FROM CULTURAL ORIENTATIONS TO SELF-MONITORING AND AUTHENTICITY: THE MEDIATING ROLE OF SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 64 Sayı: 1, 301 - 327, 25.06.2024

Pınar Elmas , Ayda Büyükşahin Sunal

https://doi.org/10.33171/dtcfjournal.2024.64.1.13

Öz

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between cultural orientations (individualism and collectivism) and self-monitoring (protective and acquisitive self-monitoring) and authenticity (authenticity and relational authenticity) and to test the mediating role of self-consciousness (private self-consciousness and public self-consciousness) in this relationship. In addition, it was a matter of curiosity whether the Self-Monitoring Scale had a two-factor structure and a psychometric examination was conducted in a different sample. As expected, the scale was found to have a two-factor structure and to be valid and reliable at an acceptable level. Then, 643 university students, 425 (66%) female and 218 (34%) male, were reached for the main study. Personal Information Form, Brief Individualism Collectivism Scale, Self-Monitoring Scale, Authenticity Scale and Self-Consciousness Scale were used as data collection tools. The results showed that private self-consciousness mediated the relationship between individualism and authenticity and the relationship between collectivism and relational authenticity. In addition, public self-consciousness was found to mediate the relationships between collectivism and protective self-monitoring, acquisitive self-monitoring, and authenticity. According to the findings of the study, it is concluded that people who adjust their behaviours according to social conditions may have difficulty in living a life in harmony with their true selves. This points to the importance of authenticity. In addition, private self-consciousness brings the individual closer to authenticity, whereas public self-consciousness prevents the individual from authenticity and leads to protective self-monitoring. This finding reveals the importance of being aware of one's unique aspects. That is to say, thinking that one is constantly being watched by others and being evaluated accordingly may prevent one from revealing oneself. The limitation of the study is that the participant group consists of university students. For the generalisability of the data, it may be recommended to test the same model with an adult sample.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Cultural Orientations, Individualism, Collectivism, Self-monitoring, Authenticity, Self-consciousness

KÜLTÜREL YÖNELİMLERDEN KENDİNİ AYARLAMA VE OTANTİKLİĞE: BENLİK BİLİNÇLİLİĞİNİN ARACI ROLÜ

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, kültürel yönelimlerin (bireycilik ve toplulukçuluk) kendini ayarlama (korumacı ve kazanıcı kendini ayarlama) ve otantiklik (otantiklik ve ilişkisel otantiklik) ile ilişkisini incelemek ve bu ilişkide benlik bilinçliliğinin (özel benlik bilinçliliği ve aleni benlik bilinçliliği) aracı rolünü test etmektir. Ayrıca, çalışmada Kendini Ayarlama Ölçeği’nin iki faktörlü bir yapıda olup olmadığı merak konusu olmuş ve farklı bir örneklemde psikometrik bir inceleme yapılmıştır. Ölçeğin beklendiği gibi iki faktörlü bir yapıda olduğu ve kabul edilebilir düzeyde geçerli ve güvenilir olduğu görülmüştür. Ardından, ana çalışma için 425 (%66)’i kadın ve 218 (%34)’i erkek olmak üzere 643 üniversite öğrencisine ulaşılmıştır. Kişisel Bilgi Formu, Kısa Bireycilik Toplulukçuluk Ölçeği, Kendini Ayarlama Ölçeği, Otantiklik Ölçeği ve Benlik Bilinçliliği Ölçeği veri toplama araçları olarak kullanılmıştır. Sonuçlar, özel benlik bilinçliliğinin bireycilik ile otantiklik arasındaki ilişkide ve toplulukçuluk ve ilişkisel otantiklik arasındaki ilişkide aracı rolde olduğunu göstermiştir. Ayrıca, aleni benlik bilinçliliğinin toplulukçuluk ile korumacı kendini ayarlama, kazanıcı kendini ayarlama ve otantiklik arasındaki ilişkilerde aracı rol üstlendiği görülmüştür. Çalışma bulguları, sosyal koşullara göre davranışlarını ayarlayan kişilerin, gerçek benlikleriyle uyumlu bir yaşam sürmede zorlanabilecekleri sonucunu düşündürmektedir. Bu da, otantikliğin önemine işaret etmektedir. Ayrıca, özel benlik bilinçliliğinin kişiyi otantikliğe yakınlaştırdığı, aleni benlik bilinçliliğinin ise otantiklikten alıkoyduğu ve korumacı kendini ayarlamaya yönelttiği görülmüştür. Bu bulgu da, bireyin kendine özgü yanlarının bilincinde olmasının önemini ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Şöyle ki, sürekli başkaları tarafından izlendiği ve bu doğrultuda değerlendirmeye tabi tutulduğunu düşünmek, kişinin kendisini ortaya koyabilmesini engelleyebilmektedir. Çalışmanın sınırlılığı ise katılımcı grubunun üniversite öğrencilerinden oluşmasıdır. Verilerin genellenebilirliği için aynı modelin yetişkin örneklemi ile de test edilmesi önerilebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kültürel Yönelimler, Bireycilik, Toplulukçuluk, Otantiklik, Kendini Ayarlama, Benlik Bilinçliliği

Etik Beyan

1. yazarın doktora tez çalışmasından üretilen bu çalışmanın etik onayı Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Etik Kurulu tarafından alınmıştır.

Kaynakça

• Akın, A., Abacı, R. ve Öveç, Ü. (2007). The construct validity and reliability of the Turkish version of Self-Consciousness Scale. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 40(2), 257-276.
• Arkin, R. M. (1981). Self-presentation styles. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.). Impression management theory and social psychological research (pp. 311–333). New York: Academic Press.
• Avolio B. J., & Luthans, F. (2006). The high impact leader: Moments matter for accelerating authentic leadership development. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Aydoğan, D., Özbay, Y. ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2017). Özgünlük Ölçeği’nin uyarlanması ve özgünlük ile mutluluk arasındaki ilişkide maneviyatın aracı rolü. The Journal of Happiness and Well-Being, 5(1), 38-59.
• Bacanlı, H. (1990). Kendini Ayarlama Becerisinin Çeşitli Değişkenlerle İlişkisi (Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi), Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
• Baker, Z. G., Tou, R. Y. W., Bryan, J. L., & Knee, C. R. (2017). Authenticity and well-being: Exploring positivity and negativity in interactions as a mediator. Personality and Individual Differences, 113, 235-239.
• Brewer, M. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 475-482.
• Brown, J. D., Collins, R. L., & Schmidt, G. W. (1988). Self-esteem and direct versus indirect forms of self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(3), 445-453.
• Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., Prado, F. A., Ortiz, F. A., Mastor, K. A., Harumi, Y., …, Cabrera, H. F. (2006). Implicit theories and self-perceptions of traitedness across cultures toward integration of cultural and trait psychology perspectives. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(69), 694-716.
• Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
• Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. (2000). The relational interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 791–808.
• Cross, S. E., Gore, J. S., & Morris, M. L. (2003). The relational interdependent self construal, self-concept consistency, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 933-944.
• Davis, M. H., & Franzoi, S. L. (1986). Adolescent loneliness, self-disclosure and private self-consciousness: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 595-608.
• Delvecchio, E., Mabilia, D., Miconi, D., Chirico, I., & Li, J. B. (2015). Self-consciousness in Chinese and Italian adolescents: An exploratory cross-cultural study using the ASC. Current Psychology, 34, 140-153.
• DePaulo, B. M., & Kashy, D. A. (1998). Everday lies in close and casual relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 63-79.
• Doherty, K., & Schlenker, B. R. (1991). Self-consciousness and strategic self-presentation. Journal of Personality, 59(1), 1-19.
• Eskin, M. (2013). The effects of individualistic-collectivistic value orientations on non-fatal suicidal behavior and attitudes in Turkish adolescents and young adults. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 54(6), 493-501.
• Fenigstein, A. (1987). On the nature of public and private self-consciousness. Journal of Personality, 55, 543-554.
• Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 43, 522-527.
• Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for windows. London: Sage.
• Froming, W. J., & Carver, C. S. (1981). Divergent influences of private and public self-consciousness in a compliance paradigm. Journal of Research in Personality, 15(2), 159-171.
• Fulmer, C. A., Gelfand, M. J., Kruglanski, A. W., Kim-Prieto, C., Diener, E., Pierro, S., & Higgins, E. T. (2011). On ‘feeling right’ in cultural contexts: How person-culture match affects self-esteem and subjective well-being. Psychological Science, 21, 1563-1569.
• Gabrenya, W. K., & Arkin, R. M. (1980). Self-Monitoring Scale: Factor structure and correlates. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6(1), 13-22.
• Gan, M., & Chen, S. (2017). Being your actual or ideal self? What it means to feel authentic in a relationship. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1-14.
• Goffman, E (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday Anchor.
• Gohar, D., Leary, M. R., & Costanzo, P. R. (2016). Self-presentational congruence and psychological adjustment: A test of three models. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 35, 589-608.
• Gouveia, T., Schulz, M. S., & Costa, M. E. (2016). Authenticity in relationships: Predicting caregiving and attachment in adult romantic relationships. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(6), 736-744.
• Gudykunst, W. B., Gao, G., & Franklyn-Stokes, A. (1996). Self-monitoring and concern for social appropriateness in China and England. In J. Pandey, D. Sinhan, & D. Bhawuk (Eds.). Asian contributions to cross-cultural psychology (pp. 255-267). New Delhi: Sage.
• Gudykunst, W. B., Yang, S. M., & Nishida, T. (1987). Cultural differences in self-consciousness and self-monitoring. Communication Research, 14, 7–34.
• Güngör, D., Karasawa, M., Boiger, M., Dinçer, D., & Mesquita, B. (2014). Fitting in or sticking together: The prevalence and adaptivity of conformity, relatedness and autonomy in Japan and Turkey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(9), 1374-1389.
• Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.). Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 382-394). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Culture and the need for positive self-regard. Psychological Review, 106, 766-794.
• Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
• Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Personality and culture revisited: Linking traits and dimensions of culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 38, 52-88.
• İlhan ve Özdemir (2013). Otantiklik Ölçeği’nin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 5(40), 142-153.
• İmamoğlu, E. O. ve Aygün, Z. (2004). Self-construals and values in different cultural and socioeconomic contexts. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 130(4), 277-306.
• İmamoğlu, E. O., Günaydın, G. ve Selçuk, E. (2011). Özgün benliğin yordayıcıları olarak kendileşme ve ilişkililik: Cinsiyetin ve kültürel yönelimlerin ötesinde. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 26(67), 27-43.
• James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Dover.
• John, O. P, Cheek, J. M., & Klohnen, E. C. (1996). On the nature of self-monitoring: construct explication with Q-sort ratings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(4), 763-776.
• Jones, E. E. (1990). Interpersonal perception. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
• Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (2010). Benlik, aile ve insan gelişimi: Kültürel psikoloji. İstanbul: Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları.
• Kashima, Y. (2000). Maintaining cultural stereotypes in the serial reproduction of narratives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(5), 594-604.
• Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 283-357.
• Kraus, M. W., Chen, S., & Keltner, D. (2011). The power to be me: Power elevates self-concept consistency and authenticity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 974–980.
• Laudani, C., Giovanni G., Lo Cascio, V., Pace, U., & Cacioppo, M. (2014). Does a Mediterranean model of family functioning in the perception of Italian and Spanish adolescents exist? A cross-national study. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(1), 377-385.
• Laux, L., & Renner, K. H. (2002). Self-monitoring and authenticity: The misjudged self-presenters. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 23(2), 129-148.
• Leary, M. R. (2003). Interpersonal aspects of optimal self-esteem and the authentic self. Psychology Inquiry, 52-54.
• Leary, M. R. (1995). Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal behavior. Social Psychology Series.
• Leary, M. R., & Allen, A. B. (2011). Personality and persona: Personality processes in self-presentation. Journal of Personality, 79(6), 1191-1218.
• Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1993). The Interaction Anxiousness Scale: Construct and criterion-related validity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 61(1), 136-146.
• Lennox, R. (1988). The problem with self-monitoring: A two-sided scale and a one-sided theory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 58–73.
• Lennox, R. D., & Wolfe, R. N. (1984). Revision of the Self-Monitoring Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1349–1364.
• Lopez, F. G., & Rice, K. G. (2006). Preliminary development and validation of a measure of relationship authenticity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 362-371.
• Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psycological Review, 98, 224-253.
• Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 420- 430.
• Markus, H., Mullally, P. R., & Kitayama, S. (1997). Self-ways: Diversity in modes of cultural participation. In U. Neisser & D. Jopling (Eds.). The conceptual self in context (pp. 13-61). Cambridge University Press.
• Martens, W. H. D. (2005). A Theoretical model of fragile authenticity structure. International Journal of Philisophical Practice, 2(3), 1-18.
• Maslow, A. (2001). İnsan olmanın psikolojisi. İstanbul: Kuraldışı Yayıncılık.
• McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. (2005). Personality profiles of cultures: Aggregate personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 407-425.
• Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: The University of Chicago.
• Miller, J. S., & Cardy, R. L. (2000). Self-monitoring and performance appraisal rating outcomes in project teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 609-626.
• Miller, M. L., Omens, R. S., & Delvadia, R. (1991). Dimensions of social competence: Personality and coping style correlates. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 955-964.
• Mittal, B., & Balasubramanian, S. K. (1987). Testing the dimensionality of the Self-Consciousness Scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 51, 53–68.
• Monfries, M., & Kafer, N. F. (1994). Private self-consciousness and fear of negative evaluation. Journal of Psychology, 128(4), 447-454.
• Neff, K. D., & Harter, S. (2002). The role of power and authenticity in relationship styles emphasizing autonomy, connectedness or mutuality among adult couples. Journal of Social and Personel Relationships, 19, 835-857.
• Newman, D. B., & Nezlek, J. B. (2017). Private self-consciousness in daily life: Relationships between rumination and reflection and well-being, and meaning in daily life. Personality and Individual Differences.
• Oyserman, D. (1993). The lens of personhood: Viewing the self, others and conflict in a multicultural society. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 993–1009.
• Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Strengths of character and well-being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(5), 603-619.
• Pillow, D. R., Hale, W., Crabtree, M. A., & Hinojosa, T. L. (2017). Exploring the relations between self-monitoring, authenticity and well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 393-398.
• Pinto D.G., Maltby J., & Wood, A. M. (2011) Exploring the tripartite model of authenticity within Gray's approach and inhibition systems and Cloninger's bio-social model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(2), 194-197.
• Pinto, D. G., Maltby, J., Wood, A. M., & Day, L. (2012). A behavioral test of Horney’s linkage between authenticity and aggression: People living authentically are lesslikely to respond aggressively in unfair situations. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(1), 41-44.
• Rauthmann, J. F. (2011). Acquisitive or protective self-presentation of dark personalities? Associations among the dark-triad and self-monitoring. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 502-508.
• Robinson, O. C., Lopez, F. G., Ramos, K., & Nartova-Bochaver, S. (2012). Authenticity, social context and well-being in the Unided States, England and Russia: A three country comparative analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(5), 719-737.
• Schmid, P. F. (2001). Authenticity: The person as his or her own author Diological and ethical perspectives on therapy as an encounter relationship and beyond. Rogers’ therapeutic conditions: Evolution, theory and practice, 1, 213-228.
• Schumaker, J. F., & Barraclough, R. A. (1989). Protective self-presentation in Malaysian and Australian individuals. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20(1), 54-63.
• Sherman, R. A., Nave, C. S., & Funder, D. C. (2012). Properties of persons and situations related to overall and distinctive personality-behavior congruence. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 87-101.
• Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. P., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 240–275.
• Slabu, L., Lenton, A. P., Sedikides, C., & Bruder, M. (2014). Trait and state authenticity across-cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(9), 1347-1373.
• Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances, private realities: The psychology of self-monitoring. New York: Freeman.
• Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526–537.
• Somer O., Korkmaz M. ve Tatar A. (2002). Beş Faktör Kişilik Envanteri’nin geliştirilmesi-1: Ölçek ve alt ölçeklerin oluşturulması. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 17(49), 21-37.
• Suh, E. M. (2002). Culture, identity consistency and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1378-1391.
• Tabachnick B. G., & Fidel, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (Fourth Ed.). MA: Allyn & Bacon, Inc.
• Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210.
• Thomaes, S., Sedikides, C., & Reijntjes, A. (2017). Happy to be "me?" Authenticity, psychological need satisfaction, and subjective well-being in adolescence. Child Development, 88(4), 1045-1056.
• Tou, R. Y. W., Baker, Z. G., Hadden, B. W., & Lin, Y. (2015). The real me: Authenticity, interpersonal goals and conflict tactics. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 189-194.
• Triandis, H. C. (1996). The psychological measurement of cultural syndromes. American Psychologist, 51, 407–415.
• Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Pscyhological Review, 96, 506-520.
• Tunnell, G. (1984). The discrepancy between private and public selves: Public self-consciousness and its correlates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(5), 549-555.
• Uleman, J. S. Rhee, E., Bardoliwalla, N., Semin, G., & Toyama, M. (2000). The relational sef: Closeness to ingroups depends on who they are, culture and the type of closeness. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 1-17.
• Wasti, A. ve Erdil, S. E. (2007), Bireyci ve toplulukçuluk değerlerinin ölçülmesi: Benlik kurgusu ve INDCOL ölçeklerinin Türkçe geçerlemesi, Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(1), 39-66.
• Wilmot, M. P. (2015). A contemporary taxometric analysis of the latent structure of self-monitoring. Psychological Assessment, 27(2), 353-364.
• Wilmot, M. P., DeYoung, C. G., Stillwell, D., & Kosinski, M. (2016). Self-monitoring and the metatraits. Journal of Personality, 84, 335-347.
• Wilmot, M. P., Kostal, J. W., Stillwell, D., & Kosinski, M. (2017). Using item response theory to develop measures of acquisitive and protective self-monitoring from the original Self-Monitoring Scale. Assessment, 24(5), 677-691.
• Wolf, H., Spinath, F. M., Riemann, R., & Angleitner, A. (2009). Self-monitoring and personality: A behavioural-genetic study. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 25–29.
• Wood, A., Linley, P., Maltby, J. Baliousis, M., & Joseph, S. (2008). The authentic personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of the Authenticity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 385-399.