van Osch, Yvette , Bender, Michael , He, Jia , Adams, Byron G. , Kunuroglu, Filiz , Tillman, Richard N. , BENÍTEZ BAENA, ISABEL, Sekaja, Lusanda , Mamathuba, Neo
No
Cross-Cult. Res.
Article
Científica
1.909
0.789
01/01/2020
000536652900001
2-s2.0-85085609701
We assessed empirical support for (a) the widely held notion that across so-called "honor, dignity, and face cultures," internal and external components of self-esteem are differentially important for overall self-esteem; and (b) the idea that concerns for honor are related to internal and external components of self-esteem in honor cultures but not in dignity and face cultures. Most importantly, we also set out to (c) investigate whether measures are equivalent, that is, whether a comparison of means and relationships across cultural groups is possible with the employed scales. Data were collected in six countries (N = 1,099). We obtained only metric invariance for the self-esteem and honor scales, allowing for comparisons of relationships across samples, but not scale means. Partly confirming theoretical ideas on the importance of internal and external components of self-esteem, we found that only external rather than both external and internal self-esteem was relatively more important for overall self-esteem in "honor cultures"; in a "dignity" culture, internal self-esteem was relatively more important than external self-esteem. Contrary to expectations, in a "face" culture, internal self-esteem was relatively more important than external self-esteem. We were not able to conceptually replicate earlier reported relationships between components of self-esteem and the concern for honor, as we observed no cultural differences in the relationship between self-esteem and honor. We point toward the need for future studies to consider invariance testing in the field of honor to appropriately understand differences and similarities between samples.
article; controlled study; expectation; human; human dignity; major clinical study; self esteem; theoretical study