The Moderating Role of Collectivism in the Relation Between Parental Guilt-Induction and Need Frustration
MetadataShow full item record
According to Self-Determination Theory (SDT), parental guilt-induction is linked with children’s ill-being by frustrating their basic needs. Studies have shown that need frustration is universal once guilt-induction is perceived as controlling. Nevertheless, scholars support that cultural background could moderate this relation. Most research on guilt-induction, has mainly focused on the cross-cultural differences in the effects of guilt-induction on need frustration. Despite literature showing individual differences in cultural values within countries, the relationship has yet to be explored from an intra-cultural perspective. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the moderating role of individual values of collectivism in the relation between objective and perceived guilt-induction and the relation between perceived guilt-induction and need frustration. The total sample comprised 227 participants (Mage= 21.50, SDage= 2.18), with 78.9 % being female. Participants completed an online survey and were randomly assigned to three vignettes (i.e., guilt-induction/high warmth, guilt-induction/low warmth or autonomy-support). Participants indicated the degree to which they perceived guilt-induction in response to the vignette and filled out a need frustration scale. Results revealed that collectivism did not moderate the relation between objective and perceived guilt-induction, nor the relation between perceived guilt-induction and need frustration. Nonetheless, further research should be conducted as it can potentially have implications in healthcare.