The relationship between interdependent self-construal and psychological wellbeing: mediating roles of important human values.
Human values or value systems, which are about things we attach importance to, go a long way to influence our overall behaviours. Indeed, knowledge of what an individual or a group of individuals holds as important , and of the degree of importance attached to it, may be predictive of the behavior of such people. Thus, to the extent that individuals and groups of individuals differ in personality and culture, respectively, their beliefs and orientations as to whether certain issues are important; and if they are, how much they are important, constitute their values. For example, it is common knowledge that male dominance culture is global; it is also common knowledge that Africans attach more importance to it than Europeans or North Americans. This kind of culture-oriented difference in salient aspects of the human value system can be found in several other domains of human lives.
The scopes of human cultures and values being very wide have prompted authors and researchers to continually attempt to develop theories that help situate the phenomena as global. Two of such attempts are as outstanding as they are important to the present study. They include Hofstede's cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 1980) and Schwartz's Value Survey (Schwartz, 1990). The Hofstede's cultural dimensions characterize a given culture as comprising of four dimensions: power distance, the extent to which a society accepts unequal distribution of power; uncertainty avoidance, the extent to which a society feels threatened by uncertainty and ambiguity; individualism-collectivism, the extent of social coupling and group identity, and masculinity-femininity, the extent to which dominant values in society emphasize assertiveness and material acquisition (Kanungo and Mendonca, 1994).
Among others, individualism-collectivism provide a basis for characterizing and differentiating societies on the strength of their dominant cultures. People in individualistic societies, comprising mainly of Western countries, perceive themselves as unique and independent from others. Essentially, individualism involves loose ties among individuals in a society whereby everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family (Oppenheimer, 2004). The self is defined mainly in terms of internal attributes such as abilities and attitudes (e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Utz, 2004), and the uniqueness of the self is valued highly (Utz, 2004). Whereas, people in collectivist societies, most of whom are found in Eastern as well as developing societies, perceive themselves as connected to others; to a much greater degree the self is defined in terms of group memberships, relationships to family and friends as well as social roles such that similarities with others and common goals are more important than in individualistic cultures (Utz, 2004). Individuals in these societies are, from birth onward, part of cohesive ingroups, which throughout their lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty (Oppenheimer, 2004).
Also typical of, and very important to, collectivistic cultures, compared to individualistic cultures, is the ingroup--outgroup distinction. This distinction demands, from members of collectivistic societies, higher levels of cooperation with ingroup members, but lower levels of cooperation with outgroup members in comparison to people from individualistic cultures (e.g., Iyengar, Lepper, & Ross, 1999; Leung & Iwawaki, 1988; Yamagishi, 1988; Utz, 2004).
Defining values as motivational constructs that represent goals or criteria individuals use to identify, validate and guide their behavior, Schwartz and his colleagues (e,g., Schwartz, 1992, 1994; Shwartz and Anat, 2001) developed the Schwartz's Value Survey as a core set of 10 motivational values which can be understood as explanatory of behavior across cultures (Cole, Stanton, Deveaux, Harris, Lunn, Cuttrell, Clemens, Li, Marshal, and Baine, 2007). The ten values include Power (social status and control), Self-direction (independent thought and action), Achievement (personal success by demonstrating competence according to prevailing social standards), Hedonism (seeking pleasure for self), Stimulation (excitement, novelty and challenge), Universalism (tolerance, protecting the rights of all), Benevolence (helpful, loyal, honest and forgiving), Tradition (respect, commitment and acceptance of culture), Conformity (restraint of actions that might upset others or violate social expectations), and Security (safety, harmony and stability of relations and state).
Schwartz's assumption that some values like power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation and self-direction serve individual interests, while others: tradition, conformity, security, universalism, and benevolence serve collective interests tested true in the results of his studies which portray more collectivistic societies, like Hong Kong and Spain, as favouring achievement values (Schwartz, 1990). But much more important are findings that strongly indicate agreement on the hierarchical order of values across nations such that certain pro-social values including Benevolence, Self-direction and Universalism are consistently ranked as most important, while Power, Tradition and Stimulation are ranked lower (Schwartz, 1990; Cole, 2007). If this is anything to go by, it is imperative to answer the question of whether the three values (Benevolence, Self-direction and Universalism) judged globally as the most important among others are as important as to set limits on people's psychological wellbeing, especially in collectivist cultures where higher premium is placed on adherence to, and observance of all cultural values. Also, granted that self-direction is regarded as a value that serves individual interest (Schwartz, 1990), whether it will impact psychological wellbeing negatively, compared to benevolence and universalism, which are understood to serve collective interest in a collectivist society, is another question this study is set to answer.
A better appreciation of how these values, operating within a collectivist culture, may impact wellbeing can be facilitated by a close look at the theoretical and empirical accounts of the characteristics and conception of the self in collectivist cultures compared to individualist cultures, and the implications of belonging to either for psychological wellbeing. From Wagner and Hollenbeck's (1995) perspective on individualism-collectivism, pursuing personal interests is important, and succeeding in the pursuit of these interests is critical to both personal and societal wellbeing if only for the fact that if each person takes care of personal interests, then everyone will be well off. The perspective, however, favours collectivism by emphasizing that group welfare is more important than personal interests, and that holders of such a view believe that only by belonging to a group and looking after its interests can they secure their own personal wellbeing and that of the broader society. The members of collectivist cultures are thus inclined to ignore personal needs for the sake of their groups, ensuring group wellbeing even if personal hardships must be endured occasionally (Wagner and Hollenbeck, 1995). Accordingly, these two views of the individual in society determine the degree to which people feel independent, on one hand, or interdependent, on the other.
Feeling either independent or interdependent is consistent with the 'cultural-self perspective' (Sedikides, Gaertner, and Toguchi, 2003), according to which independent and interdependent self-construals derive from different norms or ideals a person has to fulfill in order to be or to become a good person within his or her social environment. According to this perspective, norms that foster independent self-construals are best fulfilled by the person defining him or herself as unique, expressing and realizing his or her internal attributes, and promoting own goals irrespective of the social context; whereas, norms fostering interdependent self-construal are best met by the person who tries to fit into varying social contexts, i.e. to occupy his or her proper place and to adjust behavior to what is considered most appropriate within the given social context (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Markus, Mullally, & Kitayama, 1997).
The self-construal level theory, which appears to appropriately situates this, suggests that people have distinctive levels of self-representation (e.g., Brewer, & Gardner, 1996; Gardner, Gabriel, & Lee, 1999). Drawing on this theory provides a basis for which members of individualistic (Western) countries learn to place emphasis on characteristics that make them unique and separate from others, while members of collectivistic (Eastern) countries learn to place emphasis on characteristics that make them similar and well-suited to maintain harmony with others (Lee, Aaker, & Gardner, 2000). While being independent or interdependent has a strong link with individuals' socialization experiences within the purviews or peculiarities of their cultures, the socialization process that brings about collectivism and interdependence would appear to be stronger than that which reinforces individualism due largely to the communal and closely-knit nature of interpersonal relationships in the former. In such cultures, children are taught of their place in relation to society and of the obligations they have to others (e.g., Wang & Leichtman, 2000). Thus, whereas an individualistic orientation may emphasize a person's need to "be himself' and to do what comes naturally, a collectivist orientation emphasizes the opposite, encouraging meeting the needs and expectations of others over the expression of one's individuality (Utz, 2004). The individualist does not necessarily have a strong feeling of commitment to any of the groups to which he or she belongs, but a collectivist can find changes in his or her membership status traumatic (Wagner and Hollenbeck, 1995).
Therefore, apart from members of collectivist societies being more intolerable of deviations from their cultural values and norms of behavior, gross violations of collectivist values, or inability to relate interdependently with other members of the society would have potentials for precipitating unpleasant feelings and emotions, which would ultimately affect psychological wellbeing. Since cultures not only differ in terms of the extent to which persons emphasize relationships (interdependence) or personal values (independence) in their thinking and behavior (e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Mesquita, 2001), but also in terms of the individual differences that characterize the people who hold these orientations within society, every collectivist society must have individuals with varying degrees of interdependence. Although these differences are understood to largely influence both cognitive and motivational processes (Cross, Bacon, & Morris, 2000), their influence on emotional outcomes and psychological wellbeing as a whole would be substantial when mediated by important collectivist-oriented values, compared to when mediated by an important individualist-oriented value.
Apart from being described as the most important of the ten global values identified in Schwartz's value theory (Schwartz, 1990; Cole, 2007), benevolence, universalism, and self-direction have features which make them either absolutely compatible or diametrically opposed to collectivism. Apart from its defining goal of preserving and enhancing the welfare of those with whom one is in frequent personal contact (the 'in-group'), benevolence values derive from the basic requirement for smooth group functioning (Kluckhohn, 1951; Williams, 1968) and from the organismic need for affiliation (Korman, 1974; Maslow, 1965), with most critical affiliation for relations within the family and other primary groups. Benevolence values are also said to emphasize voluntary concern for others' welfare characterized by helpful, honest, forgiving, responsible, loyal, true friendly, and mature loving behaviours (Schwartz, 1992). Universalism is similar to benevolence in that it seeks to understand, appreciate, tolerate, and protect others for the welfare of all people and for nature, but differs in that it emphasizes the importance of accepting others who are different from one's in-group and treating them justly as key to harmonious relationships and living (Schwartz, 1992). To the extent that the two values share the same goal of others' welfare, they are likely to thrive more in collectivist cultures.
And because they are ranked among the three most important human values, they are likely the channels through which interdependent self-construal influence psychological wellbeing. However, it is intuitive to expect benevolence to explain more of the relationship between interdependent self-construal and psychological wellbeing, than universalism would probably explain due to the fact that benevolence characteristically focuses on in-group members while universalism extends its benefit also to out-group members.
On the contrary, however, self-direction, which is also one of the three most important values (benevolence and universalism being the other two) [Schwartz, 1990; Cole, 2007], is regarded as a value that serves individual interest (Schwartz, 1990). Deriving from organismic needs for control and mastery (e.g., Bandura, 1977; Deci, 1975) and interactional requirements of autonomy and independence (e.g., Kluckhohn, 1951; Kohn & Schooler, 1983; Morris, 1956), self-direction seeks, through independent thought and action, to choose, create, and explore; and is thus characterized by curious and independent behaviours as well as creativity, freedom, and choosing own goals (Schwartz, 1990). In view of these features of self-direction which seem to favour an independent self-construal rather than an interdependent one, the relationship between interdependent self-construal and psychological wellbeing would be mediated by self-direction only if the relationship is negative. Because, a positive relationship between interdependent self-construal and psychological wellbeing is what is expected, self-direction would not be expected to mediate this relationship.
Participants in the study were 248 undergraduate students of the Faculty of Arts of the Olabisi Onabanjo University in Nigeria, whose ages ranged between 18 and 30 with a mean age of 24.06 (SD = 8.58). While 114 (46%) of them were males, the remaining 134 (54%) were females.
Intruments used in the study included the Psychological Wellbeing Scale (Ryff, 1989); the Benevolence, Self-direction, and Universalism dimensions of the Schwartz's Value Survey (Schwartz, 1992) and the Interdependent Self-construal subscale of the Self-Construal Scale (Singelis, 1994). The scales were reported by the authors to demonstrate good reliabilities and validities.
Data Collection: Data was gathered through responses tapped using questionnaires which were administered randomly on the 200 (part two)and 300 (part three) levels undergraduate students of the Department of History and Diplomatic Studies, the Faculty of Arts, Olabisi Onabanjo University. The response rate was about 95% as one of the lecturers in the Department assisted to secure the cooperation of the students.
Data Scoring & Analysis: Responses gathered were scored as prescribed by the respective authors of the scales used. Hierarchical, simple, and multiple regression analyses, were employed in testing the propositions of the study.
An hierarchical regression analysis was performed to determine the extent to which interdependent self-construal, benevolence, universalism, and self-direction predicted psychological wellbeing. The result of this is presented in table 1.
As shown in table 1, model 1 reveals that the contribution of the control variables of age and sex to psychological wellbeing was insignificant (R2 = 0.01, F=1.24, P>0.05). However, when interdependent self-construal was introduced in model 2, with age and sex held constant, the prediction of psychological wellbeing was significant (R2 Change = 0.14, F=40.85, P< 0.01), and interdependent self-construal alone accounted for 14% of the variance in psychological wellbeing. Besides, the overall contribution, to psychological wellbeing, of interdependent self-construal, age, and sex, was 15% (R2= 0.15, F=40.85, P<0.01); although only the unique contribution of interdependent self-construal (P=0.38, P<0.01) was significant in this joint prediction, those of age and sex were not.
When benevolence, self-direction, and universalism were introduced en bloc in model 3 (with age, sex, and interdependent self-construal held constant), the trio accounted for 3% (R2 Change = 0.03, F=3.24, P<0.05) of the variance in psychological wellbeing. The overall prediction of psychological wellbeing by all the predictors in the study also increased to 18% (R2 = 0.18, F=3.24, P<0.05), with only the unique contributions of self-direction (P=0.15, P<0.05) and interdependent self-construal (P =0.34, P<0.01) being significant. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), for mediation to be significant, the following conditions must simultaneously hold: the independent variable must significantly predict the mediator when the mediator is used as a dependent variable; the independent variable must significantly predict the dependent variable; the mediator must significantly predict the dependent variable; and both the independent variable and the mediator must jointly/significantly predict the dependent variable and the unique contribution of the mediator must be significant in the joint prediction. Thus, to test whether the relationship between interdependent self-construal was mediated by benevolence, universalism, or self-direction, three different mediation tests were performed. In each of these tests, three simple regressions and one multiple regressions were carried out. Results are presented in tables 2, 3, and 4.
As table 2 reveals, psychological wellbeing was significantly predicted by interdependent self-construal ([R.sup.2] = 0.145, P< 0.01), and by benevolence ([R.sup.2] = 0.053, P< 0.01). Self-construal also predicted benevolence ([R.sup.2] = 0.048, P< 0.01) while interdependent self-construal and benevolence jointly predicted psychological wellbeing (R2= 0.164, P< 0.01), with the contribution of benevolence still being significant ([beta]= -0.144, P< 0.01). Since these results conformed with Baron and Kenny's (1986) conditions for mediation, benevolence significantly mediated the relationship between interdependent self-construal and psychological wellbeing. A further analysis carried out using the MedGraph (Jose, 2003, 2008) yielded a significant Sobel-z value (z=1.97, P<0.05). The MedGraph also shows that the mediation is a partial one, that psychological wellbeing among the students increased by 0.381 for one unit increase I interdependent self-construal ([beta]=0.381, P<0.01), and that benevolence significantly accounts for about 0.04 ([beta] = 0.04) of the predictive relationship between interdependent self-construal and psychological wellbeing.
Table 3, reveals that psychological wellbeing was significantly predicted by interdependent self-construal ([R.sup.2] = 0.145, P< 0.01); and by self-direction ([R.sup.2] = 0.053, P< 0.01). It also shows that self-direction was significantly predicted by interdependent self-construal ([R.sup.2] = 0.030, P< 0.01), and that interdependent self-construal and self-direction jointly predicted psychological wellbeing ([R.sup.2] = 0.172, P< 0.01), with the contribution of self-direction still being significant ([beta]= 0.168, P< 0.01). Since these also conformed with Baron and Kenny's (1986) conditions for mediation, self-direction significantly mediated the relationship between interdependent self-construal and psychological wellbeing. Furthermore, apart from yielding a significant Sobel-z value (z=2.85, P<0.01), the MedGraph also shows that the mediation is a partial one, that psychological wellbeing among the students increased by 0.381 for one unit increase in interdependent self-construal ([beta]=0.381, P<0.01), and that self-direction significantly accounts for about 0.03 ([beta] = 0.03) of this predictive relationship between interdependent self-construal and psychological wellbeing.
From table 4, it emerges that psychological wellbeing was significantly predicted by interdependent self-construal ([R.sup.2] = 0.145, P< 0.01) and universalism ([R.sup.2] = 0.098, P< 0.01). It is also clear that universalism was significantly predicted by interdependent selfconstrual ([R.sup.2] = 0.036, P< 0.01), and that interdependent selfconstrual and universalism jointly predicted psychological wellbeing ([R.sup.2] = 0.150, P< 0.01), although only the unique contribution of interdependent self-construal was significant still ([beta]=0.356, P<0,01) that of universalism was not ([beta] = 0.079, P>0.05). For the insignificance of the mediator, universalism, in its joint prediction (along with interdependent self-construal) of psychological wellbeing, this result does not conform with Baron and Kenny's (1986) conditions for mediation. Therefore, universalism did not mediate the relationship between interdependent self-construal and psychological wellbeing. Further analysis using the MedGraph corroborated this. The Sobel-z value of the mediation and the regression coefficient of the universalism-mediated (or indirect) relationship between interdependent self-construal and psychological wellbeing were both not significant at z =1.24, P>0.05, and P=0.025, P>0.05, respectively
Although the results of this study were largely not as expected, they provide insight into the dynamics of human culture and values and their consequences. As expected, interdependent self-construal is positively related to, and is, alone, predictive of about 14% of, psychological wellbeing. Interdependent self-construal also had not only positive, but stronger, unique relationships with psychological wellbeing than other variables with which psychological wellbeing was predicted throughout the study. Although interdependent self-construal contributed to psychological wellbeing more than any other variable in the study, whether its relationship with psychological wellbeing could be regarded as substantial may not be readily deducible from the result of this study as no comparison was made with any individualist or independent sample. However, the finding is supported by Wagner and Hollenbeck's (1995) perspective on individualism-collectivism which depicts collectivistic group welfare as more important than personal interests, while also portraying holders of such a view as typically believing that only by belonging to a group and looking after its interests can they secure their own personal wellbeing and that of the broader society. The rationale behind this perspective is that putting group interests and welfare before self-interest is the only guarantee of personal wellbeing. This seems to suggest that in collectivist or interdependent societies, individual wellbeing is meaningless if the group's wellbeing suffers; whereas the group's overall wellbeing assures individual members wellbeing. If this assertion is valid, it would not only corroborate past findings that the self-construal is crucial to psychological wellbeing (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Markus, Mullally, & Kitayama, 1997; Utz, 2004), but also that interdependent self-construal can guarantee as much psychological wellbeing as has been attributed to independent self-construal in literature (e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Mesquita, 2001; Cross et.al, 2000; Utz, 2004).
As expected benevolence mediated the relationship between interdependent self-construal and psychological wellbeing. Although benevolence was not significantly related to psychological wellbeing, its defining goals seem to situate it as an essential component of collectivism and interdependence. Recalling Schwartz (1992), benevolence values emphasize voluntary concern for others' welfare and is thus characterized by helpful, honest, forgiving, responsible, loyal, true friendly, and loving behaviours. Relating this to Wagner and Hollenbeck's (1995) theory that identifying with a group and keenly looking after its interest is key to group/collective wellbeing which is precursory to experiencing personal wellbeing, it becomes clear that benevolence overlaps so much with interdependent self construal. Essentially, collectivist group members need be benevolent for their interdependent conception of their selves to have an incremental influence/relationship with their sense of wellbeing.
A rather surprising result is that of the significant and positive relationship between self-direction and psychological wellbeing. This is because self-direction is regarded as a value that serves individual interest seeking, through independent thought and action, to choose, create, and explore; and is thus characterized by curious and independent behaviours as well as creativity, freedom, and choosing own goals (Schwartz, 1990). These attributes of self-direction appear to make it a suitable and appropriate value system shared by members of individualist societies most of whom would be independent in orientation. For example norms that foster independent self-construals are understood to be best fulfilled by the person defining him or herself as unique, expressing and realizing his or her internal attributes, and promoting own goals irrespective of the social context. With this seeming overlap with independent self-construal and dissimilarity with interdependent self-construal, self-direction would have been expected to be negatively related to psychological wellbeing among collectivist or interdependent people. However, this finding can be attributed to the fact that self-direction is one the three pro-social values (Benevolence and Universalism being the other two) which have been consistently ranked as most important across societies (Schwartz, 1990; Cole, 2007). As this may suggest, self-direction may be as important as to be crucial to psychological wellbeing across cultures irrespective of whether they are collectivist or individualist.
Self-direction also mediates the relationship between interdependent self-construal and psychological wellbeing but not as expected. However, the explanation in the foregoing still holds for this mediation. If self-direction is so important and it is so ranked across societies (Schwartz, 1990; Cole, 2007), it is also likely that it mediates the relationship between cultural orientations, more specifically, interdependent orientations and psychological wellbeing, as has been found in the present study.
Universalism was not significantly related to psychological wellbeing; it also did not mediate the relationship between interdependent self-construal and psychological wellbeing. These were also unexpected on the grounds that Schwartz's (1992) value theory situate universalism as being similar, in attributes, characteristics, and goals, to benevolence differing only in that while benevolence is limited to promoting the interest and welfare of ingroup members, universalism transcends group-oriented behavior and entails promoting the interest and welfare of the entire humanity. Therefore, the results suggest that universalism neither predicts psychological wellbeing, nor mediates the relationship between interdependent self-construal and psychological wellbeing in collectivist cultures.
IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
The implications of the findings of this study are numerous. But emphasis will be laid only on how people with interdependent self-orientations may compare or contrast with their counterparts with independent self-orientations on the human values of benevolence, self-direction, and universalism, as well as on psychological wellbeing. As deferred to earlier, the literature on culture and wellbeing is replete with findings which reveal the positive relationship of cultural identity on psychological wellbeing. That interdependent self-construal was related to psychological wellbeing in this study only gives impetus to extant research that how much of one's prevailing societal culture one imbibes sets limit on one's psychological wellbeing. More specifically, the more one identifies with such a culture, the more psychological healthy one would be.
Since both self-direction and benevolence mediated the relationship between interdependent self-construal and psychological wellbeing, individuals in collectivist societies, who are believed to be interdependent in self-orientation, may not attain all psychological wellbeing that their interdependence orientation may fosters except they exhibit a combination of some benevolence and self-direction. Although self-direction is believed to typically thrive more in individualist, compared to collectivist, cultures, the present research reveals that it may be as important in the latter as it is in the former.
The non-significance of universalism in both as a predictor of psychological wellbeing, and as mediator between interdependent self-construal and psychological wellbeing, tend to portray members of collectivist cultures, who are believed to be interdependent in self-construal, as people who restrict their pro-social behaviours only to their fellow (in-group) members. These also portray them as individuals who may not reckon regard pro-social behaviours to outgroup members as key to universal harmony, or a belief that may ultimately enhance psychological wellbeing, although whether universalism may enhance psychological wellbeing directly or indirectly remains to be researched.
While this is a limitation of this study, another limitation lies in the non-inclusion of an individualist sample in the study which would have served as a basis for comparison of individualism and collectivism, and more specifically independent and independent self-construals with respect to psychological wellbeing, as well as to benevolence, self-direction, and universalism. Future studies in this area are enjoined to look at these with a view to addressing these potential differences.
Ahiante, A (2004) "Soccour for street children". This Day, March 23.
Aransiola, J.O (2007) A Study of the Network of Support for Street Children in Nigeria. An Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation presented to the Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile--Ife, Nigeria.
Aptekar, L. (1994). "Street children in the developing world: A review of their condition". Cross-Cultural Research, 28(3), 195-224.
Bourdillon (2001) "The children on our streets". Reading for youth andchildcare workers". Issue 35, December 2001. Convention on the Right of the Child. United Nations General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989.
Gigenback R. (1994): "Social practices of juvenile survival and mortality: childcare arrangements in Mexico City". Comm Dev J 29: 380-393.
Human Rights Watch: "Street children", 2004.
Nigerian Child Right Acts 2003
Oloko SBA (1999): Child labour: the hidden workforce--children domestic labour. The Progress of Nigerian Children, Pg 48-51.
Patel, S (1990): "Street children hotel boys and children of pavement dwellers and construction workers in Bombay: How they meet their daily needs". Environmental and Urbanization: 2, 9-26.
Scanlon T, Scanlon F, Nobre Lamarao ML. (1993): "Working with street children". Development in Practice 3: 16-26.
Shelter Don Bosco (2003) "The world of street children". http://www.shelterdonbosco.org/index.html.
Subrahmanyan Y and Sondhi R. (1990) "Child porters: Psychosocial profile of street children". International Journal of Social Work, 51, 577582.
UNICEF (1998), "The State of the World's Children 1998 Report", UNICEF: Oxford University Press.
UNICEF (2001) "The state of the World's children".
Vasino, L (1990) "The socialization of street children: The Development and Transformation of identities". Sociological studies of child Development, 3, 139--161.
Olabisi Onabanjo University
E-mail address: email@example.com
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIPS OF INTERDEPENDENT SELF-CONSTRUAL, BENEVOLENCE, UNIVERSALISM, AND SELF-DIRECTION TO PSYCHOLOGICAL WELLBEING. Predictor MODEL 1 B Std Error [beta] Age 0.10 0.44 0.01 Sex 3.40 2.20 0.10 Intd. Slf Con Universalism Self-Direction Benevolence [R.sup.2] 0.01 [R.sup.2] Change 0.01 F for [R.sup.2] Change 1.24 Adjusted [R.sup.2] 0.00 Predictor MODEL 2 B Std Error [beta] Age -0.15 0.41 -0.02 Sex 2.86 2.04 0.08 Intd. Slf Con 0.64 0.10 0.38 ** Universalism Self-Direction Benevolence [R.sup.2] 0.15 [R.sup.2] Change 0.14 F for [R.sup.2] Change 40.85 ** Adjusted [R.sup.2] 0.14 Predictor MODEL 3 B Std Error [beta] Age -0.18 0.41 -0.03 Sex 2.14 2.04 0.06 Intd. Slf Con 0.58 0.10 0.34 ** Universalism -0.10 0.16 -0.05 Self-Direction 0.47 0.23 0.15 * Benevolence -0.32 0.22 -0.10 [R.sup.2] 0.18 [R.sup.2] Change 0.03 F for [R.sup.2] Change 3.24 * Adjusted [R.sup.2] 0.16 TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF TEST OF THE MEDIATION OF BENEVOLENCE IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERDEPENDENT SELF-CONSTRUAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELLBEING. COEFFICIENT OF PREDICTION REGRESSION B Standard Beta VARIABLES Error ([beta]) Intd. Self-Construal 0.639 0.099 0.381 ** predicts Wellbeing Intd. Self-Construal -0.088 0.025 -0.219 ** predicts Benevolence Benevolence predicts -0.710 0.192 -0.229 ** Wellbeing Intd. Self-Construal Intd. Self- 0.579 0.101 0.345 ** and Benevolence Construal predict Wellbeing Benevolence -0.445 0.187 -0.144 ** COEFFICIENT OF PREDICTION REGRESSION [R.sup.2] Adjusted VARIABLES [R.sup.2] Intd. Self-Construal 0.145 ** 0.141 ** predicts Wellbeing Intd. Self-Construal 0.048 ** 0.044 ** predicts Benevolence Benevolence predicts 0.053 ** 0.049 ** Wellbeing Intd. Self-Construal Intd. Self- and Benevolence Construal predict Wellbeing Benevolence 0.164 ** 0.157 ** Direct Relationship, p = 0.345 Indirect Relationship (i.e., through Benevolence), [beta] = 0.04 Sobel-z Statistic, z = 1.97, P<0.05 TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF TEST OF THE MEDIA TION OF SELF-DIRECTION IN THE RELA TIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERDEPENDENT SELF-CONSTRUAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELLBEING. COEFFICIENT OF PREDICTION REGRESSION VARIABLES B Standard Beta Error ([beta]) Intd. Self-Construal 0.639 0.099 0.381 ** predicts Wellbeing Intd. Self- 0.090 0.033 0.173 ** Construal predicts Self-Direction Self-Direction 0.740 0.200 0.229 ** predicts Wellbeing Intd. Self-Construal Intd. Self- 0.590 0.099 0.351 ** and Self-Direction Construal predict Wellbeing Self- 0.544 0.191 0.168 ** Direction COEFFICIENT OF PREDICTION REGRESSION VARIABLES [R.sup.2] Adjusted [R.sup.2] Intd. Self-Construal 0.145 ** 0.141 ** predicts Wellbeing Intd. Self- 0.030 ** 0.026 ** Construal predicts Self-Direction Self-Direction 0.053 ** 0.049 ** predicts Wellbeing Intd. Self-Construal Intd. Self- 0.172 ** 0.166 ** and Self-Direction Construal predict Wellbeing Self- Direction Direct Relationship, P = 0.351 Indirect Relationship (i.e., through Self-direction), [beta] = 0.03 Sobel-z Statistic, z = 2.85, P<0.01 TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF TEST OF THE MEDIATION OF UNIVERSALISM IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERDEPENDENT SELF-CONSTRUAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELLBEING. COEFFICIENT OF PREDICTION REGRESSION VARIABLES B Standard Beta Error ([beta]) Intd. Self-Construal 0.639 0.099 0.381 ** predicts Wellbeing Intd. Self-Construal 0.247 0.048 0.313 ** predicts Universalism Universalism 0.405 0.133 0.191 ** predicts Wellbeing Intd. Self-Construal Intd. Self- 0.597 0.104 0.356 ** and Universalism Construal predict Wellbeing Universalism 0.169 0.132 0.079 COEFFICIENT OF PREDICTION REGRESSION VARIABLES [R.sup.2] Adjusted [R.sup.2] Intd. Self-Construal 0.145 ** 0.141 ** predicts Wellbeing Intd. Self-Construal 0.098 ** 0.094 ** predicts Universalism Universalism 0.036 ** 0.032 ** predicts Wellbeing Intd. Self-Construal Intd. Self- 0.150 ** 0.144 ** and Universalism Construal predict Wellbeing Universalism Direct Relationship, P = 0.356 Indirect Relationship (i.e, through Universalism), P = 0.025 Sobel-z Statistic, z = 1.24, P>0.05