Conceptual and methodological ambiguities surrounding the concept of perceived behavioral control are clarified. It is shown that perceived control over performance of a behavior, though comprised of separable components that reflect beliefs about self-efficacy and about controllability, can nevertheless be considered a unitary latent variable in a hierarchical factor model. It is further argued that there is no necessary correspondence between self-efficacy and internal control factors, or between controllability and external control factors. Self-efficacy and controllability can reflect internal as well as external factors and the extent to which they reflect one or the other is an empirical question. Finally, a case is made that measures of perceived behavioral control need to incorporate self-efficacy as well as controllability items that are carefully selected to ensure high internal consistency.

Summary and Conclusions
Perceived control over performance of a behavior can account for consider- able variance in intentions and actions. However, ambiguities surrounding the concept of perceived behavioral control have tended to create uncertainties and to impede progress. The present article attempted to clarify conceptual ambiguities and resolve issues related to the operationalization of perceived behavioral control. Recent research has demonstrated that the overarching concept of perceived behavioral control, as commonly assessed, is comprised of two components: self-efficacy (dealing largely with the ease or difficulty of performing a behavior) and controllability (the extent to which performance is up to the actor). Contrary to a widely accepted view, it was argued that self-efficacy expectations do not necessarily correspond to beliefs about internal control factors, and that controllability expectations have no necessary basis in the perceived operation of external factors. Instead, it was suggested that self-efficacy and controllability may both reflect beliefs about the presence of internal as well as external factors. Rather than making a priori assumptions about the internal or external locus of self-efficacy and controllability, this issue is best treated as an empirical question.

Also of theoretical significance, the present article tried to dispel the notion that self-efficacy and controllability are incompatible with, or independent of, each other. Although factor analyses of perceived behavioral control items provide clear and consistent evidence for the distinction, there is sufficient commonality between self-efficacy and controllability to suggest a two-level hierarchical model. In this model, perceived behavioral control is the overarching, superordinate construct that is comprised of two lower-level components: self-efficacy and controllability. This view of the control component in the theory of planned behavior implies that measures of perceived behavioral control should contain items that assess self-efficacy as well as controllability. Depending on the purpose of the investigation, a decision can be made to aggregate over all items, treating perceived behavioral control as a unitary factor, or to distinguish between self-efficacy and controllability by entering separate indices into the prediction equation.

Perceived Behavioral Control, Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, and the Theory of Planned Behavior

Behavioral scientists routinely publish broad claims about human psychology and behavior in the world's top journals based on samples drawn entirely from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies. Researchers - often implicitly - assume that either there is little variation across human populations, or that these "standard subjects" are as representative of the species as any other population. Are these assumptions justified? Here, our review of the comparative database from across the behavioral sciences suggests both that there is substantial variability in experimental results across populations and that WEIRD subjects are particularly unusual compared with the rest of the species - frequent outliers. The domains reviewed include visual perception, fairness, cooperation, spatial reasoning, categorization and inferential induction, moral reasoning, reasoning styles, self-concepts and related motivations, and the heritability of IQ. The findings suggest that members of WEIRD societies, including young children, are among the least representative populations one could find for generalizing about humans. Many of these findings involve domains that are associated with fundamental aspects of psychology, motivation, and behavior - hence, there are no obvious a priori grounds for claiming that a particular behavioral phenomenon is universal based on sampling from a single subpopulation. Overall, these empirical patterns suggests that we need to be less cavalier in addressing questions of human nature on the basis of data drawn from this particularly thin, and rather unusual, slice of humanity. We close by proposing ways to structurally re-organize the behavioral sciences to best tackle these challenges.

/pdf/the-weirdest-people-in-the-world-480wr4m3kb.pdf

The WEIRDest People in the World

Are Americans more individualistic and less collectivistic than members of other groups? The authors summarize plausible psychological implications of individualism-collectivism (IND-COL), meta-analyze cross-national and within-United States IND-COL differences, and review evidence for effects of IND-COL on self-concept, well-being, cognition, and relationality. European Americans were found to be both more individualistic-valuing personal independence more-and less collectivistic-feeling duty to in-groups less-than others. However, European Americans were not more individualistic than African Americans, or Latinos, and not less collectivistic than Japanese or Koreans. Among Asians, only Chinese showed large effects, being both less individualistic and more collectivistic. Moderate IND-COL effects were found on self-concept and relationality, and large effects were found on attribution and cognitive style.

/pdf/rethinking-individualism-and-collectivism-evaluation-of-47xorn4mh7.pdf

Rethinking individualism and collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses.

/pdf/weird-languages-have-misled-us-too-comment-on-henrich-et-al-57dmcdjt24.pdf

WEIRD languages have misled us, too [Comment on Henrich et al.]

The Social Psychology of Organizations.

The strengths of social norms vary considerably across cultures, yet little research has shown whether 30 such differences have an evolutionary basis. Integrating research in cross-cultural psychology with evo31 lutionary game theory, we show that groups that face a high degree of threat develop stronger norms for 32 organizing social interaction, with a higher degree of norm–adherence and higher punishment for devi33 ant behavior. Conversely, groups that have little threat can afford to have weaker norms with less pun34 ishment for deviance. Our results apply to two kinds of norms: norms of cooperation, in which 35 individuals must choose whether to cooperate (thereby benefitting everyone) or enrich themselves at 36 the expense of others; and norms of coordination, in which there are several equally good ways for indi37 viduals to coordinate their actions, but individuals need to agree on which way to coordinate. This is the

3 Societal threat and cultural variation in the strength of social norms: An

A posteriori information about the moral attributes of the victim of a crime can affect an observer's judgment on the culpability of the actor of the crime so that negative moral attributes of the victim will lead to a lower judgment of culpability. The authors found this effect of a posteriori information among 118 American and 123 Chinese participants, but the underlying mechanisms were different between the two cultural groups. The Americans considered the psychological state of the actor during the crime, whereas the Chinese considered the morality of the actor during the crime. The authors discussed these results in light of the respondents' implicit theories of morality.

A posteriori information effects on culpability judgments from a cross-cultural perspective.

Based on the instrumental account of emotion regulation, the current research seeks to offer a novel perspective to the emotions-creativity debate by investigating the instrumental value of trait-consistent emotions in creativity. We hypothesize that emotions such as worry (vs. happy) are some trait-consistent experiences for neurotic individuals and experiencing these emotions can facilitate performance in a creativity task. In two studies, we found support for our hypothesis. First, individuals higher in neuroticism had a greater preference for recalling worrisome (vs. happy) events in anticipation of performing a creativity task (Study 1). Moreover, when induced to recall a worrisome (vs. happy) event, individuals higher in neuroticism had better performance in a creativity task (Study 2). These findings offer a new perspective to the controversy concerning the emotions-creativity relationship and further demonstrate the role of instrumental emotion regulation in the domain of creative performance.

/pdf/the-role-of-instrumental-emotion-regulation-in-the-emotions-4i5ii8hfpa.pdf

The role of instrumental emotion regulation in the emotions-creativity link: how worries render neurotic individuals more creative

https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1280&context=soss_research

Chi-Yue Chiu

Papers

3 Societal threat and cultural variation in the strength of social norms: An

A posteriori information effects on culpability judgments from a cross-cultural perspective.

The role of instrumental emotion regulation in the emotions-creativity link: how worries render neurotic individuals more creative

Linguistic Gender is Related to Psychological Gender: The Case of Chinese Characters

Open-Minded Chinese/Closed-Minded Americans Self-Enhanced Following Prevention/Promotion Success: A New Look at Culture and Self-Enhancement