Self-Construal Scale (SCS)

1. Abstract

The Self-Construal Scale (SCS), developed by social psychologist Theodore M. Singelis in 1994, is one of the most widely utilized psychometric instruments in cross-cultural psychology, personality assessment, and social cognition. Operationalizing the foundational theoretical paradigm introduced by Hazel Rose Markus and Shinobu Kitayama (1991), the SCS assesses how individuals perceive, understand, and construct their personal identity in relationship to the social collective and significant others. The instrument distinguishes between two primary, theoretically orthogonal dimensions: the Independent Self-Construal (characterized by autonomy, internal attributes, individual agency, and uniqueness) and the Interdependent Self-Construal (characterized by social connectedness, relational harmony, contextual roles, and social obligations).

Initially published as a 24-item self-report inventory and subsequently expanded into a 30-item variant to enhance construct coverage and factorial stability, the SCS employs a 7-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). Psychometric investigations across diverse cultural cohorts have consistently demonstrated acceptable internal consistency reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging from .69 to .85 across subscales. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses generally substantiate a two-factor orthogonal model, although cross-cultural research highlights subtle nuances regarding item loadings and measurement invariance across collectivist and individualist societies. The scale exhibits robust convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity, significantly accounting for variance in interpersonal communication styles, emotional expressivity, embarrassability, attributional tendencies, cognitive processing, psychological well-being, and psychophysiological reactivity. This comprehensive article provides an exhaustive psychometric, theoretical, and methodological exposition of the SCS.

2. Keywords

Self-Construal Scale, Theodore M. Singelis, Independent Self-Construal, Interdependent Self-Construal, Cross-Cultural Psychology, Individualism and Collectivism, Social Cognition, Relational Identity, Measurement Invariance, Psychometrics, Self-Concept.

3. Authors

The Self-Construal Scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by Theodore M. Singelis, Ph.D. Dr. Singelis is an Emeritus Professor of Psychology at California State University, Chico. His pioneering scholarship centers on cross-cultural psychology, social psychology, interpersonal communication, and the operationalization of cultural syndromes at the individual level of analysis. Throughout his career, Dr. Singelis has collaborated extensively with prominent cultural psychologists, including Harry C. Triandis, Michael Harris Bond, and William B. Gudykunst.

Primary Affiliation: Department of Psychology, California State University, Chico, Chico, CA 95929-0505, USA.
Contact Correspondence: Dr. Singelis maintains an open academic sharing policy for scholarly research purposes, historically corresponding via email at [email protected].

4. Purpose

For decades, cross-cultural behavioral scientists struggled with a critical methodological dilemma: while cultural-level constructs such as individualism and collectivism (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1989) provided powerful descriptive frameworks for macro-societal differences, researchers routinely committed ecological fallacies by imputing national-level characteristics directly onto individual psychological functioning. The explicit purpose of the Self-Construal Scale was to bridge this micro-macro divide by providing a psychometrically sound, individual-level self-report measure of how cultural values are internalized within an individual’s subjective cognitive architecture.

The SCS was explicitly engineered to operationalize Markus and Kitayama’s (1991) conceptual model, which posited that individuals develop distinct self-systems depending on cultural socialization. In individualistic Western societies (e.g., North America and Western Europe), normative imperatives direct individuals to establish distinctiveness, assert autonomy, prioritize self-actualization, and express internal thoughts and feelings. Conversely, in interdependent societies (e.g., East Asia, Latin America, and Southern Europe), normative imperatives foster social integration, duty, group harmony, contextual adaptability, and communal responsibility. Rather than treating cultural orientation as an ascribed demographic variable or a categorical nationality proxy, the SCS enables researchers to capture the rich intra-cultural variability and personal endorsement of independent and interdependent schemas within any given cultural or ethnic population.

In addition to foundational social psychological research, the SCS serves vital functions across diverse clinical, educational, and organizational domains:

• Clinical and Counseling Psychology: The SCS aids clinicians in conducting culturally responsive assessments and conceptualizations. An individual’s self-construal fundamentally alters symptom presentation, help-seeking behavior, and the subjective etiology of psychological distress. For example, individuals with high interdependent self-construal are more susceptible to social anxiety, allocentric guilt, and somatic manifestations of distress, whereas those with predominant independence often present with egocentric dysphoria or direct personal distress. Recognizing these orientations prevents culturally biased misdiagnoses and fosters targeted psychotherapeutic interventions.
• Organizational Behavior and Leadership: In modern multinational workplaces, the SCS is employed to investigate cross-cultural negotiations, conflict management styles, leadership effectiveness, and team cohesion. Interdependent individuals often excel in collaborative, consensus-driven environments and favor accommodating conflict-resolution styles, whereas independent individuals frequently thrive under competitive reward structures and favor direct, forthright negotiation strategies.
• Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine: The SCS has illuminated differences in health compliance, social support utilization, and psychoneuroimmunological responses to stress. Recent neuroscience and behavioral genetics investigations—including studies on the dopamine receptor D4 gene (DRD4)—have utilized the SCS to demonstrate how cultural orientations moderate neurobiological responses to environmental stressors.
• Communication Studies: The instrument is widely utilized to predict verbal directness, high-context versus low-context communication preferences, conversational constraints, and nonverbal sensitivity in intercultural interactions.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct of self-construal represents a constellation of thoughts, feelings, and actions concerning the relationship between the self and others, and the degree to which the self is perceived as separate from, or fundamentally connected to, the social context (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Singelis, 1994). A foundational psychometric tenet of the SCS is that the independent self-construal and interdependent self-construal do not represent polar opposites of a single unidimensional continuum. Instead, they operate as two orthogonal, functionally co-existing dimensions within the human cognitive architecture. Every individual possesses both schemas to varying degrees, with situational cues, developmental experiences, and cultural socialization determining which schema becomes chronically accessible or contextually primed.

5.1. Independent Self-Construal

The Independent Self-Construal embodies a bounded, unitary, stable, and autonomous view of the self. The defining characteristics of this dimension include:

• Internal Source of Action: Behavior is understood and driven primarily by one’s own internal repertoire of feelings, thoughts, traits, values, abilities, and motives, rather than the expectations or actions of others.
• Uniqueness and Distinctiveness: A core motivational imperative is to discover, validate, and express one’s unique inner attributes (e.g., “I enjoy being unique and different from others in many respects”). Distinctiveness is experienced positively rather than as alienation.
• Direct Communication: Communication is viewed as a vehicle for accurate, forthright self-expression. Individuals with high independent self-construal prefer direct communication (e.g., “I’d rather say ‘No’ directly, than risk being misunderstood”) and are comfortable speaking up assertively in public forums and meetings.
• Cross-Situational Consistency: The self is perceived as invariant across diverse interpersonal contexts (e.g., “I act the same way no matter who I am with” and “I act the same way at home that I do at school”). Behavioral flexibility across situations may be viewed with skepticism, often interpreted as insincerity or a lack of personal integrity.
• Self-Reliance and Personal Responsibility: The individual prioritizes self-care, personal achievement, and self-sufficiency (e.g., “Being able to take care of myself is a primary concern for me”).

5.2. Interdependent Self-Construal

The Interdependent Self-Construal embodies a flexible, relational, contextual, and socially embedded view of the self. The core characteristics of this dimension include:

• Relational Connectedness: The self is conceptualized not as an isolated monad, but as inherently intertwined with significant others and group memberships (e.g., “My happiness depends on the happiness of those around me”). The boundary between the self and the in-group is permeable.
• Maintenance of Social Harmony: A dominant motivational goal is the preservation of interpersonal concord and group cohesion. Individuals actively avoid direct interpersonal conflict, confrontation, and disruption of collective equilibrium (e.g., “Even when I strongly disagree with group members, I avoid an argument” and “It is important for me to maintain harmony within my group”).
• Contextual and Role-Based Behavioral Fluidity: The self is defined by situational roles, familial responsibilities, and structural positions. Behavior is expected to adapt fluidly to varying relational contexts, authority hierarchies, and social protocols (e.g., “I have respect for the authority figures with whom I interact” and “I would offer my seat in a bus to my professor”).
• Subordination of Personal Goals: Personal interests and individual desires are willingly subjugated to the broader welfare, expectations, and goals of the in-group (e.g., “I will sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of the group I am in” and “I will stay in a group if they need me, even when I am not happy with the group”).
• Vicarious Responsibility and Shared Fate: The individual feels profound mutual responsibility for the successes and failures of in-group members, experiencing interpersonal outcomes as direct reflections of the self (e.g., “If my brother or sister fails, I feel responsible”).

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the SCS rests squarely upon the groundbreaking cognitive and socio-cultural synthesis published by Markus and Kitayama (1991) in Psychological Review. Prior to their conceptual framework, social psychology was dominated by an implicit, ethnocentric assumption: that the self-contained, autonomous, individualistic self was a universal psychological baseline across the human species. Markus and Kitayama overturned this paradigm by demonstrating that culture and the self make each other up in a continuous, dynamic cycle of mutual constitution.

Their framework postulated that cultural practices, legal structures, linguistic conventions, and religious philosophies provide cultural affordances that systematically shape how the brain organizes self-relevant information. In cultures founded on Cartesian philosophy, the Enlightenment, Protestant theology, and Western democratic individualism, the self is conceptualized as an autonomous agent whose primary duty is self-actualization and individual freedom. Conversely, in cultures influenced by Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, and African communal philosophies (such as Ubuntu), personhood is inherently relational, defined through social roles, filial piety, mutual obligations, and harmonic reciprocity.

Markus and Kitayama argued that these diverging models of the self have pervasive downstream psychological consequences across three interconnected domains:

1. Cognition: Self-construals influence basic perceptual and attentional processes. Independent self-construals foster analytic cognitive styles characterized by field independence, decontextualization, and focal object focus. Interdependent self-construals foster holistic cognitive styles characterized by field dependence, holistic visual scanning, and high sensitivity to background context and relational patterns (Nisbett et al., 2001).
2. Emotion: Emotional experience is mediated by the self-system. Individuals with independent self-construals frequently experience and express socially disengaging emotions (e.g., pride, self-satisfaction, frustration, anger) that reinforce the boundary between the individual and others. In contrast, those with interdependent self-construals experience and value socially engaging emotions (e.g., empathy, communion, shame, guilt, indebtedness, respect) that draw individuals into closer social alignment.
3. Motivation: Motivation in independent individuals is fundamentally driven by personal agency, intrinsic desires, personal choice, and self-enhancement. For interdependent individuals, motivation is guided by social obligations, perceived duty, prevention of group disharmony, and self-improvement through self-criticism.

Singelis (1994) advanced this paradigm by translating these theoretical assertions into psychometric operationalizations. Crucially, Singelis integrated cognitive schema theory (Markus, 1977), proposing that independence and interdependence function as cognitive self-schemas. When a specific self-schema is chronically activated or contextually triggered, it guides information processing, memory recall, attributional inferences, and social behavior. By conceptualizing them as two distinct schemas rather than opposite ends of a bipolar construct, Singelis anticipated contemporary multi-faceted models of biculturalism and psychological flexibility (Yamada & Singelis, 1999).

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the Self-Construal Scale has been scrutinized across hundreds of empirical studies spanning multiple continents, cultural groups, and demographic strata. The cumulative body of evidence supports its construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity.

7.1. Construct and Convergent Validity

Singelis (1994) provided initial convergent validity evidence by administering the SCS alongside established measures of individualism and collectivism, cultural values, and communication styles. As theoretically predicted:

• The Independent subscale correlates positively and significantly with individualistic value orientations, self-esteem, need for uniqueness, and preferences for low-context, direct communication styles (typically $r = .35$ to $.55, p < .001$).
• The Interdependent subscale demonstrates robust positive correlations with collectivism, allocentrism, social connectedness scales, and preferences for high-context, indirect communication designed to maintain face (typically $r = .30$ to $.52, p < .001$).
• Cross-national mean comparisons have provided extensive construct validation: samples drawn from East Asian societies (e.g., Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong) and Asian American cohorts systematically score significantly higher on the Interdependent subscale than European American samples, whereas European Americans systematically score higher on the Independent subscale (Singelis, 1994; Singelis & Brown, 1995).

7.2. Discriminant Validity

Evidence for discriminant validity is demonstrated by the empirical independence of the two subscales. In Singelis’s (1994) foundational validation study, the correlation between the Independent and Interdependent subscales was non-significant ($r = -.08, p > .10$), confirming that the two dimensions operate orthogonally rather than as opposite poles of a single factor. While some subsequent studies in highly homogeneous cultural groups report weak to moderate correlations (ranging from $r = -.20$ to $+.25$), the magnitude remains sufficiently low to affirm their status as distinct constructs. Furthermore, the SCS subscales have been shown to be psychometrically distinct from general personality dimensions, such as the Big Five personality traits, neuroticism, and social desirability biases.

7.3. Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

The SCS has proven exceptional in its ability to predict complex behavioral and psychological outcomes across diverse empirical paradigms:

• Embarrassability: Singelis and Sharkey (1995) demonstrated that interdependent self-construal strongly predicts higher embarrassability ($r = .47, p < .001$), mediating the established cultural difference in embarrassability between Asian Americans and Euro-Americans. Conversely, independent self-construal was negatively associated with embarrassability.
• Subjective Well-Being: In a landmark pancultural investigation across diverse cultures, Kwan, Bond, and Singelis (1997) demonstrated that independent self-construal contributes to life satisfaction primarily through self-esteem, whereas interdependent self-construal contributes to life satisfaction through relationship harmony, demonstrating differential structural pathways to well-being.
• Communication Constraints: Interdependent self-construal predicts higher concern for others’ feelings and avoiding hurt, while independent self-construal predicts concerns for clarity and conversational effectiveness (Singelis & Brown, 1995).
• Social Neurobiology: Kitayama et al. (2014) showed that the SCS interacts with genetic markers (specifically the 7-repeat allele of the DRD4 gene) to predict cultural socialization outcomes, confirming its sensitivity at the intersection of genetics and culture.

8. Reliability

The internal consistency and temporal stability of the Self-Construal Scale have been evaluated extensively across numerous international studies.

8.1. Internal Consistency

In the original 24-item validation sample comprising 364 multi-ethnic university students in Hawaii, Singelis (1994) reported acceptable Cronbach’s alpha coefficients:

• Independent Subscale: $\alpha = .69$ (12 items)
• Interdependent Subscale: $\alpha = .73$ (12 items)

Subsequent psychometric refinements, including the development of the 30-item expanded version (containing 15 independent items and 15 interdependent items), yielded enhanced reliability coefficients. Across broader literature spanning North American, European, and Asian samples:

• The Independent subscale typically demonstrates Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging between $.70$ and $.82$.
• The Interdependent subscale typically demonstrates Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging between $.71$ and $.85$.

While some researchers (e.g., Oyserman et al., 2002) have observed that certain items (such as Item 24: “I value being in good health above everything”) exhibit lower item-total correlations depending on sample characteristics, the aggregate subscales consistently meet standard psychometric thresholds ($lpha ge .70$) for research instruments.

8.2. Test-Retest Reliability

Studies evaluating the temporal stability of the SCS over intervals ranging from 2 weeks to 3 months have yielded test-retest reliability coefficients ranging from $r = .72$ to $r = .86$, demonstrating that while self-construal can be primed contextually, baseline individual differences remain remarkably stable over time in the absence of major cultural transitions or explicit clinical interventions.

9. Factor Analysis

The internal structure of the SCS has been evaluated through extensive Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) investigations.

9.1. Exploratory Factor Analysis

In Singelis’s (1994) initial instrument development, an unconstrained principal components analysis with varimax rotation was conducted on an initial pool of 45 candidate items. A distinct two-factor solution emerged clearly from the scree plot and eigenvalue analysis, explaining substantial common variance. Twenty-four items displaying clean, unambiguous factor loadings exceeding $.35$ on their primary factor and minimal cross-loadings ($< .25$) on the secondary factor were selected to form the final 24-item scale (12 items per dimension). Items reflecting self-reliance, distinctiveness, assertiveness, and consistency loaded heavily on the Independent factor, while items reflecting group harmony, respect for authority, relational responsibility, and subordination of personal desires loaded on the Interdependent factor.

9.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Model Fit

Subsequent structural equation modeling and CFA studies have tested various competing models: a one-factor unipolar model, a two-factor orthogonal model, a two-factor oblique model, and multi-factor hierarchical models. The two-factor model (allowing for a slight correlation between factors) consistently exhibits superior fit compared to single-factor alternatives:

• Goodness-of-Fit Indices: Typical fit indices reported in literature for the two-factor model show acceptable fit, with Comparative Fit Index (CFI) values ranging from $.88$ to $.94$, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) values ranging from $.042$ to $.065$, and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) values below $.07$.
• Factor Loadings: Standardized factor loadings across core items typically range from $.38$ to $.74$. In the independent subscale, items such as “My personal identity, independent of others, is very important to me” and “I enjoy being unique and different from others in many respects” systematically demonstrate the highest factor loadings ($> .60$). In the interdependent subscale, items such as “It is important for me to maintain harmony within my group” and “I will sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of the group I am in” routinely yield loadings exceeding $.65$.

9.3. Cross-Cultural Measurement Invariance

A central debate in the psychometric literature concerns the cross-cultural measurement equivalence of the SCS. Comprehensive multi-group confirmatory factor analyses (MGCFA) have generally supported configural invariance (the same two-factor conceptual structure across cultures) and metric invariance (equivalent factor loadings across cultures). However, full scalar invariance (equivalent item intercepts) is frequently challenging to establish across culturally diverse cohorts (Oyserman et al., 2002; Levine et al., 2003). Methodological scholars point to cultural response styles, such as extreme response bias in Latin America or moderating/midpoint response tendencies in East Asia, as well as the “reference group effect” (where respondents evaluate themselves relative to local cultural norms rather than an absolute global baseline).

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Self-Construal Scale (SCS) is structured as an objective, multi-item, self-administered psychometric questionnaire. Below are its formal administrative characteristics, dimensional scoring architecture, and operational guidelines:

• Instrument Type: Self-report psychological scale / inventory.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil or digital/computerized survey administration.
• Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (typically ages 14 and older) across general, educational, and clinical populations.
• Item Count:
  • 24-Item Version (Original Standard): 12 Independent items, 12 Interdependent items.
  • 30-Item Version (Expanded): 15 Independent items, 15 Interdependent items.
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert rating scale:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Moderately Disagree
  • 3 = Somewhat Disagree
  • 4 = Neutral
  • 5 = Somewhat Agree
  • 6 = Moderately Agree
  • 7 = Strongly Agree
• Scoring and Subscale Construction:
  • Independent Self-Construal Score: Calculated by computing the mathematical mean (or sum) of the independent items. Higher scores reflect a greater chronic accessibility of the independent, autonomous self-concept.
  • Interdependent Self-Construal Score: Calculated by computing the mathematical mean (or sum) of the interdependent items. Higher scores indicate a greater chronic accessibility of the relational, connected self-concept.
  • Bipolar Index (Optional / Difference Score): Although maintaining separate, orthogonal scores is strongly recommended, some researchers calculate a relative index by subtracting the interdependent mean score from the independent mean score: $$\text{Self-Construal Index} = \text{Independent Score} – \text{Interdependent Score}$$ Positive scores represent a predominantly independent orientation, while negative scores represent a predominantly interdependent orientation.
  • Typological Categorization (Median Split / Four-Fold Typology): Researchers frequently classify respondents into four distinct quadrants via sample median splits:
    1. Bicultural / Integrated: High Independence, High Interdependence.
    2. Independent: High Independence, Low Interdependence.
    3. Interdependent: Low Independence, High Interdependence.
    4. Marginalized / Undifferentiated: Low Independence, Low Interdependence.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Self-Construal Scale was originally published in 1994 by Dr. Theodore M. Singelis in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Dr. Singelis has granted open permission for non-commercial academic, scientific, and educational research use without payment of licensing fees, provided proper bibliographic citation is given. Researchers utilizing or translating the scale are requested to notify Dr. Singelis and provide a summary or copy of their research findings for archival records. Any commercial deployment, proprietary software integration, or fee-generating assessment packaging requires explicit written authorization from the copyright holder.

12. References

• Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K., & Heyman, S. (1996). The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self-construals, and individual values on communication styles across cultures. Human Communication Research, 22(4), 510–543. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1996.tb00377.x
• Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage Publications.
• Kitayama, S., King, A., Tompson, S., Huff, S., Yoon, C., & Liberzon, I. (2014). The dopamine receptor gene (DRD4) moderates cultural difference in independent versus interdependent social orientation. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1169–1177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614528338
• Kwan, V. S. Y., Bond, M. H., & Singelis, T. M. (1997). Pancultural explanations for life satisfaction: Adding relationship harmony to self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(5), 1038–1051. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.5.1038
• Levine, T. R., Bresnahan, M. J., Park, H. S., Lapinski, M. K., Wittenbaum, G. M., Shearman, S. M., Lee, P. E., Chung, D., & 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
• Markus, H. R., & 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
• Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.291
• Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3
• Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580–591. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294205014
• Singelis, T. M., Bond, M. H., Lai, S. Y., & Sharkey, W. F. (1999). Unpackaging culture’s influence on self-esteem and embarrassability: The role of self-construals. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(3), 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022199030003003
• Singelis, T. M., & Brown, W. P. (1995). Culture, self, and collectivist communication: Linking culture to individual behavior. Human Communication Research, 21(3), 354–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1995.tb00351.x
• Singelis, T. M., & Sharkey, W. F. (1995). Culture, self-construal, and embarrassability. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26(6), 622–644. https://doi.org/10.1177/002202219502600607
• Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (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
• Tom, D. M. (2006). Effects of perceived discrimination: Rejection and identification as two distinct pathways and their associated effects (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University). OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center.
• Triandis, H. C. (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
• Yamada, A.-M., & Singelis, T. M. (1999). Biculturalism and self-construal. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(5), 697–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(99)00016-1

13. Items of the Scale