International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 7, Issue 2 (February 2020), Pages: 91-98

----------------------------------------------

 Original research Paper

 Title: An analysis of cross-cultural equivalence of self-construal scale in Malaysia

 Author(s): Fazliyaton Ramley 1, *, Karnilowicz Wally 2, Md. Aris Safree Md. Yasin 1, Siti Balqis, Md. Nor 1

 Affiliation(s):

 1Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Development, University Malaysia Terengganu, Terengganu, Malaysia
 2College of Health and Biomedicine (Psychology), Victoria University, Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1873-7919

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2020.02.013

 Abstract:

The central purpose of this study was to translate and adapt the original two-factor of an English version of the self-construal scale (SCS) to the Malaysian context. Specifically, through Confirmatory Factor Analysis the study examines the psychometric properties and model fit for the Malay population. Results showed that a revised scale of SCS which consists of 16 items instead of 30 items is a better fit for measuring independent and interdependent self-construals within collectivist societies such as Malaysia. Overall, the results highlighted that the moderate level of support suggests further research on the validity of SCS within non-Western societies. These results lead to a suggestion for replication and extension studies to a much more representative non-student samples of the respective cultures using an original and six-factor model version of SCS. 

 © 2020 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Self-construal scale, Confirmatory factor analysis, Malay population, Interdependent self-construal, Independent self-construal

 Article History: Received 23 August 2019, Received in revised form 18 December 2019, Accepted 20 December 2019

 Acknowledgment:

No Acknowledgment.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest:  The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

 Citation:

 Ramley F, Wally K, and Yasin MASM et al. (2020). An analysis of cross-cultural equivalence of self-construal scale in Malaysia. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 7(2): 91-98

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2

----------------------------------------------

 References (27) 

  1. Ballesteros RF (2003). Encyclopedia of psychological assessment. Volume 1, Sage Publications Ltd., Thousand Oaks, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  2. Berry J (1992). Methodical concerns. In: Berry J, Pootinga Y, Segal M, and Dasen R (Ed.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Theory and method: 210-246. 1st Edition, Cambridge University Press, New York, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  3. Brislin RW (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In: Lonner WJ and Berry JW (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research: 137-164. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  4. Christopher MS, Norris P, D’Souza JB, and Tiernan KA (2012). A test of the multidimensionality of the self-construal scale in Thailand and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(5): 758-773. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111406119   [Google Scholar]
  5. Fernández I, Paez D, and González JL (2005). Independent and interdependent self-construals and socio-cultural factors in 29 nations. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 18(1): 35-63.   [Google Scholar]
  6. Ford LR and Scandura TA (2005). Garbage-in, garbage out: Item generation as a threat to construct validity. In the Annual Meeting of the Southern Management Association, Charleston, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  7. Gudmundsson E (2009). Guidelines for translating and adapting psychological instruments. Nordic Psychology, 61(2): 29-45. https://doi.org/10.1027/1901-2276.61.2.29   [Google Scholar]
  8. Gudykunst WB and Lee CM (2003). Assessing the validity of self-construal scales: A response to Levine et al. Human Communication Research, 29(2): 253-274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2003.tb00838.x   [Google Scholar]
  9. Harb C and Smith PB (2008). Self-construals across cultures: Beyond independence—interdependence. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(2): 178-197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022107313861   [Google Scholar]
  10. Hardin EE, Leong FT, and Bhagwat AA (2004). Factor structure of the self-construal scale revisited: Implications for the multidimensionality of self-construal. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(3): 327-345. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022104264125   [Google Scholar]
  11. Kam C, Zhou X, Zhang X, and Ho MY (2012). Examining the dimensionality of self-construals and individualistic–collectivistic values with random intercept item factor analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(6): 727-733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.05.023   [Google Scholar]
  12. Kanagawa C, Cross SE, and Markus HR (2001). “Who am I?” The cultural psychology of the conceptual self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(1): 90-103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201271008   [Google Scholar]
  13. Levine TR, Bresnahan MJ, Park HS, Lapinski MK, Wittenbaum GM, Shearman SM, and Ohashi R (2003). Self-construal scales lack validity. Human Communication Research, 29(2): 210-252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2003.tb00837.x   [Google Scholar]
  14. Markus HR and Kitayama S (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2): 224-253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224   [Google Scholar]
  15. Matsumoto D, Kudoh T, and Takeuchi S (1996). Changing patterns of individualism and collectivism in the United States and Japan. Culture and Psychology, 2(1): 77-107. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X9621005   [Google Scholar]
  16. Miramontes LG (2011). The structure and measurement of self-construals: A cross-cultural study of the self-construal scale. Ph.D. Dissertation, College of Education, Washington State University, Pullman, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  17. Modigliani A (1968). Embarrassment and embarrassability. Sociometry, 31(3): 313-326. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786616   [Google Scholar] PMid:5681346
  18. Ozawa K, Crosby M, and Crosby F (1996). Individualism and resistance to affirmative action: A comparison of Japanese and American samples. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(13): 1138-1152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1996.tb02289.x   [Google Scholar]
  19. Schimmack U, Oishi S, and Diener E (2005). Individualism: A valid and important dimension of cultural differences between nations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(1): 17-31. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0901_2   [Google Scholar] PMid:15745862
  20. Schwartz SH (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25: 1-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6   [Google Scholar]
  21. Singelis TM (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5): 580-591. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294205014   [Google Scholar]
  22. Singelis TM and Sharkey WF (1995). Culture, self-construal, and embarrass ability. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26(6): 622-644. https://doi.org/10.1177/002202219502600607   [Google Scholar]
  23. Singelis TM, Bond MH, Sharkey WF, and Lai CSY (1999). Unpackaging culture’s influence on self-esteem and embarrass ability: The role of self-construals. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(3): 315-341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022199030003003   [Google Scholar]
  24. Singelis TM, Triandis HC, Bhawuk DP, and Gelfand MJ (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29(3): 240-275. https://doi.org/10.1177/106939719502900302   [Google Scholar]
  25. Triandis HC (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96(3): 506-520. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.3.506   [Google Scholar]
  26. Triandis HC (1996). The psychological measurement of cultural syndromes. American Psychologist, 51(4): 407-415. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.51.4.407   [Google Scholar]
  27. Van de Vijver F and Hambleton RK (1996). Translating tests. European Psychologist, 1(2): 89-99. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.1.2.89   [Google Scholar]