Facets of the Fundamental Content Dimensions: Agency with Competence and Assertiveness—Communion with Warmth and Morality

Andrea E. Abele · Nicole Hauke-Forman · Kim Peters · Eva Louvet · Aleksandra Szymków · Yanping Duan

427 citations0/0 files storedFrontiers in Psychology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Cultural Differences and Values Social and Intergroup Psychology Personality Traits and Psychology

Abstract

= 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.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 427 citations exist upstream.

References

1999Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives 1965Society and the Adolescent Self-Image 1991Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation 1981Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values 1993Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind.1983Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values.1992Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries 1966The Scree Test For The Number Of Factors

Cited by

2020Navigating the social world: Toward an integrated framework for evaluating self, individuals, and groups.2018Self-Enhancement and Psychological Adjustment: A Meta-Analytic Review 2020The Primacy of Gender: Gendered Cognition Underlies the Big Two Dimensions of Social Cognition 2023Social perception in Human-AI teams: Warmth and competence predict receptivity to AI teammates 2020Disentangling the Differential Roles of Warmth and Competence Judgments in Customer-Service Provider Relationships

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.