The Jouirnai of Social Psvychology; 2001, 141(4). 551-559

Gender Comparisons in the Private,Collective, and Allocentic Selves

LAURA MADSONDAVID TRAFIMOW

Departmnent of PsychologyNew Mexico State UJniversitv

ABSTRACT Researchers (e.g.,. M. B. Brewer & W. Gardner, }996. H. C. Triandis, D. K.S. Chan, D. P. S. Bhawuk, S. Iwao, & ]. P. B. Sinha. 1995) have suggested expansion ofthe standard model of individualism-collectivism to include people's close personal rela-tionships in addition to their identification with in-groups. There has been considerablediscussion of the hypothesis that women are more collective, interdependent. relational,and allocentric than men (eg. S. E. Cross & L. Madson, 1997; Y. Kashima et aL., 1995).In the present study, the authors used the Twenty Statements Test (M. H. Kuhn & T.McPartland, 1954) to examine gender differences in the sel f-concept by assessing theaccessibility of private, collective, and allocentric self-cognitions. The U.S. womendescribed themselves with more ailocentric and more collective self-cognitions than didthe U.S. men. Discussion focuses on the implications of those data for interpretation ofother gender differences as well as for traditional models of individualismr-collectivism.

Key words: allocentric self-cogn:tions. collective self-cognitions. gender differences. pri-vate self-cognmtions

HOW DO MEN AND WOMEN think about themselves in relation to others?According to a growing body of research, some people think about themselvesprimarily in terms of their relationships with others, whereas other people thinkabout themselves primarily in terms of their own unique characteristics.Researchers have developed various constructs to describe this distinction,including the collective versus the private self (Trafimow, Triandis, & Goto,1991) and the interdependent versus the independent self-construal (Cross &Madson, 1997; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). A variety of researchers (e.g., Fiske,Kitayama, Markus, & Nisbett. 1998; Greenwald & Pratkanis, 1984; Hofstede,1980; Markus & Kitayama; Trafimow et al., 1991; Triandis, 1989) have used

Address correspondence to Laura Madson, Department of Psychoiogy, New Mexico StateUniversiny. Box 30001/Dept. 3452, Las Cruces, NM 88003.

55i

552 The Journal of Social Psvchoooxv

those constructs to analyze cross-cultural differences between Eastern and West-ern cultures. Generally speaking, people from Western cultures think about them-selves as individuals independent of their relationships, whereas people fromEastern cultures are more likely to think about themselves in terms of their groupmemberships and relationships with others.

One explanation for those cross-cultural differences is the two-baskets theo-ry (Trafimow et al., 1991): Cognitions that emphasize personal characteristics(i.e., private self-cognitions) are stored in one location in memory that forms theprivate self. Cognitions that emphasize the characteristics of one's in-groups (i.e.,collective self-cognitions) are stored in a separate location in memory that formsthe collective self. Cross-cultural differences exist because one's culture deter-mines the relative accessibility of the private and collective selves. Specifically,living in a collectivist culture makes the collective self and the collective self-cognitions stored in that location more accessible. Living in an individualisticculture makes the private self and the private self-cognitions stored in that loca-tion more accessible (Bochner, 1994; Trafirnow, Silverman, Fan, & Law, 1997:Trafimow & Smith, 1998; Trafimow et al., 1991; for reviews, see Trafimow,2000; Triandis & Trafimow, 2001).

Recently, researchers have articulated a different conceptualization of col-lectivism, one that emphasizes close personal relationships rather than groupmemberships. Constructs representing this idea include relatedness (Kashima etal., 1995), the relational self (Brewer & Gardner, 1996), familism (Gaines, 1995;Gaines et al., 1997), allocentrism (e.g., Triandis, Chan, Bhawuk, Iwao, & Sinha,1995; Triandis, Leung, Villareal, & Clack, 1985), and personal collectivism(Verkuyten & Masson, 1996). For the present research, we adopted Triandis'sconstruct of allocentrism. Although each of the foregoing conceptualizations hassome unique aspects, all share the idea that allocentrism focuses on personal rela-tionships with individuals rather than on relationships based primarily on sharedgroup membership (see also Prentice, Miller, & Lightdale, 1994). Allocentricvalues are similar to collectivistic values in that individuals emphasize warmth,interpersonal closeness, sensitivity, and attending to the needs of close others. Infact, Triandis and his colleagues (Triandis et al., 1995; Triandis et al., 1985) haveargued that allocentrism results from the application of collectivistic values toindividual relationships.

It follows from the foregoing reasoning that a culture that emphasizes allo-centrism increases the accessibility of allocentric self-cognitions. In fact, some(Maccoby, 1990; Maltz & Borker, 1983) have argued that men and women growup and live in distinct subcultures that differ in precisely that way. Specifically,women are socialized to be interdependent and attuned to relationships (Gilligan,1982; Jordan, Kaplan, Miller, Stivey, & Surrey, 1991; Markus, Mullally, &Kitayama, 1997; Markus & Oyserman, 1989; Surrey, 1991), whereas men aresocialized to be autonomous, independent, and self-reliant (Bakan, 1966; Mac-coby, 1990). Given their different: socialization, one would expect women to

Madson & Trafimow 553

express more allocentric self-cognitions than men and men to express more pri-vate self-cognitions than women. In other words, U.S. women may define them-selves in terms of their relationships, as interdependent, similar, and connectedto others, whereas U.S. men may define themselves in terms of their uniquenessand separateness from others. Furthermore, to the degree that allocentrism is anapplication of collectivism (Triandis et at., 1995; Triandis et ah.. 1985). onewould also expect women to express more collective self-cognitions than men.In fact, according to the findings of some researchers (Kashima et at., 1995;Triandis et al., 1995; Verkuyten & Masson, 1996; see also Cross & Madson,1997). women were more collective, allocentric, or interdependent than men, andmen were more independent or individualistic than women.

Unfortunately. the distinction between allocentrism and collectivism hasbeen somewhat muddied in the literature. For example, Cross and Madson(1997) interpreted a numnber of gender differences as consistent with women'sgreater interdependence. although it is unclear whether their conceptualization ofinterdependence was analogous to allocentrism, collectivism, or both. Triandis etal. (1995) concluded that Japanese women are more allocentric than Japanesemen because the women endorsed collectivistic values more than the men did.Kashima et al, (1995) argued that cross-cultural differences are best understoodin terms of collectivism and that gender differences within cultures are bestunderstood in terms of relatedness.

Furthermore, investigators of gender differences in allocentrisrm., collec-tivism, or both have used measures that assess different aspects of those con-structs. For example, some scales measure priority given to group rather than per-sonal goals (e.g., Yamaguchi, 1994), some measure collectivistic or allocentricbehaviors (eg.. Sinha & Werma, 1987; V'erma, 1992), and others measure inter-dependence versus independence (e.g., Gudykunst et al.. 1996; Singelis, 19941).Although those scales all measure values or behaviors related to allocentrism orcollectivism. it is unclear how aliocentrism and collectivism are related to, orreflect the structure of, the self-concept.

In the present study, we used the Twenty Statements Test (TST; Kuhn &McPartland., 1954) to assess gender differences in the self-concept. The TST, atechnique to measure self-representations, has been used by a number ofresearchers (e.g., Bochner, 1994; Dhawan, Rosemnan, Naidu. & Rettek, 1995; Ma& Schoeneman, 1997: Newman, Duff, Schnopp-Wyatt, Brock, & Hoffman.1997; Rhee, Uieman, Lee, & Roman, 1995: Trafirnow et al., 1991, Triandis et al.,1995: Watkins & Gerong, 1997; Watkins. Yau, Dahlin, & Wondimu, 1997).Unlike the scales discussed in the preceding paragraph, the TST is a direct mea-sure of the relative accessibility of the private. collective, and allocentric self-cognitions. In the TST. the participants write 20 statements that complete thestem "I am." On the basis of Trafimow et al. (1991). we classified the TST state-ments into tnree types: (a) Private seif-cognitions are statements that refer to per-sonal qualities, traits. characteristics, beliefs, or behaviors that do not relate to

554 The Journal of Social Psychology

other people (e.g., "I like to play basketball"). Collective self-cognitions refer todemographic groups, in-groups, or other people with whom one shares a rela-tionship with a sense of "comnmon fate" (e.g., "I am a woman" or "I am a Cubsfan"). Allocerttric cognitions imply interdependence, responsiveness to others,friendship, or sensitivity to the viewpoints of others (e.g., "I am kind to others").

We made three predictions. First, given that U.S. society is extremely individ-ualistic relative to other cultures, we expected both U.S. men and U.S. women toexpress more private self-cognitions than collective self-cognitions or allocentriccognitions (see Trafimow et al., 1991, Experiment 2). Second, given traditionalgender role socialization for women, we expected the women to express more allo-centric cognitions and more collective self-cognitions than the men. Third, weexpected the men to express more private self-cognitions than the women.

Method

Participants

A sample of 317 introductory psychology students (183 women and 134men) participated in partial fulfillment of their course requirements. All studentswere from a North American cultural background.

Procedure

The participants had 5 min to complete the 20 "I am" items of the TST(Kuhn & McPartiand. 1954). After they had completed their responses, wearranged all booklets in random order. Then, two coders blind to the hypothesescoded the data from the participants' "I am" responses. They classified eachresponse as a private, a collective, or an allocentric cognition. We calculated thepercentage of agreement to examine interrater reliability. The coders agreed on98% of the responses. To control for chance agreement, we also calculated akappa statistic (.98).

Results

We calculated the proportion of each of the three types of cognitions bydividing the number of that type of cognition by the total number of responses(maximum of 20). For example, we calculated the proportion of allocentric cog-nitions by dividing the number of allocentric responses by the total number ofresponses. Similarly, we calculated the proportion of private and collective cog-nitions. We analyzed the results by using a 3 (type of cognition) x 2 (gender)repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance with type of cognition as thewithin-subjects variable and participant gender as the between-subjects variable.

Consistent with the pervasive emphasis on individualism in Western culture,

Madson & Trafimow 555

we obtained an overall effect of tvpe of cognition, F(2, 3 0 8) = 4 2 3 5.6 1, p <.001,n' = .96. The participants retrieved far more private self-cognitions than collec-tive self-cognitions (Ms = .88 and .05, SDs = .12 and .06, respectively), FX 1, 315) =8337.92. p < 001 2 = .96. Interestingly, the participants also wrote more aHio-centric cognitions than collective self-cognitions (Ms = .08 and .05, SDs = .Iand .06, respectively). Fil. 315) = 25.24, p < DO1, T = .07.

That main effect was qualified by the hypothesized Type of Cognition x Gen-der interaction. F(2, 314) = 10.94. p < .001, t2 = .07. We performed three t tests toexplore the interaction. Consistent with the hypotheses, the women, in comparisonwith the men, wrote significantly more allocentric cognitions (Ms = .10 and .06,SDs = .10 and .09. respectively). t(3 15) = 2.97. p = .003. and more collective cog-nitions (Ms = .06 and .03, SDs = .07 and .05, respectively), t3 15) = 3.57, p < .001.In addition, the men wrote significantly more pnvate self-cognitions than thewomen (Ms = .90 and .84, SDs = . I1 and .1 2. respectively). t(3 15) = 4.47, p < .001.

Discussion

As expected, the women were. more likely than the men to describe them-selves by using allocentric cognitions that stressed interdependence, friendship,and sensitivity to others. The women also reported a higher proportion of collec-tive cognitions than the men did. The men, in contrast, were more likely than thewomen to describe themselves in terms of their own unique abilities and traits.Taken together, those results suggest that the women thought about themselvesin terms of their relationships with others (both personal relationships and groupidentities) more than the men did. The women's collective and allocentric selvesappeared more accessible than the men's.

What caused that difference in accessibility? According- to the two-basketstheory, it may have been attributable to gender role socialization. One's culturemay determine the relative accessibility of different aspects of the self. If the cul-ture emphasizes collectivistic values, the accessibility of the collective self andcollective self-cognitions increases. To the degree that women and men live indifferent subcultures in which women are socialized to emphasize interdepen-dence and relationships with others and men are socialized to emphasize auton-omy and uniqueness. the women's collective and allocentric selves may becomemore accessible than the men's. It is also possible that the women's collectiveand allocentric selves were chronically accessible (see Bargh, Lombardi, & Hig-gins. t988), because of the consistent and repetitive activation of these self-struc-tures over time.

Alternatively, the greater accessibility of the women's collective and allo-centric selves may have been a result of their incorporating more relationshipsthan the men did into their self-concepts. Most people integrate certain closerelationships (e.g., family, spouses) into their self-concepts (Trafimow et at.,1991; see also Trafimow & Smith, 1998). In addition to such intimate relation-

556 The Journal of Social Psychology

ships, women may integrate less intimate relationships (e.g., friends, coworkers)into their self-concepts. Consequently, a greater range of relationships and situa-tions would activate the allocentric and collective selves more in women than inmen and would increase the accessibility of those constructs.

If that is the case, there may be relationships that activate the collective orallocentric self in women but not in men (e.g., having friends) and relationshipsthat activate those structures in men but not in women (e.g., being a member ora fan of a sports team, participating in a fraternity). Because it would be unrea-sonable to assume that all women incorporate their friends into their self-con-cepts and that no men do so, one might also ask what distinguishes men whothink allocentrically about their friends from men who do not? Or, similarly,what distinguishes women who think collectively about sports teams fromwomen who do not? There is also the related issue of priming the private self. Dosituations that elicit the private self differ between men and women? Do some sit-uations prime the private self in men but not in women?

A gender difference in the accessibility of the allocentric and collectiveselves may help integrate a number of gender differences evident in the literature(for a review, see Cross & Madson, 1997). For example, women may placegreater importance than men do on harmonious intimate relationships becausethose relationships are self-defining for women. As such, women may be atgreater risk for depression when relationships end or when they experience con-flict. Women may also be more likely than men to experience distress vicarious-ly when close others face negative life events. In fact, a number of researchershave argued that women's emphasis on relationships is one variable that may putwomen at greater risk for depression (e.g., Kenny, Moilanen, Lomax, & Brabeck,1993; Kessler & McLeod, 1984; Nolen-Hoeksema, 1987; Robbins &. Tanck,1991 ). In addition, the tendency for women to think about themselves in terms oftheir relationships with others may help explain women's greater nonverbal skillsand sensitivity (DePaulo, 1992; Hall, 1984). Nonverbal behaviors are particular-ly effective in communicating emotions and communicating an interest in andconcern for others (Ekman, 1993: Ekman & Friesen, 1984; Izard, 1991). As such,they are important in the development and maintenance of intimate relationships(Clark & Reis, 1988). Women may develop greater nonverbal skills than menbecause they are a primary avenue for fostering mutual self-disclosure, emotion-al closeness, and caring.

The present data provide further evidence that current conceptualizations ofthe self-concept (e.g., private self vs. collective self, individualism vs. collec-tivism) may need to incorporate a third structure that represents one's relation-ships with individuals. In particular, the two-baskets conceptualization may besufficient for understanding cross-cultural differences, but the third, relationalstructure may be a more accurate conceptualization of gender differences withina culture (Kashima et al., 1995). Although a resolution to the issue of the num-ber of self-structures is outside the scope of the present study, our findings aug-

Madson & T rafimow 557

ment a growing body of literature that suggests that women and men think dif-ferently about themselves in relation to others.

REFERENCES

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. Boston: Beacon Press.Bargh, J. A., Lombardi. W. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1988). Automa-ici-y of chronicailv acces-

sible constructs in Person x Situation effects on person perception: It's just a matter oftime. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 55. 59-65.

Bochner, S. (1994). Cross-cultural differences in the self concept. A test of Hofstede'sindividualism/collectivismn distinction. Journal of Cross-Culturat Psychology; 25,273-283.

Brewer, M. B,. & Gardner. W, (1996). Who is this "we"? Levels of coliective identity andself-representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7], 83-93.

Clark. Mvt., & Reis, H. (1988). Interpersonal processes in close relationships. AnnualReview of Psychology', 39, 609-672.

Cross. S. E.. & Madson, L. (1997). Modeis of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psi-chological Bulletin, 122. 5-37.

DePaulo. B. M. (1992). Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation. Psychological Bulletin,III, 203-243.

Dhawan. N_, Roseman, 1, J., Naidu, R. K., & Rettek, S. 1. (1995). Self-concepts across twocultures: India and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 26,606-621.

Ekman, P. (199'3). Facial expression and emotion. American Psychologist, 48, 384-392.Ekman, P., & Friesen. W. V. ( 1984). Unmasking the face. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hail.Fiske. A. P.. Kitayama, S.. Markus, H. R.. & Nisbett. R. E. (1998). The cultural matrix of

social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert. S. T. Fiske. & G, Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook oFsocial psychology (Vol. 2, 4th ed.. pp. 915-981). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Gaines, S. O.. Jr. (1995. Relationships among members of cultural minorities. In J. T.Wood & S. Duck (Eds.). Under-studied relationships: 0 the beaten path (pp. 51-88).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gaines, S. O.. Jr., Marelich, W. D.. Bledsoe. K. L., Steers, W. N., Henderson, M. C..Granrose, C. S., Barajas, L., Hicks. D.. Lvde, M., Takahashi, Y., Yum, N., Rios, D. I.,Garcia. B. F.. Farris, K. R., & Page, M. S. (1997). Links between race/ethnicity and cul-tural values as mediated by racial/ethnic identity and moderated by gender. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psycvholo,g 72. 1460-1476.

Gilligan. C. (1982). In a different voice: Psyvchological theorY and women ts development.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Greenwald. A. G., & Pratkanis. A. R. (1984). The self. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.).Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 3 pp. 129-i78f. Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.

Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T:. Kim, K., & Heyman. S.(1996). The influence of cultural individualism-collect4vism, self-construals, and indi-vidual values on communication styles across cultures. Hurman ComnznunicatiornResearch, 22, 510-543.

Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Comnmunication accuracy and expressivesryle. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hofstede. G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differenices in work-relatedvalues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Izard. C. E. (1991). The psychology of emotions. New York: Plenum.Jordan. J. V., Kaplan, A. G.. Miller, J. B.. Stivey, 1. P.. & Surrey. J. L. (Eds.l. (1991).

558 The Journal of Social Psychology

Women's growth in connection: Writings from Stone Center. New York: Guilford Press.Kashima, Y., Yamaguchi, S., Kim, U., Choi, S., Gelfand, M. J.. & Yuki, M. (1995). Cul-

ture. gender. and self: A perspective from individualism-collectivism research. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 69. 925-937.

Kenny, M. E., Moilanen. D. L., Lomax, R., & Brabeck, M. M. (1993). Contributions ofparental attachments to view of self and depressive symptoms among early adolescents[Special issuel. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13, 408-430.

Kessler, R. C., & McLeod, J. D. (1984). Sex differences in vulnerability to undesirabie lifeevents. American Sociological Review, 49, 620-631.

Kuhn, M. H.. & McPartland. T. (1954). An empirical investigation of self-attitudes. Amer-ican Sociological Review, 19, 58-76.

Ma, V., & Schoeneman, T. J. (1997). Individualism versus collectivism: A comparison ofKenyan and American self-concepts. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 19,261-273,

Maccoby, E. (I 990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American Psvy-chologist, 45, 513-520.

Maltz, D. N., & Borker, R. A. (1983). A cultural approach to male-female miscommuni-cation. In J. A. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 196-216). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991), Culture and the self: Implications for cognition.emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

Markus, H. R., Mullally, P. R.. & Kitayama. S. (1997). Selfways: Diversity in modes ofcultural participation. In U. Neisser & D. A. Jopling (Eds.). The Emor- Symposia inCognition. The conceptual self in context: Cuilture, experience, self-understanding (pp.13-61). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Markus, Hl. R., & Oyserman, D. (1989). Gender and thought: The roie of the self-concept,In M. Crawford & M. Hamilton (Eds.), Gender and thought (pp. 100-127). New York:Springer-Verlag.

Newman, L. S., Duff, K., Schnopp-Wyatt, N., Brock, B.. & Hoffman, Y (1997). Reactionsto the 0. J. Simpson verdict: "Mindless tribalismn" or motivated inference processes9Journal of Social Issues. 53, 547-562.

Nolen-lHoeksema, S. (1987). Sex differences in unipolar depression: Evidence and theo-ry. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 259-282.

Prentice, D., Milier, D., & Lightdale, J. (1994). Asymmetries in attachments to groups andto their members: Distinguishing between common-identity and common-bond groups.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 484-493.

Rhee, E., Uleman, J. S., Lee, H. K., & Roman, R. J. (1995). Spontaneous self-descriptionsand ethnic identities in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Journal of Personali-ty and Social Psychology, 69, 142-152.

Robbins, P. R., & Tanck, R. H. (1991), Gender di fferences in the attribution of causes fordepressed feelings. Psychological Reports, 68, 1209-1210.

Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-constru-als. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580-59 1.

Sinha, J. B. P., & Verma, J. (1987). Structure of collectivism. In C. Kagitcibasi (Ed.),Growth and progress in cross-culturai psychology (pp. 123-129). Amsterdam: Swets &Zeitlinger.

Surrey, J. L. (1991). The "self-in-relation": A theory of women's development. In l. V. Jor-dan, A. G. Kaplan, J. B. Miller, 1. P Stiver, & J. L. Surrey (Eds.), Women's growth inconnection: Writings,from Stone Center (pp. 51-66). New York: Guilford Press.

Trafimow, D. (2000). A theory of attitudes, subjective norms, and private versus collectiveself-concepts. In D. Terry & M. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behavior and social context:

Madsoni & Trafi mow 559

Tihe role of nonns andi gmrup mnembership (pp. 47-66). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Trafirmow. D., Silverman. E. S., Fan, R. M., & Law, J1. S. i 1997), The effects of language

and priming on the relative accessibility of the private self and the collective self Jolir-nal of Cross-Caltural Psychology 28., 107-123.

Trafimow. D.. & Smith, M. D, (1 998). An extension of the "two-baskets" theory to NativeAmericans. European Jousrnal of Social Psychologyt 28, 1015-1019.

Trafimos. D., Tfiandis, H. C., & Goto. S. GC (E991} Some tests of the distinction betweenthe private self' and the collective self Journal of Personali.t and Social Psychology.60, 649-655.

Triandis. H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psi-chological Reviewu 96. 506-520.

Triandis, H C., Chan, D. K. S.. Bhawuk. D. P. S.. Iwao. S., & Sinha. J. B. P,r 1995). Multi-method probes of aliocentrism and idiocentrism. International Jouirnal of PsYcholog.y30- 461-480.

Tnandis, H1. C., Leung. K., Villareal, M., & Clack, F. L_ (t985). APiocentric vs. idiocen-tric tendencies: Convergent and discriminant validation. Jouirnal of Research in Per-sonalit".; 19. 395-415.

Triandis. H. C-, & Trafimow, D. (2001), Culture and its implications for intergroup behav-ior. In R. Brown & S. Gaertner (Eds.). Blackweil handbook in social psychology. Vof.4. Intergroup processes (pp. 367-385). Oxford. UK: Blackweli.

Verkuvten, I., & Mlasson. K. t(1996). Culture and gender differences in the perception offriendshio by adolescents. In:ernational Journal of Psychology, 31, 207-217.

Verma, J. (1992). Allocentrism and relational orientation. In S. Iwawaki. Y. Kashima. &K. Leung (Eds.). hinnovations itn cross-cultural psychology (pp. 152-163). Amsterdam:Swets & Zeitlinger.

Watkins, D,, & Gerong. A. f 1997). Culture and spontaneous self-concept among Filipinocollege students. The Journal of Social Psychology. 137 480-488,

Watkins, D., Yau, J., Dahlin. B., & Wondimu. H. (t997). The Twenty Statements Test:Some measurement issues. JOUrn1al ofT' Cross-Cultu{rai Psychology. 28, 626-633.

Yamaguchi, S. (1994). Empirical evidence on collectivism among the Japanese. ln U.Kim, H C. Trandis. C. Kagitcibasi. S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.'), Individualismi andcoffectivisim. Thleonry method, and applications tpp. 175-188). Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Received October 4, 1999Accepted.Alarrch Ii 2000

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Gender comparisons in the private, collective, andallocentric selves

SOURCE: The Journal of Social Psychology 141 no4 Ag 2001WN: 0121302149009

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited.

Copyright 1982-2001 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.