Culture and Context-sensitive Self: The Amount and Meaning of Context-sensitivity of Phenomenal Self Differ Across Cultures

87 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Culture, trust, and social networks (2008, methodology): “…main effects are difficult to interpret because they may reflect a great number of sociocultural differences such as educational system, regional differences such as collective self and social capital (Putnam, 2000; Kashima et al., 2004b), and methodological artifacts such as response sets.”
Understanding the Relationship Between Perceived Authenticity and Well-Being (2019, background): “Although this suggests that authenticity is valued across many cultures, there is also evidence that authenticity is conceptualized differently in different cultures (e.g., Kashima et al., 2004, 2005; Park, Haslam, & Kashima, 2012; Slabu, Lenton, Sedikides, & Bruder, 2014).”
The What, How, Why, and Where of Self-Construal (2011, background): “Another multicountry study discovered that RelSC predicted contextualized self-description differently for Japanese and Korean participants and was not associated with contextualized self-description for participants with European backgrounds (Y. Kashima et al., 2004).”
When Preference Is Not Satisfied but the Individual Is (2014, unknown): “Also, to avoid making cultural faux pas, they tend to be more context sensitive (Kashima et al., 2004; Matsumoto et al., 2008), have chronic accessibility to normative ought-to guides (Higgins, 1996).”