Conceptual Questions

Social definitions of intelligence and obedience orientation functional in contexts where old age security value of children is important (rural-traditional; closely-knit human relations; less specialized tasks) Teaching through demonstration and modeling functional in everyday learning – apprenticeship (non school – like tasks)) School – like tasks (cognitive and language skills) functional in urban life styles (specialized tasks, school) Autonomy becomes functional with decreased old age security value of children and urban life styles (specialized tasks requiring decision making) --------------- An integrative - Functional Perspective combines A contextual approach and Comparative Standards (Contextualism without relativism)

Theories of Intelligence You can learn new things, but you can’t really change your basic intelligence You can always substantially change how intelligent you are

Theories about intelligence & students’ achievement goals The more students held an entity theory of intelligence, the more likely they were to choose a performance goal. The more they held an incremental theory, the more they were likely to choose the learning goal. 4 4

Theories about intelligence & students’ achievement goals Study with 8th graders: 80% of students with an entity theory chose a performance-goal task (with 50% choosing the very easy task) 20% of these students were willing to try to learn something new when there is a risk of making errors 60% of incremental theorists chose the learning-goal task 5 5

Achievement Goals: Looking Smart vs Learning Performance goal: winning positive judgments of your competence and avoiding negative ones Ex: When students pursue performance goals they’re concerned with their level of intelligence: They want to look smart (to themselves or others) and avoid looking dumb. Learning goal: the goal of increasing your competence. It reflects a desire to learn new skills, master new tasks, or understand new things. 6 6

Helpless vs Mastery-Oriented Responses Students with performance goals showed a helpless pattern in response to difficulty. Some of them condemned their ability and their problem solving deteriorated. Students with learning goals showed a master-oriented pattern. They remained focused on the task and maintained their effective problem-solving strategies in the face of failure. 7 7

Students with learning goals were much more mastery-oriented when faced with challenging problems. Students with performance goals were thrown off by novel problems. They worried about their ability to solve the problems instead of trying to solve them. 8 8

Students’ theories of intelligence can have a direct effect on their goals and concerns. Theories of intelligence cause students to focus on performance goals or learning goals. What was told to the students by the researchers had an impact on their thinking. Researchers can influence students’ theories. Thus, people’s theories of intelligence are malleable. 9 9

Students who were led to believe their intelligence is fixed begin to have concerns about looking smart and begin to sacrifice learning opportunuties when there is a threat of exposing their deficiencies. 10 10

Students who are led to believe their intelligence is a malleable quality begin to take on challenging learning tasks and to take advantage of the skill-improvement opportunities that come their way. 11 11

Students’ theories of intelligence affect the way they see and react to their own successes and failures, and the way they see and react to others’ successes and failures. In both cases, holding an entity theory leads students to see performance as a direct reflection of intelligence. 12 12

Holding an entity versus incremental theory can play a direct causal role in fostering trait judgments (dispositional attribution) When we learn that personality and character are unchangeable, we may believe that how people act on one occasion tells us about their deeper traits. 13

The majority of helpless children reported that even with more time or effort they would not be able to solve any of the puzzles. The majority of the mastery-oriented children were certain that with time and effort they could conquer the puzzles. 14

The nonpersistent childen conveyed significantly more negative emotion than their persistent counterparts. 15

When children’s responses for criticism and punishment from adults were coded, a striking difference emerged. Most of the children who had shown a persistent, mastery-oriented response on the puzzles role-played little or no criticism or punishment from the adults. They role-played a great deal of praise, encouragement, and constructive suggestions from them. 16

“She did the puzzles beautiful.” Examples: “She did the puzzles beautiful.” “He worked hard but he just couldn’t finish them. He wants to try them again later.” “You did the best you could. Come sit on my lap”. “He didn’t work hard enough. He can try again after lunch.” 17 17

The children who had shown a helpless response on the puzzles role-played an alarming amount of harsh criticism and punishment. 18

“You better do nothing but sit in your room.” Examples: “She didn’t finish the puzzles. I spanked her but she keeps on hiding.” “You better do nothing but sit in your room.” “He’s punished because he can’t do them and he didn’t finish.” “Daddy’s gonna be very mad and spank her.” 19

For young children, the key issue is goodness, and that their mistakes and failures are seen in that light. These children are grappling with questions about what makes someone good or bad. Helpless and mastery-oriented children resolve this dilemma in different ways. 20

60% of helpless children said they felt they were not good kids as a result of what happened. 40% said they felt that they were not nice. The whole point of this endeavor was to create a nice surprise for their teacher. Yet the criticism was so undermining to them that for many it erased their good intention and left them feeling culpable. (deserving punishment) 21

Culture and The Self

Maintaining self-esteem requires separating oneself from others and seeing oneself as different from and better than others. At 4 years old, children already show a clear self-favorability bias. When asked to compare themselves with others with respect to intelligence, friendliness, or any skill, most children think they are better than most others. Wylie (1979) reported that American adults also consider themselves to be more intelligent and more attractive than average. Myers (1987) found that 70% of students believe they are above average in leadership ability, and with respect to the “ability to get along with others”, 0% thought they were below average, 60% thought they were in the top 10%, and 25% thought they were in the top 1%.

Taylor & Brown showed that among Americans, most people feel that they are more in control and have more positive expectations for themselves and for their future than they have for other people. This tendency for false uniqueness presumably derives from efforts of those with independent selves to maintain a positive view of themselves.

There were marked differences between the Japanese and the American students in their estimations of their own uniqueness; the Americans displayed significantly more false uniqueness than the Japanese. American students assumed that only 30% of people on average would be better than themselves on various traits and abilities (e.g., memory, athletic ability, independence, and sympathy), whereas the Japanese students showed almost no evidence of this false uniqueness. In most cases, the Japanese estimated that about 50% of students would be better than they were or have more of a given trait or ability. This is, of course, the expected finding if a representative sample of college students were evaluating themselves in a relatively nonbiased manner.

What is a considerate superviser? What the supervisor might do if a member of the work team is experiencing personal difficulties. To discuss the matter with other members of the work team in the person’s absence Japan & Hong Kong: considerate USA & Britain: inconsiderate

SUGGESTIONS Rotenberg: Reciprocal Individualism Lykes: Social Individuality Chodorow: Relational Individualism

Study of self and interpersonal relations in family context needs to recognize the cultural embeddedness of these phenomena as well as of the constructs used to study them. A great deal of psychological theorizing on the self, self-other relations and family dynamics reflect the Western individualistic ethos. This has permeated theory, research, and applications, extending into popular psychology.

Connected and Separate Selves/Family

Tips for Crossing Cultures Individualists interacting with collectivists should: Pay attention to the other’s group memberships and authorities; these define important norms, roles, and attitudes. Seek to persuade by getting the person’s superiors to signal approval and show how the other’s groups will benefit. Emphasize harmony and cooperation. Help the other save face. Avoid confrontation. Criticize gently and in private, after praising. Patiently cultivate long-term relationships. The other prefers doing business with old friends. Intimacy develops gradually. If the others is East-Asian, expect unjustified modesty and self-depreciation. Begin presentations more modestly than you normally would. Let the other know your social position, so the other knows how to relate to you. Expect age to engender respect. Who you are matters more than what you’ve accomplished. Regard the other’s accompanying you and spending time with you as relationship-building, not as an invasion of your privacy.

Collectivists interacting with individualists should: Pay less attention to the other’s groups (when outside the group context) than to the other’s personal beliefs and attitudes. Expect the other to be less worried about what superiors think and more influenced by peers and spouse than in your culture. Emphasize personal costs and benefits of what you propose. Be aware that lack of criticism may be interpreted as approval. Feel free to get right to business, with few preliminaries. Expect relationships to be good-natured but superficial and short-term. Feel free to present yourself in a positive light but without obvious boasting. It’s okay to speak highly of your skills and accomplishments. Expect the other to care less about status differences, such as your age or position. Avoid being bossy to those of lower status or servile toward those of higher status. Do not expect to be accompanied at all times. Individualists are comfortable alone, and show their confidence by leaving you on your own.

VALUE OF CHILDREN (VOC) STUDY A Three-Decade Portrait from Turkey 1975-2003. Provides evidence for change over time with socio-economic development and urbanization. Recent VOC study results from Korea, South Africa, France, Germany, Israel, India, Indonesia and China concur. Kagitcibasi, C. & Ataca, B. (2005) Value of children and family change : A three-decade portrait from Turkey. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 3, 317-337 (and the whole special issue: G.Trommsdorff, U. Kim & B. Nauck, Eds.)

Value of Children (Min:8, Max:24)

Old age security as reason for having a child or wanting another (in percentages)

Expectation of Financial Help from Sons and Daughters

Characteristics most and second most desired in child (in percentages)

Reasons for Wanting a Child: 1975 VOC Study Mothers vs Reasons for Wanting a Child: 1975 VOC Study Mothers vs. 2003 VOC Study Mothers in Turkey

Expectations of Financial/Material Help from Sons and Daughters Expectations of Financial/Material Help from Sons and Daughters. 1975 VOC Study Mothers vs. 2003 VOC Study Mothers in Turkey A: Financial assistance to siblings B: Help with housework C: Financial assistance to you

MODEL OF INTERDEPENDENCE Context Family systems Socialization values Family/group loyalties Emotional/material investment in parents Interdependence values Utilitarian value of children economic VOC old-age security VOC material expectations from child Son preference Family Interaction & Socialization Authoriatrian parenting Obedience/dependence orientation in childrearing Intergenerational/familial independence Interpersonal interdependence Development of related self Culture Culture of relatedness (collectivistic) Living Conditions Rural / agrarian Subsistence / low affluence Family Structure - Functionally extended family structure - Wealth flows toward parents - Patrilineal ties - High ertility - Low woman’s status – causal relationship/influence  Mutual causation/interaction  feedback

MODEL OF INDEPENDENCE Family systems Context Socialization values Individual loyalties Emotional/material investment in child Independence values Psycholgogical value of children Low son preference Family Interaction & Socialization Relatively permissing parenting Autonomy/self-reliance orientation in childrearing Intergenerational/familial independence Interpersonal independence Development of separate self Culture Culture of separateness (individualistic) Living Conditions Urban/industrial Affluence Family Structure - Nuclear family structure - Wealth flows toward children - Nuclear family ties - Low fertility - High woman’s status – causal relationship/influence  Mutual causation/interaction  feedback

MODEL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERDEPENDENCE Context Family systems Culture Culture of relatedness (collectivistic) Living Conditions Urbanization Industrialization Increased affluence Socialization values Family/group loyalties + individual loyalties Emotional investment in parents Emotional/material investment in child Emotional Interdependence values Psychological value of children Decreased son preference Family Interaction & Socialization Authoritative parenting Control + autonomy Control and autonomy orientation in childrearing Intergenerational/familial emotional interdependence Interpersonal interdependence Development of autonomous-related self Family Structure - Functionally complex family structure - Wealth flows toward children - Nuclear + kin ties - low fertility - Increased woman’s status – causal relationship/influence  Mutual causation/interaction  feedback

FAMILY MODELS, PARENTING AND THE SELF Interdependence Independence Psychological interdependence Parenting style Authoritarian Relatively permissive Authoritative Child rearing orientation Control / obedience Autonomy / self reliance Control / autonomy Self Heteronomous Related Autonomous separate Autonomous-related

THEORY OF FAMILY CHANGE Based originally on the Value of Children Study (VOC, 1970s); developed further and confirmed by the VOC 2003 Study and other research. Convergence toward the Family Model of Psychological/ Emotional Interdependence in conjunction with: - Socio-economic development (increased urbanization, education, affluence) - Immigration

RESEARCH EVIDENCE: Stewart, Bond, Deeds & Chung (1999) in Hong Kong found persistance of family interdependencies together with some individualistic values; family relatedness and parental control were seen in “modern” families. Kwak (2003) in review of research noted the common preference of adolescents for both autonomy and family relatedness. Koutrelakos (2004) found decreasing material but continuing emotional interdependencies in Greek Americans with acculturation. Georgas, Berry, Van de Vijver, Kagitcibasi & Poortinga (2005) in a 27-country study of the family found evidence for autonomy and relatedness to coexist in the psychologically interdependent family.

AUTONOMY- RELATEDNESS DYNAMICS: THE SELF MODEL AUTONOMY- RELATEDNESS DYNAMICS: A Challenge for Psychology Because construed as both: -Basic Human Needs and as -Conflicting Ever since the ‘Conflict Theories of Personality’ (Angyal, 1951 & Bakan, 1966)

TWO BASIC HUMAN NEEDS: - Autonomy - Relatedness A. Freud (1930/1961) Egoistic urge (toward happiness) Urge toward union Angyal (1951) Autonomy Surrender Bakan (1966) Agency Communion Bowen (1966) Individuality Togetherness Bowlby (1969) Separation Attachment Franz & White (1985) Individuation Guisinger & Blatt (1994) Self-definition Interpersonal relatedness Ryan, Deci & Grolnick (1995) Relatedness Kagitcibasi (1996)

The construal of Autonomy and Relatedness as Conflicting has prevailed over Autonomy and Relatedness as Basic Needs Thus, Relatedness is seen as incompatible with Autonomy or Separation from others is seen as necessary for autonomy (“Separation-Individuation” hypothesis)

What is the underlying reason? Not evolutionary, which rather stresses the survival value of cooperation and relatedness in humans and other primates (Euler et al, 2001; Guisinger & Blatt, 1994). It is cultural ... Western Individualism as a ‘Cultural Affordance’ (Kitayama, 2002; Poortinga, 1992).

Interpersonal Distance: Yet, it is neither logically nor psychologically necessary for Autonomy to mean Separateness if we recognize the existence of two distinct dimensions: Agency: Autonomy Heteronomy (dependency) Interpersonal Distance: Separateness Relatedness

They reflect the basic human needs of autonomy and relatedness. The two dimensions underlie self, self-other relations and social behaviors. They reflect the basic human needs of autonomy and relatedness. As distinct dimensions, either pole of each one can coexist with either pole of the other one. Kagitcibasi, C. (1996). The autonomous-relational self: A new synthesis. European Psychologist, 1, 180-186.

Agency Interpersonal Distance low high low high heteronomous related autonomous related low high heteronomous separate autonomous separate

A Conceptual Model of Different Types of Selves AGENCY Autonomy Heteronomy Autonomous-Separate self Autonomous-related self INTERPERSONAL DISTANCE Separation Relatedness Heteronomous-separate self Heteronomous-related self

This conceptualization renders viable The Autonomous-Related Self Despite the consensual agreement that Autonomy and Relatedness are basic needs, this self construal has not been readily recognized in psychology, even in cross-cultural psychology. Yet, this model promises to be a healthy integration, since it satisfies both basic needs. Kagitcibasi, C. (2005). Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context: Implications for self and family. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 4, 403-422.

AGENCY, INTERPERSONAL DISTANCE AND THE TYPES OF SELVES IN CONTEXT Autonomy Heteronomy Family model of independence Self-reliance orientation Autonomous-Separate self Family model of psychological interdependence Order setting control and autonomy orientation Autonomous-related self INTERPERSONAL DISTANCE Separation Relatedness Hierarchical neglecting family Neglecting, indifferent orientation Heteronomous-separate self Family model of interdependence Obedience orientation Heteronomous-related self

Two paths toward the Autonomous-Related Self Value of Children Study Family Change Theory (Family Model of Psychological/ Emotional Interdependence) Two basic Human Needs Model of Autonomous-Related Self

Two different theoretical routes toward the Autonomous-Related self Theory of Family Change Context : Culture of relatedness Urban Life Styles Family: Model of emotional/ psychological inter- dependance Parenting: Control, warmth, autonomy orientation Model of Self Two basic human needs: Autonomy + Relatedness Two underlying dimensions: Agency + Interpersonal Distance (autonomy/ (separateness/ Heteronomy) Relatedness) Autonomous Related Self

WHAT ARE SOME THEORETICAL ISSUES? Two Ungoing Debates: Positive or negative association between Autonomy & Relatedness and the ‘existence’ of autonomy in collectivistic ‘cultures of relatedness’ 2. Contrasting views on Parenting and Parent-Child/Adolescent relations

RECENT DEBATE Attachment Theory Self Determination Theory Kagitcibasi’s A-R Self and Family Model of Psychological Interdependence Positive association Between Autonomy & Relatedness VERSUS Psychoanalytic Theory “Conflict”theories Cross-Cultural values orientation to I-C Nagative association Between autonomy & Relatedness

The two dimensions of interpersonal distance and agency can indeed fit together, loading on the same factor, in sociocultural contexts, such as in Northern Europe (Beyers et al., 2003), where being both autonomous and separate is valued, but not in other sociocultural contexts where being connected is valued and does not imply lacking autonomy. (Kagitcibasi, 2005).

When Autonomy is accompanied by Relatedness, it may be manifested in different ways: - Socially oriented vs. individually oriented achievement motivation (Phalet & Claeys, 1993; Agarwal & Misra, 1986; Yu & Yang, 1994) - Duty-centered (communal) vs. individual-centered (voluntaristic) morality (Miller, 1990, 2003) - Self-enhancement vs. ingroup enhancement (Muramoto & Yamagushi, 1997)

Conceptual/Measurement Issues Individualism/Independent Self scales tap separateness but also autonomy Collectivism/Interdependent Self scales items tap relatedness but also heteronomy By implication, the importance, even the existence of autonomy in closely-knit collectivistic cultures has been questioned (Iyengar & Lepper, 1999; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Oishi, 2000; Rothbaum et al., 2000; Miller, 2002).

Conceptual/Measurement issues (Cont.) In much cross-cultural research and theory individualism is understood as autonomy . This is especially the case for Normative I-C (Values) Thus issues of both conceptualization and measurement

RESEARCH EVIDENCE Kim, Butzel & Ryan (1998) showed a more positive relation between autonomy and relatedness than with separateness in both Korean and American samples. Keller et al (2003) found Greek mothers’ interaction styles with infants to lead to autonomy and relatedness but German mothers’ to autonomy and separateness. Beyers, Goossens, Vansant, & Moors (2003) found separation and agency as two independent dimensions. Beyers, Goossens (1999); Chen & Dornbush (1998); Garber & Little (2001) showed separateness from parents to be associated with developmental problems.

RESEARCH EVIDENCE (Cont.) Chou (2000) in Hong Kong found individuation to be associated with depression in adolescents. Phalet & Schonpflug (2001) found among Turkish immigrants in Germany parental autonomy goals do not imply separateness, and achievement values are associated with parental collectivism, not individualism. Aydın & Öztütüncü (2001) found depression to be associated with separateness in Turkish adolescents, but not with high parental control. Meeus, Oosterwegel & Vollebergh (2002) found with Dutch, Turkish & Moroccon adolescents that secure attachment fosters agency.

SELF and SELF-IN-FAMILY SCALES An Autonomy Scale that does not tap/ confound Separateness and A Relatedness Scale that does not tap/ confound Heteronomy needed: SELF and SELF-IN-FAMILY SCALES Separate forms for Self and Self-in-Family experience Also Autonomous-Related Self Scale (Kagitcibasi, 2005)

Autonomous Self Scale People who are close to me have little influence on my decisions. I do not like a person to interfere with my life even if he/she is very close to me. I feel independent of the people who are close to me. I lead my life according to the opinions of people to whom I feel close. (R) The opinions of those who are close to me influence me on personal issues. (R) While making decisions, I consult with those who are close to me. (R) On personal issues, I accept the decisions of people to whom I feel very close. (R) I usually try to conform to the wishes of those to whom I feel very close. (R) I can easily change my decisions according to the wishes of those who are close to me. (R) Alpha = 0.74

Related Self Scale I need the support of persons to whom I feel very close. I prefer to keep a certain distance in my close relationships. (R) Generally, I keep personal issues to myself. (R) The people who are close to me strongly influence my personality. I think often of those to whom I feel very close. I do not worry about what people think of me even if they are close to me. (R) Those who are close to me are my top priority. My relationships to those who are close to me make me feel peaceful and secure. I do not share personal matters with anyone, even if very close to me. (R) Alpha = 0.78

Autonomous-Relational Self Scale It is important to have both close relationships and also to be autonomous. Even if the suggestions of those who are close are considered, the last decision should be one’s own. A person who has very close relationships cannot make his/her own decisions. (R) A person should be able to oppose the ideas of those who are close. Giving importance to the opinions of those who are close to me means ignoring my own opinions. (R) Being very close to someone prevents being independent. (R) A person can feel both independent and connected to those who are close to him/her. In order to be autonomous, one should not form close relationships. (R) A person may be attached to those who are close, and at the same time, expect respect for any differences of opinion. Alpha = 0.84

Autonomous-Related Self- in-Family Scales (Kagitcibasi) Autonomous Self-in-Family Scale 1. I feel independent of my family. 2. I usually try to agree with the wishes of my family. (R) 3. I do not have to think the way my family does. 4. People should receive approval from their families for their future plans. (R) 5. I avoid making decisions with which my family would not agree. (R) 6. On personal issues, I accept the decisions of my family. (R) 7. I would not be close to someone whom my family does not agree. (R) 8. Independent of my family, I can not make my decisions easily. (R) 9. I can easily change my decisions according to the wishes of my family. (R) Alpha = .84 9 Items, Lowest factor loading: Item 1 : .53  

Related Self-in-Family Scale   1. I prefer to keep a certain distance in my relationship with my family. (R) 2. During hard times, I would like to know that my family will be with me. 3. The time that I spend with my family is not important for me. (R) 4. Feeling very close to the family is a good thing. 5. My family is my top priority. 6. I feel myself closely attached to my family. 7. My relationship with my family makes me feel peaceful and secure. 8. I am very close with my family. 9. I don’t enjoy spending much time with my family. (R) Alpha = .84 8 Items, Lowest factor loading: Item 1: .49

Autonomous-Related Self-in-Family Scale   1. One should not hesitate to express his/her own ideas, even if he/she values his/her family. 2. A person may be very close to his/her family and at the same time can make his/her decisions. 3. A person can feel both independent and emotionally connected to his/her family. 4. A person may be attached to his/her family, and at the same time, expect respect for any differences of opinion. Alpha = .77 4 Items, Lowest factor loading: Item 1: .59

A Developmental Perspective and Research Evidence point to the importance of Parenting Relations among Parental Control/ Warmth and Autonomy The Psychoanalytically informed views which endorse separation also endorse permissive discipline and associate strong parental control with parental hostility (or lack of warmth) and Authoritarian Parenting. This is the case since the Authoritarian Personality Theory (Adorno et al, 1950)

SHIFTS IN OUR THINKING REGARDING PARENTAL ORIENTATIONS From : Parental Control versus Autonomy To : Parental Control and Autonomy and From : Control versus Warmth To : Control and Warmth

CONTROL and AUTONOMY CONTROL and WARMTH Empirical Evidence Lau et al. (1990) Lin & Fu (1990) Cha (1994) Phalet & Schonpflug (2001) Models Kağıtçıbaşı (1990,1996a,b) CONTROL and WARMTH Empirical Evidence Kağıtçıbaşı (1970) Rohner & Pettengill (1985) Trommsdorf (1985) Ryan & Lynch (1989) Kim, Butzel & Ryan (1998) Jose et al. (2000) Oosterwegel & Vollebergh (2002) Kwak (2003) Lansford et al. (2003) Dekovic, Pels & Model (in press) Models Baumrind (1980, 1989) Maccoby & Martin (1983)

The implications of these conceptualizations and research for immigration as an Example: Immigration most often involves contact between ‘culture of relatedness’ (immigrants) and individualistic ‘culture of separateness’ (host society). Ethnic minority parents tend to be labeled ‘authoritarian’ because of strong parental discipline because it appears very controlling (Gonzales, et al, 1996). But, this may be a wrong attribution because there is often also relatedness and warmth (psychological value of children) in the Family Model of Psychological Interdependence. Especially those with higher education who also allow autonomy.

Ethnic Minority Research in Europe and the U.S. point to: Closely-Knit family relations and Parental control together with care (warmth) Chao (1994) Smetana & Gaines (1999) Jose et al. (2000) Kwak (2003) Lansford et al. (2003) Dekovic et al. (2005)

Where autonomy and control coexist The Explanatory Factor Underlying the Findings: Family Model of Psychological Interdependence Where autonomy and control coexist Permissive independence-oriented parenting not endorsed by immigrants because it carries the risk of separation (of the child from the family) in adolescence-young adulthood The goal is not separation but closeness (emotional interdependence) Immigrants disapprove the ‘too lenient’ Dutch childrearing and the ‘disrespectful’ behavior of Dutch children (‘on top of their mothers’ heads’’)

A TREND TOWARD CONVERGENCE? From The perspective of Family Change and Self Models, a convergence toward - Family Model of Psychological Interdependence and Autonomous- Related self may be predicted. This prediction holds for: - the Majority World and for immigrants with increased need for autonomy in child rearing as an adaptation to socio-economic development and to changing life styles, the Minority World with increased need for relatedness. A caveat: This trend may be counteracted by cultural diffusion of dominant Western individualistic models.

Proposed Shift Toward the Psychological/Emotional Interdependence Model and Autonomous-Related Self (Convergence) Family (Total) Model Interdependence Psychological/Emotional Interdependence Independence Heteronomous/ Related Autonomous/ Related Autonomous/ Separate Self Model

- Psychologically /Emotionally Interdependent Family Thus Possibly a Universal Optimal Developmental Model because of Converging Life Styles and Basic Human Needs Involving: - Autonomous-Related Self - Psychologically /Emotionally Interdependent Family