Self‐Construal Scales Lack Validity

Self‐construal is thought to mediate and explain the effects of culture on a wide variety of outcome variables. A meta‐analysis of published cross‐cultural self‐construal research is reported in this article, and the results across studies suggests that the evidence for the predicted cultural differences is weak, inconsistent, or nonexistent. The results of 3 priming experiments (N = 121, N = 99, and N = 361) suggest that (a) priming does not account for the inconsistent results observed in the meta‐analysis, (b) that scores on a self‐construal scale appear to be measuring trait‐like constructs that are not sensitive to priming, and (c) that measures of self‐construals lack convergent validity. The results of several measurement studies (N = 121, 223, 230, 323, 214, 206, 126, 204, 148, 141, and 150) were inconsistent with the a priori two‐factor measurement model in every case. Self‐construal scales were found to be radically multidimensional and highly unstable within and across cultures. These results lead us to conclude that catastrophic validity problems exist in research involving the use of self‐construal scales in cross‐cultural research.     

A Multimethod Multitrait Validity Assessment of Self‐Construal in Japan,Korea, and the United States

A large number of previous studies have used self‐construal to predict communication outcomes. Recent evidence, however, suggests that validity problems may exist in self‐construal measurement. The current study conducted a multimethod multitrait (Campbell & Fiske, 1959) validation study of self‐construal measures with data (total N= 578) collected in Korea (N= 200), Japan (N= 212), and the U.S. (N= 166). The data showed that the Singelis (1994) Self‐Construal Scale, the Cross, Bacon, and Morris (2000) Relational Interdependent Self‐Construal Scale (RISC), and the Kuhn and McPartland (1954) Twenty Statements Test (TST) lacked convergent and discriminant validity, both pan‐culturally and within each of the three countries included in the study. Scores on the TST were not significantly related to scores on the self‐construal scales, and the various self‐construal measures correlated more highly with measures of communication directness than with alternative measures of the same type of self‐construal. Substantial method effects were also observed. The results were tested for both 2‐ and 3‐dimensional models of self‐construal and for refined scales and scales with all items retained. The results of all analyses were inconsistent with the claim that self‐construal measures are construct valid.     

A population study of low-rate smokers: quitting history and instability over time.

This study used 1 longitudinal and 2 cross-seconal population surveys to compare stability of low-rate daily smokers (less than 5 cigarettes per day) with other daily smokers and occasional smokers. Few low-rate smokers maintained consumption level; 36% retained smoking status after 20 months, compared with 82% and 44% for regular daily and occasional smokers, respectively. In a dynamic process, established smokers quit smoking and/or modified (decreased or increased) consumption. Low-rate and occasional smokers quit at higher rates than regular daily smokers (odds ratios 3:1) but were replenished by new members, many converted from regular daily smoker. The overall trend is an increasing proportion of low-consumption smokers while smoking prevalence declines. The dynamic process has implications for tobacco control efforts and for addiction theory.     

When Validity Testing Lacks Validity: Comment on Levine et al.

The death of self‐construal research has been greatly exaggerated. Levine et al. (2003) highlight the alleged methodological limitations of the current body of the self‐construal model of culture. Their allegations, whether true or not, require a fair investigation. Careful examination of Levine et al. reveals pervasive logical flaws, methodological errors, and interpretation biases, which stem from ethnic stereotyping and other erroneous assumptions at various junctures. These fundamental errors, in turn, render their conclusions untenable. In testing their 1st set of hypotheses, which they proclaim to be “central to the validity” of self‐construal scales, Levine et al. bifurcate the participants into “Westerners” versus “Asians,” and then impose their a priori stereotype of how Westerners ought to be versus how Asians ought to be, which is scientifically unacceptable. This is an unscientific validation criterion (comparable to crude ethnic stereotypes such as “Asians are smarter”) and should not be used to judge the scales' validity. Next, in their discussion of priming, Levine et al. assert that the construct validity of the interdependent self‐construal requires that it must be susceptible to priming. This is an elementary logical fallacy. It simply does not follow from the definition of the interdependent self‐construal and therefore cannot be used as a criterion which reflects on construct validity. Their priming experiments are also deeply flawed by the unrepresentative sample of participants. Further, in their factor analyses, Levine et al. set up the “straw man” of a “universal a priori 2‐factor solution” although no self‐construal scholar or theory insists that there are precisely 2 universally applicable self‐construals or that the current self‐construal scales are perfect. The results of statistical analyses, such as those in Levine et al., crucially depend on the selection of presuppositions. Levine et al.'s presuppositions are untenable, yet they are passed off as self‐evident criteria for validity testing. Their article tries to create an illusion of finality, but is pervasively and fundamentally flawed.     

The (In)validity of Self‐Construal Scales Revisited

This paper offers a critical rejoinder in the discussion concerning the viability of self‐construal scales. It is our contention that the existing data reported in our previous article (Levine et al., 2003) and elsewhere are more than sufficient to justify the conclusion that self‐report scales purporting to measure interdependent and independent self‐construals as 2 orthogonal constructs lack validity. The arguments to the contrary offered by Gudykunst and Lee (2003) and Kim and Raja (2003) are disputed. Additional data (N = 1,013) show that neither age, occupation, sample size, standardization, nor a 2nd‐order structure can account for the problems we documented previously. Although we see potential utility in the self‐construal construct, we believe that the 3 primary scales fail to meet reasonable and accepted social scientific standards. Difficult conceptual problems will need to be solved prior to the development of new and improved measures.     

山西芮城县九峰山纯阳宫修复工程奠基仪式隆重举行

<正>10月26日,山西芮城县九峰山彩球高悬,仙乐缥缈;高道云集,瑞雪呈祥;天象和氛围增添了道教圣地的钟灵之气。九峰山纯阳宫修复工程奠基仪式在此隆重举行,这是两岸三地道教界弘扬道教文化、增进合作交流的一大盛事、喜事。国家宗教事务局副局长张乐斌、一司副巡视     

中国道教协会领导赴辽宁调研道教情况

2007年6月30日至7月3日,中国道教协会任法融会长、袁炳栋秘书长等一行在辽宁省就部分道观情况进行了调研。辽宁是     

读徐梵澄译《薄伽梵歌论》中的案语提示

《薄伽梵歌》着意所在综合,即"究天人","通古今",所得必是一大和谐,这也是"精神"的主旨。而人类之精神事业,落实必在行业瑜伽,即有为于世间,盖由于"人能弘道,非道弘人"。这事业犹如远征,需要引路之人,也即天神降世应身者,吾华称之为圣人。在圣人眼中,人皆得平等,因为每一个人都潜在是"天神之子",他们有能力为精神的进步、也即"变化气质"作出努力。     

试论社会关怀与恪守福音之间的张力——以当代英国基督教会为例

本文以历史上针对基督教会与社会关系的两种相反态度为依据,分析了在世俗化背景下,主张顺应或对抗世俗社会发展趋势的英国自由派和保守派教会在强调社会关怀或恪守福音问题上进退两难的处境,以及它们如何在二者之间进行取舍,凸显了自由派教会广泛而深入地参与社会政治生活与保守派教会坚持履行宣扬上帝福音的使命和基督教传统道德理念、与国家政权机构保持距离之间的张力,并指出二者都在经历着某种意义上的创新和变革,只是所采取的方式及其程度有所不同,它们也都为当代教会发展所必需。