5. DISCUSSION
5.2 The Association between Self-Construal and Gender (and Race)
5.2.1 Self-Construal and Gender
Women‟s scores on the Relational Interdependent Self-Construal Scale were significantly higher than men‟s scores on this scale, which is consistent with the hypothesis. This is a result that is consistent with the theories, largely emanating from the United States, that the independent, autonomous self-construal is more typical of men, while the qualities of interdependence and relatedness describe the self-construals of women (Gilligan, 1982; Jordan & Surrey, 1986;
Maccoby, 1990; Markus & Oyserman, 1989; Mather, 1997; Miller, 1990; Norris, 1998;
Sampson, 1988; Stewart & Lykes, 1985). This result is also supported by the original study in which the Relational Interdependent Self-Construal scale was developed (Cross et al., 2000) as well as other studies in which women scored consistently higher than men on measures of interdependent self-construal (Cross & Madson, 1997; Madson & Trafimow, 2001; Pearson et al., 1998).
It should be noted, however, that the original study was based on a sample of university women only, and the significant differences that have been found in the other studies listed above were marginal. Pearson et al. (1998) found that, while women did have higher scores than men on their Connected Self subscale, these differences were small, and no gender differences were found on the Primacy of Other Care and Self and Other Care subscales. They suggest that both the Connected and Separate Self constructs appear to be meaningful for both men and women.
Other studies have found no difference, or found contradictory differences between men and women (Grace & Cramer, 2002; McChrystal, 1994).
One of the explanations offered for why men and women‟s self-construals may differ in this way concerns their differential socialization experiences. Triandis and his colleagues have argued that allocentric values are similar to collectivist values – that is, interpersonal closeness and attending to the needs of others – and that allocentrism is to individuals what collectivism is to groups (Triandis et al., 1985; Triandis et al., 1995). Extending this argument, others have proposed that men and women grow up in distinct subcultures that differ in the same way that individualist cultures differ from collectivist ones (Maccoby, 1990; Maltz & Borker, 1982). As a result, women are socialized to be interdependent and attuned to relationships (Gilligan, 1982; Jordan, Kaplan, Miller, Stivey & Surrey, 1991 in Madson & Trafimow, 2001; Markus & Oyserman, 1989; Surrey, 1991), while men are brought up to be autonomous and self-reliant (Maccoby, 1990). This is consistent with feminist psychoanalytic work that has suggested that the development of women‟s relational and men‟s independent sense of selves may largely be a result of child-rearing practices (Chodorow, 1978, 1989). This is supported by other empirical research (Madson & Trafimow, 2001). Kemmelmeier and Oyserman (2001) suggest that this similarity between men‟s self-construal and the values of the broader culture is partly the result of the dominant influence that men have had, and continue to have, in Western society. Women, on the other hand, may understand and participate in the values of the larger cultural framework, but must find a way of reconciling the gap between their self-construals and the social context.
This does not only apply to women, however, as demonstrated by Lyons (1983) who found that equal numbers of women and men seem to value some form of interdependence in their self- concepts. Lykes (1985) has shown how the inseparability of gender and power in notions of the
self suggest that independent versus interdependent self-construals are less a function of biologically assigned gender roles and more a product of social context and the relative distribution of power. This implies that independent and interdependent self-concepts are not necessarily the sole domain of men and women respectively. Indeed, many have suggested that men and women‟s notions of self are grounded in their different experiences of and access to power and resources (Chen & Welland, 2002; Lykes, 1985). Lykes (1985) sought to clarify the link between the social context and notions of self, and found that women and lower
socioeconomic groups – i.e., people from less powerful groups - tend to be more likely to recognize the connectedness of the self and others, and the self-defining nature of social experiences. The findings of the current study on the RISC, with women scoring higher than men, add to these findings. However, Lykes also emphasized that differences in self-conceptions do not differ from one individual to the next but rather, that alternative notions of the self are systematically revealed by individuals from particular social groups with particular social experiences. Crucial for understanding variations in men‟s and women‟s sense of selves is recognition of the variations of men‟s and women‟s positions in society relative to the distribution of power and not to biology (Lykes, 1985).
Chen and Welland (2002) examined the effects of power as a function of self-construal and gender and showed how interdependent versus independent self-construals in women and men are influenced by power. Because men and women are likely to experience different
combinations of power and self-construal, they have different goals and motivational foci.
Individuals with independent self-construals will pursue self-interest goals when in power, while those with interdependent self-construals will pursue other-oriented responsibility goals (Chen &
Welland, 2002). It seems likely that such dynamics are present in South African society and differences in men‟s and women‟s self-construals are perpetuated by the existing power differentials.
This also points to the importance of context in the formation of self – a cycle that “is perpetuated in part because women‟s gender socialization emphasized relatedness, so that women are more likely to think in…situated terms, a way of thinking not well suited to the Western cultural paradigm of individualism” (Kemmelmeier & Oyserman, 2001, p. 130). Indeed, many have argued that the separate and connected self-concepts are not stable and invariant across time and context, but fluid and dependent on contextual factors, including the nature of the self-other relationship (David et al., 2004; Onorato & Turner, 2001; Turner, 1985; Turner et al., 1987). Perhaps the perceived nature of the particular relationship and the way in which individuals participate in these relationships led to the results for men and women in this study as they have in others (Friedman, 1998) – but it would be interesting to see what differences may have emerged both between and within groups (i.e., men and women) had there been a follow-up investigation.
The above arguments for the fluidity of self-concepts do not necessarily discount theories that women and men experience predominantly different types of selves (Chodorow, 1989).
Rather, it is proposed that concrete differences in social context can mediate these gender differences. In situations where the nature of the self-other relationship is ambiguous, such as when the familiarity of the hypothetical other is unspecified, individuals may need to look to other sources of information to determine the appropriate behavior. It is suggested that in a situation such as this, individuals may look to their own identity (i.e., male or female), making salient the norms and stereotypes that exist for gender, with women more connected and care-oriented and men more separate and justice-oriented (Ryan & David, 2004) (Ryan et al., 2004, p. 248).
Nonetheless, Ryan et al. (2004) found that gender was not a significant predictor of the social distance between self and other, in contrast to the results of the present investigation. However, closer examination of men and women‟s perceptions of the nature of self-other relationships could dilute the apparent gender differences in their self-concepts that were found in this study.
Indeed, the fact that these significant results do not hold across cultures (Black and White) in this study, are evidence of the influence of factors other than gender in self-development.
5.2.2 Self-Construal and Race