Imamoǧlu, E. O.Karakitapoğlu-Aygün, Z.2016-02-082016-02-0820048756-7547http://hdl.handle.net/11693/24199In this study the authors investigated (a) how individuational and relational self-orientations, as well as self-directed and other-directed values, are related to one another, and (b) how these self- and value orientations differ across 2 cultural (i.e., 422 Turkish and 441 American university students) and 2 socioeconomic status (SES) groups (i.e., 186 lower SES and 167 upper SES Turkish high school students). Across cross-cultural and SES groups, individuational and relational self-orientations appeared to be not opposite but distinct orientations, as predicted by the Balanced Integration-Differentiation (BID) model (E. O. Imamoǧlu, 2003). Furthermore, both Turkish and American students with similar self-construal types, as suggested by the BID model, showed similar value orientations, pointing to both cross-cultural similarities and within-cultural diversity. Individuational and relational self-orientations showed weak to moderate associations with the respective value domains of self-directedness and other-directedness, which seemed to represent separate but somewhat positively correlated orientations. In both cross-cultural and SES groups, students tended to be high in both relational and individ-uational self-orientations; those trends were particularly strong among the Turkish and American women compared with men and among the upper SES Turkish adolescents compared with lower SES adolescents. Results are discussed as contesting the assumptions that regard the individuational and relational orientations as opposites and as supporting the search for invariant aspects of psychological functioning across contexts.EnglishBalanced Integration-Differentiation modelCultural and socioeconomic status differencesGender differencesIndividualism-collectivismIndividuationRelatednessSelf-construalsValuesAdultCultureFemaleHumansMaleQuestionnairesSocial BehaviorSelf-construals and values in different cultural and socioeconomic contextsArticle1940-5286