Good Soil Poor Soil Conceptual Questions 3

Good Soil Poor Soil

Conceptual Questions 3

4

5

6

7

8

Urbanization of Populations 9

BASIC METATHEORETICAL ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT Ø The Relativist vs. Universalist paradigm Is the question legitimate? “Is there an optimal fit between societal values/practices and children’s developmental trajectories? ” Ø The hands-off vs. hands-on paradigm (Pure, descriptive vs. applied, inducing change) Usually the hands-on approach utilizes some universalist standards but the hands-off approach can be seen in either the relativist or the universalist paradigm. 10

Ø An integrative Perspective involves – Cultural contextualism and – Shared (universal) standards of human development Ø How can it be materialized? – An innovative conceptualization and methodology For example: • Construing culturally valid and relevant human development and environmental indicators pointing to possibly universally shared attributes • Depicting what is adaptive (functional) and what is not and the changes in these as a result of changing environmental demands • Conductive culturally sensitive research involving local experts informed by indigenous knowledge and research subjects as participants sharing in the decision making • Utilizing naturally sensitive and valid assessment • Considering contextual factors in the interpretation of the research results 11

12

Value of Children (Min: 8, Max: 24) 13

Old age security as reason for having a child or wanting another (in percentages) 14

Expectation of Financial Help from Sons and Daughters 15

Characteristics most and second most desired in child (in percentages) 16

• Social definitions of intelligence and obedience orientation functional in contexts where old age security value of children is important (ruraltraditional; closely-knit human relations; less specialized tasks) • Teaching through demonstration and modeling functional in everyday learning – apprenticeship (non school – like tasks)) • School – like tasks (cognitive and language skills) functional in urban life styles (specialized tasks, school) • Autonomy becomes functional with decreased old age security value of children and urban life styles (specialized tasks requiring decision making) -------An integrative - Functional Perspective combines A contextual approach and Comparative Standards (Contextualism without relativism) 17

18

Paradigms and Challenge of Global Psychology Paradigms Cultural Context Issues Universal / Organismic Ignored False Uniformity Contextual / Indigenous Stressed False Uniqueness Integration of Contextual + Comparative approaches needed 19

Culture and The Self 20

Maintaining self-esteem requires separating oneself from others and seeing oneself as different from and better than others. At 4 years old, children already show a clear self-favorability bias. When asked to compare themselves with others with respect to intelligence, friendliness, or any skill, most children think they are better than most others. Wylie (1979) reported that American adults also consider themselves to be more intelligent and more attractive than average. Myers (1987) found that 70% of students believe they are above average in leadership ability, and with respect to the “ability to get along with others”, 0% thought they were below average, 60% thought they were in the top 10%, and 25% thought they were in the top 1%. 21

Taylor & Brown showed that among Americans, most people feel that they are more in control and have more positive expectations for themselves and for their future than they have for other people. This tendency for false uniqueness presumably derives from efforts of those with independent selves to maintain a positive view of themselves. 22

There were marked differences between the Japanese and the American students in their estimations of their own uniqueness; the Americans displayed significantly more false uniqueness than the Japanese. American students assumed that only 30% of people on average would be better than themselves on various traits and abilities (e. g. , memory, athletic ability, independence, and sympathy), whereas the Japanese students showed almost no evidence of this false uniqueness. In most cases, the Japanese estimated that about 50% of students would be better than they were or have more of a given trait or ability. This is, of course, the expected finding if a representative sample of college students were evaluating themselves in a relatively nonbiased manner. 23

What is a considerate superviser? What the supervisor might do if a member of the work team is experiencing personal difficulties. To discuss the matter with other members of the work team in the person’s absence Japan & Hong Kong considerate USa & Britain inconsiderate 24

25

26

SUGGESTIONS • Rotenberg: Reciprocal Individualism • Lykes: Social Individuality • Chodorow: Relational Individualism 27

Study of self and interpersonal relations in family context needs to recognize the cultural embeddedness of these phenomena as well as of the constructs used to study them. A great deal of psychological theorizing on the self, self-other relations and family dynamics reflect the Western individualistic ethos. This has permeated theory, research, and applications, extending into popular psychology. 28

Connected and Separate Selves/Family Connected family Separate family 29

30

Tips for Crossing Cultures Individualists interacting with collectivists should: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Pay attention to the other’s group memberships and authorities; these define important norms, roles, and attitudes. Seek to persuade by getting the person’s superiors to signal approval and show the other’s groups will benefit. Emphasize harmony and cooperation. Help the other save face. Avoid confrontation. Criticize gently and in private, after praising. Patiently cultivate long-term relationships. The other prefers doing business with old friends. Intimacy develops gradually. If the others is East-Asian, expect unjustified modesty and self-depreciation. Begin presentations more modestly than you normally would. Let the other know your social position, so the other knows how to relate to you. Expect age to engender respect. Who you are matters more than what you’ve accomplished. Regard the other’s accompanying you and spending time with you as relationship-building, not as an invasion of your privacy. 31

Collectivists interacting with individualists should: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Pay less attention to the other’s groups (when outside the group context) than to the other’s personal beliefs and attitudes. Expect the other to be less worried about what superiors think and more influenced by peers and spouse than in your culture. Emphasize personal costs and benefits of what you propose. Be aware that lack of criticism may be interpreted as approval. Feel free to get right to business, with few preliminaries. Expect relationships to be good-natured but superficial and short-term. Feel free to present yourself in a positive light but without obvious boasting. It’s okay to speak highly of your skills and accomplishments. Expect the other to care less about status differences, such as your age or position. Avoid being bossy to those of lower status or servile toward those of higher status. Do not expect to be accompanied at all times. Individualists are comfortable alone, and show their confidence by leaving you on your own. 32

Two paths toward the Autonomous-Related Self Value of Children Study Family Change Theory (Family Model of Psychological/ Emotional Interdependence) Two basic Human Needs Model of Autonomous-Related Self 33

THEORY OF FAMILY CHANGE Based originally on the Value of Children Study (VOC, 1970 s); developed further and confirmed by the VOC 2003 Study and other research. Convergence toward the Family Model of Psychological/ Emotional Interdependence in conjunction with: - Socio-economic development (increased urbanization, education, affluence) - Immigration 34

VALUE OF CHILDREN (VOC) STUDY • A Three-Decade Portrait from Turkey 1975 -2003. Provides evidence for change over time with socioeconomic development and urbanization. • Recent VOC study results from Korea, South Africa, France, Germany, Israel, India, Indonesia and China concur. Kagitcibasi, C. & Ataca, B. (2005) Value of children and family change : A three-decade portrait from Turkey. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 3, 317 -337 (and the whole special issue: G. Trommsdorff, U. Kim & B. Nauck, Eds. ) 35

Reasons for Wanting a Child: 1975 VOC Study Mothers vs. 2003 VOC Study Mothers in Turkey 36

Expectations of Financial/Material Help from Sons and Daughters. 1975 VOC Study Mothers vs. 2003 VOC Study Mothers in Turkey A: Financial assistance to siblings B: Help with housework C: Financial assistance to you 37

General Family Model Culture Living Conditions Urban – Rural SES Level of affluence Family Structure Family type Wealth flows Family ties Fertility Woman’s status Family Values: Loyalties Emotional-material investments Independence-interdependence values Values of children Degree of son preference Family Interaction & Socialization Parenting style Childrearing orientation Self-Other Relations: Intergenerational/ familial interdependence/ independence Interpersonal interdependence/ independence Development of self – causal relationship/influence Mutual causation/interaction feedback

MODEL OF INTERDEPENDENCE Context Family systems Socialization values – Family/group loyalties – Emotional/material investment in parents – Interdependence values – Utilitarian value of children economic VOC old-age security VOC material expectations from child – Son preference Culture of relatedness (collectivistic) Living Conditions Rural / agrarian Subsistence / low affluence Family Structure - Functionally extended family structure - Wealth flows toward parents - Patrilineal ties - High fertility - Low woman’s status Family Interaction & Socialization –Authoritarian parenting –Obedience/dependence orientation in childrearing –Intergenerational/familial interdependence –Interpersonal interdependence –Development of related self – causal relationship/influence Mutual causation/interaction feedback 39

MODEL OF INDEPENDENCE Family systems Context Socialization values – Individual loyalties – Emotional/material investment in child – Independence values – Psycholgogical value of children – Low son preference Culture of separateness (individualistic) Living Conditions Urban/industrial Affluence Family Structure - Nuclear family structure - Wealth flows toward children - Nuclear family ties - Low fertility - High woman’s status – causal relationship/influence Family Interaction & Socialization – Relatively permissing parenting – Autonomy/self-reliance orientation in childrearing – Intergenerational/familial independence – Interpersonal independence – Development of separate self Mutual causation/interaction feedback 40

MODEL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERDEPENDENCE Context Family systems Culture of relatedness (collectivistic) Socialization values – Family/group loyalties + individual loyalties – Emotional investment in parents – Emotional/material investment in child – Emotional Interdependence values – Psychological value of children – Decreased son preference Living Conditions Urbanization Industrialization Increased affluence Family Structure - Functionally complex family structure - Wealth flows toward children - Nuclear + kin ties - low fertility - Increased woman’s status Family Interaction & Socialization – Authoritative parenting Control + autonomy – Control and autonomy orientation in childrearing Intergenerational/familial emotional interdependence – Interpersonal interdependence – Development of autonomous-related self – causal relationship/influence Mutual causation/interaction feedback 41

FAMILY MODELS, PARENTING AND THE SELF Interdependence Independence Psychological interdependence Relatively permissive Parenting style Authoritarian Child rearing orientation Control / obedience Autonomy / self reliance Control / autonomy Heteronomous Related Autonomous separate Autonomous-related Self Authoritative 42

RESEARCH EVIDENCE: • Stewart, Bond, Deeds & Chung (1999) in Hong Kong found persistance of family interdependencies together with some individualistic values; family relatedness and parental control were seen in “modern” families. • Kwak (2003) in review of research noted the common preference of adolescents for both autonomy and family relatedness. • Koutrelakos (2004) found decreasing material but continuing emotional interdependencies in Greek Americans with acculturation. • Georgas, Berry, Van de Vijver, Kagitcibasi & Poortinga (2005) in a 27 -country study of the family found evidence for autonomy and relatedness to coexist in the psychologically interdependent family. 43

THE SELF MODEL AUTONOMY- RELATEDNESS DYNAMICS: A Challenge for Psychology Because construed as both: -Basic Human Needs and as -Conflicting Ever since the ‘Conflict Theories of Personality’ (Angyal, 1951 & Bakan, 1966) 44

TWO BASIC HUMAN NEEDS: - Autonomy - Relatedness A. Freud (1930/1961) Egoistic urge (toward happiness) Urge toward union Angyal (1951) Autonomy Surrender Bakan (1966) Agency Communion Bowen (1966) Individuality Togetherness Bowlby (1969) Separation Attachment Franz & White (1985) Individuation Attachment Guisinger & Blatt (1994) Self-definition Interpersonal relatedness Ryan, Deci & Grolnick (1995) Autonomy Relatedness Kagitcibasi (1996) Autonomy Relatedness 45

The construal of Autonomy and Relatedness as Conflicting has prevailed over Autonomy and Relatedness as Basic Needs Thus, Relatedness is seen as incompatible with Autonomy or Separation from others is seen as necessary for autonomy (“Separation-Individuation” process) 46

What is the underlying reason? Not evolutionary, which rather stresses the survival value of cooperation and relatedness in humans and other primates (Euler et al, 2001; Guisinger & Blatt, 1994). It is cultural. . . Western Individualism as a ‘Cultural Affordance’ (Kitayama, 2002; Poortinga, 1992). 47

Yet, it is neither logically nor psychologically necessary for Autonomy to mean Separateness if we recognize the existence of two distinct dimensions: Agency: Autonomy Heteronomy (dependency) Interpersonal Distance: Separateness Relatedness 48

The two dimensions underlie self, self-other relations and social behaviors. They reflect the basic human needs of autonomy and relatedness. As distinct dimensions, either pole of each one can coexist with either pole of the other one. Kagitcibasi, C. (1996). The autonomous-relational self: A new synthesis. European Psychologist, 1, 180 -186. 49

Agency low Interpersonal Distance low high heteronomous related autonomous related heteronomous separate autonomous separate 50

A Conceptual Model of Different Types of Selves AGENCY Autonomy Autonomous-Separate self Autonomous-related self INTERPERSONAL DISTANCE Separation Heteronomous-separate self Relatedness Heteronomous-related self Heteronomy 51

This conceptualization renders viable The Autonomous-Related Self Despite the consensual agreement that Autonomy and Relatedness are basic needs, this self construal has not been readily recognized in psychology, even in cross-cultural psychology. Yet, this model promises to be a healthy integration, since it satisfies both basic needs. Kagitcibasi, C. (2005). Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context: Implications for self and family. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 4, 403 -422. 52

AGENCY, INTERPERSONAL DISTANCE AND THE TYPES OF SELVES IN CONTEXT AGENCY Autonomy Family model of independence Family model of psychological interdependence Self-reliance orientation Order setting control and autonomy orientation Autonomous-Separate self INTERPERSONAL DISTANCE Autonomous-related self Separation Relatedness Hierarchical neglecting family Neglecting, indifferent orientation Family model of interdependence Obedience orientation Heteronomous-separate self Heteronomous-related self Heteronomy 53

Two different theoretical routes toward the Autonomous-Related self Theory of Family Change Model of Self Context : Culture of relatedness Two basic human needs: Urban Life Styles Autonomy + Relatedness Family: Model of emotional/ psychological inter- Autonomous Related Self Two underlying dimensions: Agency + Interpersonal dependance Distance Parenting: Control, warmth, (autonomy/ (separateness/ autonomy orientation Heteronomy) Relatedness) 54

WHAT ARE SOME THEORETICAL ISSUES? Two Ungoing Debates: 1. Positive or negative association between Autonomy & Relatedness and the ‘existence’ of autonomy in collectivistic ‘cultures of relatedness’ 2. Contrasting views on Parenting and Parent-Child/Adolescent relations 55

RECENT DEBATE Attachment Theory Positive association Self Determination Theory Between Autonomy & Kagitcibasi’s A-R Self and Family Model of Psychological Interdependence Relatedness VERSUS Psychoanalytic Theory Nagative association Between autonomy & Relatedness “Conflict”theories Cross-Cultural values orientation to I-C 56

EXPLANATIONS Rothbaum & Trommsdorff (in print) propose 2 different types of relatedness: Based on ‘Trust’ and ‘Assurance’ Markus & Kitayama (2003) propose 2 different types of agency: ‘Disjoint’ and ‘Conjoint’ It is more parsimonious to recognize Agency and Interpersonal Distance as two underlying dimensions on which there is variation 57

The two dimensions of interpersonal distance and agency can indeed fit together, loading on the same factor, in sociocultural contexts, such as in Northern Europe (Beyers et al. , 2003), where being both autonomous and separate is valued, but not in other sociocultural contexts where being connected is valued and does not imply lacking autonomy. (Kagitcibasi, 2005). Wiggins & Trapnell (1996) suggest they are orthogonal across many domains of behavior. 58

When Autonomy is accompanied by Relatedness, it may be manifested in different ways: - Socially oriented vs. individually oriented achievement motivation (Phalet & Claeys, 1993; Agarwal & Misra, 1986; Yu & Yang, 1994) - Duty-centered (communal) vs. individual-centered (voluntaristic) morality (Miller, 1990, 2003) - Self-enhancement vs. ingroup enhancement (Muramoto & Yamagushi, 1997) 59

Conceptual/Measurement Issues Individualism/Independent Self scales tap separateness but also autonomy Collectivism/Interdependent Self scales items tap relatedness but also heteronomy By implication, the importance, even the existence of autonomy in closely-knit collectivistic cultures has been questioned (Iyengar & Lepper, 1999; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Oishi, 2000; Rothbaum et al. , 2000; Miller, 2002). 60

Conceptual/Measurement issues (Cont. ) In much cross-cultural research and theory individualism is understood as autonomy (Hofstede, 1980, 1991; Rothbaum et al. , 2000; Rothbaum & Trommsdorff, in press; Smith & Schwartz, 1997; Triandis, 1995; Markus & Kitayama, 1991) Schwartz (2004) recast Individualism-Collectivism as Autonomy vs. Embeddedness This is especially the case for Normative I-C Thus issues of both conceptualization and measurement 61

RESEARCH EVIDENCE Kim, Butzel & Ryan (1998) showed a more positive relation between autonomy and relatedness than with separateness in both Korean and American samples. Keller et al (2003) found Greek mothers’ interaction styles with infants to lead to autonomy and relatedness but German mothers’ to autonomy and separateness. Beyers, Goossens, Vansant, & Moors (2003) found separation and agency as two independent dimensions. Beyers, Goossens (1999); Chen & Dornbush (1998); Garber & Little (2001) showed separateness from parents to be associated with developmental problems. 62

RESEARCH EVIDENCE (Cont. ) Chou (2000) in Hong Kong found individuation to be associated with depression in adolescents. Phalet & Schonpflug (2001) found among Turkish immigrants in Germany parental autonomy goals do not imply separateness, and achievement values are associated with parental collectivism, not individualism. Aydın & Öztütüncü (2001) found depression to be associated with separateness in Turkish adolescents, but not with high parental control. Meeus, Oosterwegel & Vollebergh (2002) found with Dutch, Turkish & Moroccon adolescents that secure attachment fosters agency. 63

An Autonomy Scale that does not tap/ confound Separateness and A Relatedness Scale that does not tap/ confound Heteronomy needed: SELF and SELF-IN-FAMILY SCALES § Separate forms for Self and Self-in-Family experience § Also Autonomous-Related Self Scale (Kagitcibasi, 2005) 64

Autonomous Self Scale 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. People who are close to me have little influence on my decisions. I do not like a person to interfere with my life even if he/she is very close to me. I feel independent of the people who are close to me. I lead my life according to the opinions of people to whom I feel close. (R) The opinions of those who are close to me influence me on personal issues. (R) While making decisions, I consult with those who are close to me. (R) On personal issues, I accept the decisions of people to whom I feel very close. (R) I usually try to conform to the wishes of those to whom I feel very close. (R) I can easily change my decisions according to the wishes of those who are close to me. (R) Alpha = 0. 74 65

Related Self Scale 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. I need the support of persons to whom I feel very close. I prefer to keep a certain distance in my close relationships. (R) Generally, I keep personal issues to myself. (R) The people who are close to me strongly influence my personality. I think often of those to whom I feel very close. I do not worry about what people think of me even if they are close to me. (R) 7. Those who are close to me are my top priority. 8. My relationships to those who are close to me make me feel peaceful and secure. 9. I do not share personal matters with anyone, even if very close to me. (R) Alpha = 0. 78 66

Autonomous-Relational Self Scale 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. It is important to have both close relationships and also to be autonomous. Even if the suggestions of those who are close are considered, the last decision should be one’s own. A person who has very close relationships cannot make his/her own decisions. (R) A person should be able to oppose the ideas of those who are close. Giving importance to the opinions of those who are close to me means ignoring my own opinions. (R) Being very close to someone prevents being independent. (R) A person can feel both independent and connected to those who are close to him/her. In order to be autonomous, one should not form close relationships. (R) A person may be attached to those who are close, and at the same time, expect respect for any differences of opinion. Alpha = 0. 84 67

Autonomous-Related Self- in-Family Scales (Kagitcibasi) Autonomous Self-in-Family Scale 1. I feel independent of my family. 2. I usually try to agree with the wishes of my family. (R) 3. I do not have to think the way my family does. 4. People should receive approval from their families for their future plans. (R) 5. I avoid making decisions with which my family would not agree. (R) 6. On personal issues, I accept the decisions of my family. (R) 7. I would not be close to someone whom my family does not agree. (R) 8. Independent of my family, I can not make my decisions easily. (R) 9. I can easily change my decisions according to the wishes of my family. (R) Alpha = . 84 9 Items, Lowest factor loading: Item 1 : . 53 68

Related Self-in-Family Scale 1. I prefer to keep a certain distance in my relationship with my family. (R) 2. During hard times, I would like to know that my family will be with me. 3. The time that I spend with my family is not important for me. (R) 4. Feeling very close to the family is a good thing. 5. My family is my top priority. 6. I feel myself closely attached to my family. 7. My relationship with my family makes me feel peaceful and secure. 8. I am very close with my family. 9. I don’t enjoy spending much time with my family. (R) Alpha = . 84 8 Items, Lowest factor loading: Item 1: . 49 69

Autonomous-Related Self-in-Family Scale 1. One should not hesitate to express his/her own ideas, even if he/she values his/her family. 2. A person may be very close to his/her family and at the same time can make his/her decisions. 3. A person can feel both independent and emotionally connected to his/her family. 4. A person may be attached to his/her family, and at the same time, expect respect for any differences of opinion. Alpha = . 77 4 Items, Lowest factor loading: Item 1: . 59 70

A Developmental Perspective and Research Evidence point to the importance of Parenting Relations among Parental Control/ Warmth and Autonomy The Psychoanalytically informed views which endorse separation also endorse permissive discipline and associate strong parental control with parental hostility (or lack of warmth) and Authoritarian Parenting. This is the case since the Authoritarian Personality Theory (Adorno et al, 1950) 71

CONTROL and AUTONOMY Empirical Evidence • • Lau et al. (1990) Lin & Fu (1990) Cha (1994) Phalet & Schonpflug (2001) Models Kağıtçıbaşı (1990, 1996 a, b) CONTROL and WARMTH Empirical Evidence Models • • • Baumrind (1980, 1989) Kağıtçıbaşı (1970) Rohner & Pettengill (1985) Trommsdorf (1985) Ryan & Lynch (1989) Kim, Butzel & Ryan (1998) Jose et al. (2000) Oosterwegel & Vollebergh (2002) Kwak (2003) Lansford et al. (2003) Dekovic, Pels & Model (in press) Maccoby & Martin (1983) 72

The implications of these conceptualizations and research for immigration: Immigration most often involves contact between ‘culture of relatedness’ (immigrants) and individualistic ‘culture of separateness’ (host society). Ethnic minority parents tend to be labeled ‘authoritarian’ because of strong parental discipline because it appears very controlling (Gonzales, et al, 1996). But, this may be a wrong attribution because there is often also relatedness and warmth (psychological value of children) in the Family Model of Psychological Interdependence. Especially those with higher education who also allow autonomy. 73

Proposed Shift Toward the Psychological/Emotional Interdependence Model and Autonomous-Related Self (Convergence) Family Model (Total) Interdependence Self Model Heteronomous/ Related Psychological/Emotional Interdependence Autonomous/ Related Independence Autonomous/ Separate 74

Thus Possibly a Universal Optimal Developmental Model because of Converging Life Styles and Basic Human Needs Involving: - Autonomous-Related Self - Psychologically /Emotionally Interdependent Family 75