construal, self-report questionnaires designed to tap this and other East Asian related constructs have primarily emerged from Western contexts and have drawn speculations of possible Western biases (Kanagawa, Cross & Markus, 2001; Markus & Kitayama, 1998). Many self-report 141 questionnaires utilize Likert-type rating scales that ask participants to rate the degree to which they agree with each provided statement or the extent to which each statement is true (of them). The contextual sensitivity and collectivistic values of the interdependent self-construal are seemingly captured by asking how much an individual has internalized the views reflected by each interdependent item. Inherent to this format is the assumption that individuals hold a core, stable set of beliefs or values that rises above situation-specific demands and expectations. The essence of interdependent values is, however, contingent upon situation-specific cues and defies the imposition of trait-like statements about behaviour and one's identity. As an example, the Singelis (1994) Interdependent Self-construal scale item I will stay in a group if it needs me, even when I am not happy with the group theoretically presents as a difficult question for the interdependent individual. Endorsement of the item (i.e., strongly agree) would suggest the individual will behave in this manner irrespective of contextual concerns, whereas low endorsement would suggest the individual places little value on maintaining group harmony. The trait-like structure of self-report questionnaires conforms to the Western tendency to describe the self using inner psychological attributes and traits (Cousins, 1989; Kanagawa et al. 2001; Rhee, Uleman, Lee, & Roman, 1995) but may be ill-suited to reported East Asian preferences to describe themselves using situation specific actions and behaviours (Cousins, 1989; Kanagawa et al. 2001). For example, in a study using the Twenty Statement Test, Japanese participants tended to respond to the question Who are you? by listing behaviors or actions (e.g., "I laugn a lot during conversations") whereas American participants responded by listing context-free, internalized traits (e.g., "I am friendly") (Kanagawa et al., 2001). 142 Levine et al.'s (2003) meta-analysis offers further support for the possibility that self-construal measures may appeal more to Western-based views of the self. To the extent that self-construal measures present both independent and interdependent items in a trait-like manner and, relative to East Asians, Westerners are more likely to view the self as a stable entity of traits and values, Westerners will endorse these items in more consistent ways. Across all studies reviewed by Levine et al., the Western samples' degree of affiliation with each of the two self-construal types differed in the same direction; Westerners showed greater identification with the independent self-construal (mean effect: r= +.43). By contrast, the difference between self-construal scores for East Asians varied across studies and was highly inconsistent (mean effect: r = -.10); six of nine effects were statistically significant in the wrong direction and only two effects showed East Asians scoring significantly higher on interdependence than independence. Interpretation 2: Overlapping Features among Target and Non-target Factors In addition to the noted psychometric difficulties associated with Interdependent Self-construal measures and the Loss of Face scale, features attributed to the interdependent self and to fears of face loss appear to markedly overlap with those defining Western Social Anxiety. This overlap may point to the difficult, potentially impossible, task of creating measures that meaningfully differentiate these concepts while still accounting for the theoretical boundaries that define them. I offer a brief, conceptual discussion on the boundaries thought to delineate (Western) social anxiety, interdependent self-construal and fears of losing face, and then underscore the similarity of their defining features. Closely in line with the study's first explanation, reasons for East Asian reports of higher social anxiety as well as the poor discriminant validity of the interdependent self-construal and loss of face 143 measures may lie in the conceptual overlay among definitions of social anxiety, interdependent self-views and maintaining face. Western Social Anxiety Socially anxious individuals are often characterized by extreme fears of negative evaluation by others and by beliefs that they are in danger of acting inappropriately or an inept manner (Schlenker & Leary, 1982). Coupled with these features is a belief that being negatively evaluated will lead to disastrous social consequences, which may include a loss of status or worth and social rejection (Clark & Wells, 1995). Although negative evaluation by others, social rejection and loss of status are unpleasant experiences in and of themselves, individuals experience social anxiety when they believe these consequences are likely to occur. Thus, social anxiety arises when 1) an individual fears the negative evaluation of others and 2) doubts his/her ability to prevent such negative evaluation. Implicit to the definition of social anxiety is that its occurrence is contingent upon the perceived or actual presence of others who are evaluating the acting individual; i f others are not present or the threat of evaluation is somehow removed, social anxiety is not experienced. Although the perceived social evaluation by others promotes the experience of social anxiety, socially anxious individuals appear to become more self-focused rather than observe others' reactions to modify perceptions of social success (or failure). They are described as using internally generated, negatively biased information to construct a distorted image of the self and to infer how they appear to others (Clark & Wells, 1995). For example, a mild stammer or speech dysfluency may be interpreted as "They'll think I sound stupid". Self-focused attention makes these behaviours or feelings salient to the individual, who 144 incorrectly assumes they are equally salient to their social partners and that they will accordingly lead to negative evaluation and rejection. One potential explanation for the increased self-focus in social situations is the belief that the self acts as an important agent in determining social success. Perceptions of greater social threat among socially anxious individuals may place increased pressure on the individual to prevent social failure and, in turn, may trigger increased self-focused attention; the cost of acting in an unacceptable manner is viewed as higher and more likely. For example, individuals may show greater self-focused attention when speaking to their employer than when having a conversation with a good friend. Moreover, with increased self-focused attention minor social errors are more likely to be noticed and, among socially individuals, be perceived as socially disastrous. Socially anxious individuals tend to hold excessively high or unrealistic standards of social performance (e.g., "I must not stumble on my words"; "There must be no pauses in the conversation"; Clark & Wells, 1995). Underlying these standards appears to be an inflated sense of the likelihood of social disapproval and catastrophic predictions of the consequences of acting inappropriately. By contrast, non-socially anxious individuals are less likely to view social errors as resulting in disastrous social consequences (e.g., social rejection or loss of status). Interdependent Self-construal Individuals with an interdependent self-construal are characterized as seeing the self as a composite of social roles, responsibilities and obligations that is directly connected with the groups to which they belong (for review see Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Unlike the independent self-construal which separates the self from others, interdependent individuals 145 view the self as part of a larger social whole comprised of a web of relationships and social duties. As a way to preserve this interdependent sense of self, individuals remain sensitive to the needs of others and the social context, and will accommodate their behaviour and are willing sacrifice personal needs to preserve the sanctity of their relationships. A natural consequence to viewing the self as interdependent is the critical role of others to achieving social success. The interdependent self is best served when an individual is flexible to situation-specific cues and works collectively with others, within a particular context, to reach the external goal of group harmony. Given that harmonious relations with others are particularly emphasized, the interdependent individual is invested in inferring the needs of others and avoiding negative evaluation through inappropriate or socially disruptive behaviour. The possibility of being negatively evaluated by other group members presents, theoretically, as highly threatening to the interdependent individual as such evaluation would identify the individual as a disruptive agent who is preventing the process of group harmony. In addition, given that interdependent individuals are inextricably tied to their social roles and positions, the consequences of being negatively evaluated extend beyond the single individual to the groups to which they belong; the social cost of inappropriate behaviour is high. Fears of Losing Face Closely tied to the interdependent goal of group harmony is the importance of maintaining personal face and the face of others. Face is conceptualized as the sense of (favourable) social self-worth that individuals hold of themselves and hope others will uphold and recognize (Ting-Toomey, 1988). Although the goal of maintaining face is 146 thought to shape the social behaviours of individuals across all cultures (Ting-Toomey, 1988; Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998), the manner in which individuals approach this goal appears to be culturally different. In line with theories of face maintaining strategies (e.g., Ting-Toomey, 1998), research indicates that, within a social context, Westerners prefer direct, self-face preserving communication strategies whereas East Asians are more likely to adopt indirect, mutual-face preserving strategies (Gudykunst, 1987; Gudykunst et al., 1996; Kim, 1994; Kim & Kim, 1997; Oetzel, 1998; Leung, 1987; Peng & Nisbett, 1999). Westerners' reported emphasis on maintaining personal face and East Asians' emphasis on maintaining not only personal face but also the face of their social partners parallels the distinguishing individualistic and collectivistic traits attributed to the two cultural frames. Given that the concept of face, within East Asian cultures, extends to the social roles and relationships with others held by an individual, losing face would, theoretically, hold greater social consequences than if limited to the individual. Moreover, a dual emphasis on personal and others' face further increases the pressure to act appropriately and be concerned about committing mild social errors. Overlapping Features Two features that similarly characterize the constructs of Western Social Anxiety, Interdependent Self-construal, and fears of losing face are 1) the perceived likelihood of negative social consequences from inappropriate behaviour and 2) the importance placed on gaining others' approval. The overlap in features offers explanation for the poor discriminant validity of the Takata and Beck Interdependent Self-construal measures and the Loss of Face scale against the Western Social Anxiety factor. Closer examination of the measures reveal 147 the conceptual similarity in items. For example, the Takata interdependent self-construal item I am concerned about what people think about me could justifiably be applied as an item on a Western Social Anxiety measure or as an item on the Loss of Face scale. Indeed, the Takata item bears little difference from the Loss of Face item When I meet other people, I am concerned about their expectations of me. Similarly, high item content overlap between the LOF scale and each of the social anxiety measures may be driving the high correlations between them. The LOF scale holds several items that are highly similar to, if not indistinguishable from, social anxiety measures' items. For example, there appears to be little difference between I worry I might attract the attention of other people (Social Phobia Scale) and I try not to do things which call attention to myself (LOF scale). Rather than glossing over these conceptual similarities as a mere failing in scale construction, it is important to consider the implications of a lack of differentiation among the constructs behind these measures. The current findings may provide a clue as to how East Asian cultural views of the social context may contribute to interpretations of questionnaires assessing the Western Social Anxiety construct. Step 2: Self-construal as a Predictor of Western Social Anxiety Despite evidence of poor construct validity within the measurement model, a nested portion of the original model held sufficient construct validity to allow further examination of the ways self-views and East Asian-endorsed social beliefs and attitudes may explain social anxiety ratings. The nested portion of the model was comprised of the separable constructs of Independent Self-construal, Western Social Anxiety, and East Asian Social Values. Expected cross-cultural differences were found on all three of the identified factors. Despite such evidence, it is impossible to say Koreans are actually scoring higher on Western Social Anxiety, lower on Independent Self-construal and higher on East Asian Social Values i f their measures are not operating in the same way across the tested samples. The nested models were equivalent across the Korean and Western samples, suggesting relative differences on the three factors were reflected by the measures in the same way for the two samples. As a second explanation of social anxiety ratings, the study assessed whether the way an individual construes the self directly predicts the degree to which symptoms of social anxiety are endorsed. Although the hypothesis originally included both independent and interdependent types of self-construal, the questionable construct validity of the selected interdependent self-construal measures indicated that only the relationship between independent self-construal and social anxiety could be justifiably examined. Thus, the newly modified hypothesis (Figure 14) specifically predicts that lower affiliation with independent self-construal traits and values leads to increased endorsement of social anxiety. Figure 14. Independent Self-construal as a Predictor of Western Social Anxiety (-) Independent Self-construal held a direct, predictive relationship with Western Social Anxiety. Further tests revealed that the relationship between the two factors held the same 149 strength and operated in the same way for both the Western and Korean samples. In addition, ethnic differences in endorsement of social anxiety symptoms were not explained by ethnic differences in independent self-views. In essence, regardless of one's ethnic background, individuals who view themselves as independent of others are less likely to report symptoms of social anxiety. The findings corroborate past findings (Dinnel, Kleinknecht, Tanaka-Matsumi, 2002; Norasakkunkit & Kalick.2002; Okazaki, 1997, 2000; Singelis, 1995) and draw attention to arguments that assert the ways in which individuals view the self may better explain differences on various outcome measures than their ethnic background (Dinnel et al., 2002; Kim & Raja, 2003; Norasakkunkit & Kalick, 2002; Okazaki, 1997, 2000). These assertions rest on the idea that ethnicity acts as a crude categorical proxy for culture (Kim & Raja, 2003). It is misleading to assume that an individual's ethnic background gives way, without exception, to particular cultural beliefs and values. Not all Westerners are more independent than all East Asians, and not all East Asians are more interdependent than Westerners. Similar to other forms of stereotyping (e.g., boys are stronger than girls), such assumptions ignore the variability of self-views among individuals within a particular cultural context. Conceptually, self-construal measures allow for intra-cultural heterogeneity while still accounting for cross-cultural differences in the degree to which particular self-views are emphasized. Given the previously noted psychometric difficulties of self-construal measures, it may, however, be premature to fully claim the measures' advantages to cross-cultural research; further refinement to the definition and measurement of the self-construal construct is likely first necessary. 150 Self-construal and distress The current findings suggest that lower identification with attributes of an independent self-construal contributes or leads to difficulties with social distress for both cultural groups. One defining feature of the independent self-construal is the value placed on being unique and different from others (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Oyserman et al., 2002). As a way to elaborate and protect this unique sense of self, research indicates that individuals tend to overestimate positive attributes of the self and enhance their overall evaluation of the self and their future (Kunda & Sanitioso, 1989; Taylor & Brown, 1988). Self-enhancement tendencies appear to be specifically related to the independent self-construal (Norasakkunkit & Kalick, 2002) and, consistent with Western norms, are a well-established phenomenon in the Western self literature (for review see Mezulis, Abramson & Hankin, 2004). Although self-enhancement biases feature less prominently in East Asian cultures, a recent study demonstrated that in situations where aspects of an independent self-construal are promoted (i.e., overt personal competition with another individual) Japanese individuals evidenced self-enhancing biases similar to those found among Westerners (Takata, 2003). The findings may indicate that individuals who endorse independent self-views or promote independent social goals, regardless of their ethnic background, may also adopt strategies specific to preserving this self-view. The mental health benefits associated with self-enhancement biases are also well supported by the Western literature; self-enhancement strategies have been linked to more positive mood states (McFarland & Ross, 1982), lower levels of depression (Abramson & Alloy, 1981), higher self-esteem (Lewinsohn, Mischel, Chaplin & Barton, 1980), and lower social anxiety (Shean & Uchenwa, 1990). Given the apparent role of self-enhancement 151 processes in maintaining well-being, it is not surprising to find a body of literature suggesting the absence of a self-enhancing bias (without the presence of a self-critical one) is linked to distress (Alloy & Abramson, 1979; Calvo, Eysenck & Estevz, 1994; Taylor & Brown, 1988). Self-enhancing strategies may also help to protect individuals when they face threatening or distressing situations. For example, as part of a study comparing high socially anxious individuals with low socially anxious individuals, participants read a lists of positive and negative self-descriptors (e.g., confident, imaginative, awkward, helpless) and were asked the degree to which others would use each word to describe them (Mansell & Clark, 1999). The high socially anxious and the low socially anxious groups were then each separated into two conditions; in one condition the participants learned they would later give an impromptu speech in front of a camera (i.e., threat condition) whereas in the other condition participants were not told of the upcoming speech exercise (i.e., no-threat condition). Prior to the speech exercise, participants were asked to recall words from the lists previously read. Among those in the threat condition, high socially anxious individuals showed little difference in the number of positive and negative words they recalled, whereas low socially anxious individuals recalled a significantly higher number of positive self-descriptors than negative self-descriptors. In the no-threat condition, the groups did not differ on the number of positive and negative self-descriptors they recalled. The investigators argued that low socially anxious individuals prepared for the public speaking task by activating a more positive view of themselves and using self-enhancing strategies to increase confidence in their ability to succeed. According to Mansell and Clark, the increased doubt of social 152 success that is typical of socially anxious individuals may be explained, at least in part, by a failure to engage in self-enhancement processes. It appears one way to explain the relationship between Independent Self-construal and Western Social Anxiety is the self-enhancement strategies that are often associated with independent self-views. Although the current study did not directly address this potential mediating relationship, the data clearly indicate that, regardless of one's ethnic background, endorsing features of an independent self is directly related to reports of lower social distress. The findings may speak to the nature of the social anxiety scales employed and are consistent with the idea that individuals who adopt Western-promoted traits and beliefs are more likely to hold lower social anxiety ratings on Western-conceived measures. Step 3: East Asian Social Values as a Mediating Variable Another way to explain the relationship between Independent Self-construal and Western Social Anxiety is the potential mediating role of beliefs and values typically endorsed by East Asian cultures. Such a mediating role would further substantiate the possibility that cross-cultural differences on social anxiety measures may be accounted for by cultural differences in social goals and the strategies promoted to achieve them. The suggested mediation model analyses assessed whether Independent Self-construal and Western Social Anxiety each held relationships with the hypothesized mediating variable, East Asian Social Values, and supported all hypothesized relationships among the factors for both the Korean and Western groups: 1) Independent Self-construal negatively predicted Western Social Anxiety; 2) Independent Self-construal positively predicted East Asian Social Values; and 3) East Asian Social Values positively predicted Western Social Anxiety. 153 Although aspects of the Independent Self-construal that are directly related to self-criticism and self-flexibility helped explain the relationship between Independent Self-Construal and Western Social Anxiety for Westerners and Koreans, the strength of the relationship differed between the two samples. The East Asian Social Values construct was a weaker mediator in the Western sample, indicating that other aspects of Independent Self-construal contribute to its relationship with Western Social Anxiety. As previously discussed, one possibility is the role of self-enhancement biases, which appears to be closely linked to independent self-views and may help account for social anxiety ratings, particularly within Western social contexts. For the Korean sample, self-criticism and self-flexibility appear to be the single mechanism by which independent self views negatively relate to social anxiety ratings. Despite the difference in strength of the mediating relationship, the most parsimonious explanation for these findings is that, regardless of ethnic background, holding a less independent view of the self relates to the experience of social anxiety by way of a self-critical orientation and an inconsistent view of the self across social situations. Explaining the Cross-cultural Difference in Social Anxiety Ratings Although measures defining the constructs and the relationships specified among the constructs in the mediation model operated in the same way for both cultural groups, the suggested interpretation that East Asians are more socially distressed may be tempered by three different lines of evidence. First, findings from the discriminant validity analysis of the present study suggested that features of the interdependent self overlapped with the Western Social Anxiety and East Asian Social Values constructs, which may indicate (Western) social anxiety symptoms are more culturally normative within East Asian cultural frames. Second, past research indicates that holding less independent views of the self may be more culturally 154 normative within East Asian cultural frames. Third, self-critical orientations, and inconsistent self-views, which mediated the relationship between Independent Self-construal and Western Social Anxiety, feature more prominently within East Asian cultures. Western Social Anxiety and Interdependent Self-Construal The first line of evidence suggesting Western Social Anxiety may be more culturally normative within in East Asian contexts stems from the discriminant validity analysis. As previously discussed, the Takata and Beck Interdependent Self-construal measures and the Loss of Face scale loaded just as highly (if not more highly) on Western Social Anxiety. Although interpretation of these findings are limited by past and current evidence suggesting the psychometric properties of Interdependent Self-construal and loss of face scales may be poor, the constructs of Interdependent Self-construal, Western Social Anxiety, and fears of face loss appear to share considerable overlap in their conceptions. To the extent that a conceptual overlap exists and is reflected by measures of these constructs, Western Social Anxiety will encompass features that are culturally endorsed by East Asian contexts. Such a conceptual overlay would further substantiate East Asian reports of higher social anxiety as being culturally normative. Further refinement of the constructs' measures and their definitions will help elucidate the degree to which East Asian values may be embedded within Western conceptions of social anxiety. What is Culturally Normative? East Asian Social Values within a Western context: Self-consistency. Within Western contexts, the goal of achieving a stable, independent sense of self is emphasized (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Closely linked to developing and preserving an independent self-construal is the value placed on maintaining a coherent cluster of 155 personality traits and psychological attributes that is expressed consistently across situations (Seeman, 1983; Sheldon & Kasser, 1995; Suh, 2002). In line with past research findings (e.g., Koestner, Bernieri, & Zuckerman, 1992), the present study found individuals who view themselves as less autonomous are more likely to view themselves as inconsistent across different interpersonal situations. Prior to cross-cultural considerations of alternate social goals, Western research maintained the view that optimal psychological health is directly related to maintaining an integrated, stable set of personality traits and features (Sheldon & Kasser, 1995). Empirical support for this contention established self-consistency as a feature of well-being and as an important motivating process for social behaviour (Allport, 1937; Deci & Ryan, 1991; Donahue et al., 1993; Seeman, 1983). Within Western contexts, maintaining a consistent self-view across interpersonal situations appears to promote a sense of self-integrity and helps achieve the independent self-construal goal of personal autonomy and directing behaviour according to a coherent, internal set of beliefs, values, and desires. The present study supports this idea by demonstrating the contributing role of self-consistency in accounting for lower degrees of social distress among those with more autonomous social goals. East Asian Social Values within an East Asian Context: Self-consistency. One salient feature often ascribed to East Asian cultures is the emphasis placed on remaining sensitive to the situation-specific cues of the social environment as a way to achieve and maintain harmonious relations with others (Fiske, Kitayama, & Markus, 1998; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1995). Implicit to this value is an understanding that the behaviour of an individual will shift according to the unique demands of a social situation 156 and is not primarily determined by personal beliefs, desires, and wants. Consistent with this, researchers have found, when compared to their Western counterparts, East Asians are more like to attribute external causes to social events (Morris & Peng, 1994), view others' behaviour as a combination of personality and situation-related factors (Norezenzayan, Choi & Nisbett, 1999), and describe the self in more contextually-specific ways (Cousins, 1989; Kanagawa et al., 2001). The importance placed on cross-situational sensitivity within East Asian cultures appears to extend to the stability of an individual's self-view. Unlike Western contexts where individuals place greater value on maintaining a coherent, consistent set of personal attributes and characteristics (Donahue et al., 1993; Seeman, 1983; Sheldon & Kasser, 1995), research indicates East Asians are less likely to describe themselves using stable, psychological attributes (e.g, "I am cheerful", "I am sincere") and, instead, are more likely to view themselves in contextually-specific ways (e.g., "I am hungry right now", "I am one who plays mah-jong on Friday nights"; Cousins, 1989; Kanagawa et al., 2001). Suh (2002) further investigated the cross-situational variability of self-views by asking samples of Korean and Western individuals to rate the degree to which different personality traits (e.g., honest, cheerful, calculative, two-faced) described them across a variety of interpersonal situations (e.g., with a close friend, with a parent, with a stranger). When compared to their Western counterparts, the Koreans described themselves as significantly more inconsistent in identity across situations. Using the same method of measurement, the present study replicated these findings. The results highlight the culturally-related greater importance of situational cues and demands in defining the self and appear to reflect the East Asian social goal of achieving group harmony. 157 Within a given social situation individuals are described as being motivated to achieve a particular social goal (Carver & Sheier, 1981, 1990; Schlenker & Leary, 1991); the strategies by which this social goal is achieved are highly dependent on the nature of the goal. The different social goals endorsed by Western and East Asian cultures may explain the culturally different emphasis on maintaining a consistent self-identity. Within Western cultural contexts, individuals appear to be driven to achieve the social goals of autonomy, self-efficacy, and self-awareness (Fiske et al., 1998; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1995). Viewing the self as separate and unique from others and preserving an integrated, stable set of personality traits serve well in achieving Western-based independent or individualistic social goals (Allport, 1937; Deci & Ryan, 1991; Donahue et al., 1993; Seeman, 1983). By contrast, East Asian cultures are typified as upholding the goal of group harmony and maintaining peaceful relations with others (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1995). Within this cultural frame, the boundaries of the self extend beyond the individual and are responsive to the interpersonal cues of others and to situation-specific demands. Adapting one's identity and personal attributes to these cues promotes a greater likelihood of achieving the goal of group harmony and may not threaten an individual's sense of well-being (Suh, 2002). East Asian Social Values within a Western Context: Self-criticism. The research literature that delineates the association between self-criticism and distress is vast. Until more recently, self-criticism was considered a vulnerability factor specific to depression (for review see Enns & Cox, 1997; Nietzel & Harris, 1990). For example, Bagby and colleagues (1992), using the Depressive Experiences Questionnaire 158 (DEQ), compared outpatients with unipolar major depression to outpatients diagnosed with panic disorder and found self-criticism significantly differentiated the two diagnostic groups when the effects of depressed mood were statistically controlled. Challenges to the diagnostic specificity of self-criticism to depression have, however, been raised (Cox et al., 2000). Cox and colleagues (2000) collected data from a sample of social phobia outpatients and compared their DEQ scores with those of the depressed and panic patient samples used in the Bagby et al. study. Unlike findings with the panic sample, the results indicated that, even after controlling for the effects of current depressed mood levels, self-criticism did not differentiate the depressed sample from the social phobia sample. In addition, although the social phobia sample held near equal Beck Depression Inventory scores as the panic sample, the social phobia sample held three times higher DEQ self-criticism scores than the panic sample. Unlike past assertions, self-criticism did not appear to be exclusive to depressed individuals but, instead, was also a pronounced feature among individuals suffering from high levels of social anxiety. Results from the National Comorbidity Survey (NCS; Kessler et al., 1994) further clarified the relationship between self-criticism and social phobia (Cox, Fleet, & Stein, 2004). When compared to individuals without a psychiatric history, the study found elevated self-criticism scores among NCS respondents meeting diagnostic criteria for social phobia. The relationship between self-criticism and social phobia remained significant after controlling for current emotional distress, neuroticism, and lifetime histories of mood, anxiety and substance use disorders, which suggested that elevated self-criticism scores among highly socially anxious individuals could not be attributed to a general overriding feeling of distress. Higher self-criticism scores were also found among individuals with a past history of social 159 phobia but did not hold a recent (12-month) history of the diagnosis; the finding provided evidence against potential assertions that self-criticism is merely a symptom of high social anxiety and is consistent with present findings that indicate self-criticism as a vulnerability factor for social anxiety. East Asian Social Values within an East Asian Context: Self-criticism. Similar to the construct of identity flexibility (or identity inconsistency), self-critical orientations appear more frequently within East Asian frameworks. Several lines of evidence support the prominence of self-criticism among East Asians. A compilation of studies comparing Japanese individuals with Westerners have indicated that the Japanese tend to view themselves as more distant from their ideal self along characteristics considered important for succeeding in their culture (Heine & Lehman, 1999), adopt more self-critical views after failing at a prescribed task (Heine, Kitayama, & Lehman, 2001), are more reluctant to conclude that they performed better at a task than their average classmate (Heine, Takata & Lehman, 2000), and perceive failure situations as influencing their self-esteem more than success situations (Kitayama et al., 1997). One potential explanation for the cross-cultural difference in the frequency with which self-critical orientations are endorsed is that self-criticism may play a functional role in achieving interdependent social goals (Heine, 2003). Within East Asian contexts, the individual acts as an agent to his/her own personal social success by preserving the integrity of the group and being responsive to the dynamic, shifting nature of the group's concerns. Sensitivity to negative self-referent information or self-criticism may be advantageous to achieving the East Asian goal of group harmony (Kitayama et al., 1997). Self-criticism is seen as helping interdependent individuals increase their awareness of potential negative 160 behaviours or attributes that may threaten the stability of a group interaction. This sensitivity promotes greater ability to shift one's behaviour according to situational demands and to act in a way that will be beneficial to all members involved in the interaction. Interpretations The importance or emphasis placed on the constructs of self-consistency and self-criticism appears to markedly differ between East Asian and Western cultures. Self-flexible and self-critical views feature more prominently in East Asian contexts, which may suggest these constructs are more culturally normative than in Western contexts. In line with past findings, Koreans in the present study reported lower independent self-views and greater East Asian Social Values than their Western counterparts. The mediation model findings that indicate the relationship between Independent Self-construal and Western Social Anxiety as being mediated by social constructs that are more pronounced in East Asian contexts may help explain why the Korean sample showed greater endorsement of Western Social Anxiety. To the extent that a less independent self-construal, more self-flexibility, and greater degrees of self-criticism are more culturally normative in East Asian cultures, elevated scores on Western Social Anxiety measures may also be more culturally normative. The higher endorsement of these constructs among the Koreans may also point to the functionality of these constructs in achieving East Asian social goals and may suggest the constructs hold different implications across the two cultural samples. In other words, elevations on Western Social Anxiety may be more culturally normative without being less distressing. Future investigations focused on directly testing potential cross-cultural differences in the meaning attributed to lower independence, higher self-criticism, higher self-flexibility and higher Western Social Anxiety may clarify the current findings. 161 In sum, given that the East Asian Social Values factor and decreased affiliation with Independent Self-construal are more culturally normative within East Asian cultures, how is it that this factor accounts for ratings of social distress? The simplest explanation is that the consequences of Western-based social anxiety symptoms, arising from an affiliation with East Asian Social Values and low independence, are more tolerable and, perhaps, culturally normative within East Asian cultures. East Asian reports of higher social anxiety may then be explained as a reflection of their affiliation with traits and behaviours that are advantageous and normative within East Asian cultures. Directionality of Findings Although the structural model developed and tested in the current study presents a viable explanation of how social anxiety ratings may be explained by self-views, traits and beliefs endorsed by an individual, alternate structural models do exist. Given the correlational nature of S E M analyses, competing structural models may serve similarly well in explaining how the constructs of Western Social Anxiety, Independent Self-construal, and East Asian Social Values may relate to one another and how cultural differences in social anxiety ratings may be understood. As a way to highlight future avenues of research, the following three alternate structural models serve as examples of potential directions in which the current study data may have been examined. First, it may be that individuals who view themselves as less independent are more likely to be self-critical and self-flexible by way of higher social anxiety. This model suggests that aspects of Western Social Anxiety that are related to Independent Self-construal give rise to differences in East Asian Social Values. When considering the features associated with an independent self-view, the emphasis placed on being unique and separate 1 6 2 from others likely increases the value of personal opinions and evaluations and reduces the perceived importance of others' evaluations of personal attitudes, opinions and behaviour. This assertion is supported by several items from measures of independent self construal; for example: If I think something is good, then I do not really care what others think (Takata Self-construal scale); If I think I am right about something, I feel comfortable expressing . myself even if others don't like it (Beck Autonomy scale); I stick to my opinions even when others in my group don't support me (Yamaguchi Collectivism scale). Conceivably, being less concerned about others' evaluations will reduce the meaningfulness of being evaluated negatively in social situations, which, in turn, will decrease the likelihood the independent individual will experience high levels of social anxiety. Further, the decreased level of social anxiety and social fears experienced as a function of higher independence may diminish self-critical tendencies (and, instead, breed self-confidence or self-enhancement) and may reduce the likelihood an individual shifts his or her identity to maintain the approval of and peaceful relations with others. Second, it may be that the beliefs, traits and attitudes promoted within a particular cultural context help shape the ways in which individuals view themselves in relation to others, which, in turn, influence the likelihood these individuals will experience social anxiety. Applying this model to the context of the current study, affiliation with East Asian Social Values leads to higher Western Social Anxiety, which is mediated by Independent Self-construal. From a developmental perspective, children are likely' exposed to the beliefs and social values upheld by the cultural context in which they live before a definite sense of self is formed. Consistent with this model, it may be that individuals within East Asian cultures are more likely to adopt or endorse traits, beliefs and values promoted by their culture (i.e., 163 East Asian Social Values) which helps formulate a sense of self that is less independent and more concerned with maintaining peaceful relations with others. Social anxiety symptoms that are associated with East Asian Social Values may be mediated by a less independent self-view. One way to interpret the suggested indirect relationship is that only those East Asian beliefs and values that are directly related to how an individual evaluates him or herself in social situations or in relation to others explains the degree to which an individual worries about the meaningfulness and probability of being negatively evaluated by others. Finally, it may be that individuals who are more vulnerable to experiencing social anxiety or, in other words, shy individuals are more likely to be self-critical and self-flexible as a result of less independent views of themselves. This model argues that individuals will . vary in the degree to which they experience social anxiety and that these individual differences may be viewed as innate or related to a shy temperament that arose during the earlier stages of development. Such shy individuals are seen as being more likely to view the self as less independent and be more concerned about the opinion of others, which, in turn, explains tendencies to be self-critical and self-flexible. Using the current model to explain the cultural difference in social anxiety ratings, it may be that East Asians are more likely to be shy or are more vulnerable to experiencing social anxiety and that these traits directly promote less independent self-views and also likely interacts with socio-cultural factors further foster the development of low independence. Current Limitations and Future Directions Although the present study marks a step forward in understanding past and current findings that suggest East Asians as being more socially anxious than Westerners, future research is needed to clarify the present findings by replicating the results with alternate 164 methods of study and testing competing explanations for the cross-cultural difference in social anxiety ratings. In addition, the results raise several research questions that focus on how cultural factors may influence when, how and to what degree an individual experiences social distress. Defining Interdependent Self-Construal The present study failed to justify Interdependent Self-construal as a unitary construct and pointed to a need to refine the definition of an interdependent self-view and to resolve discordance among Interdependent Self-construal measures. Greater clarification of the features defining Interdependent Self-construal is first needed before testing how this factor may relate to social anxiety ratings. Several possible ways to define an interdependent self-view exist. It may be that Interdependent Self-construal represents a higher-order factor that subsumes multiple lower-order constructs. One difficulty with this hypothesis is the complexity of discriminating against factors that are related to but, arguably, independent of Interdependent Self-construal (e.g., social anxiety). In addition, with this conceptualization, one is faced with the challenge of delineating the boundaries of Interdependent Self-construal and reining in the number of lower order constructs comprising the Interdependent Self-construal factor. For example, face saving concerns may be considered a lower-order factor of Interdependent Self-construal, as it appears to reflect the goal of achieving group harmony and the view of seeing the self as interdependent. Similarly, the constructs of self-flexibility and self-criticism could also, arguably, be included as lower-order factors. By expanding the number (and diversity) of lower order-constructs in such a manner, however, the conceptual boundaries of 165 Interdependent Self-construal become less meaningful and the higher-order factor becomes more similar to the East Asian Social Values construct included in this study. Another potential path to clarifying the nature of Interdependent Self-construal is to ' consider whether current conceptualizations of the construct are too inclusive and encompass multiple, separable factors. Results from the present study suggest Interdependent Self-construal measures capture two separate factors that relate to alternate constructs in differing ways. For example, the Yamaguchi Collectivism scale held nominal relations with self-criticism whereas the Beck Sociotropy scale overlapped highly with the construct. Moreover, further efforts are needed in articulating the conceptual difference between Independent Self-construal and Interdependent Self-construal. Although the constructs are viewed as orthogonal to one another, the theoretical distinction of holding a low independent self-construal and a high interdependent self-construal is often blurred and may not be adequately captured by self-report measures. Generalizability of Findings Measurement Considerations Interpretations of the present study findings are limited by the single method used to tap the constructs of Independent Self-construal, Interdependent Self-construal, East Asian Social Values and Western Social Anxiety. A l l measures included in the study were self-report questionnaires, with the majority employing a Likert-based rating scale format. Self-report questionnaires were selected not only for their ease of administration but also for the greater and wider history of research on their psychometric properties with both East Asian and Western samples. By using a similar method of assessment, however, the measures become vulnerable to associations that are an artefact of shared method variance, particularly 166 among subscales of the same measure (e.g., Yamguchi Collectivism Scale-Collectivism subscale and Yamaguchi Collectivism Scale- Agency subscale). Future studies assessing the study's constructs using methods alternate to self-report questionnaires (e.g., behavioural indices) will address whether the relationships found among the constructs are limited to this form of measurement and may elucidate reasons for the high overlap found among the constructs of Interdependent Self-construal, Western Social Anxiety and loss of face concerns. Limiting the study to self-report questionnaires also draws the potential assumption that each of the proposed constructs is amenable to such method of measurement. As previously discussed, the dynamic and context-specific nature of Interdependent Self-construal and, likely, East Asian Social Values may not be adequately captured by measures that require concrete, context-free responses. The development of measures that are more sensitive to or allow for context dependent responses may provide superior insight into the nature of constructs more common in East Asian cultures. Sample Considerations The participant samples of the present study held several features that promoted the generalizability and applicability of the findings to the populations from which they belong (i.e., Westerners and East Asians). First, unlike several past cross-cultural comparisons (e.g., Dinnel, Kleinknecht, & Tanaka-Matsumi, 2002; Okazaki, 1997, 2002; Singelis, 1994) both samples held a broader range in age, education and income than that is often possible when limited to college populations. The greater and near equivalent level of diversity in demographic variables across the two samples helped reduce the likelihood that the findings better reflected idiosyncratic features of a particular cohort of individuals. 167 Second, the participant eligibility criteria required by the study increased the potential of utilizing samples that were relatively naive of outside cultural influences and acculturation processes. In particular, the Korean participant requirement of having lived less than four years in a Western country and the administration of all study protocol in participants' native language further promoted the cultural distinctiveness of the two groups. Finally, the study's large sample size allowed sufficient power to detect differences between the two samples and provided the opportunity to address, by using SEM procedures, research questions not afforded by smaller sample sizes. Features of the participant samples may, however, threaten the generalizability of the results and prompt the need to address these issues and replicate the current findings. Although the study aimed to gain a representative Korean sample, recruitment efforts were limited to individuals who had immigrated to Canada or had decided to study in a Western country. Ostensibly, the decision to migrate to a Western country reflects traits or motivations among these individuals that may not be shared by individuals who continue to live in Korea. Moreover, it may be premature to deem the current findings as being applicable to individuals from other East Asian cultures. Despite the consistency of the cultural group differences found with those found by past studies utilizing alternate East Asian samples, future research with participants living in Korea and other East Asian countries (e.g., China, Hong Kong and Japan) will help articulate the degree to which the current findings are generalizable. Issues of Functional Equivalence Upon further examination of the administered social anxiety scales, it became clear that higher scores on these measures reflect the frequency to which individuals report 168 experiencing social anxiety or the degree to which individuals endorse feelings of social anxiety as being characteristic of them in a variety of social situations. For example, the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory presents a series of social situations (e.g., "Ifeel anxious when entering social situations where there is a small group ", "Ifeel anxious when stating an opinion to ...strangers, authority figures, opposite sex, people in general") and asks respondents to rate the frequency (e.g., Never, Infrequently, Sometimes, Frequently, Always) to which they experience anxiety in the presented situations. The measures, however, fail to assess perceptions of symptom severity or degree of functional impairment experienced by the respondent. Implicit to the design of these questionnaires is the assumption that the frequency to which individuals experience anxiety in social situations invariably translates into their level of social distress or impairment. This assumption appears to be well-founded among Westerners (Beidel, et al., 1989; Heimberg et al., 1992; Herbert et al., 1991) but may not generalize to East Asian populations. Among Westerners, social anxiety measures serve well to identify individuals with a social phobia diagnosis, predict subjective levels of distress during social tasks (e.g., impromptu speech, role play), and predict avoidance of social situations (Beidel, Turner, Stanley & Dancu, 1989; Heimberg, Mueller, Holt, Hope & Liebowitz, 1992; Herbert, Bellack & Hope, 1991). It is unclear whether experiencing anxiety at a higher frequency across social situations is as functionally impairing or distressing to East Asians. Given the East Asian emphasis on the contextual demands of a situation, it may be that being characteristically "anxious" within social situations is not only perceived as less distressing but also as potentially advantageous to reading situation-specific social cues. To the extent that 169 contextual sensitivity is important to achieving the East Asian social goal of group harmony, feelings of "anxiety" may be viewed as a level of arousal that is conducive to being alert to situation-specific cues and demands. Following this line of reasoning, among East Asians experiencing "anxiety" or arousal within a social situation may be interpreted less negatively than among Westerners, which may further explain the cultural difference in social anxiety ratings. Consistent with this hypothesis, past research indicates that how individuals interpret anxiety symptoms is directly related to the degree of distress experienced. Socially anxious individuals tend to show greater sensitivity to interoceptive or body state information (i.e., , increased heart rate, blushing) and demonstrate more negative interpretations of interoceptive changes than their non-socially anxious counterparts (Mellings & Alden, 2000; Mulkens et al., 1999; Roth, Antony & Swinson, 2001). Mulkens and colleagues (1999) found that high socially anxious individuals, when presented with a mild social stressor, rated greater blush intensity than low fear individuals, though they did not show physiological differences in actual blush intensity. Although the present study found that higher social anxiety ratings may be more common within East Asian contexts, it remains unclear whether the level of distress associated with higher ratings are equivalent across the two cultural groups. Future research focused on specifying the meaning or interpretations associated with experiencing social anxiety symptoms among East Asians will likely further clarify reasons for the cultural difference in social anxiety ratings. 170 References Abramson, L . Y . & Alloy, L . B. (1981). Depression, nondepression, and cognitive illusions: Reply to Schwartz. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 110, 436-447. Alden, L .E . , & Bieling, P. (1998). Interpersonal consequences of the pursuit of safety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 53-64. Alden, L .E . , & Wallace, S.T. (1995). Social phobia and social appraisal in successful and unsuccessful social interactions. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33A 497-505. Allport, F. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt. Alloy, L . B . & Abramson, L . Y . (1979). Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: Sadder but wiser? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 441-485. Amin, N , Foa, E.B., & Coles, M.E. (1998). Negative interpretation bias in social phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 945-957. Anderson, L.R. (1991). Test-retest reliability of the Revised Self-Monitoring Scale over a two-year period. Psychological Reports, 68, 1057-1058. Areti, S., & Bemporad, J.R. (1980). The psychological organization of depression. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137, 1360-1365. Arkowitz, H. , Lichtenstein, E., McGovern, K. ,& Hines, P. (1975). The behavioural assessment of social competence in males. Behavior Therapy, 6, 3-13. Bagby, R .M. , Cox, B.J., Schuller, D.R., Levitt, A.J. , Swinson, R.P., & Joffe, R.T. (1992). Diagnostic specificity of the dependent and self-critical personality dimensions in major depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 26, 59-64. 171 Baron, R .M. , & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Beck, A.T. (1983). Cognitive therapy of depression: New perspectives. In P.J. Clayton and J.E. Barnett (Eds.), Treatment of depression: Old controversies and new approaches (pp. 265-290). New York: Raven Press. Beidel, D . C , Turner, S.M., Stanley, M . A . & Dancu, C.V. (1989). The Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory: Concurrent and external validity. Behavior Therapy, 20, 417'-427'. Bieling, Pj., Beck, A.T., & Brown, G.K. (2000). The Sociotropy-Autonomy Scale: Structure and implications. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24, 763-780. Blatt, S.J. & Zuroff, D.C. (1992). Interpersonal relatedness and self-definition: Two prototypes for depression. Clinical Psychology Review, 12^ 527-562. Blatt, S.J., d'Afflitti, J.P. & Quinlan, D . M . (1976). Experiences of depression in normal young adults. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85\ 383-389. Blatt, S.J., Quinlan, D .M. , Chevron, E.S., McDonald, C. & Zuroff, D. (1982). Dependency and self-criticism: Psychological dimensions of depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, \ 13-124. Boomsma, A. (1987). The robustness of maximum likelihood estimation in structural equation models. In P. Cuttance & R. Ecob (Eds.) Structural Modeling By Example: Applications in Educational, Sociological, and Behavioral Research (pp. 160-188). New York: Cambridge University Press. Bouvard, M . , Guerin, J., Rion, A .C . , Bouchard, C , Ducottet, E., Sechaud, M . , Mollard, E., Grillet, P & Cottraux, J. (1999). Psychometric study of the social self-esteem 172 inventory of Lawson et al. (1979). European Review of Applied Psychology, 49, 165-172. Bresnahan, M.J. , Levine, T.R., Shearman, S.M., Lee, S-Y., Park, C-Y., & Kiyomiya, T. (2005). A multimethod mulitrait validity assessment of self-construal in Japan, Korea, and the United States. Human Communication Research, 31, 33-59. Briggs, S.R. & Cheek, J .M. (1988). On the nature of self-monitoring: Problems with assessment, problems with validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 663-678. Briggs, S.R., Cheek, J .M, & Buss, A . H . (1980). An analysis of the Self-Monitoring Scale. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 38, 679-686. Brown, E.J, Juster, H.R., Heimberg, R.G., & Winning, C D . (1998). Stressful life events and personality styles: Relation to impairment and treatment outcome in patients with social phobia. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 12, 233-251. Brown, E.J., Turovsky, J., Heimberg, R.G., Juster, H.R., Brown, T.A., & Barlow, D.H. (1997). Validation of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and the Social Phobia Scale across the anxiety disorders. Psychological Assessment, 9, 21-27'. Bruch, M.A . , Rivet, K . M . , Hemberg, R.G., Hunt, A. & Mcintosh, B. (1999). Shyness and sociotropy: Additive and interactive relations in predicting interpersonal concerns. Journal of Personality, 67, 373-406. Byrne, B . M (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Byrne, B . M . , Shavelson, R.J., & Muthen, Bengt (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456-466. Cacioppo, J.T., Glass, C.R., & Merluzzi, T.V. (1979). Self-statements and self-evaluations: A cognitive response analysis of heterosocial anxiety. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 3, 249-262. Calvo, M.G. , Eysenck, M.W. & Estevz, A. (1994). Ego-threat interpretative bias in test anxiety: On-line inferences. Cognition and Emotion, 11, 43-63. Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by multi-trait, multi-method matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105. Carver, C S . & Scheier, M.F. (1981). Attention and Self-regulation: A Control Theory Approach to Human Behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag. Chang, E.C. & Asakawa, K . (2003). Cultural variations on optimistic and pessimistic bias for self versus a sibling: Is there evidence for self-enhancement in the West and for self-criticism in the East when the referent group is specified? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 569-581. Chang, E.C. (1996). Cultural differences in optimism, pessimism, and coping: Predictors of subsequent adjustment in Asian American and Caucasian American college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 113-123. Chang, E . C , Asakawa, K. , & Sanna, L.J. (2001). Cultural variations in optimistic and pessimistic bias: Do Easterners really expect the worst and Westerners really expect the best when predicting future life events? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, _ 476-491. 174 Chang, H . - C , & Holt, G. R. (1994). A Chinese perspective on face as inter-relational concern. In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The challenge of facework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues (pp. 95-132). New York: SUNY Press. Clark, D.A. & Beck, A.T. (1991). Personality factors in dysphoria: A psychometric refinement of Beck's Sociotropy-Autonomy Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 12, 369-388. Clark, D.A., Beck, A.T., & Alfred, B.A. (1995). Scientific Foundations of the Cognitive Theory and Therapy of Depression. New York: Guildford. Clark, D.A., Steer, R.A., & Beck, A.T. (1995). Psychometric characteristics of revised sociotropy and autonomy scales in college students. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 33, 325-334. Clark, D.A., Steer, R.A., Haslam, N . , Beck, A.T., & Brown, G.K. (1997). Personality vulnerability, psychiatric diagnoses, and symptoms: Cluster analyses of the Sociotropy-Autonomy Scale. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 21, 267-283. Clark, D . M . (2001). A cognitive perspective on social phobia. In W.R. Crozier and L .E . Alden (Eds.), International handbook of social anxiety: Concepts, research and interventions relating to the self and shyness Chichester, U K : Wiley. Clark, D . M . & Wells, A . (1995). A cognitive model of social phobia. In R.G. Heimberg, M . Liebowitz, D.A. Hope and F. Schneier (Eds.) Social phobia: Diagnosis, assessment and treatment (pp 69-93). New York: Guildford. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. 175 Cronbach, L.J. , & Meehl, P.E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302. Cousins, S. D. (1989). Culture and self-perception in Japan and the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 124-131. Cox, B.J., Fleet, C , & Stein, M . B . (2004). Self-criticism and social phobia in the US national comorbidity survey. Journal of Affective Disorders, 82, 227-234. Cox, B.J., Rector, N .A. , Bagby, R .M. , Swinson, R.P., Levitt, A.J. , & Joffe, R.T. (2000). Is self-criticism unique for depression? A comparison with social phobia. Journal of Affective Disorders, 57, 223-228. Cross, S.E. & Madson, L . (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5-37. Cross, S.E., Bacon, P.L. & Morris, M . L . (2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 791-808. Cross, S.E., Gore, J.S, & Morris, M . L . (2003). The relational-independent self-construal, self-concept consistency, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 933-944. Cross, S.E., Morris, M . L . & Gore, J.S. (2002) Thinking about oneself and others: The relational-interdependent self-construal and social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 399-418. Crowley, S.L. & Fan, X . (1997). Structural Equation Modeling: Basic Concepts and Applications in Personality Assessment Research. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 508-531. 176 Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R . M . (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.). Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol 38, Perspectives in Motivation (pp 237-288). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Diener, E. & Suh, E . M . (Eds.) (2000). Culture and Subjective Well-being. Cambridge, M A : MIT Press. Dinnel, D.L., Kleinknecht, R.A., & Tanaka-Matsumi, J. (2002). A cross-cultural comparison of social phobia symptoms Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 24x 75-84. Doi, T. (1986). The anatomy of self: The individual versus society. Tokyo: Kodansha International. Donahue, E .M. , Robins, R.W., Roberts, B.W. & John, O.P. (1993). The divided self: Concurrent and longitudinal effects of psychological adjustment and social roles on self-concept differentiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 834-846. Dunning, D, Perie, M . & Story, A . L . (1991). Self-serving prototypes of social categories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 957-968. Endo, Y . , Heine, S.J., & Lehman, D.R. (2000). Culture and positive illusions in close relationships: How my relationships are better than yours. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1571-1586. Enns, M.W. & Cox, B.J. (1997). Personality dimensions and depression: Review and commentary. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 42, 274-284. 177 Fiske, A.P. (2002). Using individualism and collectivism to compare culture - A critique of the validation and measurement of the constructs: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128, 78-88. Fiske, A. P., Kitayama, S., & Markus, Ff. R. (1998). The cultural matrix of social psychology. In Gilbert, D.T. & Fiske, S.T. (Eds.) Handbook of social psychology, Vol. 2 (4th ed.) (pp 915-981). New York: McGraw-Hill. Gangestad, S.W. & Snyder, M . (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 530-555. Gao, G. (1998). "Don't take my word for it."-Understanding Chinese-speaking practices. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 163-186. Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondance bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 21-38. Gilbert, P. & Reynolds, S. (1990). The relationship between the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire and Beck's concept of sociotropy and autonomy. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 29, 319-325. Grace, S.L., & Cramer, K . L . (2003). The elusive nature of self-measurement: The Self-construal Scale versus the Twenty Statements Test. Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 649-668. Gudykunst, W.B. (1987). Cross-cultural comparisons. In C R . Berger and S. Chaffee (Eds.) Handbook of communication science (pp 846- 889). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Gudykunst, W.B. & Lee, C M . (2003). Assessing the validity of self-construal scales: A response to Levine et al. Human Communication Research, 29, 253-274. 178 Gudykunst, W.B. & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and Interpersonal Communication. Newbury Park, C A : Sage. Gudykunst, W.B., Matsumoto, Y. , Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K. , & Heyman, S. (1996). The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism on perceptions of communication in ingroup and outgroup relationships. Communication Monographs, 54, 295-306. Habke, A . M . , Hewitt, P.L., Norton, G.R., & Amundson, G. (1997). The Social Phobia and Social Interaction Anxiety Scales: A n exploration of the dimensions of social anxiety and sex differences in structure and relations with pathology. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 19, 21-39. Hamid, P. N . (1994). Self-monitoring, locus of control, and social encounters of Chinese and New Zealand students. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25, 353-368. Hammen, C , Ellicott, A. , & Gitlin, M . (1989). Vulnerability to specific life events and prediction of course of disorder in unipolar depressed patients. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 21, 377-388. Heimberg, R.G., Mueller, G.P., Holt, C.S., Hope, D.A., & Liebowitz, M.R. (1992). Assessment of anxiety in social interaction and being observed by others: The Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and the Social Phobia Scale. Behavior Therapy, 23, 53-73. Heine, S.J. (2003). An exploration of cultural variation in self-enhancing and self-improving motivations. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 49, 101-129. 179 Heine, S.J. & Lehman, D.R. (1995). Cultural variation in unrealistic optimism: Does the West feel more invulnerable than the East? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 595-607. Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1997). The cultural construction of self-enhancement: A n examination of group-serving biases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1268-1283. Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1999). Culture, self-discrepancies, and self-satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 915-925. Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H.R. & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review, 1061 766-794. Heine, S.J., Kitayama, S. & Lehman, D.R. (2001). Cultural differences in self-evaluation: Japanese readily accept negative self-referent information. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 434-443. Herbert, J.D., Bellack, A.S. & Hope, D.A. (1991). Concurrent validity of the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 73,357-368. Hetts, J., Sakuma, M . & Pelham, B.W. (1999). Two roads to positive regard: Implicit and explicit self-evaluation and culture. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 512-559. Hirsch, C R . & Mathews, A . (1997). Interpretive inferences when reading about emotional events. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35, 1123-1132. Hirsch, C R . & Mathews, A. (2000). Impaired positive inferential bias in social phobia. . Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109, 705-712. Ho, D. (1991). The concept of "face" in Chinese-American interaction. In W-C. Hu & C L . Grove (Eds.). Encountering the Chinese: A guide for Americans (pp 111 - 124). Yarmouth, M E : Intercultural Press. Hofstede, G (1980). Culture's consequences. Beverly Hills, C A : Sage. Ingram, R.E. (1990). Self-focused attention in clinical disorders: Review and conceptual model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 156-176. Iwase, M . , Nakao, K. , Takaishi, J., Yorifuji, K. , Ikezawa, K. & Takeda, M . (2000). An empirical classification of social anxiety: Performance, interpersonal and offensive. Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 54, 67-75. Joreskog, K . G . (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K . A . Bollen & J.B. Long (Eds.) Testing Structural Equation Models (pp. 294-316). Newbury Park, C A : Sage. Kanagawa, C , Cross, S.E., & Markus, H.R. (2001). "Who am I?" The cultural psychology of the conceptual self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 90-103. Kasahara, Y . (1988). Social phobia in Japan. Transcultural Psychiatric Review, 25, 145-150. 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'. Kessler, R . C , McGonagle, K . A . , Zhao, S., Nelson, C.B., Hughes, M . , Eshleman, S. et al. (1994). Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders in the United States: Results from the national combordity survey. Archives of General Psychiatry, 51, 8-19. Kim, M.-S. (1994). Cross-cultural comparisons of the perceived importance of conversational constraints. Human Communication Research, 21, 128-151. 181 Kim, M.-S., & Kim, H.-J. (1997). Communication goals: Individual differences between Korean and American speakers. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 509-517. Kim, M.-S., & Raja, N.S. (2003). When validity testing lacks validity: Comment on Levine et al. Human Communication Research, 29, 275-290. Kim, M-S., Kim, H-J, Aune, K.S., Hunter, J.E. & Kim, J-E. (2001). The effect of culture and self-construals on predispositions toward verbal communication. Human Communication Research, 27, 382-408. Kitayama, S. & Markus, H.R. (2000). The pursuit of happiness and the realization of sympathy: Cultural patterns of self, social relations, and well-being. In E. Diener and E . M . Suh (Eds.), Culture and subjective well-being (ppl 13-161). Cambridge, M A : MIT Press. Kitayama, S., Markus, H.R., Matsumoto, H . & Norasakkunkit, V . (1997). Individual and collective processes in construction of the self: Self-enhancement in the United States and self-criticism in Japan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, _1245-1267. Kitayama, S., Markus, H.R., Matsumoto, H . & Norasakkunkit, V . (1997). Individual and collective processes in construction of the self: Self-enhancement in the United States and self-criticism in Japan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72,_1245-1267. Kleinknecht, R.A., Dinnel, D.L., Kleinknecht, E.E., Hiruma, N . , & Harada (1997). Cultural factors in social anxiety : A comparison of social phobia symptoms and Taijin Kyofusho. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 11, 157-177. Kpestner, R., Bernieri, F., & Zuckerman, M . (1992). Self-regulation and consistency between traits, attitudes and behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 52-59. Kuhn, M . H . & McPartland, T.S. (1954). An empirical investigation of self-attitudes. American Sociological Review, 19, 68-76. Kunda, Z. & Sanitioso, R. (1989). Motivated changes in self-concept. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25,_272-285. Lennox, R.D. (1988). The problem with self-monitoring: A two-sided scale and a one-sided theory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 58-73. Lennox, R.D. & Wolfe, R.N. (1984). Revision of the Self-monitoring Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1349-1364. Leung, K. (1987). Some determinants of reactions to procedural models of conflict resolution: A cross-national study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 898-908. Levine, T.R., Bresnahan, M.J., Park, H-S., Lapinski, M.K. , Wittenbaum, G.M. , Shearman, S.M, et al. (2003a). Self-construal scales lack validity. Human Communication Research, 29, 210-252. Levine, T.R., Bresnahan, M.J., Park, H-S., Lapinski, M . K . , Lee, T-S., & Lee, D-W (2003b). The (in)validity of self-construal scales revisited. Human Communication Research, 29, 291-308. Lewinsohn, P. M . , Mischel, W., & Chaplin, W. (1980). Social competence and depression: The role of illusory self-perceptions. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 89, 203-212. Maeda, F. & Nathan, J.H. (1999). Understanding Taijin Kyofiisho through its treatment, Morita therapy. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 6, 525-530. Mahone, E .M. , Bruch, M.A. , & Heimberg, R.G. (1993). Focus of attention and social anxiety: The role of negative self-thoughts and perceived positive attributes of the other. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 17,_ 209-224. Mansell, W. & Clark, D . M . (1999). How do I appear to others? Social anxiety and processing of the observable self. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37, 419-434 Mansell, W. & Clark, D . M . (1999). How do I appear to others? Social anxiety and processing of the observable self. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37, 419-434. Markus, H . R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. Matsumoto, D. (1999). Culture and self: An empirical assessment of Markus and Kitayama's theory of independent and interdependent self-construals. Asia Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 289-310. Mattick, R.P. & Clark, J.C. (1998). Development and validation of social phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 455-470. McCranie, B.W., & Bass, J.D. (1984). Childhood family antecedents of dependency and self-criticism: Implications for depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, 3-8. McFarland, C. & Ross, M . (1982). Impact of causal attributions on affective reactions to success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 937-946. Mellings, T.M.B. & Alden, L.E. (2000). Cognitive processes in social anxiety: The effects of self-focus, rumination and anticipatory processing. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 38, 243-257. Mezulis, A . H . , Abramson, L . Y . , Hyde, J.S., & Hankin, B.L. (2004). Is there a universal positivity bias in attributions? A meta-analytic review of individual, developmental, 184 and cultural differences in the self-serving attributional bias. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 711-747. Miyahara, A. , Kim, M-S, Shin, H-C & Yoon, K . (1998). Conflict resolution styles among "collectivist" cultures: A comparison between Japanese and Koreans. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 505-525. Morris, M.W. & Peng, K . (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 67, 949-971. Mulkens, S., de Jong, P.J., Dobbelaar, A , & Bogels, S.M. (1999). Fear of blushing: Fearful preoccupation irrespective of facial coloration. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37, 1119-1128. Nakumura, K. (1997). Social anxiety related syndromes: Their universality and cultural diversity. Journal ofMorita Therapy, 8,_51- 60. Nietzel, M.T. & Harris, M.J. (1990). Relationship of dependency and achievement/autonomy to depression. Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 279-297'. Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K. , Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture systems and thought: Holistic vs analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291-310. Norasakkunkit, V . & Kalick, S.M. (2002). Culture, ethnicity, and emotional distress measures: The role of self-construal and self-enhancement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 56-70. Norem, J.K. & Illingworth, K.S.S. (1993). Strategy-dependent effects of reflecting on self and tasks: Some implications for optimism and defensive pessimism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 822-835. 185 Norem, J.K. (2001). Defensive pessimism, optimism, and pessimism. In E. Chang (Ed.), Optimism and pessimism: Implications for theory, research and practice (pp77 -100) Washington, D . C : American Psychological Association. Norenzayan, A. , Choi, I., & Nisbett, R.E. (1999). Eastern and Western perceptions of causality for social behavior: Lay theories about personalities and situations. In D. A . Prentice & D.T Miller (Eds.). Cultural divides: Understanding and overcoming group conflict (pp 239-272). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Oetzel, J.G. (1998a). The effects of self-construals and ethnicity on self-reported conflict styles. Communication Reports, 11, 133-144. Oetzel, J.G.(1998b). Explaining individual communication processes in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups through individualism-collectivism and self-construal. Human Communication Research, 25, 202-224. Oishi, S., Wyer, R.S. & Colcombe,S.J. (2000). Cultural variation in the use of current life satisfaction to predict the future. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 434-445. Okazaki, S. (1997). Sources of ethnic differences between Asian-American and White-American college students on measures of depression and social anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 52-60. Okazaki, S. (2000). Asian American and White American differences on affective distress symptoms: Do symptom reports differ across reporting methods? Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 603-625. Okazaki, S. (2002). Self-other agreement on affective distress scales in Asian Americans and White Americans. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 428-437. 186 Okazaki, S. & Kallivayalil, D. (2002). Cultural norms and subjective disability as predictors of symptom reports among Asian Americans and White Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33,_ 482-491. Okazaki, S., Liu, J.F., Longworth, S.L., & Minn, J.Y. (2002). Asian American-White American differences in expressions of social anxiety: A replication and extension. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8, 234-247. Osman, A. , Barrios, F.X. , Haupt, D., King, K. , Osman, J.R., & Slavens, S. (1996). The Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory: Further validation in two nonclinical samples. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 18, 35-47. Osman, A. , Guitierrez, P .M. , Barrios, F.X., Kopper, B.A. , & Chiros, C E . (1998). The Social Phobia and Social Interaction Anxiety Inventory Scales: Evaluation and psychometric properties. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 20, 249-263. Oyserman, D., Coon, H .M. , & Kemmelmeier, M . (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72. Peng, K. , & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54,1AX-15A. Peselow, E.D., Robins, C.J., Sanfilipo, M.P., Block, P., & Fieve, R.R. (1992). Sociotropy and autonomy: Relationship to antidepressant drug treatment response and endogenous/nonendogenous dichotomy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 702,_20-28. Preacher, K.J . & Hayes, A.F. (2001). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717-731. Preacher, K. J. & Leonardelli, G. J. (2001, March). Calculation for the Sobel test: A n interactive calculation tool for mediation tests [Computer software]. Available from http://www.unc.edu/~preacher/sobel/sobel.htm. Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (1986). Evidence for a depressive self-focusing style. Journal of Research in Personality, 20,-95-106. Rachman, S., Gruter-Andrew, J., & Shafran, R. (2000). Post-even processing in social anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 38, 611-617. Rapee, R . M . & Heimberg, R. (1997). A cognitive-behavioral model of anxiety in social phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35, 741-756. Rhee, E., Uleman, J.S. & Lee, H.K. (1996).Variations in collectivism and individualism by in-group and culture: Confirmatory factor analyses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 142-152. Roberts, B.W. & Donahue, E . M . (1994). One personality, multiple selves: Integrating personality and social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 199-218. Robins, C.J. & Block, P. (1988). Personal vulnerability, life events and depressive symptoms: A test of a specific interactional model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 847-852. Robins, C.J., Block, P., & Peselow, E.D. (1989). Relations of sociotropic and autonomous personality characteristics to specific symptoms in depressed patients. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 98, 86-88. Robins, C.J., Ladd, J., Welkowitz, J., Blaney, P.H., Diaz, R., & Kutcher, G. (1994). The Personal Style Inventory: Preliminary validation studies of new measures of sociotropy and autonomy. Journal ofPsyche-pathology and Behavioral Assessment, 16, 277-300. Rosenberger, N.R. (Ed.), (1992). Japanese sense of self"New York: Cambridge University Press. Roth, D., Antony, M . M . , & Swinson, R.P. (2001). Interpretations for anxiety symptoms in social phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 39, 129-138. Sato, T. & McCann, D. (1997). The assessment of sociotropy-autonomy: A n exploration of personality factors in depression. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 19, 41-62. Sato, T. & McCann, D. (1998). Individual differences in relatedness and individuality: A n exploration of two constructs. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 847-859. Schlenker, B.R. & Leary, M.R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A conceptualization and model. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 641-669. Seeman, J. (1983). Personality integration: Studies and reflections. New York: Human Sciences Press. Seligman, M . E. P. (1995). The optimistic child. New York: Harper Collins. Setterlund, M . B . & Niedenthal, P .M. (1993). "Who am I? Why am I here?": Self-esteem, self-clarity, and prototype matching. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 769-781. Shean, G. & Uchenwa, U . (1990). Interpersonal style and anxiety. Journal of Psychology, 124, 403-409. 189 Sheldon, K . M . , & Elliot, A.J . (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 482-497. Sheldon, K . M . , & Kasser, T. (1995). Coherence and congruence: Two aspects of personality integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 531-543. Sheldon. K . M . , Ryan, R .M. , Rawsthorne, L.J. , & Ilardi, B. (1997). Trait self and true self: Cross-role variation in the Big-Five personality traits and its relations with psychological authenticity and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1380-1393. Singelis, T .M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 20, 580-591. Singelis, T.M. , Bond, M.H. , Sharkey, W.F. & Lai, C. S.Y. (1999). Unpackaging culture's influence on self-esteem and embarrassability: The role of self-contruals. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 315-341. Singelis, T .M. & Brown, W.J. (1995). Culture, self, and collectivist communication: Linking culture to individual behavior. Human Communication Research, 21, 354-389. Sobel, M.E . (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.). Sociological methodology (pp 290-312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Steenkamp, J-B., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78-90. Stopa, L. & Clark, D . M . (2000). Social phobia and interpretation of social events. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 38,_ 273-283. Su, S. K., Chiu, C.-Y., Hong, Y . - Y . , Leung, K. , Peng, K. , & Morris, M . W. (1999). Self organization and social organization: American and Chinese constructions. In T. R. Tyler & R. Kramer & O. John (Eds.), The psychology of social self'(Vol. 193-222). Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Suh, E . M . (2002). Culture, identity consistency, and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1378-1391. Swann, W.B. Jr., & Read, S.J. (1981). Self-verification process: How we sustain our self-conceptions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17,351-373 Takahashi, T. (1989). Social phobia syndrome in Japan. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 30, 45-52. Takata, T. (1999). Nihon bunka ni okeru sougou dokuritsusei, sougou kyouchousei no hattatsu katei: hikaku bunkateki oudanteki shiryou ni yoru jisshouteki kentou. (Developmental process of independent and interdependent self-construal in Japanese culture: Cross-cultural and cross-sectional analyses). (In Japanese). Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 47, 480-489. Takata, T. (2003). Self-enhancement and self-criticism in Japanese culture. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 34, 542-551. Tardy, C H . & Hoseman, L .A . (1982). Self-monitoring and self-disclosure flexibility: A research note. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 46, 92-91. Taylor, S.E. & Brown, J.D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210. 191 Ting-Toomey, S (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory. In W. Gudykunst, L . Stewart and S. Ting-Toomey (Eds). Communication, Culture and Organizational processes. Newbury Park, C A : Sage. Ting-Toomey, S. & Kurogi, A . (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 187-255. Ting-Toomey, S., GaO, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Kim, H . S., Lin, S. L. , & Nishida, T. (1991). Culture, face maintenance, and styles of handling interpersonal conflict: A study of five cultures. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2, 275-296. Triandis, H.C. (1989). The self and behavior in different cultural contexts. Psychological Review. 96, 506-520. Triandis, H.C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York, N Y : McGraw-Hill Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Turner, S.M., Beidel, D . C , Dancu, C.V. & Stanley, M . A . (1989). An empirically driven inventory to measure social fears and anxiety: The social phobia and anxiety inventory. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, I, 35-40. Turner, S.M., McCanna, M . & Beidel, D.C. (1987). Validity of the Social Avoidance and Distress and Fear of Negative Evaluation Scales. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 25,113-115. Walters, K.S. & Hope, D.A. (1998). Analysis of social behavior in individuals with social phobia and nonanxious participants using a psychobiological model. Behavior Therapy, 29, 387'-407. 192 Watson & Friend (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 448-457. Welkowitz, J, Lish, J.D., & Bond, B .N. (1985). The Depressive Experiences Questionnaire: Revision and validation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 89-94. Wells, A . & Papageorgiou, C. (1998). Social phobia: Effects of external attention on anxiety, negative beliefs, and perspective taking. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 29, 357-370. Wells, A . & Papageorgiou, C. (2001). Social phobic interoception: Effects of bodily information on anxiety, beliefs and self-processing. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 39, 1-11. Wolfe, R.N., Lennox, R, D., & Cutler, B. L . (1986). Getting along and getting ahead: Empirical support for a theory of protective and acquisitive self-presentation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 356-361. Woody, S.R. & Rodriguez, B.F. (2000). Self-focused attention and social anxiety in social phobics and normal controls. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24, 473-488. Yamaguchi, S. (1994). Collectivism among the Japanese: A perspective from the self. In U . Kim, Ff.C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.C. Choi, & G.Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications (pp 175-188). Thousand Oaks, C A : Sage. Yamaguchi, S., Kuhlman, D . M . & Sugimori, S. (1995). Personality correlates of allocentric tendencies in individualist and collectivist cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 658-672. Zane, N & Yeh, M . (2002). The use of culturally-based variables in assessment: Studies on loss of face. In K.S. Kurosaki, S. Okazaki & S.Sue (Eds.), Asian American mental health:Assessment theories and methods (pp. 123-137). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Zuroff, D . C , Igreja, L. , & Mongrain, M . (1990). Dysfunctional attitudes, dependency, and self-criticism as predictors of depressive mood states: A 12-month longitudinal study. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 315-326. Zuroff, D . C , Quinlan, D .M. , & Blatt, S.J. (1990). Psychometric properties of the Depressive .Experiences Questionnaire. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 55, 65-72. Zuroff, D.C. & Mongrain, M . (1987). Dependency and self-criticism: Vulnerability factors for depressive affective states. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 96, 14-22. Zuroff, D . C , Moskowitz, D.S., Widgins, M.S., Powers, T.A., & Franke, D.L. (1983). Construct validation of the dependency and self-criticism scales of the Depressive Experiences Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality,17£) 226-241. 194 Appendix A 4 ^ ° H 4 \ i I M ^ l ^ t t ^ £ t - ° l € ^ 4 4 . Zl-ZT-^ ^ ^ l 4 ^ - * H 4 * o H 2} is] o l O _ q ZLofl 4 ^ ^ * M ^ ^ 4 4 -£ 5t 45 « ^ j=7l- ^ - M 4 1^ 4 # <LH 4 7] 4 tfl # 4 ^ H - M ^ ^ T f l ^ 4 4 4 4 4 ^ Q]Q] ^ 7}*M*\ ^ 4 4 -^ 4 4 ^ 1 ^ £ . ^ 4 4 . %h £ 4 4 ^ £ - 4 * ^ 4 4 ^ A j i f l ^ A H 4 ^ 4 4 4 £ ^ 4 i L ^ 4 4 0 l iL444 °1 ^ R r ^ i ^ A i A j - ^ ^ ^ tq-s ^ o . ^ 4 ° > ^ 4 4 . aj.^ oi #4A1^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^Al7l 4^44. ^ 4 f ^ a l ^ ^ v W & o l £ 1 ^ 4 4 . ° l r ^ < 2 ^ 4 ^ ^ = 1^ o ] ^ 3 4 4 *f i^*l P>Aijn-c^^Ai7l 4 ^ 4 4 . 4 4 4 1 : 4 4 ^ 4 4 4 £ 4 ^ $ 5 0 7 r 4 4 4 ^ # ^ 4 4 SX^ 7 1 4 4 ^ 4 4 4 4 - 4 ^ S r l : ^ 2 5 : l ^ 4 4 . 195 Social Perceptions Study- Korean Instructions (translated) 1. This study is looking at the relationship between people's personality traits and their behaviour in social situations. We need your help. Some o f the people we are asking for help from are Koreans. The study requires that people speak and write Korean fluently, been in Canada/US no more than 3 or 4 years, and be over 18 years of age. 2. There are instructions explaining how to f i l l out each questionnaire- it should take about 45 minutes to an hour to finish them. 3 IMPORTANT: If you want to finish on time, YOU MUST NOT spend too much time thinking about each question. Write down your answer as QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. That is the ONLY way you will finish on time. A l l the information you provide w i l l be kept confidential and there w i l l be no way to identify you from the packets. The packets are only identifiable by number. 4. After you have finished, you w i l l notice on the SECOND page there is a place for you to put your name and contact information. Please fill out this sheet and separate it from the packet to keep your packet confidential. 5. Before handing back the questionnaires- Please, Please, Please take a few moments to go through your packet to make sure you have not missed any questions. The packet is double-sided- please check you answered every question. 6. Y o u w i l l notice that there are a lot o f similar questions. This is necessary for the type of analysis we are running- we apologize for the repetitiveness. 7. W e really appreciate your participation!! B y deciding to fill out a questionnaire, you w i l l be entered into a lottery to w i n a $50.00 gift certificate at place o f your choosing. The chance o f winning a gift certificate is 1 in 25. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0099846/manifest

Comment

Related Items