culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being … · culture, power, authenticity and...

17

Click here to load reader

Upload: truongdung

Post on 04-Nov-2018

212 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being … · Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being within romantic relationships: A comparison of European

Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 441–457

Culture, power, authenticity and psychologicalwell-being within romantic relationships:

A comparison of European Americanand Mexican Americans

Kristin D. Neff ∗, Marie-Anne SuizzoThe University of Texas at Austin, United States

Abstract

This study investigated possible cultural differences in the association of power, authentic self-expression,and well-being within romantic relationships. Participants (N = 314) included European American studentsfrom a central Texas university and Mexican American students from a border university. Results indicatedthat power inequality was associated with a lack of authentic self-expression among men and women inboth populations, although a three-way interaction between sex, culture, and power indicated that MexicanAmerican men responded differently than other groups. Results also indicated that a lack of authenticity neg-atively impacted psychological health, especially for Mexican Americans. Findings suggest that authenticself-expression is one of the primary ways in which power inequality impacts close interpersonal relation-ships, and that gender and cultural variables must be examined simultaneously when considering the linkbetween power and authenticity.© 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Authenticity; Gender; Culture; Power; Romantic relationships

Authenticity is one of the hallmarks of identity achievement (Erikson, 1968). However, theability to be authentic does not occur in a vacuum. Rather, it largely depends on whether it issafe or pragmatic to reveal one’s inner thoughts and feelings in particular social contexts. Harter(1999, 2002), a leading researcher on this topic, defines authenticity as acting and expressingoneself in ways that are consistent with inwardly experienced values, desires, and emotions.Although authenticity is often conceptualized as an individual personality trait, the ability to act

∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Educational Psychology, 1 University Station D5800, Austin, TX 78712,United States. Tel.: +1 512 471 0382; fax: +1 512 471 1288.

E-mail address: [email protected] (K.D. Neff).

0885-2014/$ – see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2006.06.008

Page 2: Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being … · Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being within romantic relationships: A comparison of European

442 K.D. Neff, M.-A. Suizzo / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 441–457

authentically emerges out of interaction between people. Reis and Shaver’s (1988) interpersonalprocess model of intimacy, for instance, proposes that authentic self-disclosure is an emergentproperty of mutually validating and supportive interactions. Similarly, a growing body of research(Harter, Marold, Whitesell & Cobbs, 1996; Harter, Waters, Whitesell, & Kastelic, 1998; Neff &Harter, 2002b) indicates that authentic self-expression depends on feeling valued and acceptedby others. Although authenticity is related to social interaction, it is unclear how socio-culturalfactors shape processes related to authenticity. For this reason, the current study examines theimpact of gender and power on authenticity within romantic relationships in two major US ethnicgroups, European Americans and Mexican Americans.

Harter (2002) notes that if an individual behaves differently in different relational contexts, heor she is not necessarily acting falsely. It is often appropriate to change and adjust one’s behaviorto meet situational demands, so that one’s “true self” is actually fluid and dynamic rather thanfixed and stable. In fact, an important developmental milestone of late adolescence and earlyadulthood is the recognition that one has “multiples selves” that can be authentic even whencontradictory (Harter, 1999; Harter & Monsour, 1992). In middle adolescence, boys and girlsoften experience conflict when they notice that they act differently with different others (e.g.,rowdy with friends and quiet in the classroom), wondering which way of acting is “the real me.”With development, however, individuals are more able to cognitively integrate these apparentcontradictions with the use of higher-order abstractions such as “flexible” or “adaptable” (Riegel,1975). Still, even when it is recognized that there is not “one true self,” authentic self-expressionremains an important concern throughout the adult period. When people act in ways that contradicttheir inner desires or refrain from saying what they feel inside, and this behavior is driven by fearof disapproval or external sanctions rather than internal value choices, feelings of falsehood aretypically experienced (Harter, 1999, 2002).

For this reason, perceived power inequality is one aspect of social life that is likely to have astrong influence on authentic self-expression. When individuals feel that they are not able to maketheir own choices in a relationship, or if they are afraid of repercussions from a more powerfulpartner, they may be less likely to communicate freely or engage in behaviors that authenticallyreflect their underlying thoughts and behaviors (Kernis & Goldman, 2005; Ryan, 1993). As clinicalpsychologists have long noted, individuals are more likely to devalue themselves and to becomedepressed when authenticity is repressed (Horney, 1950; Kohut, 1977). This link is especiallystrong when levels of authenticity, self-esteem and depression are assessed in relational terms(Harter, 1999, 2002). In other words, the degree of authenticity that individuals experience withparticular others is closely linked to how much they like themselves and their overall mood-statewhen in the presence of these others (Harter et al., 1998; Harter, Marold & Whitesell, 1992).Surprisingly, however, little research has directly examined the link between perceived powerinequality, authenticity, and psychological health within relational contexts.

One exception is a study by Neff and Harter (2002b) that investigated the association betweenpower inequality, authenticity, and relationship styles emphasizing self-focused autonomy, other-focused connectedness, or mutuality among partners in long-term committed romantic relation-ships. Individuals who reported having less decision-making power than their partners also tendedto report that their relationship styles felt inauthentic, and a lack of authenticity was linked topoorer psychological health. Findings were similar for men and women. Another study by Neffand Harter (2002a) did not examine power directly, but found that men who subordinated theirneeds to their partner’s needs in a romantic relationship were more likely to do so out of anauthentic sense of caring, whereas women were more likely to do so inauthentically—to avoidpotential repercussions from their partners (suggesting a power imbalance in these relationships).

Page 3: Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being … · Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being within romantic relationships: A comparison of European

K.D. Neff, M.-A. Suizzo / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 441–457 443

For both men and women, however, inauthentic conflict resolutions were strongly linked to neg-ative psychological outcomes.

The issue of gender differences in power and authenticity is interesting as it relates to theorieswhich posit that men have a more autonomous and independent self-concept, while women havea more connected and interdependent self-concept (Cross & Madson, 1997; Gilligan, 1982).According to these models, men’s emphasis on autonomy leads them to have a greater focus on self-interest, personal goals, and dominance over others, while women’s emphasis on connectednessleads them to have a greater focus on care, responsibility, and meeting the needs of others inrelationships. This model could be interpreted to suggest that men feel more authentic than womenwhen dominant in their relationships, as dominance is an important part of an independent self-concept. Similarly, it could suggest that women feel more authentic thean men in a subordinateposition, given that meeting the needs of others is an important part of an interdependent self-concept. In fact, Cross and Madson (1997) argue that “the loss of a sense of autonomy or inabilityto express one’s inner characteristics and attributes” (p. 11) is more damaging to the well-beingof those with an independent self-concept, suggesting that a lack of power and authenticity maybe more psychologically harmful for men than women (Impett & Peplau, 2003).

Models of cultural differences in psychological functioning have similar implications for thelink between power, authenticity, and well-being in interpersonal relationships. One of the mostcommon distinctions drawn between cultures concerns the extent to which they are individual-istic, focused on concerns with personal autonomy and independence, or collectivistic, focusedon concerns with social connectedness and interdependence (Triandis, 1990). Some argue thatdisplaying outward behaviors that authentically reflect one’s inner feelings is not as importantfor well-being in collectivistic cultures (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). This is because people inthese cultures are said to routinely conform their behavior to the requirements of social situations,so do not experience such behavior as false or phony (Markus, Mullally, & Kitayama, 1997).In contrast, people from individualistic cultures that promote self-assertion and self-expressionshould be more likely to feel false when subordinate to others in relationships, and inauthenticityshould also be more harmful to their well-being (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).

On the other hand, there is an increasing evidence that men and women across cultures and eth-nic groups tend to endorse both independent and interdependent values (e.g., Gardner & Gabriel,2004; Hong & Chui, 2001; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002; Suizzo et al., in press),and that autonomy and connectedness are basic human needs (Guisinger & Blatt, 1994; Hill &Holmbeck, 1986). Research from a self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2004) per-spective suggests that intrinsically motivated, authentic behaviors can only emerge once primaryneeds for autonomy and connectedness are satisfied, and that the ability to make autonomous,authentic choices free from the domination from others is a pan-cultural requirement for healthand happiness. From this point of view, power imbalances that curtail autonomy should lead toinauthentic behaviors that are psychologically damaging regardless of gender or culture.

We propose that gender and culture are likely to have an impact on the link between power,authenticity, and well-being, but that this impact is likely to occur in complex, interactive waysnot easily predicted by simple models emphasizing gender or cultural differences in orientationstowards autonomy or connectedness. Stewart and McDermott (2004) have proposed intersection-ality theory as a tool for studying the complex interactions between a person’s various socialidentities, including those of gender, culture, and power status. Research from this perspectivesuggests that the effects of belonging to several social categories simultaneously, such as MexicanAmerican, female, and a subordinate social class, may be unique and specific to the intersectionof those groups. At the same time, there may be commonalities in terms of the negative impact

Page 4: Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being … · Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being within romantic relationships: A comparison of European

444 K.D. Neff, M.-A. Suizzo / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 441–457

that a lack of authenticity has on psychological well-being, if a certain amount of autonomy isa universal requirement of human happiness. To our knowledge, however, research has not yetexplored the link between power, authenticity, and well-being in men and women from differentcultural contexts.

To address these issues, the current study examined the link between perceived power, authen-ticity, and well-being in romantic relationships among European Americans and Mexican Amer-icans, the two largest ethnic groups of the Southwestern United States. Mexican Americans havebeen described as more collectivistic and interdependent than European Americans (Freeberg &Stein, 1996; Rhee, Uleman, & Lee, 1996) due to cultural values such as familismo and respeto.Familismo represents a sense of duty or obligation to one’s family, including feelings of reci-procity, loyalty, and family solidarity (Falicov, 1998; Santiago-Rivera et al., 2002). Researchhas shown that Mexican American parents socialize their children to be bien educado (properlyreared), which includes teaching them to show respeto or high regard for family and commu-nity members, especially authority figures such as men and the elderly (Arredondo et al., 1996;Suizzo et al., in press). In their comparative study of Mexican and European American parents,Rodriguez and Olswang (2003) found that Mexican American mothers valued conformity, includ-ing politeness and obedience, more than self-direction, while European American mothers valuedself-direction more than conformity. Factors such as income, education level, and generationlevel tend to impact the degree to which Mexican Americans display traditional values, however(Harwood, Leyendecker, Carlson, Asencio, & Miller, 2002).

Gender roles in Mexican American culture are also said to be more traditional than thosefound among European Americans (Roschelle, 1999), holding that males should be dominant andindependent, while females should be passive, compliant and responsive to others (Perilla, 1999).Within the traditional Mexican American family, the father is the main provider, protector, andauthority figure, while the mother is in charge of caring for the children, supporting her husband,and keeping the family together (Santiago-Rivera, Arredondo, & Gallardo-Cooper, 2002). Tradi-tional gender roles are reproduced and reinforced through the cultural script of machismo, whichdemands that a man be assertive, hyper-masculine and physically powerful (Roschelle, 1999).Gender-role socialization starts early, and boys in traditional Mexican American families tendto be given more freedom and priority than girls (Perilla, 1999). They are also taught very earlyto “act like men” and to suppress their emotions (Villereal & Cavazos, 2005), suggesting thatMexican American men may tend to inhibit authentic self-expression in order to appear powerfuland in control (Fragoso & Kashubeck, 2000). Marianismo is the female correlate to the malescript of machismo, dictating that women should be sexually pure, self-sacrificing, and deferentto others’ needs (Lopez-Baez, 1999). For these reasons, we expected that the link between power,authenticity and well-being in romantic relationships might differ between European Americanand Mexican American men and women.

We chose to use a college sample for this study because college students tend to be dealing withdevelopmental challenges particularly relevant to issues of authenticity and identity formation(Pastorino, Dunham, & Kidwell, 1997). Although the task of identity formation is typicallyassociated with adolescence, abundant research (see Schwartz, 2001 for a review) indicates thatthis process primarily occurs in the young adult period for most American ethnic groups. Fornon-traditional students as well, going back to college often coincides with a re-examinationof identity and life course decisions (Chao & Good, 2004). Thus, authenticity concerns tend tobe highly salient during the college period due to implications of authentic self-expression foridentity achievement (Erikson, 1968). The use of a college sample, although limiting in someways, also helped to ensure that the day-to-day goals and activities of participants were relatively

Page 5: Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being … · Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being within romantic relationships: A comparison of European

K.D. Neff, M.-A. Suizzo / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 441–457 445

similar, providing a more controlled test of power, gender, and culture as the salient variablesdiffering between participants rather than occupation or lifestyle.

Perceived power in relationships was examined in terms of decision-making power, as a recentqualitative study by Harvey, Beckman, Browner and Sherman (2002) found that among MexicanAmerican couples, power is most often conceptualized as decision-making across various spheresof interaction. Decision-making power has also been found to be highly relevant for EuropeanAmerican couples (Sprecher & Felmlee, 1997; Zak, Collins, Harper, & Masher, 1998).

It was hypothesized that among men and women from both cultural settings, those who per-ceived a lack of power in their relationship would tend to express themselves less authenticallly,and this lack of authenticity would be associated with less relational well-being (i.e., lower self-esteem and more depression in the relationship). These predictions were in line with modelsthat emphasize situational factors such as power when explaining relationship behavior (Tavris,1997; Watson, 1994), and that see authentic self-expression as a basic human need (Deci & Ryan,2004). However, we also thought there might be unique patterns of association between vari-ables when considering gender and culture simultaneously (Stewart & McDermott, 2004), andthat the traditional gender scripts of Mexican culture might lead to more divergence betweenmen and women among Mexican Americans than European Americans. It was also expectedthat authenticity would partially mediate the link between power inequality and well-being, butthat inequality would still make an independent contribution to outcomes—at least for EuropeanAmericans. Prior research has indicated that perceived power inequality in relationships is asso-ciated with greater depression and lower-self-esteem (Galliher, Rostosky, Welsh, & Kawaguchi,1999), findings which may stem in part from European American gender-role attitudes that tendto favor egalitarianism (Harris & Firestone, 1998). It was less clear whether there would be adirect impact of perceived inequality on relational well-being for Mexican Americans, if the idealof equality in relationships is not given the same emphasis as it is in European American culture.That is, although power inequality was expected to lead to less authenticity and therefore loweredwell-being for all participants, it was thought that the very fact of feeling unequal in and of itself(after controlling for the impact of authenticity) might not be as harmful in Mexican Americanrelationships, given its lessened symbolic meaning in terms of violating cultural ideologies.

1. Method

1.1. Participants

A total of 314 participants were included, with approximately equal numbers of EuropeanAmerican and Mexican American participants1 (see Table 1 for demographic characteristics ofeach sample). Both samples consisted of undergraduate and graduate students attending a large,urban university. To control by design for minority/majority status, we selected participants fromeach group within institutions where that group was a majority. The European American samplewas selected from a university in central Texas where 64% of students are European American,and the Mexican American sample was selected from a large border university in which almostall (93%) of the students are Mexican American. In fact, although 32% of the population of Texas

1 Note that the current study was conducted using some of the same participants who took part in another study thatexamined relationship styles of self-focused autonomy, other-focused connectedness, and mutuality among EuropeanAmerican and Mexican American college students (Neff, Brabeck, & Kearney, in press). However, this other study didnot examine data that had been collected concerning power and perceived authenticity within participants’ relationships.

Page 6: Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being … · Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being within romantic relationships: A comparison of European

446 K.D. Neff, M.-A. Suizzo / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 441–457

Table 1Demographic information

European Americans Central Texas University (N = 159) Mexican Americans Border University (N = 155)

Gender35% Male, 65% female 33% Male, 67% female

AgeM = 26.8, S.D. = 10.5 M = 26.1, S.D. = 7.8Range: 18–59 years Range: 17–55 years

Years in relationshipM = 3.6, S.D. = 5.3 M = 5.8, S.D. = 6.2

Relationship status14% Married 37% Married9% Cohabitating 8% Cohabitating77% Not cohabitating 53% Not cohabitating

Sexual orientation97% Heterosexual 99% Heterosexual

Mother’s birthplace95% US, 0% Mexico 49% US, 48% Mexico

Father’s birthplace93% US, 1% Mexico 45% US, 50% Mexico

1 parent born in Mexico1% Mexico-born 64% Mexico-born

Language spoken at home while growing up94% English 12% English1% Spanish 29% Spanish2% English and Spanish 58% English and Spanish

Religious affiliation30% Catholic 64% Catholic36% Protestant 11% Protestant34% Other 25% Other

Approximate family income2% less than US$ 20,000 39% less than US$ 20,0008% US$ 20,000–40,000 22% US$ 20,000–40,00029% US$ 40,000–80,000 32% US$ 40,000–80,00061% more than US$ 80,000 7% more than US$ 80,000

is Hispanic (US Census Bureau), the county in which this university is located consists of 85%Hispanics, and is in many ways more similar to a Mexican city than to a US city. Although themedian household income of this county is nearly US$ 13,000 lower than the national average, itis significantly higher than that of the Mexican city across the border, attracting many Mexicanimmigrants to live and work there. (Note that about two-thirds of Mexican American participantshad at least one parent who was born in Mexico.)

Participants were either part of an educational-psychology subject pool or else received coursecredit for participating. Both samples included a broad age range of participants, with the averageage being roughly equal across samples. Due to socioeconomic differences between the two sam-ples, we controlled for income in all analyses to avoid confounding culture and SES. Participants

Page 7: Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being … · Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being within romantic relationships: A comparison of European

K.D. Neff, M.-A. Suizzo / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 441–457 447

Fig. 1. Visual component of instrument used to assess perceptions of power in relationships.

were instructed to answer study questions while thinking about their current relationship partner,or if they were not currently in a relationship, to answer in terms of the most serious relationshipthey had experienced so far. Most participants described fairly long-term relationships (M = 4.8years, S.D. = 5.9 years, range = 1 month to 32 years).

1.2. Power measure

To assess perceptions of power in each relationship context, participants were given a visualrepresentation (see Fig. 1) with accompanying verbal descriptions (Neff & Harter, 2003). Under-neath the visual representation of power, participants were asked to respond to a total of threeitems which assessed who “usually gets their way,” who “has the most say,” and who “makes thefinal decision” when conflicts or disagreements occurred in the relationship. For example, one ofthe items asked: “When you and your partner have a conflict concerning an activity that you aregoing to both be involved in, who usually gets their way?” Possible answers were: (2) I am usuallythe one who gets my way, (1) I am more often than not the one who gets my way, (0) my partnerand I each get our way pretty equally or we compromise, (−1) my partner is more often than notthe one who gets his/her way, or (−2) my partner is usually the one who gets his/her way. Answerswere scored on a five-point power scale ranging from (2) strong to (1) moderate domination of theother, to (0) equality, to (−1) moderate to (−2) strong subordination to the other. The mean of thethree items was then calculated in order to obtain an overall Power score for the relationship. Themeasure is similar to others used in studies of relationship power (Sprecher & Felmlee, 1997).Internal reliability for the Power scale was 0.80 (using Cronbach’s alpha). For the purposes of thecurrent study, participants were categorized as being either “subordinate” (scoring −2 to −0.34on the power scale), “equal” (scoring −0.33 to 0.33 on the power scale) or “dominant” (scoring0.34 to 2 on the power scale). Power was treated as a categorical rather than continuous variablebecause having equal power with one’s partner is qualitatively different than being dominant orsubordinate, and research suggests that equality may be more psychologically adaptive that thaneither dominance or subordinance (Steil, 1997).

1.3. Authenticity measure

The three-item scale used to assess perceived authenticity was adapted from an instrumentused in previous research by Harter et al. (1992, 1998). Participants were asked to “Read eachstatement, thinking about your relationship with your partner.” One sample item reads “Somepeople act phony with their partner” while another reads “Some people are able to be their realself with their partner.” Respondents then indicated the degree to which the statement was true for

Page 8: Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being … · Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being within romantic relationships: A comparison of European

448 K.D. Neff, M.-A. Suizzo / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 441–457

themselves on a scale of 1 “not at all true for me” to 4 “really true for me.” After reverse codingnegatively worded items a mean authenticity score was calculated. Internal consistency reliabilityfor the scale was 0.80.

1.4. Relational self-esteem and depression measures

These measures were also adapted from those used in previous research by Harter and col-leagues (Neff & Harter, 2002a, 2002b, 2003). Note that scales assessed self-esteem and depressionas experienced within the relationship rather than assessing them globally, as this technique moreadequately captures the outcomes of relationship interactions (Harter, 1999). A sample relationalself-esteem item reads: “Some people are happy with the way they are when they are with theirpartner.” A sample relational depression item is: “Some people feel pretty ‘down’ in the relation-ship with their partner.” The respondent then indicates the degree to which the statement was truefor themselves on a scale of 1 “not at all true for me” to 4 “really true for me.” Internal consistencyfor the scales, which each contained three items, was 0.85 for relational self-esteem and 0.82 forrelational depression.

2. Results

2.1. Power and authenticity

The distribution of power positions by sex and ethnicity are presented in Table 2. There was noethnic group difference in the distribution of relational power, X2 (2, N = 314)=2.13, p = 0.34, withequality being reported most often by all participants. The gender distribution of power positionswas also fairly similar, and there were no significant sex differences in power reported withinor across ethnic groups (all p’s > 0.05 using Chi-Square analyses). When examining MexicanAmericans in particular, power was not found to differ by whether both parents were US-born orif one or both parents were born in Mexico, X2 (2, N = 148) = 1.82, p = 0.40 (this also held whenmales and females were examined separately).

Levels of authenticity for the sample as a whole were high: M = 3.43, S.D. = 0.69. Fig. 2presents mean levels of relational authenticity, sorted by ethnic group, sex, and power position.Group differences in authenticity were examined using a 3 (power position) X 2 (sex) X 2 (ethnic-ity) ANCOVA that controlled for age and family income level. A main effect of power was found,F(2, 258) = 15.37, p < .001, eta-squared = 0.11, with post hoc Scheffe tests indicating that those

Table 2Reports of power within romantic relationships, by sex and ethnicity

Power position Male Female Total

European AmericansSubordinate 13% (07) 16% (16) 15% (23)Equal 59% (33) 60% (62) 60% (95)Dominant 29% (16) 24% (25) 26% (41)

Mexican AmericansSubordinate 22% (11) 16% (17) 18% (28)Equal 55% (28) 50% (52) 52% (80)Dominant 24% (12) 34% (35) 30% (47)

Note. Frequencies are presented in parentheses.

Page 9: Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being … · Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being within romantic relationships: A comparison of European

K.D. Neff, M.-A. Suizzo / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 441–457 449

Fig. 2. Authenticity levels, sorted by power and ethnic group (EA, European American; MA, Mexican American) andsex.

who were subordinate in their relationship reported significantly less authenticity than those whowere equal or dominant (the significance level for all post hoc tests used in this study was p ≤ 0.05).A main effect of sex was also found, F(1, 258) = 4.76, p < 0.05, eta-squared = 0.02, with womenreporting greater authenticity than men. There was also a main effect of ethnicity, F(1, 258)=4.24,p < 0.05, eta-squared = 0.02, with European Americans reporting greater authenticity than Mexi-can Americans. However, there was a significant three-way interaction between power, sex, andethnicity, F(2, 258) = 3.26, p < 0.05, eta-squared = 0.03. Follow-up t-tests designed to uncoverthe source of the interaction indicated that subordinate Mexican American men reported signif-icantly more authenticity than subordinate Mexican American women—t(26) = 2.22, p < 0.05.Also, Mexican American men who reported being equal with their partners reported significantlyless authenticity than equal Mexican American women or equal European American men andwomen: t(78) = 2.40, p < 0.05, t(59) = 2.84, p < 0.01 and t(88) = 5.06, p < 0.001, respectively. Sim-ilarly, Mexican American men who were dominant over their partners reported significantly lessauthenticity than dominant Mexican American women or dominant European American menand women, t(45) = 3.44, p < 0.01, t(26) = 3.15, p < 0.01 and t(35) = 5.14, p < 0.001, respectively.Note that there were no significant authenticity differences between Mexican American womenand European American men and women when occupying any of the three power positions ofsubordinance, equality or dominance (all p’s > .05).

In order to determine if parental birthplace might impact the link between power and authen-ticity for Mexican Americans, an additional 3 (power position) X 2 (sex) X 2 (parental birthplace)ANCOVA (controlling for age and family income level) was conducted for Mexican Americans(with authenticity as the outcome variable). Results remained essentially unchanged: there was asignificant main effect of power, F(2, 126) = 4.86, p < 0.01, and a significant interaction betweensex and power, F(2, 126) = 4.54, p ≤ 0.01, but no main effects of parental birthplace or interactioneffects with parental birthplace were found.

2.2. Power, authenticity, and relational well-being

Levels of relational self-esteem and depression indicated health for the sample as a whole, self-esteem: M = 3.38, S.D. = 0.70; depression: M = 1.70, S.D. = 0.77. Consistent with earlier research(Harter et al., 1992), the correlation between self-esteem and depression was high enough tosuggest these two measures may be tapping into a single underlying construct, r = −0.82, p < 0.001.

Page 10: Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being … · Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being within romantic relationships: A comparison of European

450 K.D. Neff, M.-A. Suizzo / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 441–457

Table 3Standardized regression coefficients for power, sex, ethnicity and authenticity in predicting self-esteem/depression inromantic relationships

European Americans Mexican Americans

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Subordinance −0.20* 0.08 −0.05 0.09Equality 0.22* 0.17* 0.21* 0.05Authenticity – 0.69** – 0.89**

Sex 0.05 −0.05 0.15 0.01Age −0.19* −0.09 −0.18* −0.09*

Income −0.07 −0.06 0.09 −0.01�R2 – 0.36** – 0.67**

�F 5.12** 92.70** 4.05** 463.11**

Total adjusted R2 0.14 0.51 0.10 0.79

Note. Subordinance is coded: 1, subordinate; 0, equal; 0, dominant. Equality is coded: 0, subordinate; 1, equal; 0, Dominant.Gender is coded 0, males; 1, females.

* p < 0.05.** p < 0.01.

Thus, they were combined into a single composite score termed “relational well-being” by reverse-coding the depression items and taking the mean of the two scales. It had been hypothesizedthat authenticity would be associated with well-being for men and women from both cultures.Moreover, it was thought that authenticity would mediate the link between power and well-being,but that power would make a direct contribution to outcomes for European Americans.2

In order to examine the association between power and relational well-being, as well as themediating impact of authenticity on this association, sequential regression analyses were con-ducted. The first model estimated the direct effect of power and sex on well-being, with age andfamily income included as covariates. The second model added the variable of authenticity. Anal-yses were conducted separately for European Americans and Mexican Americans to facilitate theexamination of potential group differences in patterns of association between variables. Resultsare reported in Table 3.

For European Americans, results in the column labeled “Model 1” indicate a significant maineffect of power, with subordinance associated with significantly worse outcomes than the othertwo power categories, and equality associated with significantly better outcomes than the othertwo categories. Results in the column labeled “Model 2” indicate that as expected, authenticitymediated the association between power and well-being, and in fact authenticity accounted fora very large proportion of the variance in well-being. Power still made a significant contributionto outcomes for European Americans after accounting for authenticity, although only equalityremained a significant predictor of outcomes. We conducted follow-up analyses to determinewhere exactly the differences attributable to power were occurring. Three regression equationsseparately examined subordinate and equal participants, subordinate and dominant participants,

2 According to Baron and Kenny (1986), in order to conclude that a mediating relationship exists three conditions mustbe met: (1) There must be significant relationships between the predictors and the outcome variables; (2) there must besignificant relationships between the predictors and the mediating variables; (3) there must be significant relationshipsbetween the mediators and the outcome variables when all of these variables are entered into the same equation, and theserelations must reduce the direct effects of the predictors on the outcomes. The link between power and authenticity (thesecond condition) was established in prior analyses.

Page 11: Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being … · Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being within romantic relationships: A comparison of European

K.D. Neff, M.-A. Suizzo / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 441–457 451

and equal and dominate participants. Equality was found to be a significantly better predictor ofwell-being than subordinance in Step 1 of the regression, β = 0.41, p < 0.001, but not after addingauthenticity in Step 2, β = 0.04, p = 0.62. Equality was also found to be a significantly betterpredictor than dominance in Step 1 of the regression, β = 0.21, p < 0.05, and also after addingauthenticity into the equation at Step 2, β = 0.17, p < 0.05. Subordinance and dominance did notsignificantly differ in either step of the regression.

For Mexican Americans, results in the column labeled “Model 1” indicate a significant maineffect of power, with equality associated with significantly more relational well-being than theother two power categories. However, subordinance did not significantly differ from other cate-gories for Mexican Americans. Results in the column labeled “Model 2” indicate that authenticitywas very strongly linked to well-being for Mexican Americans. Also, an examination of the changein R2 values indicates that the addition of authenticity in Model 2 explained almost twice as muchvariance in well-being for Mexican Americans as for European Americans. Power did not makean independent contribution to well-being after accounting for the impact of authenticity for Mex-ican Americans, however. Follow-up analyses indicated that equality was linked to significantlybetter outcomes than subordinance in Step 1 of the regression, β = 0.26, p < 0.01, but not afteradding authenticity in Step 2, β = −0.05, p = 0.29. Similarly, we found that equality was linked tosignificantly better outcomes than dominance in step 1 of the regression, β = 0.21, p < 0.05, butnot after adding authenticity at Step 2, β = 0.03, p = 0.48. Subordinance and dominance did notsignificantly differ in either step of the regression.

A third set of regression analyses were also conducted that included any possible interactionterms between power, sex, and authenticity for each cultural group, and none of these termsexplained any additional variance when added to the regression equations.

3. Discussion

First, it should be noted that the distribution of perceived power positions among EuropeanAmerican and Mexican American participants were highly similar. In both cultural groups, themajority of participants reported being in egalitarian relationships, and no sex differences in powerwere found. Historically, the private domain is the one area in which women across cultureshave been most empowered in terms of making domestic decisions, overseeing social plans,and caring for children (Steil, 1997), which may help explain why male dominance was notin evidence. Other researchers have also found that Mexican American partner relationshipsdo not display the degree of male dominance and female subordination that many assume, atleast within the domestic sphere (Davis & Chavez, 1985; Montoya, 1996), and some argue thatmachismo and marianismo, while ideals that may influence how Mexican Americans think ofthemselves, are sometimes not reflected in practice (Blee & Tickamyer, 1995; Kane, 2000).Also, participants were all college students, and it is likely that there is more gender hierarchyamong Mexican American couples who are not college educated. Still, many participants fromboth cultural groups reported power inequality in their relationships, and power was linked toauthenticity.

Findings indicate that there was a main effect of perceived power position within the rela-tionship on authentic self-expression, with less authenticity being associated with subordinatestatus as compared to equal or dominant status. However, there was a three-way interactionbetween power, ethnicity and sex, which indicated that Mexican American men were respondingdifferently than other groups. In contrast to others, Mexican American men reported the mostauthenticity when subordinate and the least when dominant in their relationships. In fact, Mexi-

Page 12: Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being … · Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being within romantic relationships: A comparison of European

452 K.D. Neff, M.-A. Suizzo / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 441–457

can American men who were subordinate in their relationship reported feeling significantly moreauthentic than subordinate Mexican American women, while Mexican American men who wereequal or dominant in their relationship reported feeling significantly less authentic than equaland dominant Mexican American women (as well as equal or dominant European American menand women). Intersectionality theory (Stewart & McDermott, 2004) would suggest that there areunique features stemming from the particular combinations of gender, culture, and power statusthat should be considered when explaining these findings. First, it may be that Mexican Americanmen whose dominant relationship behavior reflects machismo ideals feel as if their behavior isnot freely chosen because it is imposed on them through cultural expectations. If so, they may notfeel that their dominant behavior reflects their inner thoughts and feelings. In contrast, those menwho are subordinate in their relationship may feel that by breaking cultural norms of machismothey are behaving more authentically. A second possible explanation is that one dimension of themachismo ideal directs Mexican American men to conceal their emotions from their partner inorder to appear more powerful and in control, even if this does not correspond to how they trulyfeel. Although this behavior may be necessary to maintain dominance – part of a process Chen(1999) refers to as the “hegemonic bargain” – the cost to one’s ego may be depression or lessenedself-esteem. Future studies investigating Mexican American men’s cultural beliefs about genderroles in heterosexual relationships will be needed to clarify the extent to which these types ofwithin-group differences may be present.

The results of this study clearly indicate that perceived power position was linked to thedegree of authenticity Mexican Americans experienced in their relationships, supporting thecontention that feelings of authenticity are related to the power one has to make choices thatreflect inner thoughts and values, even in a relatively collectivistic cultural context. Moreover,Mexican American women who felt subordinate in their relationship reported lower levels ofauthenticity than their male counterparts, even though according to both gender and culturalmodels of group differences in autonomy and connectedness, they should be more likely to seethis role as congruent with their sense of self (and therefore as more authentic). It should alsobe mentioned that contrary to what might be predicted from gender-based models of differentialemphases places on autonomy and connectedness, European American men did not feel moreauthentic than women when dominant in their relationship, and women did not feel more authenticthan men when subordinate. In fact, the link between power and authenticity was remarkablysimilar for European American men and women, as well as Mexican American women. Thus,broad models of gender or culture differences in emphases placed on autonomy and connectednessdo not provide much help in understanding the pattern of results found in this particular study.Rather, results suggest that it is necessary to consider how gender and culture intersect in specificways in order to understand how power relates to authenticity within relationships.

In terms of mental health, it was found that power was significantly associated with the levelof self-esteem and depression that was experienced within relationships, with equality being themost conducive to relational well-being for both European Americans and Mexican Americans.Consistent with past research (Hatfileld, Traupmann, Sprecher, Utne, & Hay, 1985; Mirowsky,1985), psychological health was found to suffer regardless of whether one was dominant orsubordinate in one’s relationship. Thus, even those who had more decision-making power thantheir partners suffered from lower self-esteem and more depression in the relationship than thosewho were equal with their partners. However, the negative health correlates of dominance andsubordinance were largely due to the lack of authenticity associated with these power positions:results indicated that authenticity was strongly associated with well-being, and that authenticitymediated the link between power and well-being.

Page 13: Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being … · Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being within romantic relationships: A comparison of European

K.D. Neff, M.-A. Suizzo / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 441–457 453

Authenticity had an especially strong association with relational well-being for MexicanAmericans—so strong, in fact, as to suggest that level of authenticity and well-being experiencedwithin relationship contexts cannot be clearly differentiated for Mexican Americans. Moreover,results indicated that authenticity explained almost twice as much variance in well-being for Mex-ican Americans as it did for European Americans, supporting the contention that concern withauthenticity is not just an individualistic, European American cultural value. Rather, these findingssuggest that in Mexican American romantic relationships, it is very important to be able to beauthentic with one’s partner. The reasons why authenticity appeared to be even more important forMexican Americans will have to be examined in further research, but it is possible that if the valuesof a particular cultural group de-emphasize the needs of the individual, then the inability to expressoneself authentically may become even more emotionally salient. This interpretation would bein line with findings by other researchers such as Helwig, Arnold, Tan and Boyd (2003), whofound that Chinese adolescents value rights and self-determination in decision-making contextseven more strongly than their Canadian counterparts, precisely because such self-determinationis often denied them.

The strong link between relational authenticity and well-being in the current study may also bepartly due to the fact that participants were college students. The college experience is largely aboutexploring various options before committing to identities that feel consistent with inner thoughts,feelings and values (Chao & Good, 2004; Erikson, 1968), and research suggests that successfulidentity formation in the domain of intimate relationships is particularly central to psychologicalwell-being during the college period (Montgomery, 2005). When authenticity is compromised dueto a lack of power in one’s relationship, therefore, feelings of failure, worthlessness, and sadnessmay be especially strong for college students, leading to lowered self-esteem and depression. Infact, a recent study conducted by the first author with non-students (mostly older, married EuropeanAmerican couples) found that authenticity was a more moderate predictor of relational well-beingthan was found for the current sample (Neff & Beretvas, submitted for publication). Future researchshould more directly examine differences in the link between authenticity and well-being changesat various stages of the life cycle, using both longitudinal and cross-sectional designs.

Some ethnic group differences were evident which indicated that culture played a role in the linkbetween relationship interactions and psychological health. Results indicated that for EuropeanAmericans, being dominant rather than equal in one’s relationship was associated with lower levelsof relational well-being, even after accounting for the effects of authenticity. This is consistentwith prior research indicating that people who are dominant over their partners often feel guiltyfor being bossy and demanding (Mirowsky, 1985), or else feel badly if their partners are passiveand unable or unwilling to assert themselves in the relationship (Van Willigen & Drentea, 2001).In contrast, relational power had no independent effect for Mexican American participants afteraccounting for the effects of authenticity. Intersectionality theory sheds some light on this findingas it underscores the fact of the multiple identities lived by Mexican Americans in the US. AsMexican Americans, especially those living in such close proximity to Mexico, these young adultsmay be trying to hold onto their Mexican cultural origins and identity, which implies adoptinggender scripts of machismo and marianismo to a certain degree, while also adapting to EuropeanAmerican cultural scripts about gender equality in relationships. To the extent that they are ableto balance these contrasting cultural value systems while remaining true to themselves, they mayfeel psychologically sound. Once again, however, future research that explicitly examines genderideologies will be needed to understand results more deeply.

There were some limitations to this study that need to be mentioned. First, although we felt a col-lege population was a particularly appropriate group in which to examine our research questions,

Page 14: Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being … · Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being within romantic relationships: A comparison of European

454 K.D. Neff, M.-A. Suizzo / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 441–457

college students represent only one segment of the European American and Mexican Americanpopulations. To ensure the generalizability of findings, therefore, an examination of cross-culturaldifferences among European Americans and Mexican Americans from a larger variety of educa-tional backgrounds will be needed. Similarly, it will be important to examine potential regionalor economic differences in patterns of association. One caution for future researchers examiningother populations, however, is that lifestyle variables will need to be carefully controlled for whenattempting to attribute group differences to culture rather than to occupation, student status, orother factors. In addition, future research should examine the link between power, authenticityand well-being in various relational domains (e.g., childrearing, money, and leisure time) or inother relational contexts such as with friends or parents, given that these associations can varyacross contexts (Neff & Harter, 2003). It should also be remembered that the correlational datapresented in this study in no way addresses issues of causality. For instance, while it is reason-able to assume that those who lack power in their relationships become limited in their abilityto express their true selves due to fear of sanctions from their partner, it is also plausible thatthose who have not developed their identity to the point where they know how to act authenticallyin their relationships have a more difficult time developing and maintaining equality. Similarly,while a lack of authenticity might cause lower self-esteem and depression within relationshipsbecause one feels like one’s inner thoughts and feelings are unacceptable to the other, it mayalso be the case that being depressed or highly self-critical leads one to hide one’s true thoughtsand feelings from one’s partner. It is likely that variables of relational power, authenticity, andwell-being mutually interact in a dynamic system, and that changes in any one part of the systemwill lead to changes in other parts of the system.

Because the current research was conducted using self-report scales, common method vari-ance may have impacted results (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003). Current resultsshould therefore be interpreted with caution until confirmed with other methodologies, such asexperience sampling or behavioral tasks. Finally, it should be noted that this study measuredperceived power in relationships rather than objectively measured power. Previous research sug-gests that the assessment of power dynamics often differs between relationship partners (Neff &Harter, 2002a), suggesting that power is a largely subjective phenomenon. It can be argued thatsubjective perceptions of power are most relevant to authenticity in relationships, given that theself’s decision to behave authentically or not largely depends on personal perceptions of whetherit is safe or desirable to do so. Still, an interesting task for future research would involve obtain-ing independent assessments of power by knowledgeable outside observers, and comparing theseassessments with subjective perceptions of power, to determine which one is the stronger predictorof authentic self-expression.

4. Conclusion

Developmental psychologists have long argued that the balance of power in relationshipsimpacts social-cognitive development, including moral reasoning and interpersonal understand-ings (Piaget, 1932; Selman, 1980). Erikson (1968) proposed that power also influences the courseof identity development, so that authentic identity achievement is facilitated when parents andteachers allow for autonomous exploration rather than demanding strict obedience. The currentstudy suggests that power may also be an important factor in the development of authenticity withinromantic relationships, with power inequality inhibiting the capacity for authentic self-expression.While gender and culture had intersecting influences on the association between power and authen-ticity, the ability to authentically express inner thoughts, feelings and values was strongly linked

Page 15: Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being … · Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being within romantic relationships: A comparison of European

K.D. Neff, M.-A. Suizzo / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 441–457 455

to healthy relationship functioning for men and women from both European and Mexican Amer-ican cultural backgrounds. Given that this is one of the first empirical studies to systematicallyexamine the association between power, authenticity, well-being, gender, and culture, we believethese results indicate that this topic is worth exploring more fully in subsequent research.

Future research should also explore the ways in which contextual variables such as gender,culture, and power influence inner thoughts, feelings and values themselves. In other words,while the current study examined how contextual variables influence the authentic expression ofsubjective experience, it should be remembered that subjective experience is itself changed as theself interacts with others in particular contexts (e.g., cheerful with some people in some situations,angry with other people in other situations). A fully relational investigation of authenticity inrelationships should therefore examine the ways in which context influences the nature of one’sinner experience, as well as the degree to which this inner experience is expressed authenticallyor inauthentically to others.

Acknowledgements

We would like to gratefully acknowledge Kalina M. Brabeck and Lisa K. Kearney, whohelped collect the data for this study. We would also like to thank Dr. Bill Koch for his help withstatistical analyses.

References

Arredondo, P., Toporek, R., Brown, S. P., Jones, J., Locke, D., Sanchez, J., et al. (1996). Operationalization of themulticultural counseling competencies. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 24, 42–78.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Blee, K., & Tickamyer, A. (1995). Racial differences in men’s attitudes about women’s gender roles. Journal of Marriageand the Family, 57, 21–30.

Buriel, J. R. (1993). Childrearing orientations in Mexican American families: The influence of generation and socioculturalfactors. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 987–1000.

Chao, R., & Good, G. E. (2004). Nontraditional students’ perspectives on college education: A qualitative study. Journalof College Counseling, 7, 5–12.

Chen, A. (1999). Lives at the center of the periphery, lives at the periphery of the center: Chinese American masculinitiesand bargaining with hegemony. Gender & Society, 13, 584–607.

Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37.Davis, S. K., & Chavez, V. (1985). Hispanic households. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 7, 317–332.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, 227–268.Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Autonomy is no illusion: Self-determination theory and the empirical study of

authenticity, awareness, and will. In J. Greenberg, S. L. Koole, & T. Pyszczynski (Eds.), Handbook of experimentalexistential psychology (pp. 449–479). New York: Guilford.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.Falicov, C. J. (1998). Latino families in therapy: A multicultural practice. New York: Guilford.Fragoso, J. M., & Kashubeck, S. (2000). Machismo, gender role conflict, and mental health in Mexican American men.

Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 1, 87–97.Freeberg, A. L., & Stein, C. H. (1996). Felt obligation towards parents in Mexican-American and Anglo-American young

adults. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 457–471.Galliher, R. V., Rostosky, S. S., Welsh, D. P., & Kawaguchi, M. C. (1999). Power and psychological well-being in late

adolescent romantic relationships. Sex Roles, 40, 689–710.Gardner, W. L., & Gabriel, S. (2004). Gender differences in relational and collective interdependence: Implications for

self-views, social behavior, and subjective well-being. In A. H. Eagly, A. E. Beall, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Thepsychology of gender (2nd ed., pp. 169–191). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Page 16: Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being … · Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being within romantic relationships: A comparison of European

456 K.D. Neff, M.-A. Suizzo / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 441–457

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Greenfield, P. M. (2000). Three approaches to the psychology of culture: Where do they come from? Where can they go?Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 223–240.

Guisinger, S., & Blatt, S. (1994). Individuality and relatedness: Evolution of a fundamental dialectic. American Psychol-ogist, 49, 104–111.

Harris, R. J., & Firestone, J. M. (1998). Changes in predictors of gender role ideologies among women: A multivariateanalysis. Sex Roles, 38, 239–252.

Harter, S. (1999). Symbolic interactionism revisited: Potential liabilities for the self constructed in the crucible of inter-personal relationships. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45, 677–703.

Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 382–394).New York: Oxford University Press.

Harter, S., Marold, D., & Whitesell, N. R. (1992). A model of psychosocial risk factors leading to suicidal ideation inyoung adolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 4, 167–188.

Harter, S., Marold, D., Whitesell, N. R., & Cobbs, G. (1996). A model of the effects of parent and peer support onadolescent false self behavior. Child Development, 67, 360–374.

Harter, S., & Monsour, A. (1992). Developmental analysis of conflict caused by opposing self-attributes in the adolescentself-portrait. Developmental Psychology, 28, 251–260.

Harter, S., Waters, P., Whitesell, N. R., & Kastelic, D. (1998). Predictors of level of voice among high school women andmen: Relational context, support, and gender orientation. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1–10.

Harvey, S. M., Beckman, L. J., Browner, C. H., & Sherman, C. A. (2002). Relationship power, decision making, andsexual relations: An exploratory study with couples of mexican origin. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 22–44.

Harwood, R., Leyendecker, B., Carlson, V., Asencio, M., & Miller, A. (2002). Parenting among Latino families in theU.S. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Social conditions and applied parenting: vol. 4, (pp. 21–46).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hatfield, E., Traupmann, J., Sprecher, S., Utne, M., & Hay, J. (1985). Equity and intimate relations: Recent research. InW. Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and incompatible relationships (pp. 91–117). New York: Springer.

Helwig, C. C., Arnold, M. L., Tan, D., & Boyd, D. (2003). Chinese adolescents’ reasoning about democratic and authority-based decision making in peer, family, and school contexts. Child Development, 74, 783–800.

Hill, J., & Holmbeck, G. (1986). Attachment and autonomy during adolescence. In G. Whitehurst (Ed.), Annals of childdevelopment (pp. 145–189). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Hong, Y., & Chui, C. (2001). Toward a paradigm shift: From cross-cultural differences in social cognition to social-cognitive mediation of cultural differences. Social. Cognition, 19, 181–196.

Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth. New York: Norton.Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2003). Sexual compliance: Gender, motivational, and relationship perspectives. Journal

of Sex Research, 40, 87–100.Kane, E. W. (2000). Racial and ethnic variations in gender-related attitudes. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 419–439.Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2005). Authenticity, social motivation, and psychological adjustment. In J. P. Forgas &

K. D. Williams (Eds.), Social motivation: Conscious and unconscious processes (pp. 210–227). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of the self. New York: International Universities Press.Lijtmaer, R. M. (1998). Psychotherapy with Latinas. Feminism and Psychology, 8, 346–354.Lopez-Baez, S. (1999). Marianismo. In J. S. Mio, J. E. Trimble, P. Arredondo, H. E. Cheatham, & D. Sue (Eds.), Key

words in multicultural interventions: A dictionary (p. 183). Westport, CT: Greenwood.Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psy-

chological Review, 98, 224–253.Markus, H. R., Mullally, P., & Kitayama, S. (1997). Selfways: Diversity in modes of cultural participation. In U. Neisser

& D. Jopling (Eds.), The conceptual self in context: Culture, experience, self-understanding (pp. 13–61). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Mirowsky, J. (1985). Depression and marital power: An equity model. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 557–592.Montgomery, M. J. (2005). Psychosocial intimacy and identity: From early adolescence to emerging adulthood. Journal

of Adolescent Research, 20, 346–374.Montoya, L. J. (1996). Latino gender differences in public opinion. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18, 255–276.Neff, K. D. & Beretvas, T. (submitted for publication). The link between power, authenticity and psychological well-being

within close interpersonal relationships.

Page 17: Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being … · Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being within romantic relationships: A comparison of European

K.D. Neff, M.-A. Suizzo / Cognitive Development 21 (2006) 441–457 457

Neff, K. D., Brabeck, K. M., & Kearney, L. K. (in press). Relationship styles of self-focused autonomy, other-focusedconnection, and mutuality among Mexican American and European American college students. Journal of SocialPsychology.

Neff, K. D., & Harter, S. (2002a). The authenticity of conflict resolutions among adult couples: Does women’s other-oriented behavior reflect their true selves? Sex Roles, 47, 403–417.

Neff, K. D., & Harter, S. (2002b). The role of power and authenticity in relationship styles emphasizing autonomy,connectedness, or mutuality among adult couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 827–849.

Neff, K. D., & Harter, S. (2003). Relationship styles of self-focused autonomy, other-focused connectedness, and mutualityacross multiple relationship contexts. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 81–99.

Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation oftheoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72.

Pastorino, E., Dunham, R. M., & Kidwell, J. (1997). Domain-specific gender comparisons in identity development amongcollege youth: Ideology and relationships. Adolescence, 32, 559–577.

Perilla, J. (1999). Domestic violence as a human rights issue: The case of immigrant Latinos. Hispanic Journal ofBehavioral Sciences, 21, 107–133.

Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research:

A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.Reis, H. T. & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. Handbook of personal relationships: Theory,

research, and interventions, vol. xvii, 702, p. 367–389.Rhee, E., Uleman, J. S., & Lee, H. K. (1996). Variations in collectivism and individualism by ingroup and culture:

Confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1037–1054.Riegel, K. F. (1975). Toward a dialectical theory of development. Human Development, 18, 50–64.Rodriguez, B. L., & Olswang, L. B. (2003). Mexican-American and Anglo-American mothers’ beliefs and values about

childrearing, education, and language impairment. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 452–462.Roschelle, A. R. (1999). Gender, family structure, and social structure: Racial and ethnic families in the United States. In

M. M. Feree, J. Lorber, & B. B. Hess (Eds.), Revisioning gender (pp. 311–340). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Ryan, R. M. (1993). Agency and organization: Intrinsic motivation, autonomy and the self in psychological development.

In J. Jacobs (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Developmental perspectives on motivation: vol. 40, (pp.1–56). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Santiago-Rivera, A. L., Arredondo, P., & Gallardo-Cooper, M. (2002). Counseling Latinos and la familia: A practicalguide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schwartz, S. J. (2001). The evolution of Eriksonian and neo-Eriksonian identity theory and research: A review andintegration. Identity, 1, 7–58.

Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding: Developmental and clinical analyses. San Diego, CA:Academic Press.

Sprecher, S., & Felmlee, D. (1997). The balance of power in romantic heterosexual couples over time from “his” and“her” perspectives. Sex Roles, 37, 361–379.

Steil, J. M. (1997). Marital equality: Its relationship to the well-being of husbands and wives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Stewart, A. J., & McDermott, C. (2004). Gender in psychology. Annual Review Psychology, 55, 519–544.Suizzo, M. -A., Chen, W. -C., Cheng, C. -C., Liang, A., Contreras, H., & Zanger, D., et al. (in press). Parental beliefs

about young children’s socialization across U.S. ethnic groups: Coexistence of independence and interdependence.Early Child Development and Care.

Tavris, C. (1997). The science and politics of gender research: The meanings of difference. In D. Bernstein (Ed.), Nebraskasymposium on motivation: Gender and motivation: vol. 45, (pp. 1–23). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Triandis, H. C. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. In J. J. Berman (Ed.), Cross-culturalperspectives. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: vol. 37, (pp. 41–133). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Van Willigen, M., & Drentea, P. (2001). Benefits of equitable relationships: The impact of sense of fairness, householddivision of labor, and decision making power on perceived social support. Sex Roles, 44, 571–597.

Villereal, G. L., & Cavazos, A. (2005). Shifting identity: Process and change in identity of aging Mexican-Americanmales. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 32, 33–41.

Watson, C. (1994). Gender differences in negotiating behavior and outcomes: Fact of artifact? In A. Taylor & J. B. Miller(Eds.), Conflict and gender (pp. 191–210). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Zak, A., Collins, C., Harper, L., & Masher, M. (1998). Self-reported control over decision-making and its relationship tointimate relationships. Psychological Reports, 82, 560–562.