The development and validation of the Relational, Individual, and Collective self‐aspects (RIC) Scale

By E. Kashima, E. Hardie. 2000

254 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/13690b51e68bffc82525c9776fe68d5ec0220c5d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

1. T. Takata
2. Masaki Yuki
3. E. Diener
4. Berna Gerçek-Swing
5. Susan E. Cross
6. E. Hardin
7. Yoshihisa Kashima
8. Peter B. Smith

In Social Psychology

1. E. Diener
2. A. Church
3. E. Hardin
4. Pankaj C. Patel
5. Berna Gerçek-Swing
6. Susan E. Cross
7. M. Brewer
8. Ya-Ru Chen

Citations in the corpus

• Where (who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism. (2007, background): “C orientation is the Relational, Individual, and Collective Self-Aspects Scale (RIC; E. S. Kashima & Hardie, 2000).”
• Intergroup comparison versus intragroup relationships: A cross-cultural examination of social identity theory in North American and East Asian cultural contexts. (2003, background): “…types of social selves have been made (e.g., Breckler and Greenwald 1986; Deaux et al. 1995), the distinction most relevant to the present argument was made by Brewer and Gardner (1996) between the collective and the relational self (also see Gabriel and Gardner 1999; Kashima and Hardie 2000).”
• The What, How, Why, and Where of Self-Construal (2011, methodology): “Likewise, when facing a serious illness, people with high interdependent self-views (as measured by the E. S. Kashima & Hardie, 2000, scale) had more social concerns (e.g., being a burden on people close to me), whereas people with high independent self-views expressed more individual concerns…”
• Need Satisfaction and Well-Being (2013, background): “Levesque et al. (2004) and Chirkov and Ryan (2001) found cultural differences in perceived support for some SDT needs but did not include measures of possible mediators of these cultural differences.”
• Group Faultlines (2012, background): “Although these researchers initially conceptualized the cultural dimensions at the societal level of analysis, empirical work shows that these dimensions also capture individuallevel differences (Hofstede, 1980; Kashima & Hardie, 2000).”
• Culture, trust, and social networks (2008, background): “As for relationism, which is conceptually distinct from individualism and collectivism (Kashima & Hardie, 2000), Kashima et al. (1995) reported that although Koreans are higher in relationism than Western cultures (USA and Australia), Japanese exhibit lower levels of relationism than Western…”
• From Culture To Priming Conditions (2008, background): “…1: IDIOCENTRIC VERSUS ALLOCENTRIC INDIVIDUALS Within a culture, individuals vary in the degree to which they define themselves as being separate from or connected with others (Kashima & Hardie, 2000; Matsumoto, Weissman, Preston, Brown, & Kupperbusch, 1997; Sato & McCann, 1998; Singelis, 1994).”
• Self-Enhancement and Self-Criticism in Japanese Culture (2003, methodology): “…self-construal scale (Takata, 1999), which consists of 20 items similar to Singelis’s (1994) independent and interdependent self-construal scale and which was found to be more valid for Japanese participants (regarding the relationship between both scales, see Kashima & Hardie, 2000).”
• Assessing the Validity of Self Construal Scales: A Response to Levine et al. (2003, background): “One possibility is that there are three self construals: individual, collective, and relational (e.g., Kashima & Hardie, 2000; Kashima et al., 1995).”
• Self-Construals Across Cultures (2008, background): “It shares with other recent measures such as that of E. S. Kashima and Hardie (2000) the need to differentiate relational and collective self-construals.”
• Culture, Self-Construal, and Leisure Theory and Practice (2005, background): “First, Kashima and Hardie (2000) distinguish among individual, collective, and relational aspects of the self and, based on this, they propose a three-dimensional model.”
• Negotiating Relationally: The Dynamics of the Relational Self in Negotiations (2006, background): “For example, RSC is distinct from other aspects of the self that have been linked to culture—namely, the indi-vidualistic and collectivistic aspects of the self (Gabriel & Gardner, 1999; Kashima & Hardie, 2000; Kashima et al., 1995).”