Source
Chirkov, Ryan, Kim and Kaplan (2003), LIT-1989, pp. 100–106; read in NOTE-1513.
What was actually shown
The measure. For 24 practices, six for each of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism, participants rated external, introjected, identified and integrated reasons, combined into a relative autonomy index (pp. 100–103).
The relation. In one regression per orientation, the index predicted a composite of life satisfaction, self-actualization, self-esteem and (reversed) depressive symptoms, β = .24, .24, .27 and .29 (Table 6), with no significant country × index interaction among twelve. Within each country, all sixteen betas were positive and significant (Table 7: Korea .23–.28, Russia .17–.24, Turkey .34–.42, USA .15–.22). Gender did not moderate. The relation could have been absent or reversed for collectivist or vertical practices, or in Korea; it was not.
Internalization differs by practice. Horizontal practices averaged 4.68 on the index and vertical 1.60, t(557) = 27.20 (p. 104).
What this does not say
- That autonomy causes well-being. The authors note the reverse is “conceivable” (p. 107).
- That the relation is equally strong everywhere. Turkey’s betas are roughly twice the USA’s; the interactions are non-significant in small samples, which does not bound them.
- That autonomy is distinct from individualism as a matter of fact. That is SDT’s definition. What is shown is that autonomy so measured predicts well-being for collectivist practices too.
- That autonomy is a need rather than a universal correlate of well-being (QUESTION-369).
- That vertical arrangements frustrate needs. The lower internalization is a mean difference on the authors’ item set, which they caution does not represent all vertical practices (p. 107).