Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
.61
**
.15 .81
**
.39
**
.22
*
.13
10. MAsuc 5.00 .85 .27
**
.80
**
.55
**
.55
**
.38
**
.79
**
.44
**
.48
**
.37
**
Note: HA = Highly Autonomous, MA = Moderately Autonomous, MC = Moderately Controlling, HC = Highly Controlling, WB = Well-being, Suc = Success.
p < .07.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
50 S.N. Chua et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 68 (2014) 4852
questioning the decisions of those in authority. The reliability of the
scale was .67 for Malaysians and .77 for North Americans.
3.2. Results
Means, standard deviations and correlations are reported in
Table 2. We also reported the results of the independent samples
T-tests examining mean differences between the Malaysian and
North American samples in Table 2. The results revealed the
expected simplex pattern of correlations such that subscales that
were closely related were more highly correlated with one another
than with distant subscales on the continuum. However, as in
Study 1, HA was signicantly positively correlated with the con-
trolling scales for the Malaysian sample. This suggests that Malay-
sians distinguish less between autonomy supportive and
controlling strategies even though they prefer highly autonomy
supportive strategies. On the other hand, HA was not related to
controlling strategies for the North Americans and although not
signicant, the direction of the relationship with HC was negative.
To control for the difference in age between our samples and to
examine cross cultural differences, we conducted a series of hierar-
chical regressions to examine the inuence of power distance on
the dependent variables of interest (Table 3). There was a main
effect on HA and MA, such that Malaysians were more likely to
view HA strategies as appropriate, and North Americans were more
likely to view MA strategies as appropriate. Importantly, across
cultures personal orientation of power distance was signicantly
positively related to the endorsement of controlling strategies,
and perceiving controlling strategies as fostering autonomous
motivation.
There were two marginally signicant interactions between
power distance and culture on HA strategy and the extent to which
HA was perceived as fostering autonomous motivation. Simple
slopes were tested according to the code provided by Preacher,
Curran, and Bauer (2006). Power distance was more negatively
related to HA for North American participants (t = 4.30, p < .01),
as compared to the Malaysian participants (t = 2.26, p < .05).
Power distance was also negatively related to perceiving HA as
leading to autonomous motivation for North American participants
(t = 2.28, p < . 05) but not for the Malaysian participants (t = .20).
4. Discussion
To our knowledge, this is one of the few studies to examine
cross-cultural differences in the endorsement of controlling strate-
gies. This study seeks to answer the question why some people are
more likely to endorse controlling strategies. We proposed power
distance as a group- and an individual- level moderator of endorse-
ment of controlling strategies. Power distance is the extent to
which individuals and cultures accept and endorse a hierarchical
order (Hofstede, 1980). We expected that those who are high in
power distance were more likely to nd controlling support
acceptable, but that there would be no difference in acceptance
of autonomy support. We also examined the perceived associations
of autonomous and controlling support.
Consistent with past research that autonomy support is associ-
ated with positive outcomes across cultures, we found that North
Americans and Malaysians rated HA as the most appropriate strat-
egy and HC as the least appropriate strategy. HA was also rated
most highly in terms of leading to success, well-being and autono-
mous motivation. The simplex pattern correlations supported the
theoretical structure of the continuum and the placement of the
subscales. In support of our hypothesis, Malaysians were more
accepting of controlling strategies compared to North Americans.
In addition, endorsement of HA strategies was positively related
to perception of controlling strategies as benecial in terms of
well-being, success and autonomous motivation. The results indi-
cate that even when autonomy support is perceived as the most
preferable, controlling support is still seen as benecial by Malay-
sians. On the other hand, North Americans were more likely to dis-
tinguish between autonomy supportive and controlling strategies.
Support for HA strategies was negatively related with controlling
strategies (MA, MC and HC) and unrelated to the perception of con-
trolling strategies as benecial. Finally, within cultures, the more
highly someone valued power distance, the more they perceived
controlling strategies as appropriate and promoting autonomous
motivation. This suggests that a provider of controlling support
may not necessarily be a harsh and mean individual trying to
demean the recipient, but trying to in his/her own way autono-
mously motivate the recipient.
Table 2
Means, standard deviations, T-test values and correlations of major study variables in Study 2.
Malaysia North America t(432) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. PD 3.09 (.85) 2.60 (.96) 5.50
**
.14
*
.25
**
.16
**
.30
**
.02 .41
**
2. HA 5.97 (.59) 5.92 (.74) .88 .33
**
.30
**
.22
**
.23
**
.50
**
.07
3. MA 4.89 (.75) 4.55 (.92) 4.19
**
.30
**
.11 .52
**
.46
**
.18
**
.30
**
4. MC 4.64 (.76) 4.48 (.97) 2.00
*
.26
**
.13 .61
**
.55
**
.12
*
.31
**
5. HC 4.63 (.78) 4.40 (1.05) 2.58
*
.34
**
.04 .53
**
.63
**
.09 .52
**
6. AMHA 3.96 (.63) 3.71 (.64) 3.90
**
.19
*
.52
**
.05 .02 .12 .04
7. AMHC 2.35 (.70) 2.24 (.78) 1.49 .54
**
21
**
.47
**
.47
**
.62
**
.11
Note: PD = Power distance, HA = Highly Autonomous, MA (SC) = Moderately Autonomous (Slightly Controlling), MC = Moderately Controlling, HC = Highly Controlling,
AMHA = Autonomous Motivation of Highly Autonomous strategies, AMHC = Autonomous Motivation of Highly Controlling strategies.
The correlations for the Malaysian sample are reported above the diagonal line and the correlations for the North American sample are reported below the diagonal line.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
Table 3
Predictors of Autonomous and Controlling strategies.
HA MA MC HC AMHA AMHC
Constant 1.01
**
.99
**
.96
**
.98
**
1.07
**
.94
**
Age .00 .01 .03 .02 .07
**
.00
Gender (0 = Female) .02
**
.01 .00 .00 .01 .01
Culture (0 = Malaysian) .02
*
.03
*
.02 .01 .03
*
.02
PD .02
*
.04
*
.03
*
.05
**
.00 .13
**
PD Culture .01
+
.01 .02 .02 .02
+
.02
Note: For claritys sake, only Model 2 standardized regression coefcients are
reported.
PD = Power distance, HA = Highly Autonomous, MA (SC) = Moderately Autonomous
(Slightly Controlling), MC = Moderately Controlling, HC = Highly Controlling,
AMHA = Autonomous Motivation of Highly Autonomous strategies,
AMHC = Autonomous Motivation of Highly Controlling strategies.
+
p < .06.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
S.N. Chua et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 68 (2014) 4852 51
One of the limitations of this study is that it focused mainly on
perception of controlling support and did not examine the actual
practice or the consequences of that perception. We do expect that
controlling support is not as benecial as autonomous support but
it may be that controlling management practices may not have
such aversive consequences for those high in power distance orien-
tation compared to those low in power distance orientation. Those
who accept and endorse a hierarchy order may see those in author-
ity as more legitimate, and therefore be more likely to view their
controlling support as acceptable. Indeed, a recent study found that
high power distance orientation individuals were accepting of abu-
sive supervision because they saw their treatment as less unfair as
compared to those who were low in power distance orientation
(Lian, Ferris, & Brown, 2012).
We suggest that the threshold of whether a behavior is per-
ceived as controlling is raised for high power distance oriented
individuals. In other words, when support is experienced as con-
trolling, it is associated with negative outcomes, but what is typi-
cally viewed as mildly or even moderately controlling may not
be experienced as such by a high power distance orientation indi-
vidual, particularly when coming from a superior. On a broader
level, individuals rely on cultural norms to inform them on
whether a behavior is controlling or not. For instance, participants
from the Peoples Republic of China (a high power distance culture
where a lack of voice is normative) were less dissatised with lack-
ing voice, or input to decisional processes as compared to partici-
pants from United States (low power distance cultures where a
voice is normative) (Brockner et al., 2001). However, when partic-
ipants were primed with a countercultural state, participants from
India (a high power distance culture) were more dissatised with
their lack of voice (van den Bos, Brockner, van den Oudenalder,
Kamble, & Nasabi, 2013). Thus, beliefs and cultural norms inuence
peoples perception of the continuum of support (autonomous to
controlling).
An interesting future direction is to examine the consequences
of their acceptance of controlling strategies. Is controlling support
only controlling when the recipient perceives the support to be
controlling or is there an objective standard of controlling support?
If support is dened by perception, high power distance oriented
individuals may be buffered from some of the negative conse-
quences of controlling support by their perception and thus accep-
tance of the support. However, if controlling support is dened as a
psychologically need thwarting environment (Bartholomew,
Ntoumanis, Ryan, Bosch, & Thgersen-Ntoumani, 2011; Deci &
Ryan, 2000; Marbell & Grolnick, 2013), regardless of whether an
individual accepts it, they will not thrive and ourish under such
conditions, even if they do not suffer from ill-health. Moreover,
their perception might also lead to the justication and mainte-
nance of a need thwarting environment (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
References
Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R. M., Bosch, J. A., & Thgersen-Ntoumani,
C. (2011). Self-determination theory and diminished functioning the role of
interpersonal control and psychological need thwarting. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 37, 14591473.
Bond, M. H., Wan, K. C., Leung, K., & Giacalone, R. A. (1985). How are responses to
verbal insult related to cultural collectivism and power distance? Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16(1), 111127.
Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M. J., Francesco, A. M., Chen, Z. X.,
et al. (2001). Culture and procedural justice: The inuence of power distance on
reactions to voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 300315.
Chauhan, & Goyal. (2013). Internalization of norms and justication for parental
reasoning in adolescent-parent conicts: A cross cultural study. Poster session
presented at the meeting of Self-Determination theory, Rochester.
Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J. M., & Moon, I. S. (2012). Experimentally based, longitudinally
designed, teacher-focused intervention to help physical education teachers be
more autonomy supportive toward their students. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 34, 365396.
Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from
individualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective on
internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 84(1), 97.
Chua, A. (2013). Battle hymn of the tiger mom. NY: The Penguin Press.
Chua-Rubenfeld, S. (2011). Why I love my strict Chinese mom. New York Post.
Retrieved from: http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/
why_love_my_strict_chinese_mom_uUvfmLcA5eteY0u2KXt7hM.
Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work
organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 580.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs
and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227268.
Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). An instrument to
assess adults orientations toward control versus autonomy with children:
Reections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 73(5), 642.
Downie, M., Chua, S. N., Koestner, R., Barrios, M. F., Rip, B., & MBirkou, S. (2007). The
relations of parental autonomy support to cultural internalization and well-
being of immigrants and sojourners. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority
Psychology, 13(3), 241.
Gray, E. (2012). Amy Chua, tiger mom, has changed 1 year after Battle hymn of the
tiger mother. Hufngton Post. Retrieved from: http://www.hufngtonpost.com/
2012/01/10/amy-chua-tiger-mom-book-one-year-later_n_1197066.html.
Hodson, H. (2011). Amy Chua: Im going to take all your stuffed animals and burn
them!. The Guardian. Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/
lifeandstyle/2011/jan/15/amy-chua-tiger-mother-interview.
Hofstede, Geert (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work-
related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Joussemet, M., Koestner, R., Lekes, N., & Landry, R. (2005). A longitudinal study of
the relationship of maternal autonomy support to childrens adjustment and
achievement in school. Journal of Personality, 73(5), 12151236.
Kim, S. Y., Wang, Y., Orozco-Lapray, D., Shen, Y., & Murtuza, M. (2013). Does tiger
parenting exist? Parenting proles of Chinese Americans and adolescent
developmental outcomes. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 4(1), 7.
Lian, H. W., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. J. (2012). Does power distance exacerbate or
mitigate the effects of abusive supervision? It depends on the outcome. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 97, 107123.
Lynch, M. F., La Guardia, J. G., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). On being yourself in different
cultures: Ideal and actual self-concept, autonomy support, and well-being in
China, Russia, and the United States. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(4),
290304.
Marbell, K. N., & Grolnick, W. S. (2013). Correlates of parental control and autonomy
support in an interdependent culture: A look at Ghana. Motivation and Emotion,
37(1), 7992.
Mauras, C. P., Grolnick, W. S., & Friendly, R. W. (2013). Time for The Talk... Now
what? Autonomy support and structure in motherdaughter conversations
about sex. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 33(4), 458481.
Powers, T. A., Koestner, R., & Gorin, A. A. (2008). Autonomy support from family and
friends and weight loss in college women. Families, Systems, & Health, 26(4),
404.
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing
interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent
curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437448.
Reeve, J., Bolt, E., & Cai, Y. (1999). Autonomy-supportive teachers: How they teach
and motivate students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 537.
Roth, G., Assor, A., Niemiec, C. P., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009). The emotional and
academic consequences of parental conditional regard: Comparing conditional
positive regard, conditional negative regard, and autonomy support as
parenting practices. Developmental Psychology, 45(4), 1119.
Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., Grolnick, W. S., & La Guardia, J. G. (2006). The signicance of
autonomy and autonomy support in psychological development and
psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti, & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental
psychopathology: Theory and method (2nd ed.) (Vol. 1, pp. 795849). New
Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Soenens, B., Park, S. Y., Vansteenkiste, M., & Mouratidis, A. (2012). Perceived
parental psychological control and adolescent depressive experiences: A cross-
cultural study with Belgian and South-Korean adolescents. Journal of
Adolescence, 35(2), 261272.
van den Bos, K., Brockner, J., van den Oudenalder, M., Kamble, S. V., & Nasabi, A.
(2013). Delineating a method to study cross-cultural differences with
experimental control: The voice effect and countercultural contexts regarding
power distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 624634.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Matos, L. (2005). Examining
the motivational impact of intrinsic versus extrinsic goal framing and
autonomy-supportive versus internally controlling communication style on
early adolescents academic achievement. Child Development, 76(2), 483501.
52 S.N. Chua et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 68 (2014) 4852