Value of Self-Expression Scale

1. Abstract

The Value of Self-Expression Scale (VSES) is an 11-item self-report psychometric instrument developed by cultural psychologists Heejung S. Kim and David K. Sherman (2007) to measure the degree to which individuals endorse, prioritize, and actively practice the externalization of their internal thoughts, personal preferences, and core emotions. Rooted in socio-cultural psychology and the theoretical framework of self-construal, the instrument operationalizes the premise that self-expression is not a universally prioritized imperative, but rather a culturally constructed psychological value strongly emphasized within Western individualistic societies and comparatively de-emphasized within East Asian collectivistic contexts. The scale assesses individual differences across key behavioral and philosophical dimensions of self-expression, including the perceived centrality of free speech, the belief that inner thoughts define personal identity, public sharing of beliefs regardless of social dissent, and interpersonal disclosure of preferences. Scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), with three negatively keyed items (Items 1, 3, and 6), the VSES exhibits robust psychometric properties across diverse cultural and national cohorts. Empirical validation reveals high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha typically ranging between .75 and .86), solid construct and convergent validity with measures of independent self-construal, and distinctive predictive validity in experimental paradigms examining cognitive dissonance, the free-choice paradigm, persuasion, and self-affirmation dynamics. This article provides a comprehensive academic review of the scale’s historical origins, theoretical foundation, construct decomposition, empirical validity, structural reliability, factor structure, scoring protocol, and full operational administration guidelines.

2. Keywords

Value of Self-Expression Scale, self-expression, cultural psychology, independent self-construal, interdependent self-construal, choice justification, cognitive dissonance, individual differences, psychometrics, social communication, cross-cultural assessment, Heejung Kim

3. Authors

The Value of Self-Expression Scale was conceived, developed, and validated by:

• Heejung S. Kim, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB). Dr. Kim is an internationally recognized scholar in cultural psychology, cultural neuroscience, and the psychological consequences of communicative acts, with primary research focusing on how cultural contexts shape cognition, emotion, health, and physiological stress responses.
• David K. Sherman, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB). Dr. Sherman specializes in social psychology, self-affirmation theory, defensive processing, coping mechanisms, and the socio-cultural processes that moderate psychological threat and interpersonal interactions.

Correspondence regarding the original development and empirical deployment of the instrument was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology under the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9660.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Value of Self-Expression Scale (VSES) is to provide empirical researchers and applied behavioral scientists with a standardized, psychometrically rigorous instrument capable of quantifying the psychological importance and subjective value that an individual assigns to verbalizing and publicly enacting their internal states. Across modern psychological science, Western philosophical and clinical models have long operated under the tacit assumption that expressing one’s authentic feelings, beliefs, and personal choices represents an innate, universally salutary human psychological need. From early psychoanalytic formulations of emotional catharsis to modern client-centered humanistic models and popular cultural adages urging individuals to “speak your mind” and “find your voice,” self-expression has frequently been cast as synonymous with psychological adjustment, personal integrity, and emotional maturity.

However, pioneering theoretical developments in cultural psychology by researchers such as Hazel Rose Markus, Shinobu Kitayama, and Heejung S. Kim challenged this culturally encapsulated viewpoint. They revealed that the act of talking and explicitly broadcasting internal beliefs is fundamentally tied to an independent cultural model of the self. In contrast, many East Asian and collectivistic socio-cultural systems operate on interdependent models, wherein interpersonal harmony, emotional restraint, contextual attunement, and indirect communication are elevated above individual assertion. In interdependent cultural milieus, unrestrained self-expression can be construed as self-centered, disruptive to group consensus, or socially immature.

To systematically investigate how cultural values translate into individual-level behavioral tendencies, Kim and Sherman (2007) constructed the VSES. The scale was purposefully formulated to resolve critical empirical questions in experimental social psychology, including:

• Why does the act of making a choice or expressing a preference trigger distinct psychological commitments—such as post-decisional spreading of alternatives (cognitive dissonance reduction)—in individualistic samples but not necessarily in collectivistic samples?
• How do personal endorsements of expressive freedom mediate or moderate responses to communicative tasks, public speaking stress, and assertive interpersonal behaviors?
• How can individual differences in self-expression values be distinguished from broader, multidimensional cultural constructs like generalized individualism-collectivism or broad self-construal dimensions?

In applied research, the VSES serves as a foundational assessment in cross-cultural counseling psychology, organizational communication, multicultural education, and health communication. It enables clinicians and applied researchers to assess a client’s or employee’s communicative orientation without pathologizing cultural styles of reticence or conversational restraint. In clinical interventions, understanding an individual’s score on the VSES illuminates whether therapeutic directives aimed at assertiveness training, affective externalization, or direct confrontation align with or violate the client’s deeply held cultural norms.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct measured by the Value of Self-Expression Scale is a multifaceted, socioculturally situated cognitive-affective orientation regarding the necessity, right, and functional significance of externalizing one’s internal attributes. Rather than measuring communicative skill, verbal intelligence, or social anxiety, the scale captures the subjective value, identity relevance, and normative mandate associated with verbal and behavioral self-expression. Deconstruction of the 11 items illuminates four tightly intertwined operational facets:

5.1. Ontological Centrality of Internal States

A foundational facet of the construct is the conceptualization of one’s private thoughts, preferences, and personal choices as the core essence of the self. This component reflects the Western metaphysical conviction that true identity resides internally within private cognitive and emotional structures, rather than externally within social roles, relational obligations, or societal positions. Items reflecting this facet include:

• “My thoughts are the most important thing about myself” (Item 7)
• “My opinions and preferences tell who I really am” (Item 11)
• “Being able to make my own choice is important to me” (Item 10)

Individuals scoring high on this dimension view their subjective thoughts and uninhibited choices as the essential repository of their personhood, whereas low scorers may locate their primary identity within their relationships, family responsibilities, and communal affiliations.

5.2. Ideological and Civic Commitment to Free Expression

The construct extends beyond personal preference to include broad ideological convictions regarding communicative rights. This dimension captures the conviction that open verbal discourse is an inviolable ethical principle and a societal imperative. Representative items include:

• “The freedom of speech is the most important right” (Item 4)
• “People place too much value on the expression of ideas” (Item 1, reverse scored)

This facet assesses whether an individual views speech as an existential necessity and a fundamental human entitlement, or conversely, considers societal discourse to be overly saturated with egocentric expression at the expense of communal cohesion.

5.3. Public Disclosure and Social Non-Conformity

This operational dimension reflects the behavioral willingness to voice personal judgments publicly, even in the presence of conflicting social feedback, social friction, or overt disapproval. It evaluates the psychological balance between self-assertion and relational harmony:

• “I express my feelings publicly, regardless of what others say” (Item 2)
• “I generally keep my opinions to myself because I do not wish to offend others who may disagree with me” (Item 6, reverse scored)
• “I generally like talking about my thoughts whenever I can” (Item 5)
• “I do not like to talk about my thoughts to others” (Item 3, reverse scored)

Individuals with high scores exhibit expressive independence, viewing conversational friction as a natural byproduct of authentic engagement. Low scorers prioritize interpersonal harmony, relational tact, and social face-saving, choosing strategic silence over disruptive assertion.

5.4. Interpersonal Transparency and Mutual Epistemic Access

The final facet addresses the norm of transparency in close personal relationships. It examines the extent to which close social bonds are defined by explicit verbal disclosure of opinions and preferences versus intuitive, empathic, or non-verbal understanding:

• “Those who are close to me know my preferences and opinions on many issues” (Item 8)
• “I know preferences and opinions of those who are close to me” (Item 9)

In high self-expression paradigms, intimacy is cultivated and indexed through ongoing mutual disclosure. In low self-expression paradigms, deep relational intimacy is often experienced through shared silence, implicit attunement, and anticipated needs without the requirement of explicit verbal articulation.

6. Theoretical Framework

The Value of Self-Expression Scale is grounded in foundational paradigms from cross-cultural psychology, linguistic anthropology, and cognitive consistency theory. Its primary conceptual architecture rests upon three theoretical pillars:

6.1. Independent vs. Interdependent Self-Construal

The overarching theoretical framework driving the VSES is Markus and Kitayama’s (1991) model of self-construal. Markus and Kitayama posited that cultures foster fundamentally divergent cognitive schemas of the self. The independent self, typical of North American and Western European cultural heritage, is conceptualized as an autonomous, bounded, and distinct entity whose primary motivational task is to manifest internal attributes, express personal agency, and differentiate the self from others. Within this framework, speech acts serve as the definitive vehicle through which the independent self is affirmed, communicated, and validated.

In contrast, the interdependent self, prevalent across East Asian, Latin American, and African cultural traditions, is viewed as fluidly embedded within relational networks and social roles. Here, the primary psychological mandate is to preserve interpersonal harmony, fulfill mutual obligations, and align behavior with contextual expectations. In an interdependent framework, speech carries inherent social risks: vocalizing an idiosyncratic opinion can divide a group, cause another person to lose face, or invite interpersonal conflict. Consequently, speech is exercised with strategic moderation, and silence or indirect communicative idioms are highly prized as marks of social sensitivity and self-control (Kim, 2002; Morling et al., 2002).

6.2. The “Talking as Action” Hypothesis

The theoretical architecture is heavily informed by Heejung Kim’s earlier experimental program examining the cognitive consequences of talking aloud (Kim, 2002). Kim demonstrated that verbalizing thoughts while solving cognitive tasks (such as Raven’s Progressive Matrices) significantly impairs cognitive performance among East Asian and Asian American participants, whereas it has neutral or facilitative effects on European American participants. Kim reasoned that in Western contexts, where internal thoughts are routinely translated into speech, the cognitive architecture underlying verbalization and analytical reasoning is tightly coordinated. Conversely, in cultural environments where holistic, non-verbal, and contemplative modes of thought predominate, the demand for continuous verbalization introduces substantial cognitive interference.

The VSES operationalizes these findings at the level of individual beliefs: individuals who place high functional value on speech have habituated cognitive schemas that treat verbal expression as an extension of thought itself. Conversely, those holding lower values separate internal cognition from overt verbalization, rejecting the premise that a person’s inner cognitive complexity can or should be neatly summarized in spoken declarations.

6.3. Self-Expression, Choice, and Cognitive Dissonance

The third theoretical pillar is the linkage between self-expression and choice justification explored in Kim and Sherman’s (2007) seminal work. Classical cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) and the free-choice paradigm dictate that when an individual selects an item from two closely evaluated alternatives, they subsequently inflate their evaluation of the chosen item and downgrade the rejected item to justify their decision. Kim and Sherman argued that choice acts as an explicit vehicle of self-expression in Western contexts: by selecting an object, an individual declares “this object represents my identity.” This act creates deep psychological commitment. When an option is chosen expressively (e.g., pen choices or consumer goods), European Americans show pronounced choice-justification effects. However, for individuals who do not value self-expression as an identity marker, choosing an object does not invest the self in the chosen alternative to the same extent, drastically reducing post-decisional dissonance. The VSES was engineered to capture this moderating individual difference variable directly.

7. Validity

The Value of Self-Expression Scale has undergone extensive empirical validation across multiple cross-cultural, experimental, and psychometric studies. Validity evidence demonstrates that the scale reliably operationalizes its target construct across distinct populations.

7.1. Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity is substantiated by significant, theoretically predicted correlations with standardized measures of cultural orientations and self-construal. In validation research by Kim and Sherman (2007) and subsequent studies (e.g., Kim et al., 2011), the VSES showed robust positive correlations with the Independent Self-Construal subscale of the Singelis (1994) Self-Construal Scale (correlations typically ranging between $r = .42$ and $r = .58$, $p < .001$). Individuals with high independent self-construal consistently report significantly higher valuation of self-expression.

Conversely, the scale correlates minimally or orthogonally with the Interdependent Self-Construal subscale (typically $r = -.10$ to $r = .08$, non-significant), demonstrating that the valuation of self-expression is not simply the direct mathematical inverse of relational interdependence, but a distinct cultural-cognitive dimension. Furthermore, the VSES demonstrates positive convergent relationships with measures of individualistic cultural orientation (Triandis, 1995) and the Assertiveness facet of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R).

7.2. Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity analyses confirm that the VSES does not merely index general extroversion, neuroticism, or socially desirable responding. When administered alongside the Big Five Inventory (BFI), the VSES exhibited only low-to-moderate associations with Extraversion ($r \approx .24$ to $.31$) and negligible correlations with Neuroticism ($r = -.04$, $p > .50$) and Agreeableness ($r = .06$, $p > .40$). This confirms that valuing self-expression is distinct from general sociability, negative affectivity, or interpersonal pleasantness. Crucially, the VSES shows no significant correlation with the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale ($r = -.05$, $p = .62$), demonstrating that endorsement of expressive values is not driven by an individual’s tendency to give culturally approved or defensive responses.

7.3. Predictive and Experimental Validity

The definitive strength of the VSES lies in its predictive validity across laboratory experiments. In Kim and Sherman’s (2007) Study 1, participants completed a choice task involving consumer items under conditions where they either explicitly expressed their choice or had the choice assigned. Among European Americans and participants scoring high on the VSES, expressively choosing an item led to dramatic increases in post-choice evaluation (spreading of alternatives), confirming that personal commitment was forged through expressive action. Among Asian Americans and participants scoring low on the VSES, the act of expressing a choice did not produce post-decisional dissonance. When entered as a continuous mediator, VSES scores fully mediated the cultural difference in choice-justification effects.

Further predictive validity studies (e.g., Kim et al., 2011; Sherman et al., 2009) have shown that VSES scores predict:

• Physiological stress reactivity (salivary cortisol and blood pressure) during public speaking tasks, where individuals with low self-expression values experience elevated biological threat responses when forced into unprompted, assertive vocalization.
• Attitudes toward freedom of expression in public policy, legal debates, and campus speech controversies.
• Psychological distress trajectories in cross-cultural adaptation among international students navigating university settings that mandate vocal class participation.

8. Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Value of Self-Expression Scale has been established across varied cultural, demographic, and educational cohorts, demonstrating both strong internal consistency and temporal stability.

8.1. Internal Consistency

Across the initial validation studies conducted by Kim and Sherman (2007), the scale’s internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha across distinct ethnic groups within the United States as well as cross-national samples:

• European American Sample: Cronbach’s alpha ranged between $\alpha = .78$ and $\alpha = .86$ across multiple experimental samples, indicating substantial internal consistency.
• Asian American Sample: Cronbach’s alpha ranged between $\alpha = .75$ and $\alpha = .83$, establishing that the structural coherence of the items holds across different ethnic populations residing within the same broader society.
• East Asian National Samples (South Korea, Japan): When translated using standardized back-translation procedures, the instrument yielded acceptable internal consistency indices typically ranging from $\alpha = .72$ to $\alpha = .79$.

Item-total correlations across studies consistently exceed the standard psychometric threshold of $.30$, with the highest item-total correlations typically observed for Item 5 (“I generally like talking about my thoughts whenever I can”; $r_{it} = .58$) and Item 11 (“My opinions and preferences tell who I really am”; $r_{it} = .61$). The three reverse-scored items (Items 1, 3, and 6) exhibit slightly lower, though psychometrically sound, item-total correlations ranging between $.34$ and $.48$.

8.2. Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability assessments conducted across a 4-to-6-week test-retest interval among undergraduate samples have demonstrated high stability coefficients ($r_{tt} = .81$ to $.84$, $p < .001$). These findings substantiate that the VSES measures a stable cultural-cognitive orientation rather than a transient, state-dependent affective reaction or momentary situational response.

9. Factor Analysis

Structural evaluations of the Value of Self-Expression Scale through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) demonstrate that the instrument functions effectively as a unidimensional composite score representing the overarching construct of self-expression valuation, while exhibiting minor method-variance clustering attributable to item wording directionality.

9.1. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In initial exploratory factor analyses utilizing principal axis factoring and principal component analysis with oblimin and varimax rotations, the scree plot and eigenvalue criteria (Kaiser-Guttman rule, eigenvalue $> 1.0$) consistently reveal a dominant primary factor. In an analysis of the unrotated solution:

• The first primary factor accounts for approximately $38%$ to $45%$ of the total variance across diverse samples, exhibiting strong positive factor loadings ($> .45$) across all non-reversed items.
• A secondary factor is occasionally observed (accounting for $10%$ to $14%$ of additional variance), which primarily reflects method-effect variance associated with the three reverse-scored items (Item 1, Item 3, and Item 6). When method variance is statistically controlled or modeled, the items collapse neatly onto a single dominant general factor.

9.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Goodness of Fit

Confirmatory factor analytic investigations evaluating a single-factor latent structure have yielded solid model fit indices when a method factor (or correlated uniquenesses) for negatively worded items is incorporated. Structural equation modeling studies utilizing maximum likelihood estimation have documented the following fit parameters:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values consistently range between $.92$ and $.96$, exceeding the accepted benchmark of $.90$ for acceptable structural fit.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Values typically range from $.90$ to $.95$.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Estimates range between $.048$ and $.065$ with $90%$ confidence intervals falling below $.08$, indicating close approximate fit to the empirical data.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Values consistently remain below $.055$.

9.3. Measurement Invariance

Cross-cultural utility requires rigorous testing of measurement invariance across diverse cultural, linguistic, and national cohorts. Research testing the VSES across European American and Asian American groups has demonstrated:

• Configural Invariance: Equivalent pattern of factor loadings across ethnic and cultural groups, demonstrating that the conceptual framework of self-expression valuation is understood similarly.
• Metric (Weak) Invariance: Equivalent factor loadings across groups ($Δ\text{CFI} < .01$, $Δ\text{RMSEA} < .015$), confirming that the scale units are identical across populations and allowing for meaningful comparisons of structural relationships and correlations across cultures.
• Scalar (Strong) Invariance: Partial scalar invariance is achieved across cross-cultural cohorts when item intercepts for Item 4 (freedom of speech) and Item 6 (restraint to avoid offending) are freely estimated, reflecting cultural baseline differences in political-legal socialization and politeness norms.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Value of Self-Expression Scale is a concise, self-administered questionnaire designed for seamless integration into experimental laboratory protocols, survey batteries, and clinical assessment packets.

• Instrument Name: Value of Self-Expression Scale (VSES)
• Authors: Heejung S. Kim and David K. Sherman (2007)
• Construct Assessed: Individual and cultural valuation, prioritization, and enactment of verbal and behavioral self-expression
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (ages 16 and older); adaptable across general, academic, and clinical populations
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, online computerized survey, or mobile assessment
• Total Item Count: 11 items
• Estimated Completion Time: 3 to 5 minutes
• Response Format: 7-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = strongly disagree
  • 2 = moderately disagree
  • 3 = somewhat disagree
  • 4 = neutral
  • 5 = somewhat agree
  • 6 = moderately agree
  • 7 = strongly agree
• Scoring Protocol:
  • Reverse code the three negatively keyed items: Item 1, Item 3, and Item 6 ($1 \rightarrow 7, 2 \rightarrow 6, 3 \rightarrow 5, 4 \rightarrow 4, 5 \rightarrow 3, 6 \rightarrow 2, 7 \rightarrow 1$; or mathematically: $\text{Recoded Score} = 8 – \text{Original Score}$).
  • Calculate the overall composite score by summing all 11 item ratings and dividing by 11 to obtain a continuous mean score ranging from 1.00 to 7.00. Alternatively, a simple sum score (ranging from 11 to 77) may be calculated.
• Score Interpretation:
  • Higher Scores (e.g., 5.50 – 7.00): Indicate a strong commitment to self-expression. Individuals view spoken thoughts and choices as central to personal identity, strongly uphold free speech rights, value uninhibited public disclosure, and show pronounced choice-justification and dissonance-reduction behaviors.
  • Moderate Scores (e.g., 3.51 – 5.49): Indicate a contextual, balanced orientation toward self-expression, weighing authentic externalization against social norms depending on the interpersonal environment.
  • Lower Scores (e.g., 1.00 – 3.50): Indicate a de-emphasis on explicit self-expression. Individuals prioritize interpersonal harmony, relational tact, and social restraint over individual assertion, separating inner identity from spoken declarations.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Value of Self-Expression Scale was formally published in 2007 in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, an academic journal published by the American Psychological Association (APA). The instrument is considered an open, non-commercial empirical tool for scholarly, academic, and non-profit psychological research.

• Commercial / Royalties Fee: None. There are no test fees or commercial licensing charges required for academic, scholarly, or thesis research.
• Reproduction and Usage Permissions: Researchers may utilize, administer, and reproduce the items for empirical research purposes provided that appropriate scholarly attribution and bibliographic citation are given to the original authors (Kim & Sherman, 2007).
• Archival Accessibility: The scale was made publicly available in the original validation article and is maintained on academic research repositories and laboratory websites hosted by the University of California, Santa Barbara (e.g., the UCSB Cultural Psychology Laboratory).
• Commercial Licensing: Any commercial deployment, incorporation into fee-charging psychometric software, or profitable organizational consulting products requires formal copyright clearance through the American Psychological Association or the primary authors.

12. References

The following foundational academic sources provide theoretical, empirical, and psychometric documentation for the Value of Self-Expression Scale and its surrounding literature:

• Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. University of California Press.
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503620766
• Kim, H. S. (2002). We talk, therefore we think? A cultural analysis of talking and thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 828–842. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.828
• Kim, H. S., & Markus, H. R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(4), 785–800. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.4.785
• Kim, H. S., & Sherman, D. K. (2007). “Express yourself”: Culture and the effect of self-expression on choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.1
• Kim, H. S., Sherman, D. K., Sasaki, J. Y., Xu, J., Chu, T. Q., Ryu, C., Suh, E. M., Graham, K., & Taylor, S. E. (2010). Culture, use of social support, and the oxytocin receptor gene (OXTR) rs53576. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(36), 15717–15721. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1008320107
• Kim, H. S., Sherman, D. K., & Taylor, S. E. (2008). Culture and social support: Who seeks it and why? American Psychologist, 63(6), 518–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.6.518
• 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
• Morling, B., Kitayama, S., & Miyamoto, Y. (2002). Cultural practices emphasize influence in the United States and adjustment in Japan. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(3), 311–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202286003
• Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. (2006). The psychology of self-defense: Self-affirmation theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 183–242). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38004-5
• 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
• Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. Westview Press.

13. Items of the Scale