Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 2000 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

2000, Vol. 78, No. 4, 791-808 0022-3514/00/$5.00 DOI: 10.1O37//0O22-3514.78.4791

The Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal and Relationships

Susan E. Cross, Pamela L. Bacon, and Michael L. Morris

Iowa State University

Three studies describe the development and validation of a measure of the relational-interdependent
self-construal, which is defined as the tendency to think of oneself in terms of relationships with close
others. Study 1 reports the development, psychometric properties, and tests of validity of this new
measure. Individuals who scored high on the Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal (RISC) Scale
characterized their important relationships as closer and more committed than did individuals who scored
low on diis measure (Study 1) and were more likely to take into account the needs and wishes of others
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

when making decisions (Study 2). In Study 3, using a dyadic interaction paradigm with previously
unacquainted participants, the partners of persons who scored high on the RISC scale viewed them as
open and responsive to their needs and concerns; these perceptions were related to positive evaluations
of the relationship.

Cross-cultural psychologists have recently identified a basic
dimension that differentiates how people think about themselves—
the degree to which elements of the social world (such as close
relationships, contexts for behavior, or important group member-
ships) are included in the self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Shwe-
der & Bourne, 1984; Triandis, 1989). They argue that members of
collectivist cultures, such as Japan or India, tend to think of
themselves as interdependent with close others and as defined by
important roles and situations. In contrast, members of Western
cultures, such as the United States, tend to think of themselves as
independent of relationships and as autonomous or separated from
others.
There may be considerable variation within North American
culture with respect to the self-construal, however. Members of
many ethnic and religious groups tend to think of themselves as
interdependent or relational (Allen, Dawson, & Brown, 1989;
Marin & Triandis, 1985; McCombs, 1985; Oved, 1988). Women
are more likely than men in American society to construct an
interdependent or relational self-view (Cross & Madson, 1997;
Markus & Oyserman, 1989). The nature of this Western version of
the interdependent self-view is likely to be somewhat different
from the group-oriented interdependence that characterizes the
self-views of members of collectivist societies; North Americans
and Western Europeans are more likely to include representations
of close relationships rather than group membership into the self
Susan E. Cross, Pamela L. Bacon, and Michael L. Morris, Department
of Psychology, Iowa State University.
This research was supported by National Institute of Mental Health
Grant MH 54540-01. We wish to thank Dan Russell for his help with the
analyses and Dan Russell and Carolyn Cutrona for their helpful comments
on the manuscript. We also wish to thank Angela Anderson, Paige Boland,
Summer Brunscheen, Frindee Daly, John Egan, Angela Fontanini, Amy
McGregor, Alyssa Puffer, Carrie Rosentrater, Becky Schmidt, Kelly
Southwell, and Laura Wright for their help with the data collection.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Susan E.
Cross, Department of Psychology, W112 Lagomarcino Hall, Iowa State
University, Ames, Iowa 50011. Electronic mail may be sent to scross®
iastate.edu.
791
(we explain this further below). Although this difference in self-
structure has been identified by other researchers (e.g., Lykes,
1985; Surrey, 1991), a measure of the interdependent self-
construal appropriate for Western populations has not been avail-
able for interested researchers. In this article we describe the
development and validation of a new measure of the interdepen-
dent self-construal.
Individual Differences in the Self-Construal
For years, Western researchers have assumed a single model of
the self—what has been termed the independent self-construal
(Markus & Kitayama, 1991). This understanding of the self is
based on Euro-American beliefs about individualism, personal
rights, and the autonomy of the individual from social groups
(Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985; Guisinger &
Blatt, 1994; Markus & Kitayama, 1994; Sampson, 1985). The
underlying principle that shapes the independent self-construal is
the premise that the person is essentially separate from others. The
primary components of the independent self-construal are one's
unique traits, abilities, preferences, interests, goals, and experi-
ences, and these are differentiated from social contexts, interper-
sonal relationships, and group memberships. To maintain and
enhance this independent view of the self one must maintain a
sense of autonomy from others and "be true to one's own internal
structures of preferences, rights, convictions, and goals" (Markus
& Kitayama, 1994, p. 459).
In contrast, the underlying principle that shapes the interdepen-
dent self-construal is the premise that the person is connected to
others, so that the self is defined, at least in part, by important
roles, group memberships, or relationships. For individuals with
this self-construal, representations of important relationships and
roles share the self-space with abstract traits, abilities, and prefer-
ences. To maintain and enhance this interdependent view of the
self, individuals will tend to think and behave in ways that em-
phasize their connectedness to others and that strengthen existing
relationships.
These differences in self-construals raise many issues with re-
gard to self-related processes. For example, cognitive processes
 792 CROSS, BACON, AND MORRIS
may vary depending on one's self-construal. Specifically, infor-
mation for close others that is closely linked to information about
the self may function much like self-relevant information in cog-
nitive processes. As a result, individuals with an interdependent
self-construal may attend more closely to information about close
others than will individuals with an independent self-construal.
Similarly, individuals with an interdependent self-construal may
remember information about close others better than individuals
with an independent self-construal.
Motivational processes may also vary for individuals with di-
vergent self-construals. It is generally assumed that the desire to
promote or enhance the self is a central motivator of behavior.
However, self-promotion or self-enhancement will depend on the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
nature of the self-construal. For individuals with an independent
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
self-construal, standing out, being better than others on self-
defining domains, and maintaining a positive ratio of successes-
to-aspirations contribute to a positive view of the self and to
enhanced self-esteem (Blaine & Crocker, 1993; Harter, 1993;
James, 1890/1983; Tesser, 1988). In contrast, for the person with
an interdependent self-construal, positive feelings about the self
will in some part derive from developing and maintaining close
relationships with others. Indeed, a variety of evidence suggests
that positive feedback from others and harmonious relationships
are more important for women's self-esteem than for men's (e.g.,
Moran & Eckenrode, 1991; Roberts & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1989,
1994; Shwalbe & Staples, 1991; Zuckerman, 1989).
Individuals with interdependent self-construals may also ap-
proach relationships differently than those with independent self-
construals. If maintaining close relationships is central to main-
taining a stable sense of self and self-esteem for people with
interdependent self-construals, then these individuals should strive
to develop skills and abilities that foster close relationships. For
example, these persons may be more likely to self-disclose on
intimate topics or to consider the implications of their decisions for
close others, relative to individuals with an independent self-
construal. In addition, the needs and wishes of close others may
strongly influence the thoughts and behaviors of these individuals.
These and other implications of differences in self-construals for
cognition, emotion, motivation, and social relationships are re-
viewed by Cross and Madson (1997).
Two Forms of Interdependence
Due to cultural differences between collectivist and individualist
cultures, the specific form of the interdependent self-construal
developed by members of these different types of cultures will
vary. In collectivism-based interdependence, the individual's po-
sition in the group or situation dictates behavior; therefore, know-
ing one's place, behaving according to one's role, and putting the
needs of the group before one's own needs are central dictums that
shape the self-construal. Measures designed to tap this self-
construal, such as Yamaguchi's Collectivism scale (Yamaguchi,
1994; Yamaguchi, Kuhlman, & Sugimori, 1995), include items
such as, "I am prepared to do things for my group at any time, even
though I have to sacrifice my own interest" and "I respect deci-
sions made by my group" (see also Matsumoto, Weissman, Pres-
ton, Brown, & Kupperbusch, 1997). This group-oriented notion of
interdependence, however, does not adequately describe the
relationship-centered conception of interdependence that charac-
terizes North Americans. Group memberships are relatively unim-
portant to U.S. adults as compared with members of East Asian
cultures (Triandis, 1989). Americans treat group memberships
rather casually and have relatively little loyalty to in-groups.
American in-groups are larger, place relatively fewer demands on
members, and are more voluntary than in collectivist cultures
(Triandis, 1989). Rather than in-groups, Americans are more likely
to include individual relationships (e.g., a spouse, mother, best
friend, or colleague) in their self-representations.1
Indeed, Kashima et al. (1995) contrasted collectivist-oriented
self-construals with the concept of relatedness to argue that the two
concepts are not the same. They created a 4-item measure of
relatedness that focused on the emotional relatedness of the self
with other individuals (a sample item is, "I feel like doing some-
thing for people in trouble because I can almost feel their pains.").
Comparing samples from Australia, the United States, Japan, and
Korea, they found that individualism, collectivism, and relatedness
were empirically separable. Cultures were most likely to be dif-
ferentiated on the individualism/collectivism dimension, but men
and women were best differentiated on the relatedness dimension.
It is necessary, therefore, to differentiate between the collectivist-
oriented interdependence that characterizes members of cultures
like Japan and China from the relational-interdependence that
characterizes many North Americans.
In addition, some measures of interdependence that have been
based on East Asian collectivist ideology are multi-dimensional.2
For example, Kashima et al. (1995) report that a factor analysis of
a collectivism scale revealed three factors: a factor they called
"collectivism," which can be described as the willingness to sac-
rifice self-interest for the sake of the group; "agency," which is
characterized by items indicating a willingness to be independent
of the group; and "assertiveness," which is the willingness to speak
up in opposition to the group. Other scales, such as the Singelis
(1994) interdependent self-construal measure, include additional
dimensions of collectivism, such as respect for authority figures,
that are conceptually independent of the concept of the self as
connected or related to specific others (see also Realo, Allik, &
Vadi, 1997). A measure that taps a relational form of interdepen-
dence is needed to further explore the variation of the self-
construal and its function among Western populations.
Currently, no measure of relational interdependence operation-
alizes this construct in terms of the self-concept.3 Other measures,
such as the one used by Kashima et al. (1995), tap emotional
consequences of investment in close relationships. Although this
emotional sensitivity to others may be a characteristic of individ-
uals with a relational-interdependent self-construal, these items do
not directly assess the extent to which others, especially close
relationships, are a part of one's personal identity or self-concept.
Similarly, the Communal Orientation Scale (Clark, Ouellette,
Powell, & Milberg, 1987) focuses on the individual's desire for
1
Brewer & Gardiner (1996), however, argued that a collectivist or
group-oriented interdependence is characteristic of men in American cul-
ture.
2
See Triandis (1995) for an overview of the development and use of
various measures of individualism and collectivism.
3
We do know of one related yet unpublished measure by Rude, Welch,
and Sandere (1998).
 RELATIONAL-INTERDEPENDENT SELF-CON STRUAL
reciprocity and expectations of equity in close relationships, but
does not assess the person's self-views as relational or connected
to others. If the relational-interdependent self-construal is concep-
tualized in terms of the self-concept, then an adequate measure
must include this cognitive component of thinking of oneself in
terms of close others or identifying with close others.
In a related line of research, Aron and his colleagues have
argued that individuals often include representations of a particu-
larly close relationship into their mental representations of them-
selves (Aron, Aron, & Smo 11 an. 1992; Aron, Aron, Tudor, &
Nelson, 1991). In their work, individuals who include a specific
partner in the self are more likely to view themselves as sharing
perspectives, resources, and characteristics of the other (Aron et
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
al., 1991). We agree that most people will include specific rela-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
tionships (e.g., one's mother or spouse) as part of the self, but
individuals differ markedly in the degree to which other relation-
ships are self-defining—such as friendships or relationships with
siblings. The Aron et al. (1991) measure, the Inclusion of Others
in the Self Scale, focuses on a single relationship, whereas our
emphasis is on interdependence as a general orientation toward
representing oneself in terms of close relationships. In addition,
our goal is a better understanding of the structure and function of
the self in contrast to Aron's focus on understanding the conse-
quences of close relationships.
Although our discussion thus far has represented relational-
interdependent and independent self-construals as two types, we
recognize that these constructs represent two continuous dimen-
sions. Our assumption of two dimensions (rather than one bipolar
dimension) is based on previous research with other measures,
such as the Singelis (1994) measures of the interdependent and
independent self-construals. Singelis reports that these two scales
are orthogonal. Other studies also find a similar lack of correlation
between measures of these constructs (Cross, 1995). The primary
focus of the research reported here was the development of a
measure of the relational-interdependent self-construal; therefore,
we focus on people who think of themselves in very relational or
interdependent terms compared to those who do not. We do not
assume that persons who do not think of themselves as relational
or interdependent have necessarily constructed very independent
self-views. Additional theorizing and research is necessary to spell
out the implications of these two dimensions for self-related
processes.
Research Aims
The first step in examining the role of the relational-
interdependent self-construal in psychological phenomena is to
devise a reliable and valid measurement tool. In much earlier
work, interdependence has not been measured directly; instead,
gender or cultural background have been used as proxies for the
interdependent self-construal. More careful tests of the hypotheses
related to individual differences in self-construal can be conducted
if this construct can be reliably and validly measured. Our first
goal was to develop a new measure that directly conceptualizes the
relational-interdependent self-construal in terms of the degree to
which individuals include close relationships in their self-concepts.
In Study 1 we describe the development of this measure, its
psychometric properties, and its relations to other personality
constructs.
793
Our second goal was to assess the relation between this opera-
tionalization of the interdependent self-construal and individuals'
experiences with relationships. If the self is defined, at least in part,
in terms of one's close relationships, then the individual should be
motivated to develop and nurture close relationships. Conse-
quently, individuals who view themselves as interdependent with
others may be more likely to self-disclose and to permit close
others to influence how they think or behave. They are expected to
be more likely to include close others in the self, in Aron's terms,
and to be strongly committed to important relationships. In Stud-
ies 1, 2, and 3 we examine these hypothesized associations be-
tween interdependence and orientations toward relationships.
Study 1: Scale Development and Validation
In Study 1 we report the development and psychometric prop-
erties of the Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal Scale
(RISC). Eight samples of students were used to examine the
properties of the measure, its reliability, and its convergent and
discriminant validity. The convergent validity of the Relational-
Interdependent Self-Construal scale was examined by assessing its
association with measures related to thinking of oneself as inter-
dependent with others, such as the Communal Orientation Scale
(Clark et al., 1987) and the Interdependent Self-Construal measure
(Singelis, 1994). Because other research indicates that measures of
the independent self-construal and collectivism are not correlated,
we expected the RISC scale to be unrelated to measures of inde-
pendence or individualism. Women are more likely to include
close relationships in their self-concepts than are men, so we
examined its association with a measure of traditional sex roles,
the Spence, Helmreich, and Stapp (1974) Personal Attributes
Questionnaire (PAQ). The PAQ taps self-views related to feminine
sex roles (termed "expressivity") and masculine sex roles (termed
"instrumentality"). According to Helgeson (1994), the expressivity
subscale is a useful measure of a communal orientation, whereas
the instrumentality subscale can be viewed as a measure of the
independent self-construal. Thus we expected the RISC scale to be
positively correlated with the expressivity scale and uncorrelated
with the instrumentality scale.
We also examined the relations between the RISC scale and
several personality measures. Theorists have argued that a critical
mark of the relational-interdependent self-construal is empathy for
others (Surry, 1991), so we examined the relations between the
RISC scale and measures of empathy and perspective taking. The
tendency to think of oneself in terms of close relationships may be
a consequence of underlying personality structure; therefore, mea-
sures of the five-factor model of personality were included in this
research (Costa & McCrae, 1992). We expected the RISC scale to
be moderately related to the interpersonal traits, agreeableness and
extroversion, but to be unrelated to neuroticism and openness to
experience. (We had no hypothesis concerning conscientiousness.)
We also examined the association of the RISC scale with the
tendency toward responding in a socially desirable fashion.
Some researchers have argued that very relational or interde-
pendent persons may be vulnerable to depression or to reduced
well-being due to their sensitivity to the distress of others (e.g.,
Belle, 1982; McGrath, Keita, Strickland, & Russo, 1990). There-
fore, several measures of well-being, such as depression, self-
esteem, and life satisfaction, were included in this research.
 794 CROSS, BACON, AND MORRIS

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Gender Differences for the Relational
Interdependent Self-Construal Scale

Total Men Women Difference

Sample M SD N M SD n U SD n d

1 54.10 9.29 271 52.89 8.07 111 55.11 10.03 152 -1.92* -.24
2 56.12 10.25 299 54.27 9.56 128 57.44 10.56 165 -2.65** .32
3 54.91 10.39 940 53.90 10.25 406 55.66 L0.39 525 -2.59** -.17
4 54.01 10.11 609 52.20 10.03 253 55.72 9.93 315 -4.19*** -.35
5 56.84 ,9.27 735 54.27 9.17 341 59.13 8.76 383 —7.29*** -.52
6 54.12 9.92 535 50.85 10.34 221 56.48 8.87 285 -6.59*** -.57
7 58.10 10.68 621 54.73 10.17 248 60.49 10.47 362 -6.76*** -.56
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

8 56.08 9,58 273 54.48 9.38 111 57.78 9.50 143 -2.76** -.35
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Note. All t tests were one-tailed. Because of participants who failed to indicate their gender, the total number
of participants may be greater than the number of women and men listed.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Finally, we used a version of the known groups validation
technique (i.e., examining gender differences) to assess criterion
validity. We followed this with regression analyses aimed at ex-
amining the unique predictive power of scores on the RISC scale.
We began to examine the relations between scores on the RISC
scale and individuals' descriptions of their close relationships in
this study. When relationships are self-defining, the individual
should desire to develop and maintain close and supportive ties
with others. Thus, it is likely that they will develop a greater
number of important relationships than will individuals who have
not constructed an interdependent self-construal. Individuals with
an interdependent view of themselves may also describe their
important relationships as closer than do others. Measuring close-
ness, however, is not entirely straightforward. Some researchers
have defined closeness in terms of the impact of a relationship on
the person's life. For example, Berscheid, Snyder, and Omoto
(1989) draw upon Kelley et al.'s (1983) definition of a close
relationship as one in which the partners are interdependent. In
their view, the three most important aspects of a close or interde-
pendent relationship are frequency of contact, involvement in a
diverse array of activities together, and strong impact on the
individual's decisions, plans, and behaviors. Other researchers
have focused on intimacy of discussion and self-revelation as
central to a close relationship (Reis & Shaver, 1988). For example,
Airman and Taylor's (1973) theory of social penetration posits that
close and rewarding relationships are characterized by extensive
and intimate self-disclosure.
A newer conceptualization of closeness has been suggested by
Aron and his colleagues, who argue that closeness can be under-
stood as "including the other in the self (Aron et al., 1991). As
described earlier, Aron and his colleagues have investigated the
cognitive consequences of incorporating specific close relation-
ships into the self, and they have developed a simple, Venn-
diagram-like measure in which the self and other are represented
as overlapping circles (Aron et al., 1991). We included measures
of each of these representations of closeness in this study in order
to assess the concept broadly.
In addition, if a relationship is self-defining, the individual
should desire to protect and maintain it. The loss of a close
relationship may be especially threatening or difficult for the
person who has staked some of his or her identity in it. Thus we
expected individuals who scored high on the RISC scale to be
more committed to their close relationships than low scorers.
In summary, we hypothesized that individuals who scored high
on the RISC scale would view more relationships as important to
them than would others. We also hypothesized that they would
seek out frequent and diverse contact with close relationship
partners, would be more likely to permit those relationships to
influence their lives, and would be more likely to open up and
reveal personal or intimate information about themselves in order
to promote the relationship. We also expected that these individ-
uals with a very interdependent self-construal would tend to in-
corporate their close relationships into the serf and would be more
committed to their close relationships than other individuals. One
consequence of this commitment to relationships may be that
individuals who think of themselves as interdependent with others
may also perceive higher levels of social support than do others.
Method
Participants
Eight samples of undergraduate students from introductory psychology
courses completed the RISC scale along with a packet of questionnaires, as
part of large data collection efforts. Students received extra course credit
for their participation. Due to time constraints, participants in each sample
completed a subset of the measures described below. Sample sizes ranged
from 267 to 956; the sample sizes and numbers of men and women in each
sample are presented in Table 1. To reduce the possible influence of
cultural differences in self-construal, non-American participants and par-
ticipants who did not indicate their citizenship were excluded from the
analyses (except for Samples 5, 6, and 7, where citizenship information
was not obtained). This resulted in the exclusion of 22 to 40 participants
per sample.4
4
A comparison of the American students' scores (n = 2,374) on the
RISC scale with the noncitizens' scores (n = 109) across all the samples
revealed that the Americans tended to score higher than the noncitizens,
AfA^oan, = 54.89, SD = 10.11, M oonddzcn9 = 50.85, SD = 9.52,
f(2481) = 4 . 0 8 , p < .001.
 RELATIONAL-INTERDEPENDENT SELF-CONSTRUAL 795

Measures dent Self-Construal subscale). The reh'abilities of the Interdependent and

For all the measures described below (except where noted), participants
responded using a 7-point Likert-type scale. Indexes were created so that
high scores indicate high levels of the construct (e.g., high scores on the
RISC scale indicate higher levels of the interdependent self-construal).
Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal Scale (RISC). Many of the
initial items were generated by the authors, based on the conceptualization
of the relational form of the interdependent self-construal as including
close others in the self-concept. Additional items were created by modi-
fying items from measures of conceptually related constructs, such as
cross-cultural measures of the interdependent self-construal. The modifi-
cation typically included changing the focus of the question from one's
relationship with people in general or a group to a close friend or family
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Independent subscales were .73 and .69, respectively (Singelis, 1994).
The Collective Self-Esteem Scale (CSB; Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992) is
a 16-item measure that assesses collective self-esteem along four dimen-
sions: Private Collective Self-Esteem, Public Collective Self-Esteem, Im-
portance to Identity, and Membership Esteem (each subscale is composed
of 4 items). The general positivity of one's social identity is assessed by
totaling all 16 items. Examples of items from the CSE are, "I feel good
about the social groups I belong to" (Private subscale; Cronbach's a =
.74); "In general, others respect the social groups that I am a member o f
(Public subscale; a = .80); "The social groups I belong to are an important
reflection of who I am" (Importance to Identity subscale; a = 76); and "I
am a worthy member of the social groups I belong to" (Membership

members. During the development phase, some items were changed, others subscale; a = .73). Luhtanen and Crocker (1992) also report that the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

were dropped, and new items were constructed. Using data from the first
sample, we examined the individual questions to identify items that (a) had
low item-total correlations, (b) were strongly associated with social desir-
ability, or (c) were worded poorly. When an item consistently violated
these criteria, it was eliminated. Using this system, we narrowed the
number of items from 28 to 11 (see Table 2). Of these 11 items, 2 were
phrased negatively and are reverse-scored in the data analyses.
When completing the RISC scale, participants were instructed to "indi-
cate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of these state-
ments." Participants responded using a Likert-type scale, ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The possible range of scores was
from 11 to 77.
Measures related to interdependence and independence. The Commu-
nal Orientation Scale (Clark et al., 1987) consists of 14 items; individuals
high in communal orientation feel responsible for the welfare of close
others and are responsive to their needs. An example of an item from the
Communal Orientation scale is, "I believe people should go out of their
way to be helpful." The reliability of this scale was .78 (Clark et al., 1987).
Singelis (1994) developed orthogonal, 12-item measures of the interde-
pendent and independent self-construals based on. the Markus and
Kitayama (1991) conceptualization of cultural differences in the self.
Examples of these items are, "It is important for me to maintain harmony
within my group" (Interdependent Self-Construal subscale) and "I prefer to
be direct and forthright when dealing with people I've just met" (Indepen-
reliability for the total CSE scale was .85.
The Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ; Spence et al., 1974) is
composed of eight traits related to instrumentality (or a communal orien-
tation) and eight traits related to expressivity (or an independence orien-
tation), which are thought to be independent constructs. The items are
presented in a 5-point bipolar format (e.g., 1 = not at all aggressive; 5 =
very aggressive). Helmreich, Spence, and Wilhelm (1981) report Cronbach
alphas ranging from .67 to .77 for the Instrumentality scale and .72 to .80
for die Expressivity scale.
Two additional items were included to assess the validity of the RISC
scale. First, participants were asked, "When you think about yourself, how
important are your relationships with others for your self-concept?" Sec-
ond, participants were asked, "Some people tend to see themselves as very
independent and separate from others, whereas others are more likely to
think of themselves as interdependent and connected in important ways to
their close friends. Which type of person do you think you are?" Partici-
pants responded using a 5-point Likert-type scale that ranged from 1 (very
independent) to 5 (very interdependent). These questions allowed us to
assess the associations between the RISC scale and these alternative
approaches to tapping the relational-interdependent self-construal.
Personality measures. The 7-item Empathic Concern subscale of the
Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 19S0) assesses feelings of concern
and sympathy for others, whereas the 7-item Perspective Taking subscale

Table 2
Final Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal Scale Items With
Corrected Item-Total Correlations

Corrected item-
Item total r

1. My close relationships are an important reflection of who I am. .68

2. When I feel very close to someone, it often feels to me like that person is an
important part of who I am. .69
3. I usually feel a strong sense of pride when someone close to me has an important
accomplishment. .54
4. I think one of the most important parts of who I am can be captured by looking at
my close friends and understanding who they are. .64
5. When I think of myself, I often think of my close friends or family also. .63
6. If a person hurts someone close to me, I feel personally hurt as well. .53
7. In general, my close relationships are an important part of my self-image. .69
8. Overall, my close relationships have very little to do with how I feel about
myself.3 .54
9. My close relationships are unimportant to my sense of what kind of person I am.a .52
10. My sense of pride comes from knowing who I have as close friends. .56
11. When I establish a close friendship with someone, I usually develop a strong sense
of identification with that person. .60

Note. N = 4,288. Response scale ranges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
a
Reverse-keyed item.
 796 CROSS, BACON, AND MORRIS
measures respondents' ability to see things from another person's view-
point. Cronbach's alpha ranged from .70 to .78 (Davis, 1980).
The NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1992) was used to assess the dimen-
sions of the five-factor model: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to
Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Costa and McCrae
(1992) report Cronbach's alphas of .89 to .95 for the scales, which have
been widely validated and have shown good convergent and discriminant
validity.
Socially desirable responding was assessed using the 33-item Marlowe-
Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). Participants
responded 'True" or "False" to each item. The Kuder-Richardson 20
(KR-20) reliability of the Social Desirability Scale was .88 (Crowne &
Marlowe, 1960).
Measures of well-being. The 20-item CES-D depression scale (Rad-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
loff, 1977) assesses the frequency of depressive symptoms, such as de-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
pressed mood, feelings of guilt and worthlessness, problems sleeping, and
loss of appetite. The CES-D correlates strongly with the number of nega-
tive life events and other measures of depression, such as the Beck
Depression Inventory (Beck, 1967) and the Self-Rating Depression Scale
(Zung, 1965; see Shaver & Brennan [1991] for further information on the
scale properties). Participants responded using a 4-point scale (1 = rarely
or none of the time; 4 = most of the time). Cronbach's alpha for this sample
was .91.
The Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin,
1985) is a 5-item scale that has been used extensively and has good
psychometric properties. Participants responded to the items using a
5-point scale (1 = very slightly or not at all; 5 = extremely). Cronbach's
alpha in this sample was .84.
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965), is a com-
monly used 10-item measure of global self-esteem. Reliabilities of the
RSES were .77 and .88 (reported in Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991).
The Life Orientation Test (LOT; Scheier & Carver, 1985) is an 8-item
measure of dispositional optimism. Scheier and Carver (1985) report a
Cronbach's alpha of .76 for the LOT.
Evaluations of relationships. The social network diagram (Antonucci,
1986) was used to assess the number of important relationships in partic-
ipants' social networks. This measure consists of four concentric circles,
the innermost one marked "YOU." Participants were asked to write in the
names of people with whom they had personal relationships according to
the following instructions. In the inner circle, they were to write the names
of people so close and important that "it is hard to imagine life without
them"; in the middle circle, they were to write the names of people who
were not quite as close but still important to them; and in the outermost
circle, they were to write the names of people who were important enough
that they should be placed somewhere in the network. This diagram has
been used with a variety of samples that varied across age, class, and
culture and has been found to support theory in the social support literature
(Antonucci, 1986).
Participants selected the most important person in their social network
and completed the following measures with that relationship in mind. First,
they described their closeness to this person using the Relationship Close-
ness Inventory (RCI). The RCI (Berscheid et al., 1989) was developed as
a multidimensional measure of closeness for specific relationships. The
participant was asked to categorize the type of relationship into one of the
following categories: work, family, romantic, friend, or other. Thirty-three
percent of the most important relationships were categorized as close
friends; 32% were romantic partners; 24% were family members; and 11%
were categorized in the "other" category.
Participants rated the average amount of time they had spent with the
target in the mornings, afternoons, and evenings of the past week. Partic-
ipants were then presented with a list of activities and were asked to check
all those that they had initiated with the target in the past week. This was
a change from the original RCI, which asks participants to check activities
that they had done alone with the target. Both the total amount of time
spent with the target and the activities data were converted to 1 to 10 scales
as in Berscheid et al. (1989). Next, participants responded to a series of 27
items concerning the target's influence on the participant's thoughts, feel-
ings, and behavior. Examples of influence items include "X influences
important things in my life" and "X influences how I spend my free time."
Cronbach's alpha was .89 in this sample. Participants also responded to 7
items concerning the degree to which the target influenced their future
goals and plans. Responses were made on a scale ranging from 1 (not at
all) to 7 (a great extent), and items included "my marriage plans" and "my
plans for achieving a particular standard of living." Cronbach's alpha
was .89.
The 10-item self-disclosure scale (Miller, Berg, & Archer, 1983) asked
participants to indicate the extent to which they talked with this person
- about several topics. Examples of items included "My personal habits" and
"My deepest feelings." Responses were made on a 4-point scale ranging
from 1 (discuss not at all) to 4 {discuss fully and completely). Due to low
correlations with other items, the "personal habits" item was dropped. With
this 9-item scale, Cronbach's alpha was .91.
The Inclusion of Other in the Self scale (IOS) is a single-item pictorial
measure of closeness (Aron et al., 1992). Participants selected a picture
from a set of Venn-like diagrams that present two circles with varying
degrees of overlap; the circles represent the self and the relationship
partner. The IOS scale has good test-retest and alternate form reliability,
and has been shown to predict how long romantic couples stay together,
with no relation to social desirability.
Rusbult's (1983) 4-item scale was used to measure commitment. Exam-
ples of items included "How likely is it that you will end your relationship
with person X in the near future?" and "To what extent are you 'attached'
to person X?" Responses were made on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 {not
at all likely) to 7 {extremely likely). Due to low correlations with other
items, the "end your relationship" item was dropped, leaving a total of 3
items. Cronbach's alpha was .65.
The Social Provisions Scale (SPS; Cutrona & Russell, 1987) was used to
assess participants' overall level of social support. This 24-item measure
taps 6 dimensions of social support identified by Weiss (1974): guidance,
reliable alliance, attachment, social integration, reassurance of worth, and
opportunity to provide nurturance. Evidence of the scale's validity is
provided by Cutrona (1989) and Cutrona and Russell (1987). A 4-point
scale was provided for the participants' responses (1 = strongly disagree;
4 = strongly agree). Cronbach's alpha for the combined scale in this
sample was .92.
Results
Basic Psychometric Properties
Factor structure. Principal components analysis was used to
conduct an exploratory factor analysis on the pooled data from the
eight samples. Negatively phrased items were recoded, resulting in
positive factor loadings. Only one factor emerged with an eigen-
value greater than 1.0. All 11 items loaded between .59 and .77 on
the first factor. The scree plot for the factor analysis also supported
a single factor, with the elbow of the plot occurring after the first
factor. The first factor accounted for 47% of the total variance.
Descriptive statistics. To create an index, the negative items
were reversed and responses to the 11 items were summed. Table 1
shows the mean RISC scale scores across the eight samples.
Skewness ranged from —.805 to —.289 across these samples, and
kurtosis ranged from —.017 to 1.41.
Reliability
Internal consistency. Evaluating the samples individually, the
coefficient alphas ranged from .85 to .90, with a mean of .88. The
 RELATIONAL-INTERDEPENDENT SELF-CONSTRUAL 797

means of the inter-item correlations ranged from .35 to .46. The Table 3
item-total correlations from the eight samples ranged from .54 to Correlations of the Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal
.73. When the samples were combined the coefficient alpha was (RISC) Scale With Other Scales
.88 (N = 4,288), and the inter-item correlations ranged from .25 to
.66, with a mean of .41. Table 2 presents the corrected item-total Correlation
correlations for the pooled sample. Measure with RISC N
Test-retest reliability. Stability over time was assessed by Measures of collectivism and interdependence
administering the RISC scale to participants in Samples 3 and 5 Communal Orientation Scale .41 598
twice in either a one- or two-month interval. The test-retest reli- Interdependent Self-Construal Scale (Singelis) .41 1,219
abilities over the 2-month interval in the two samples were .73, Collective Self-Esteem Scale
Private .22 1,218
n = 67, p < .001 and .63, n = 317, p < .001. The test-retest Public .20 1,218
reliability over one month was .74, n = 405, p < .001 and .76, Identity .47 1,217
n = 46, p < .001. Membership .16 1,219
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Total .37 1,219

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Personal Attributes Questionnaire—Expressivity .32 604

Convergent Validity Importance of relationships item .56 1,216
Self-categorization item .31 1,212
Other measures of collectivism and interdependence. The Measures of independence or individualism
RISC scale is intended to provide a better measure of the Independent Self-Construal Scale (Singelis) .08 604
relational-interdependent self-construal for Americans than current Personal Attributes Questionnaire—Instrumentality -.06 604
Personality measures
measures of collectivism or the interdependent self-construal, Interpersonal Reactivity Index
which tend to focus on group identity. It should, however, be Empathic Concern .34 2,726
correlated with these other measures. As shown in Table 3, the Perspective Taking .13 2,986
RISC scale correlated moderately with the Communal Orientation NEO-FFI
Scale (r = .41), and Singelis's (1994) group-oriented Interdepen- Agreeableness .35 628
Extraversion .28 628
dent Self-Construal Scale (r = .41). The RISC scale was moder- Conscientiousness .23 628
ately related to the total Collective Self-Esteem score (r = .37). It Neuroticism .08 628
was most strongly related to the Identity subscale (r = .47) and the Openness to Experience .09 628
Private subscale (r = .22). Similarly, the correlation of the RISC Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale -.05 1,785
scale with the PAQ measure of expressivity (which has also been Measures of well-being
Depression .03 235
described as a measure of communal orientation) was .32. These Satisfaction With Life .07 235
moderate correlations suggest that although the RISC is related to Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale .01 3,555
other measures of collectivism or communal orientation, it is Life Orientation Test (Optimism) .17 749
clearly not identical to those measures. Evaluation of closest relationship
RCI time spent together .12 165"
Because individuals with a very interdependent self-construal RCI activities .11 247
should find relationships more important to how they think of RCI influence .27 247
themselves than do others, we expected a positive correlation RCI future plans .15 246
between the RISC scale and the item that asked "When you think Self-disclosure .26 245
1OS .26 243
about yourself, how important are your relationships with others Commitment .22 247
for your self-concept?" The correlation was .56, indicating that the Social Provisions Scale (Social Support) .26 235
RISC taps this relational dimension of the self-concept. In addi-
tion, the correlation between RISC scores and degree of self- Note. Eight samples are represented in this table. None of the measures
reported categorization as independent or interdependent was .31. was administered to every sample, which accounts for the differences in
sample size for each correlation. RCI = Relationship Closeness Inventory;
Measures of independence. The interdependent self-construal IOS - Inclusion of Other in the Self; NEO-FFI = NEO Five-Factor
and the independent self-construal have been described as two Inventory.
a
orthogonal constructs (Singelis, 1994); therefore, we predicted that This correlation excludes participants whose closest relationship partner
our measure would not be related to a measure of the independent lived in another city.
self-construal. Supporting our prediction, the RISC was not related
to Singelis's (1994) Independent Self-Construal measure (r = .08). Personality measures. In order to maintain self-defining rela-
Hotelling tests showed that the relation between the RISC and tionships, individuals with highly interdependent self-construals
Singelis's measure of the interdependent self-construal (r ~ .41) should be aware of the feelings and thoughts of close others. Thus,
was stronger than the relation between the RISC and his measure we predicted that the RISC scale would be related to empathic
of the independent self-construal (r - .08), r(601) = 6.67, p = concern and perspective-taking. As predicted, the RISC was pos-
.001. The RISC scale was also unrelated to the instrumentality itively related to empathic concern (r = .34), but had a weak
dimension of the PAQ, which has been described as indicating an relation to perspective taking (r = .13). Hotelling tests revealed
orientation toward independence (r = —.06). A Hotelling test that the relation between the RISC scale and empathic concern was
showed that the relation between the RISC and the expressivity significantly stronger than the relation with perspective taking,
dimension of the PAQ was stronger than the relation between the *(2723) = \i.92,p< .001.
RISC and the instrumentality dimension, r(601) = -6.79, p < The RISC scale was also correlated with each of the five
.001. subscales of the NEO-FFI measure of the Five Factor Model. As
 798 CROSS, BACON, AND MORRIS
expected, the RISC scale was positively correlated with Agree-
ableness (r = .35) and Extraversion (r = .28). It was also posi-
tively correlated with Conscientiousness (f = ,23); but it was not
correlated with Neuroticism (r = .08) or Openness to Experience
(r = .09). Hotelling tests revealed that the correlations of the RISC
scale with agreeableness, extraversion, and conscientiousness were
significantly stronger than the relations with neuroticism and open-
ness to experience, rs(625) > 2.44, ps < .02.
There was not a significant relationship between the RISC and
the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability scale (r = —.05). These
results suggest that respondents are not attempting to present
themselves in socially approved ways when they answer the RISC
scale, thus demonstrating discriminant validity.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Measures of well-being. The RISC scale was unrelated to the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
measures of depression (r = .03), life satisfaction (r = .07), and
self-esteem (r = .01). There was a weak correlation between the
RISC scale and the measure of optimism (the LOT; r = .16). Thus,
individuals with a very interdependent self-construal appear no
more at risk of reduced well-being than are others.
Group differences. The relational-interdependent self-construal is
thought to be more characteristic of Western women than of men
(Cross & Madson, 1997). In all eight samples, women scored signif-
icantly higher than men on the RISC scale (see Table 1). The size of
these differences ranged from small (d = —.17) to moderate (d —
-.57). In the pooled sample, d = - . 4 1 .
Examination of Incremental Utility
Although the zero-order correlations presented in Table 3 pro-
vide some evidence that the Relational-Interdependent Self-
Construal Scale is related to other measures as predicted, it is
unclear from these analyses the extent to which this measure taps
a unique construct. We expected that the RISC scale would ac-
count for additional variance in relevant dependent variables be-
yond that accounted for by related constructs, such as expressivity,
empathic concern, and a measure of the group-oriented interde-
pendent self-construal. In these analyses, our criterion variables
were the relatively global measures of collective self-esteem and
communal orientation. We selected these measures because they
tap constructs that are fairly broad or inclusive in scope (i.e.,
attitudes toward relationships and evaluations of one's in-groups).
In these analyses we examined the incremental predictive power of
the RISC scale in predicting these constructs, controlling for the
expressivity subscale of the PAQ, empathic concern, and the
Singelis Interdependent Self-Construal Scale. In separate hierar-
chical regression equations, the criterion variable was regressed on
the covariates in Step 1, and scores on the RISC scale were added
at Step 2. The correlations among the variables are presented in
Table 4, and the results of the hierarchical regressions are pre-
sented in Table 5. As shown in Table 5, the RISC scale is a
significant predictor of these criterion measures after controlling
closely related constructs.
Evaluations of Relationships
In the final phase of this study, we examined the relations
between the RISC scale and participants' perceptions of their
social network and closest relationship. The social network dia-
gram, consisting of a set of concentric circles with "YOU" in the
Table 4
Correlations Among the Variables in the Hierarchical
Regressions (Stuiiy 1)
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. RISC scale _
2. PAQ Expressivity .32 —
3. Empathic Concern .28 .61 —
4. Singelis Interdependent .40 .34 .33 —
Self-Construal
5. Collective Self-Esteem .30 .24 .33 .30 —
6. Communal Orientation .41 .61 .67 .40 .43 —
Note. N = 582. RISC = Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal;
PAQ = Personal Attributes Questionnaire. All correlations are significant
at p < .001.
center, was used to assess the hypothesis that individuals who
scored high on the RISC scale would view a greater number of
relationships as very important to them than would others. As
expected, scores on the RISC scale and the number of people listed
in the inner circle (i.e., people it is hard to imagine life without)
were positively associated (r = .24, p < .05). There were no
associations between the RI^C scale and the number of people in
the middle and outer circles (r = .12, p > .05 for the middle circle,
r = .09, p > .05 for the outer circle). This suggests that high
scorers on the RISC scale tend to have more close and important
relationships than others, but have similar numbers of more distant
relationships.
Based on their responses to the social network diagram, partic-
ipants picked their most important relationship. We predicted that
people who scored high on the RISC scale would view their most
important relationship as closer than would others (as indicated by
the RCI subscales, the self-disclosure scale, and the IOS scale) and
as more committed than would others. As shown in Table 3, the
RISC scale was positively related to the degree to which the
individual reported being influenced by their relationship partner
(r = .27), their self-disclosure in the relationship (r = .26), the
degree to which the other is included in the self (the IOS scale; r -
.26), and commitment to the relationship (r = .22). There were not,
however, strong relations between the RISC scale and the time
spent with the relationship partner, the number of activities initi-
ated with this person, or the degree to which this person influenced
the participant's future plans.
If individuals with an interdependent self-construal are more
committed to and close to their relationship partners, they may also
perceive higher levels of social support than others. As predicted,
individuals who described themselves as high on the RISC scale
tended also to perceive higher levels of social support from others,
r = .26. The correlations with the individual subscales of the
Social Provisions Scale ranged from a low of r = .13 with the
reassurance of worth subscale to a high of r = .30 with the
opportunity for nurturance subscale.
Discussion
The results of Study 1 indicate that the relational-interdependent
self-construal is a relatively stable individual difference construct
that can be measured with self-report items. Factor analyses indi-
cated that a single factor underlies the RISC scale. The scale also
 RELATIONAL-INTERDEPENDENT SELF-CONSTRUAL
Table 5
Hierarchical Regression of Collective Self-Esteem and
Communal Orientation on PAQ Expressivity, Empatkic
Concern, Singelis Interdependent Self-Construal Scale,
and RISC Scores: Beta Weights and R2 (Study 1)
Collective Communal
Self-Esteem Orientation
Predictor j3 Aft2 /3 AR2
Step 1 .54***
PAQ Expressivity .03 .28***
Empathic Concern 24*** ,45***
Singelis Interdependent
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Self-Construal .21*** .15**
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Step 2 .02*** .02***
RISC scale 17*** .17**
Total/? 2 27*** .56***
Note. N = 582. PAQ = Personal Attributes Questionnaire; RISC =
Relational-Independent Self-Construal.
**/> < .01. ***p < ,001.
exhibited both high internal consistency and good test-retest sta-
bility. In addition, the results provided evidence of the scale's
convergent and discriminant validity. As expected, the RISC scale
was moderately associated with other measures of conununalism
and interdependence and was unassociated with measures of in-
dependence. The scale related as expected to other personality
constructs: Scores on the RISC scale were moderately related to
measures of empathy, agreeableness, and extroversion, but were
unrelated to neuroticism and social desirability. In addition, RISC
scale scores did not correlate with measures of well-being, such as
depression or satisfaction with life. Criterion validity was also
shown in the pattern of sex differences: Women consistently
scored higher on the RISC scale than did men. When controlling
for closely related constructs, the RISC scale predicted a signifi-
cant proportion of incremental variance in relatively global mea-
sures of relatedness (collective self-esteem and communal orien-
tation), thus demonstrating its discriminant validity.
Scores on the RISC scale were also related to the size of
participants' social networks and to their evaluations of their
closest relationship. Persons with a very interdependent self-
construal reported a greater number of relationships that were very
important to them and higher levels of social support than did
others. High scores on the RISC scale were also associated with
high levels of self-disclosure, perceived closeness, and commit-
ment in the relationship. Unexpectedly, scores on the RISC scale
were not related to the amount of time participants spent with their
relationship partner or to the number of activities they initiated
with this person. These results suggest that whereas most people
enjoy being with close friends and seek out opportunities to do
things together regardless of the degree of interdependence of their
self-construal, the quality of that time together may differ depend-
ing on individuals' self-construals. Individuals with very interde-
pendent self-construals may be more likely than others to spend
their time with significant relationship partners disclosing impor-
tant or sensitive information and may be more responsive to their
partner's needs and desires (as evidenced by their willingness to let
their partner influence their choices and behaviors).
799
In the studies that follow, we examine the implications of the
relational-interdependent self-construal for relationship processes.
A key assumption of this perspective is that when others are
included in one's self-representations, attention to these relation-
ships and efforts to maintain and enhance them will serve to
maintain and enhance the self. In Study 2, we examine the process
of making important decisions in terms of the relational-
interdependent self-construal.
Study 2: The Role of Relationship Considerations in
Decision Making
For individuals with an interdependent self-construal, the wishes
and opinions of close relationship partners are likely to be taken
into account when the individual is making important decisions.
For example, the student who is considering going out of state for
a summer job may think of the implications of the decision for a
romantic relationship. The student making a decision about taking
a summer job versus going to summer school may consider his or
her family's wishes in the matter. The person who is low in
interdependence may not be as likely to consider other people's
wishes or reactions or to consult other people for information or
advice.
Consequently, in this study we asked students to describe an
important decision they were in the process of making and to
elaborate the factors that were influencing their decision. After
describing their decision, they were asked several follow-up ques-
tions about it. Embedded in the list of items were questions
designed to elicit directly the extent to which close others influ-
enced their decisions. We hypothesized that individuals who
scored high on the Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal scale
would tend to list relational factors that had influenced their
decision making and to indicate on the close-ended items that other
people and close relationships were taken into account in then-
decision process.
Method
Participants
Participants were introductory psychology students who participated in
exchange for extra course credit. Two hundred sixty-six participants (120
men, 145 women, and 1 unstated) provided complete data for all portions
of the study. The open-ended descriptions of 18 participants could not be
coded either due to poor handwriting or failure to follow directions.
Procedure and Materials
The RISC scale and the decision questionnaire were administered in
large group sessions of 30 to 200 as part of a mass-testing process. The first
packet that the students completed included the RISC scale and several
other instruments, many of which were designed for other studies. Cron-
bach's alpha for the RISC scale was .89.
The participants were given the decision questionnaire last. On the first
page, they were asked to "Describe a decision that you are in the process
of making. Please describe a decision that has a fairly significant impact on
your life." The instructions went on to give several examples of possible
decisions one might be making (e.g., how to spend one's summer or with
whom to room next year). The participants were asked to describe as
thoroughly as possible the factors that they were considering in making
their decision—both major factors and relatively minor factors. No men-
 800 CROSS, BACON, AND MORRIS
tion was made of the potential influence of others in this decision. The
participants were encouraged to be explicit and to write in essay style, not
to simply list pros and cons. Students who could not think of a decision
they were in the process of making were encouraged to describe a recent
decision they had already made. Most of the first page was empty for
students to write out their thoughts.
On the second page, participants answered several questions about their
decision. They were enjoined not to add anything to their written descrip-
tion after beginning these items. First they were asked if this was a decision
they were still making or had already made. Then they were asked to
categorize the decision as to whether it had to do with personal relation-
ships, academics, family, jobs, housing, or other. They were allowed to
select as many categories as were appropriate. The remainder of the
questionnaire consisted of items that assessed their decision. Crucial to this
investigation were three items that addressed the role of others in the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
decision. They were "To what extent do you take into account the needs
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
and wishes of others when thinking about this decision?" "How important
in your decision process are the opinions of your close friends?" and "How
important in your decision process are the opinions of your family mem-
bers?" These items were embedded with other filler items (e.g., "How
important are financial concerns in your decision making?").
Coding the Open-Ended Descriptions
Each of the factors mentioned by participants as an influence on their
decision was coded into one of two categories: a relational category or a
nonrelational category. (Statements that were not factors in the decision
were not coded.) Examples of relational statements were "I'd like to be
close to my family" and "My roommates wanted the first apartment."
Examples of nonrelational statements were "I could get a better job here"
and "The second apartment was cheaper." Two trained judges coded the
descriptions; 25 percent of the protocols were coded by both judges to
establish interrater reliability. (The coders were blind to participants'
scores on the RISC scale.) The number of relational and nonrelational
factors in each protocol was determined independently by the two judges;
interjudge reliability was .92 for the relational factors and .89 for the
nonrelational factors.
Results
Participants generated an average of 3.3 relational factors that
influenced their decisions (SD = 3.96, range = 0 to 23) and an
average of 5.3 nonrelational factors (SD = 3.71, range = 0 to 19).
As hypothesized, the RISC scale was correlated with the number
of relational factors that were described (r = .18, p < .01,
two-tailed), but it was not related to the number of nonrelational
factors included in the descriptions (r = .01). The RISC scale was
also related to the extent to which the participants took into
account the needs and wishes of others when making the decision
(r = .24, p < .01) and the importance of the opinions of family
(r = .27, p < .01) and friends (r = .21, p < .01) in the decision.
We also reasoned that the relation between the RISC and the
extent to which others are considered when making decisions
would be stronger for decisions that did not directly concern a
relationship (e.g., where to work for the summer or whether to take
summer school classes). When making decisions about relation-
ships or family issues, virtually everyone is likely to mention the
influence of the other persons involved in the decision. When
making decisions that are not explicitly relational, however, indi-
viduals with more interdependent self-construals may be more
likely to think about and take into account the opinions or desires
of their friends or family members. To look at these types of
decisions separately, decisions that were coded by the participants
into either the relational or family category were included together
in a single relational category (n = 126); all other decisions were
included in a nonrelational category (n = 135). There were no
gender differences in the type of decision described, x2 = .00.
As expected, the correlations between the RISC scale and the
items indicating the influence of others were generally stronger for
nonrelational decisions than for the relational decisions. When
describing nonrelational decisions, the RISC scale was positively
related to the number of relational factors mentioned (r = .21
versus r = .11 for relational decisions) and to the importance of
family members' opinions (r = .37 compared with r = .15 for
relational decisions). Although the relation between the RISC scale
and reports of the extent to which the needs and wishes of others
were taken into account was larger for the nonrelational decisions
(r = .24) than for the relational decisions (r = . 18), this difference
was small. The exception to this pattern was the item assessing the
importance of friends' opinions. For this item, the relation with
interdependence was stronger for the relational decisions (r = .25)
than for the nonrelational decisions (r = .11), indicating that
students who scored high on the RISC scale were more likely to
turn to their friends for advice when making decisions about their
relationships than when making other sorts of decisions.5
Discussion
This study supported the hypothesis that individuals who tended
to think of themselves in relational, interdependent terms would be
more likely to consider the consequences of their decisions for
other people or to take into account the opinions or needs of close
others. When describing an important decision, individuals who
scored high on the RISC scale were more likely than those who
scored low to freely generate relationship-oriented factors in their
decision. The instructions for the decision description task were
carefully designed to permit the generation of a wide variety of
factors that could influence decisions; relational factors were not
specifically prompted in the instructions to the participants. Thus,
any mention of the role of others in this decision was self-
generated by the respondents and not likely to have been a con-
sequence of subtle demand factors. In addition, participants who
5
We also examined the extent to which the relational-interdependent
self-construal mediated sex differences in the ratings of the influences on
nonrelational decisions. Independent sample t tests revealed sex differences
in ratings of the extent to which others were taken into account,
Wwt>men = 3.07, SD = 1.09, M men = 2.66, SD = 1.12, «133) = -2.15,p <
.04, d = — .37; in the importance of family members' opinions,
M womeo = 3.58, SD = 1.01, M men = 3.11, SD = 1.00, /(133) = 2.68, p <
.01, d = -.47; and on the RISC scale, Mwomen = 55.19, SD = 8.11,
Wmcn = 48.36, SD = 10.16, f(133) = -4.35, p < .001, d = -.15. Sex
alone accounted for 3% of the variance in the extent to which the needs and
wishes of others were considered in the decision. When the RISC was
added to the equation, sex was reduced to accounting for only an additional
1% of the variance in the extent variable. TTius, scores on the RISC scale
accounted for 71% of the relation between sex and the criterion variable.
For the item assessing the importance of family members' opinions, sex
alone accounted for 5% of the variance in the dependent variable. When the
RISC was added to the equation, sex was reduced to accounting for only
1% of the variance. Thus, scores on the RISC scale accounted for 78% of
the relation between sex and the criterion variable.
 RELATIONAL-INTERDEPENDENT SELF-CONSTRUAL
scored high on the RISC scale also indicated on the experimenter-
provided items that they were more likely to take others into
account when making their decision.
This study supported the hypothesized role of the relational-
interdependent self-construal in decision-making. Study 3 exam-
ines the association between the self-construal and relationship-
development strategies.
Study 3: The Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal
and Relationship Development
Two key components of the process of relationship building are
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
self-disclosure and responsiveness to one's partner's needs and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
concerns (Reis & Patrick, 1996; Reis & Shaver, 1988). Cross and
Madson (1997) hypothesized that individuals with an interdepen-
dent self-construal would be more likely to self-disclose to others,
to be sensitive to others, and to describe their relationships as
close, and the studies described above provide self-report evidence
in support of these claims. But do other people concur with these
self-descriptions? In this study of dyadic interactions, we exam-
ined the degree to which individuals' self-construals were associ-
ated with their partners' evaluations of their openness and respon-
siveness in the interaction and to their general evaluation of the
relationship.
To address this issue, one might look at long-term relationships,
asking the partners of people who are high or low in the RISC
scale to describe them. Although close friends or romantic partners
can provide helpful information on these dimensions, their re-
sponses may be biased. Individuals tend to choose friends and
relationship partners who are similar to themselves (Byrne, 1971)
and who see them as they see themselves (Swann, De La Ronde,
& Hixon, 1994). As a result, a close friend of a person with a very
interdependent self-construal may also have a very interdependent
self-construal and may tend to project his or her attitudes and
beliefs onto the person. The friend also may be aware of the
target's self-views, and respond as he or she thinks the target
would.
One way around this problem is to provide an experimental
setting in which randomly paired individuals take time to get to
know each other, much like two acquaintances might begin to form
a friendship. Using this approach, researchers can simulate the
process of developing a friendship but reduce some of the biases
inherent in the perceptions of close friends or partners. Fortu-
nately, Aron, Melinat, Aron, Vallone, and Bator (1997) have
shown that a temporary feeling of closeness among two previously
unacquainted individuals can be developed in an experimental
context. Drawing on research emphasizing self-disclosure as the
defining feature of a close relationship, they describe a structured
set of activities that asks participants to describe their thoughts,
feelings, and experiences during a 45-min period. They found that
the participants in the experimental group described their relation-
ships as closer than did members of a control group, in which
participants engaged in relatively superficial small talk for the
same amount of time. Certainly the closeness generated in the
laboratory is not the same as that created in the context of an
ongoing relationship, but this method permits one to model the
processes involved in the development of close relationships and
to reduce some of the biases inherent in ongoing relationships.
801
We hypothesized that the partners of individuals who scored
high on the RISC scale would perceive them as disclosing more
about themselves and as more responsive than would the partners
of individuals who scored low on the self-construal measure.
Given that self-disclosure and sensitive responding are central
ingredients in the development of a satisfying or close relationship,
we reasoned that individuals paired with a high scorer on the RISC
scale would also tend to evaluate the relationship and the interac-
tion more positively than would others. Therefore, we examined
the direct relationship between individuals' RISC scale scores and
their partners' satisfaction with the interaction, their liking for the
individual, and their perceptions of closeness to their partner. In
addition, we examined a mediational model, in which this ex-
pected relation between one individual's self-construal and her
partner's evaluations of the relationship are mediated by the indi-
vidual's self-disclosure and her partner's perceptions of her re-
sponsiveness. Previous research has shown that perceptions that
one's partner is responsive to one's needs mediate the effects of
self-disclosure on the closeness of a relationship (Laurenceau,
Barrett, & Pietromonaco, 1998). Thus, we hypothesized that indi-
viduals who score high on the RISC scale will be more likely to
self-disclose and will consequently be viewed as responsive by
their partners in a get-acquainted task. As a result, their partners
will evaluate their relationship more positively than will partners
of low scorers.
This study, therefore, goes beyond self-reports to examine in-
formants' ratings of an interaction designed to promote closeness
in a controlled setting. It permits us to test the question posed
earlier: Do the partners of individuals with a very interdependent
self-construal concur with their self-reports of open self-disclosure
and sensitivity to their relationship partners? In addition, this study
allows us to examine the processes whereby individuals with an
interdependent self-construal begin building a relationship. We
expect that these individuals will view this situation much like any
other opportunity to get to know a new acquaintance and so will
open up about themselves and will be perceived as responsive by
their partners, resulting in positive evaluations of the relationship
by their partners.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were 181 women from introductory psychology classes who
participated in exchange for course credit. They signed up for the study in
groups of four, and when they arrived at the lab, they were told that the
study addressed problem solving by pairs. Specifically, they were told that
the study addressed whether or not knowing one's partner had any impact
on how effectively pairs solved problems. Participants then provided
informed consent. The experimenter checked at this point to determine if
any of the participants knew each other. Participants were randomly
assigned to partners (except for instances in which two participants knew
each other previously; in this case, they were randomly assigned to one of
the two remaining participants).
After completing the RISC scale in individual cubicles, the participants
were seated in cubicles with their randomly assigned partner. (When an
odd number of participants showed up for the study, one person was paired
with a confederate. These participants' responses were dropped from all
analyses.) Participants were told that they had been assigned to the con-
dition in which the partners spent some time getting to know each other
before the problem solving task (in fact, all participants got to know either
another participant or a confederate).
 802 CROSS, BACON, AND MORRIS

The procedure for the interaction task was adapted from the Aron et al.
(1997) closeness task. Each partner was given a set of cards, and each card
had a different question on it, such as "Given the choice of anyone in the
world, whom would you want as a dinner guest?" The Aron et al. (1997)
questions range in the sensitivity of the information elicited; after piloting
these questions On a separate group of participants, we selected a set of 15
questions that varied in the degree of disclosure elicited. (The cards were
arranged with the least revealing questions first.) Members of the pairs
were asked to alternate asking and answering the questions, with each
person responding to every question. Participants were instructed that they
could take as long as they wanted on any single question and should feel
free to skip any questions mat they preferred not to answer. They were
given a maximum of 15 min to work through the set of questions.
After the interaction, participants returned to separate cubicles and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
before the interaction. Responses were made on a 6-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (not at all) to 6 (we knew each other pretty well). No
participants indicated that they knew their partners pretty well. Five cou-
ples were dropped for failing to follow directions appropriately. The final
sample was comprised of 68 pairs.
Results
The first issue addressed in these analyses was whether an
actor's RISC scale score was related to her partner's perceptions of
the actor's degree of self-disclosure and responsiveness. Kenny
(1996) recommends that when analyzing data from interchange-
able dyad members, researchers should first examine the correla-

completed several questionnaires about their interactions. They were as- tions between the two dyad members1 scores on the variables of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

sured that these evaluations would not be seen by their partner. Following interest to test for nonindependence. As one would expect, pair-
completion of these questionnaires, participants were carefully and thor- wise intraclass correlations (Griffin & Gonzalez, 1995) revealed
oughly debriefed and dismissed. significant correlations between partners' scores for self-disclosure
(r = .31), perceptions of one's partner's disclosure (r = .34),
perceptions of one's partner's responsiveness (r = .44), satisfac-
Measures tion with the interaction (r = .37), liking for the partner (r - .39),
and closeness to the partner (r — .19) (all ps < .05).
For all instruments except one of the selection variables (see below)
responses were provided on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with responses To examine dyadic effects, Kenny (1996) recommends the use
ranging from 1 (not at all/strongly disagree) to 5 (very much/strongly of pooled regressions, which allow for the computation of the
agree). effect of an actor's characteristics on her own evaluations of the
Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal (RISC). Responses to the interaction (termed the "actor effect") and the effect of her part-
11-item RISC scale demonstrated a good internal consistency with a ner's characteristics on the actor's evaluations (termed the "partner
Cronbach's alpha of .84. effect"). The values computed in this analysis represent unstand-
Disclosure. Disclosure was measured with eight items from the Self- ardized regression coefficients. As the first two lines of Table 6
Disclosure Index (Miller et al., 1983). (Two items that were judged to be
show, participants whose partners scored high on the RISC scale
inappropriate for this situation were dropped from the scale.) Participants
perceived their partners as disclosing more about themselves and
were asked to complete this scale twice, once for themselves and once for
how much their partner disclosed. Cronbach's alpha was .76 for own as being more responsive to their needs and concerns than did
disclosure and .83 for perceptions of one's partner's disclosure. participants whose partners scored low on the RISC scale (sum-
Partner's responsiveness. In this study, responsiveness was operation- marized in the "partner effect" column). In addition, an individu-
alized as the demonstration that one understands, cares for, and values al's own RISC score was related to how she perceived her partner
one's partner (Reis & Shaver, 1988). Perceptions of the partner's respon- (summarized in the "actor effect" column).
siveness were measured with six items adapted from a scale by Cutrona,
Hessling, & Suhr (1997), In addition, the authors created six items de-
signed to tap the perceptions that one has been understood, cared for, and
validated (Reis & Patrick, 1996). The items are listed in the Appendix. Table 6
Cronbach's alpha was .92. Estimation of Actor and Partner Effects of the RISC Scale on
Liking. Liking was assessed with three items from Miller et al. (1983) Evaluations of the Dyadic Interaction (Study 3)
and one additional item constructed by the current researchers. The addi-
tional item was "How much would you like to work with your partner on Actor Partner
the upcoming problem solving task?" Cronbach's alpha was .88. Dependent variable effect* effect* t df
Satisfaction. Satisfaction was measured with five commonly used
items. Examples of the items included "How much did you enjoy the Perceptions of partner's .54 7 22*** .19 2.55** 70
interaction with your partner?" and "How satisfied were you with your disclosure
interaction with this partner?" Cronbach's alpha was .88. Perceptions of partner's .69 13.26*** .36 6.97*** 71
responsiveness
Closeness. The Subjective Closeness Index (Berscheid et al., 1989)
Self-disclosure .45 6.74*** .25 3.75*** 70
was used to measure perceived closeness. This measure includes the items Satisfaction .55 7 JI*** .44 6.17*** 70
"Relative to all your other relationships, how would you characterize your Liking of partner .55 6.54*** .42 4.98*** 70
relationship with this person?" and "Relative to what you know about other Closeness to partner .40 4.45*** .17 1.90* 69
people's close relationships, how would you characterize your relationship
with this person?" A third item added by the current authors was "Right Note. N = 68 pairs. RISC = Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal.
now, how close do you feel to your partner?" Cronbach's alpha of the The values in the actor effect and partner effect columns represent un-
3-item scale was .84. standardized regression coefficients. The formula suggested by Kenny
(1996) to approximate the degrees of freedom results in different values for
Selection variables. As a check on participants' attitudes toward the
each analysis.
interaction task, they were asked to rate the extent to which they and their 11
The actor effect is the effect of an actor's RISC scale score on her own
partners took the discussion time seriously. If either member of a pair evaluations of the interaction.
indicated that they did not take the discussion time seriously, the couple b
The partner effect is the effect of an actor's partner's RISC scale score on
was excluded from all analyses. A total of three couples were excluded for the actor's evaluations of the interaction.
this reason. Participants were also asked how well they knew their partners *p < .05. **p < .01. ***/? < .001, one-tailed.
 RELATIONAL-INTERDEPENDENT SELF-CONSTRUAL 803

Participants' scores on the RISC scale were positively related to
their own ratings of their self-disclosure (see Table 6 under "actor
effect"), replicating the findings of Study 1. There was also a
significant partner effect on ratings of self-disclosure: Individuals
paired with a person who scored high on the RISC scale described
themselves as self-disclosing more than did individuals paired with
a low-scoring partner. Table 6 also shows that participants' ratings
of their satisfaction with the discussion, their liking of their part-
ner, and feelings of closeness to their partner were significantly
related to their own RISC scale scores and to their partner's scores.
As hypothesized, individuals paired with a person who scored high
on the RISC scale were more satisfied with the interaction, liked
their partner more, and felt closer to their partner than did indi-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
were expected to predict the individual's overall satisfaction (paths
d). In addition, we examined the possible direct effects of an
actor's RISC scale scores on her perceptions of her partner's
responsiveness (paths e) and on her partner's perceptions of the
actor's responsiveness (paths f). We also included possible direct
effects of an actor's self-disclosure on her perceptions of her
partner's responsiveness (paths g), on her own overall satisfaction
with the relationship (paths h), and on her partner's overall satis-
faction (paths i).
To test this model, structural equation analyses were conducted
using maximum likelihood estimation from the LISREL 8 pro-
gram. Members of the dyads were randomly assigned to be per-
son 1 (PI) or person 2 (P2); Table 7 presents the correlation matrix

viduals paired with a person who scored low on the RISC scale. and the standard deviations for the variables used in this model. In
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

We hypothesized that an actor's self-disclosure and her part-
ner' s ratings of the actor's responsiveness would mediate the direct
effects of the actor's self-construal on her partner's overall eval-
uations of the interaction. To create a single index of participants'
overall evaluations of the interaction, the measures of satisfaction,
liking, and closeness were standardized and summed together. The
reliability for this composite satisfaction score was .95. The hy-
pothesized relations among partners' RISC scale scores, self-
disclosure, perceptions of their partner's disclosure, and overall
satisfaction with the relationship are shown in Figure 1. This
model includes the direct effects of an actor's RISC scale scores on
her partner's overall satisfaction (paths a), as well as mediators of
this relation. The most important relations in the model are cap-
tured by paths b, c, and d: An actor's RISC scale scores are
expected to be related to her own self-disclosure (paths b), which
will in turn predict her partner's perceptions of the actor's respon-
siveness (paths c). Perceptions of one's partner's responsiveness
these analyses, the path coefficients for the two participants were
constrained to be equivalent (e.g., the path from Pi's RISC score
to Pi's self-disclosure score was set to be equivalent to the path
from P2's RISC score to P2's self-disclosure score). In addition,
the model included the correlations between the parallel measures
from the two participants (e.g., the correlation between P i ' s self-
disclosure and P2's self-disclosure was included in the model).
Although this initial model presented a relatively good fit to the
data, the modification indices and the path coefficients indicated
that the paths from RISC scores to perceptions of the partner's
responsiveness (paths f) and the paths from self-disclosure to one's
partner's overall satisfaction score (paths i) were nonsignificant
and should be dropped from the model.
This revised model was found to fit the data well, ^ ( 1 6 , JV =
68) = 26.83, p < .05, GFI = .92, CFI = .93. The standardized
path coefficients from this model are presented in Figure 2. Par-
ticipants' RISC scale scores were directly related to their partner's

Pi's overall
satisfaction with the
Pis perception of relationship
her partner's
responsiveness

P2's overall
satisfaction with the
relationship
P2 s perception of
her partner's
responsiveness

Figure 1. Initial path model. The bold arrows represent the paths in the hypothesized mediation model. RISC =
Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal scale; PI = Partner 1; P2 = Partner 2.
 804 CROSS, BACON, AND MORRIS

Table 7
Correlations and Standard Deviations of Partner 1 (PI) and Partner 2 (P2) Variables Used in
the Mediation Model Predicting Overall Satisfaction With the Interaction (Study 3)

Variable 1

1. PI RISC scale (-56)

2. PI self-disclosure .23* (.58)
3. PI perceptions of partner's .13 .32** (-55)
responsiveness
4. PI overall satisfaction .17 .31** .77** (2.23)
5. P2 RISC scale .19 .26* -.04 .13 (.47)
6. P2 self-disclosure -.08 .25* .04 .10 .22* (-60)
7. P2 perceptions of partner's -.03 51** 31** .40** .40** .45** (-47)
responsiveness
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

8. P2 overall satisfaction .05

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

,38** .27* .24* .24* .54* .64* (2.21)

Note. RISC = Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal. Standard deviations of each variable are on the
diagonal.
*p < .05. **p < .01, one-tailed.

overall satisfaction with the relationship such that individuals
paired with a person who had a very interdependent self-construal
were more satisfied and liked their partner more than did individ-
uals paired with a partner who scored low on the RISC scale. In
addition, there were significant indirect effects of RISC scale
scores on participants' partners' composite satisfaction scores,
= =
Ppi RISC-P2 evaluation - ^ 0P2 RISC-PI evaluation -03> P» < .05,
one tailed. As shown by the bold arrows in Figure 2, individuals
who scored high on the RISC scale tended to self-disclose more
than did others (path b); the self-disclosure scores were signifi-
cantly related to their partner's perceptions of their responsiveness
(path c), which were strongly related to their partner's satisfaction
with the relationship (path d).
Discussion
Disclosing personal information about oneself and being sensi-
tive and responsive to one's partner's disclosures are central pro-
cesses in the development of relationships (Laurenceau et al.,
1998; Reis & Shaver, 1988). We hypothesized that individuals

Pi's overall
satisfaction with the
Pi's perception of relationship
her partner's
responsiveness

P2's overall
satisfaction with the
relationship
P2 s perception of
her partner's
responsiveness

Figure 2. Final path model. All paths are significant atp < .05, one-tailed. The bold arrows represent the paths
in the hypothesized mediation model. RISC = Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal scale; PI = Partner 1;
P2 = Partner 2. Correlations among the parallel measures for PI and P2 were as follows: RISC scale, r = .18,
ns; self-disclosure, r = .20, ns; perceptions of partner responsiveness, r = .21, p < .05; overall evaluation,
r = .07, ns.
 RELATIONAL-INTERDEPENDENT SELF-CON STRUAL
who scored high on the RISC scale would be more likely than
others to use these strategies to develop new relationships. To
avoid the biases inherent in ongoing relationships, we asked ran-
domly assigned strangers to take some time becoming acquainted
and then to indicate how open and responsive their partners had
been. As expected, individuals' RISC scale scores were positively
related to their partner's ratings of the person's self-disclosure and
responsiveness. In addition, participants who were paired with a
person who scored high on the RISC scale evaluated their rela-
tionship with their partner more positively than did participants
who were paired with a person who scored low on the RISC scale.
Structural equation analyses showed that the relation between
individuals' RISC scale scores and their partners' overall satisfac-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tion with the interaction and liking of their partner were mediated
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
by the individual's degree of self-disclosure and the partner's
perceptions of the individual's responsiveness. This model sug-
gests that persons with a very interdependent self-construal are
more likely to self-disclose than are others; individuals who are
very disclosing are in turn evaluated as responsive by their part-
ners. Finally, participants who view their partners as responsive
and sensitive to their concerns evaluate the relationship more
positively. In short, these results suggest that individuals with a
very interdependent self-construal develop and nurture new rela-
tionships by being open about themselves and by showing sensi-
tivity and concern for their relationship partners, even when these
partners are randomly assigned strangers.
General Discussion
We report the development of a self-report measure that focuses
on individuals' self-representations as relational or interdependent
with close others. In Study 1, we found strong evidence of the
scale's reliability and validity. The 11-item measure taps a single,
general factor and evidences good internal and test-retest reliabil-
ity. An examination of the RISC scale's associations with other
measures of interdependence, independence, and personality at-
tests to its convergent and discriminant validity. The RISC scale
predicted unique variance in global measures of collective self-
esteem and communal orientation when other related constructs
were controlled. Thus, we have good evidence that the RISC scale
measures a construct that is reasonably distinct from other similar
measures.
These results revealed no zero-order correlations between the
RISC scale and measures of well-being or self-esteem. Other
research has found that individuals who are very needy or depen-
dent on others tend to be vulnerable to depression (Rude &
Burnham, 1995). Our results suggest that defining oneself in terms
of close relationships need not necessarily lead to these negative
consequences. Further research is necessary, however, to explore
the conditional relationships between the interdependence of the
self-concept and well-being. For the person with a very interde-
pendent self-construal, overall well-being may depend at least in
part on the well-being of close relationships. If close relationships
are threatened or undergoing periods of difficulty, the person with
a very interdependent self-construal may suffer more than the
person whose self-concept is not based on close relationships.
These studies also supported the hypothesis that women would
be more likely to define themselves in terms of their close rela-
tionships than would men. The effect sizes for the RISC scale in
805
these studies ranged from fairly small (d = -.17) to moderate
(d - -.57). These effect sizes are similar in magnitude to many
other gender differences in behavior (Hyde, 1996).
We have mentioned throughout the article that individuals who
have a very interdependent self-construal should be motivated to
develop and maintain close relationships, but we unfortunately
overlooked measures of related motives, such as the intimacy
motive or the need for affiliation, in our examination of the
convergent and discriminant validity of the RISC scale. Me Adams
describes the intimacy motive as "the desire for warm, close, and
communicative relations with others" (1989, p. 53), and we would
expect the RISC scale to correlate fairly highly with a measure of
this motivation. This relation should not be symmetric, however: A
person who has constructed an interdependent self-construal
should also score high on the measure of intimacy motivation, but
the reverse may not be true. As McAdams (1989) explains, many
people who score high on intimacy motivation may not have
identified this tendency or have incorporated it into their
self-views.
We focused the remainder of the research on the associa-
tion between the relational-interdependent self-construal and
relationship-oriented thoughts and behaviors. Consistent with the
hypothesis that individuals with a very interdependent self-
construal will have a larger social network, we found that individ-
uals who scored high on the RISC scale listed more people who
were very important to them and perceived higher levels of social
support than did lows (Study 1). Individuals who scored high on
the RISC scale also described their most important relationships as
closer and more committed than did others. These results provide
criterion validity for the RISC scale in that they support the
hypothesis that individuals with a very interdependent self-
construal should be especially motivated to develop and maintain
close relationships. Additional research is necessary to uncover
more about the processes and motivations underlying these asso-
ciations. The findings of Study 1, however, suggest that quality
(i.e., self-disclosure and mutual influence), not quantity, of time
spent with close others differentiates the approach to relationships
adopted by very interdependent persons from that adopted by those
who do not think of themselves as interdependent with others.
If close relationships are part of the self, then individuals should
take care to promote and protect these relationships. In Study 2,
highly interdependent persons were more likely than others to take
into account the opinions or needs of friends and family when
making important decisions. When close relationships are self-
defining, then the needs and wishes of close others may be nearly
as important or salient as one's own needs and wishes. In addition,
decisions made without heeding their implications for close others
may cause conflict or threaten relationships.
Study 3 supported the findings of Studies 1 and 2, showing that
when individuals with a very interdependent self-construal were
asked to get to know a new person, they were more likely to reveal
information about themselves and to be viewed as responding
sensitively to their relationship partners than were others. These
conclusions were based not only on self-reports, but also on the
reports of their partners in these interactions. Thus, this study
provides important criterion validity for the RISC scale.
In addition, Study 3 begins to answer the question of how
individuals with an interdependent self-construal create and main-
tain close relationships. The structural equation analyses of these
 806 CROSS, BACON, AND MORRIS
dyadic interactions revealed that individuals with a very interde-
pendent self-construal tended to self-disclose more, which was
related to their partners' perceptions that they were concerned and
caring; these perceptions that one's partner was responsive were
strongly related to positive evaluations of the relationship. Thus,
individuals' RISC scale scores are not only related to their own
perceptions and evaluations of themselves and their relationships,
but also to others' perceptions of them. These findings are cross-
sectional and based on a sample of college women; replication in
longitudinal studies with a more diverse sample will promote
further understanding of the role of the self-construal in relation-
ship processes. Future studies should also examine the relationship
of the self-construal to other relationship-enhancing processes in
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ongoing close relationships.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Research Applications
When a relational orientation is conceptualized at the level of
the self-concept, researchers can draw upon the extensive research
on the self to more clearly specify the mechanisms and processes
that underlie the relations between interdependence and other
phenomena. There has been much speculation about how viewing
oneself as relational or interdependent may influence behavior, but
empirical tests of these hypotheses have been thwarted by the lack
of an appropriate measure. For example, Cross and Madson (1997)
suggest that many theories and research findings in the area of
self-enhancement processes have assumed an independent self-
construal. They argue that the strategies used to enhance the self
may vary, depending on the structure of the self. With this new
measure, researchers are better equipped to test these and other
hypotheses specifically, thus better understanding the sources of
social behavior. Similarly, some theorists have attributed gender
differences in behavior to differences in the self-construal (Cross
& Madson, 1997; Markus & Oyserman, 1989; Surrey, 1991), but
others contend that most gender differences in behavior are due to
differences in status or power (Ridgeway, 1988; Snodgrass, 1992).
With this measure, researchers can more carefully identify the
independent and joint effects of the self and the situation in social
behavior.
A critical next step is to examine the relation between this
construct and individuals' self-views as independent and autono-
mous. As Trafimow, Triandis, and Goto (1991) have suggested,
these two types of self-representations may be stored separately
from each other in memory and accessed with different frequen-
cies. The effects of the interdependent self-construal on
relationship-oriented behavior may depend on the extent to which
an individual has developed independence-related self-views. For
example, the person with a very interdependent self-construal who
also has well-elaborated self-views as independent and self-reliant
may be best able to balance the needs of relationship partners with
his or her own needs (see Helgeson, 1994, for a review). A
consideration of the relational-interdependent self-construal may
open the doors to new understanding of the role of the self in
cognition, motivation, well-being, and social interaction.
References
Allen, R. L., Dawson, M. C , & Brown, R. E. (1989). A schema based
approach to modeling an African American racial belief system. Amer-
ican Political Science Review, 83, 421-442,
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of
interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Antonucci, T. C. (1986). Hierarchical mapping technique. Generations, 10,
10-12.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollen, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self
scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 63, 596-612.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M , & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships
as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 60, 241-253.
Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., & Bator, R. J. (1997).
The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness: A procedure
and some preliminary findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-
letin, 23, 363-377.
Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression: Causes and treatment. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bellah, R. R , Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M.
(1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American
life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Belle, D. (Ed.). (1982). Lives in stress: Women and depression. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (1989). The relationship
closeness inventory: Assessing the closeness of interpersonal relation-
ships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 792-807.
Blaine, B., & Crocker, J. (1993). Self-esteem and self-serving biases in
reactions to positive and negative events: An integrative review. In R. F.
Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self-regard (pp. 5 5 -
85). New York: Plenum Press.
Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. In J. P.
Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of
personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 115-160). San Di-
ego, CA: Academic Press.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this "we"? Levels of
collective identity and self-representations. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 71, 83-93.
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Clark, M. S., Ouellette, R., Powell, M. C , & Milberg, S. (1987). Recipi-
ent's mood, relationship type, and helping. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 53, 94-103.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Professional manual: Revised NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five factor inventory (NEO-
FFI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Cross, S. E. (1995). Self-construals, coping, and stress in cross-cultural
adaptation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 673-697.
Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and
gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5-37.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (I960). A new scale of social desirability
independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24,
349-354.
Cutrona, C. E. (1989). Ratings of social support by adolescents and adult
informants: Degree of correspondence and prediction of depressive
symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 3-14.
Cutrona, C. E., Hessling, R. M., & Suhr, J. (1997). The influence of
husband and wife personality on marital social support interactions.
Personal Relationships, 4. 379-393.
Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D. (1987). The provisions of social relationships
and adaptation to stress. In W. H. Jones and D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances
in personal relationships (Vol. 1, pp. 37-68). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differ-
ences in empathy. JSAS: Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychol-
ogy, 10, 85.
Deiner, EM Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The
Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49,
71-75.
 RELATIONAL-INTERDEPENDENT SELF-CONSTRUAL
Griffin, D., & Gonzalez, R. (1995). Correlational analysis of dyad-level
data in the exchangeable case. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 430-439.
Guisinger, S., & Blatt, S. J. (1994). Individuality and relatedness: Evolu-
tion of a fundamental dialectic. American Psychologist, 49, 104-111.
Harter, S. (1993). Causes and consequences of low self-esteem in children
and adolescents. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem: The puzzle of
low self-regard (pp. 87-116). New York: Plenum Press.
Helgeson, V. S. (1994). Relation of agency and communion to well-being:
Evidence and potential explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 412-
428.
Helmreich, R. L., Spence, J. T., & Wilhelm, J. A. (1981). A psychometric
analysis of the Personal Attributes Questionnaire. Sex Roles, 7. 1097-
1108.
Hyde, J. (1996). Half the human experience. Lexington, MA: Heath.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
James, W. (1890/1983). The principles of psychology. Cambridge, MA:
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Harvard University Press.
Kashima, Y., Yamaguchi, S., Kim, U., Choi, S. C , Gelfand, M. J., & Yuki,
M. (1995). Culture, gender, and self: A perspective from individualism-
collectivism research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,
925-937.
Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J. H., Huston, T. L.,
Levinger, G., McClintock, E., Peplau, L. A., & Peterson, D. R. (1983).
Close relationships. New York: Freeman.
Kenny, D. A. (1996). Models of non-independence in dyadic research.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 279-294.
Lauxenceau, J.-P., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as
,an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner
disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal ex-
changes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1238-1251.
Luhtanen, R., &. Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-
evaluation of one's social identity. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 18, 302-318.
Lykes, M. B. (1985). Gender and individualistic vs. collectivistic bases for
notions about the self. In A. J. Stewart & M. B. Lykes (Eds.), Gender
and personality: Current perspectives on theory and research (pp.
268-295). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Marin, G., & Triandis, H. C. (1985). Allocentrism as an important char-
acteristic of the behavior of Latin Americans and Hispanics. In R.
Diaz-Guerrero (Ed.), Cross-cultural and national studies in social psy-
chology (pp. 69-80). Amsterdam: North Holland.
Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for
cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-
253.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1994). A collective fear of the collective:
Implications for selves and theories of selves. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 20, 568-579.
Markus, H., & Oyserman, D. (1989). Gender and thought: The role of the
self-concept. In M. Crawford & M. Hamilton (Eds.), Gender and
thought (pp. 100-127). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Matsumoto, D., Weissman, M. D., Preston, K., Brown, B. R., & Kupper-
busch, C. (1997). Context-specific measurement of individualism-
collectivism on the individual level: The Individualism-Collectivism
Interpersonal Assessment Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychol-
ogy, 28, 743-767.
McAdams, D. P. (1989). Intimacy: The need to be close. New York:
Doubleday.
McCombs, H. (1985). Black self-concept: An individual/collective analy-
sis. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 9, 1-18.
McGrath, E., Keita, G. P., Strickland, B. R., & Russo, N. F. (1990). Women
and depression: Risk factors and treatment issues. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Miller, L. C , Berg, i. H., & Archer, R. L. (1983). Openers: Individuals
who elicit intimate self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 44, 1234-1244.
807
Moran, P. B., & Eckenrode, J. (1991). Gender differences in the costs and
benefits of peer relationships during adolescence. Journal of Adolescent
Research 6, 396-409.
Oved, Y. (1988). Two hundred years of American communes. New Bruns-
wick, NJ: Transaction Press.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for
research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measure-
ment, 1, 385-401.
Realo, A., Allik, J., & Vadi, M. (1997). The hierarchical structure of
collectivism. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 93-116.
Reis, H. T., & Patrick, B. C. (1996). Attachment and intimacy: Component
processes. In E. T. Higgins and A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psy-
chology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 523-563). New York: Guil-
ford Press.
Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Studying social interaction with the
Rochester Interaction Record, In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in exper-
imental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 269-318). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Ridgeway, C. L. (1988). Gender differences in task groups: A status and
legitimacy account. In M. Webster and M. Foschi (Eds.), Status gener-
alization: New theory and research (pp. 188-206). Stanford, CA: Stan-
ford University Press.
Roberts, T., &. Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1989). Sex differences in reactions to
evaluative feedback. Sex Roles, 21, 725-747.
Roberts, T., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1994). Gender comparisons in re-
sponsiveness to others' evaluations in achievement settings. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 18, 221-240.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rude, S. S., & Burnham, B. L. (1995). Connectedness, neediness: Factors
of the DEQ and SAS dependency scales. Cognitive Therapy and Re-
search, 19, 323-340.
Rude, S. S., Welch, N., & Sanders, B. (1998). The development and
validation of a scale measuring the construct of connectedness. Unpub-
lished manuscript, University of Texas.
Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The
development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in
heterosexual involvement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 45, 101-117.
Sampson, E. E. (1985). The decentralization of identity: Toward a revised
concept of personal and social order. American Psychologist, 40, 1203-
1211.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health:
Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies.
Health Psychology, 4, 219-247.
Schwalbe, M. L., & Staples, C. L. (1991). Gender differences in sources of
self-esteem. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 158-168.
Shaver, P. R., & Brennan, K. A. (1991). Measures of depression and
loneliness. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. W. Wrightsman (Eds.),
Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 195-
290). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Shweder, R. A., & Bourne, E. J. (1984). Does the concept of the person
vary cross-culturally? In R. A. Shweder & R. A. LeVine (Eds.), Culture
theory: Essays on mind, self, and emotion (pp. 158-199). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdepen-
dent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20,
580-591.
Snodgrass, S. E. (1992), Further effects of role versus gender on interper-
sonal sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62,
154-158.
Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1974). The Personal Attributes
Questionnaire: A measure of sex-role stereotypes and masculinity-
 808 CROSS, BACON, AND MORRIS

femininity. Journal Supplement Abstract Service Catalog of Selected
Documents in Psychology, 4, 43-44.
Surrey, J. (1991). The "Self In-relation": A theory of women's development. In
J. V. Jordan, A. G. Kaplan, J. B. Miller, I. P. Stiver, & J. L. Suirey (Eds.),
Women's Growth in Connection (pp. 51-66). New York: Guilford Press.
Swann, W. B., Jr., De La Ronde, C , & Hixon, J. G. (1994). Authenticity
and positivity strivings in marriage and courtship. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 66, 857-869.
Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social
behavior. In L. Berfcowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psy-
chology (Vol. 21, pp. 181-227). New York: Academic Press.
Trafimow, D., Triandis, H. C , & Goto, S. G. (1991). Some tests of the
distinction between the private self and the collective self. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 649-655.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Weiss, R. S. (1974). The provisions of social relationships. In Z. Rubin
(Ed.), Doing unto others (pp. 17-26). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Yamaguchi, S. (1994). Collectivism among the Japanese: A perspective
from the self. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, and
G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism (pp. 175-188). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Yamaguchi, S., KuhJman, D. M., & Sugimori, S. (1995). Personality
correlates of allocentric tendencies in individualist and collectivist cul-
tures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 658-672.
Zuckerman, D. M. (1989). Stress, self-esteem, and mental health: How
does gender make a difference? Sex Roles, 20, 429-444.

Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural Zung, W. W. K. (1965). A self-rating depression scale. Archives of General
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506-520. Psychiatry, 12, 63-70.

Appendix

Items Used to Assess Perceptions of One's Partner's Supportiveness (Study 3)

1. I felt as if my partner really cared about me."

2. My partner behaved warmly toward me.a
3. My partner listened carefully when it was my turn to talk.
4. My partner tried to see things from my point of view.
5. My partner made me feel comfortable about myself and my feelings.3
6. My partner seemed sensitive to my feelings.8
7. My partner seemed uncaring.
8. My partner showed respect for my capabilities and talents.0
9. My partner did not seem to take my concerns seriously.3
10. My partner seemed sincere during our interaction.
11. My partner made me feel valued as a person.
12. My partner seemed to understand my concerns.
1
From the Interaction Supportiveness Scale. Copyright 1997 by C. E. Cutrona. Printed with permission.

Received June 28, 1999

Revision received September 2, 1999
Accepted November 2, 1999