Commentary: Cross-Cultural Comparison of Self-Construal and Well-Being between Japan and South Korea: The Role of Self-Focused and Other-Focused Relational Selves

摘要

The research article “Individual Self, Relational Self, Collective Self: Hierarchical Ordering of theTripartite Self ” authored by Sedikides et al. (2011) described clearly the differences between andimplications of the three forms of distinct individual, relational, and collective selves. Based onthis theoretical framework, Park et al. (2017) went further to define self-focused and other-focusedrelational selves. According to the authors, the self-focused relational self is a form of self-otherinteracting self which values other’s impression and opinion of the self, but from the point of viewof the self. In a way, such self is strongly introspective and bears a fundamental similarity with theindividual self-due to the precedence of self-directed focus. On the other hand, the other-focusedself is also relational but with the priority in focus placed on the other. What is uncertain and lesswell-defined is the level of self-influence on such a point of view, which is left to guess whether itis fully originating from other or simply the self-perceiving about other. Based on such conjecture,it is more realistic to assume that the focus on other in other-focused relational self can neverpossess a point of view that is purely and entirely other-originated. Under such circumstance,certain elements contributed by the self is necessary. This speaks to a limited discussion by Parket al. (2017) on the extent to which self-focused and other-focused relational selves could be lessdistinct or distinguishable from the individual self. While Sedikides et al. (2011) has highlighted thedistinction between individual, relational, and collective selves based on the theoretical frameworkof independent and interdependent self-construals, such distinct definitions and concepts alsoappear to magnify the theoretical approach of compartmentalised perception and cognition. Theseview and approach bear solid boundary of differences between hierarchical forms of self and are less flexible to shared characteristics. There are many parallelprocesses taking place constantly in the human brain that aidour ability of social cognition and consequently contributeto our framework of understanding and assessment of bothdifferences and similarities between entities and concepts. Parket al. (2017) were focused and clear on defining the distinctionsbetween self-focused and other-focused selves, with less weightof discussion given to their underlying shared characteristic(s).Therefore, a more conceptually rich and balanced interpretationthat links our cognition and concept of self-construals is needed.A suggested factor that takes into account self-other relativepriority that sources the origin of direction of one’s perceptionoffers a less discrete view of the tripartite self and sub-relationalself. This seamlessly incorporates a dimension of both sharedsimilarities and differences which interact dynamically witheach other.