Abele Andrea E, Hauke Nicole, Peters Kim, Louvet Eva, Szymkow Aleksandra, Duan Yanping
Department of Psychology and Sport Science, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg Erlangen, Germany.
School of Psychology, University of Queensland Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Front Psychol. 2016 Nov 22;7:1810. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01810. eCollection 2016.
Agency (A) and communion (C) are fundamental content dimensions. We propose a facet-model that differentiates A into assertiveness (AA) and competence (AC) and C into warmth (CW) and morality (CM). We tested the model in a cross-cultural study by comparing data from Asia, Australia, Europe, and the USA (overall = 1.808). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported our model. Both the two-factor model and the four-factor model showed good fit indices across countries. Participants answered additional measures intended to demonstrate the fruitfulness of distinguishing the facets. The findings support the model's construct validity by positioning the fundamental dimensions and their facets within a network of self-construal, values, impression management, and the Big Five personality factors: In all countries, A was related to independent self-construal and to agentic values, C was related to interdependent self-construal and to communal values. Regarding the facets, AA was always related to A values, but the association of AC with A values fell below our effect size criterion in four of the five countries. A (both AA and AC) was related to agentic impression management. However, C (both CW and CM) was neither related to communal nor to agentic impression management. Regarding the Big Five personality factors, A was related to emotional stability, to extraversion, and to conscientiousness. C was related to agreeableness and to extraversion. AA was more strongly related to emotional stability and extraversion than AC. CW was more strongly related to extraversion and agreeableness than CM. We could also show that self-esteem was more related to AA than AC; and that it was related to CM, but not to CW. Our research shows that (a) the fundamental dimensions of A and C are stable across cultures; and (b) that the here proposed distinction of facets of A and C is fruitful in analyzing self-perception. The here proposed measure, the AC-IN, may be a useful tool in this research area. Applications of the facet model in social perception research are discussed.
能动性（A）和共融性（C）是基本的内容维度。我们提出了一个层面模型，将能动性分为果敢性（AA）和能力（AC），将共融性分为热情（CW）和道德（CM）。我们在一项跨文化研究中对该模型进行了测试，比较了来自亚洲、澳大利亚、欧洲和美国的数据（总计 = 1808）。探索性和验证性因素分析支持了我们的模型。双因素模型和四因素模型在各个国家都显示出良好的拟合指数。参与者还回答了其他测量项目，旨在证明区分这些层面的成效。研究结果通过将基本维度及其层面置于自我建构、价值观、印象管理和大五人格因素的网络中，支持了该模型的结构效度：在所有国家，能动性与独立的自我建构和能动性价值观相关，共融性与相互依存的自我建构和集体价值观相关。关于这些层面，果敢性总是与能动性价值观相关，但在五个国家中的四个国家，能力与能动性价值观的关联低于我们的效应量标准。能动性（果敢性和能力）与能动性印象管理相关。然而，共融性（热情和道德）既与集体印象管理无关，也与能动性印象管理无关。关于大五人格因素，能动性与情绪稳定性、外向性和尽责性相关。共融性与宜人性和外向性相关。果敢性比能力与情绪稳定性和外向性的关联更强。热情比道德与外向性和宜人性的关联更强。我们还可以表明，自尊与果敢性的关联比与能力的关联更强；并且它与道德相关，但与热情无关。我们的研究表明：（a）能动性和共融性的基本维度在不同文化中是稳定的；（b）这里提出的能动性和共融性层面的区分在分析自我认知方面是富有成效的。这里提出的测量工具，即AC-IN，可能是该研究领域的一个有用工具。讨论了层面模型在社会认知研究中的应用。
