Interdependence (Relative) (INT)

Abstract

The Interdependence (Relative) (INT) scale, universally recognized in empirical social psychology as the Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal (RISC) Scale, was developed by Susan E. Cross, Pamela L. Bacon, and Michael L. Morris in 2000. The instrument is an 11-item self-report questionnaire designed to measure the degree to which an individual defines and conceptualizes the self in terms of close, dyadic, interpersonal relationships. Distinct from collective or group-based forms of interdependence that characterize broad societal or ethnic affiliations, relational interdependence reflects a self-structure fundamentally anchored in mutual commitments, shared emotional experiences, and deep relational bonds with specific significant others (such as close friends, romantic partners, and immediate family members). The scale employs a 7-point Likert-type response format ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Psychometric evaluations across diverse university and community populations demonstrate high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging from α = .83 to .91), substantial test-retest reliability across multi-month intervals (r = .73 to .80), and robust convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity. Factor-analytic investigations consistently confirm a single-factor unidimensional latent structure. High scores on the scale predict enhanced memory for relational information, greater attentiveness to interaction partners’ needs, cooperative conflict resolution strategies, and vulnerability to stress when significant relational bonds are threatened. This article presents an exhaustive academic review of the scale’s theoretical foundation, psychometric properties, scoring methodology, empirical applications, and full item structure.

Keywords

Relational-interdependent self-construal, Interdependence, Self-concept, Interpersonal relationships, Close relationships, Social cognition, Cross-Bacon-Morris Scale, Dyadic attachment, Gender differences, Psychometrics

Authors

The scale was developed and validated by a team of social psychologists specializing in self-concept, culture, and interpersonal dynamics:

• Susan E. Cross, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, United States. Dr. Cross has published extensively on culture, gender, honor cultures, and the relational dimensions of the self.
• Pamela L. Bacon, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University, St. Joseph, Minnesota, United States. Dr. Bacon specializes in social cognition, self-concept representations, and interpersonal processes.
• Michael L. Morris, Ph.D. — Professor, Columbia Business School, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States. Dr. Morris is an expert in cultural psychology, organizational behavior, social judgment, and cross-cultural decision-making.

The seminal paper introducing the instrument was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 2000 under the title “The Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal and Relationships.”

Purpose

The central purpose of the Interdependence (Relative) scale is to assess individual differences in the extent to which people define the self through their close, personal dyadic relationships. In landmark scholarship on self-concept configurations, Hazel Rose Markus and Shinobu Kitayama (1991) distinguished between independent and interdependent self-construals. However, their conceptualization of interdependence predominantly operationalized the self in terms of broader group memberships, collective social roles, societal harmony, and cultural collectivism. This operationalization inadvertently collapsed dyadic connectedness and collective group integration into a single global dimension, obscuring critical functional distinctions.

Cross, Bacon, and Morris (2000) developed this scale to address this conceptual limitation. While collective interdependence centers on an individual’s identification with large in-groups, social categories, tribes, or national entities, relational interdependence centers strictly on localized, idiosyncratic, face-to-face dyadic relationships. The primary research and applied purposes of the scale include:

• Quantifying Relational Self-Definition: Disentangling individual variation in personal identity where others are literally incorporated into the cognitive representations of the self, following the “inclusion of other in the self” model.
• Explaining Gender Differences in Social Behavior: Resolving the long-standing empirical paradox wherein Western women frequently score comparably to Western men on traditional measures of collective interdependence or individualism, yet routinely exhibit marked relational sensitivity, heightened empathy, and communal interpersonal orientations.
• Predicting Relational Cognition and Behavior: Serving as a standardized psychometric predictor in studies evaluating dyadic communication styles, relational maintenance strategies, emotional disclosure, perspective-taking, and autobiographical memory for relational episodes.
• Investigating Health and Well-Being Outcomes: Providing clinical and health psychology researchers with a reliable index to examine how relational stressors differentially impact cardiovascular reactivity, depressive symptomatology, social support buffering, and psychological distress.

Psychological Construct

The construct measured by this instrument is the relational-interdependent self-construal. At its core, self-construal theory posits that individuals organize knowledge about their traits, preferences, abilities, and identities along cognitive structures that dictate how they navigate social environments. Within this structural framework, the relational-interdependent self-concept involves several distinct psychological dimensions:

1. Self-Definition via Significant Others

Individuals with a highly relational-interdependent self-construal conceptualize their core attributes not in isolation (e.g., “I am ambitious,” “I am introverted”), but in relation to specific dyadic partners (e.g., “I am a devoted friend,” “I am Sarah’s primary confidante”). Close relationship partners become incorporated into the cognitive architecture of the self-schema. When high-RISC individuals are asked to generate spontaneous self-descriptions via the Twenty Statements Test, they generate a significantly higher proportion of relational responses than do low-RISC individuals.

2. Cognitive Chronic Accessibility of Relational Knowledge

Relational interdependence operates as a chronically accessible cognitive schema that guides the encoding, storage, and retrieval of social information. Experimental research demonstrates that individuals high in relational interdependence automatically categorize information around relational themes, recall conversations and interactional nuances with higher fidelity, and selectively attend to the vocal inflections, non-verbal cues, and emotional needs of interaction partners.

3. Behavioral Investment in Dyadic Maintenance

The construct encompasses explicit behavioral commitments toward relationship nurturing. High-RISC individuals dedicate substantial time and effort to maintaining social ties, practicing reciprocal self-disclosure, validating partners during periods of vulnerability, and prioritizing communal norms (distributing resources according to need rather than transactional equity) within their primary networks.

4. Interpersonal Affective Vulnerability

Because the boundary between self and other is permeable in relational interdependence, self-esteem and emotional equilibrium are intimately linked to relationship quality. Interpersonal conflict, relational rupture, or perceived neglect by close others exerts a profound destabilizing effect on high-RISC individuals, whereas independent individuals buffer their self-worth through autonomous personal accomplishments.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical foundations of the Interdependence (Relative) scale synthesize classical social identity theory, cognitive self-schema frameworks, feminist psychologies of relational development, and modern social cognitive attachment paradigms:

Markus and Kitayama’s Self-Construal Model (1991)

Markus and Kitayama posited that cultures shape the self through two fundamental pathways: the independent self-construal (prevalent in individualistic Western settings, emphasizing autonomy, distinctiveness, and internal attributes) and the interdependent self-construal (prevalent in East Asian and collectivistic cultures, emphasizing social roles, group harmony, and fitting in). While foundational, their formulation primarily conceptualized interdependence in collective terms (e.g., clan, village, corporation, national identity). Cross and colleagues argued that this overlooked the dyadic, personal realm of social connection.

Brewer and Gardner’s Tripartite Self-Representation (1996)

Marilynn Brewer and Wendi Gardner resolved conceptual ambiguities in self-construal research by introducing a tripartite model of the self: the individual self (differentiated from all others via unique personal traits), the relational self (defined by dyadic bonds and interpersonal role relationships), and the collective self (defined by membership in broad social categories or groups). Cross, Bacon, and Morris directly grounded the RISC scale in Brewer and Gardner’s relational level of self-representation, distinguishing it empirically and conceptually from the collective level.

Aron and Aron’s “Inclusion of Other in the Self” (IOS)

Arthur Aron and Elaine Aron’s self-expansion model posits that in close, loving relationships, people treat the partner’s resources, perspectives, and identities as their own. The relational-interdependent self-construal acts as an individual difference manifestation of this chronic tendency: high-RISC individuals systematically construct identity boundaries that allow the psychological overlap of self and close others across their primary relational networks.

Feminist Relational Theory

The scale also draws significant theoretical inspiration from Jean Baker Miller and the Stone Center relational-cultural theory, which asserts that human development occurs within the context of connection, and that women are socialized toward relational awareness, empathy, and responsiveness. By isolating relational interdependence from collective conformity, Cross and colleagues provided a rigorous empirical instrument that validated core predictions of relational-cultural developmental theory without conflating it with generalized submissiveness.

Validity

The validity of the Interdependence (Relative) scale has been established through extensive psychometric testing across multiple independent investigations:

Construct and Convergent Validity

The scale exhibits robust convergent validity with theoretical constructs that tap dyadic engagement, empathy, and relational closeness:

• Empathic Concern and Perspective Taking: Cross et al. (2000) demonstrated that RISC scores correlate positively and significantly with the Empathic Concern (r = .34 to .42, p < .001) and Perspective-Taking subscales (r = .28 to .35, p < .001) of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1983).
• Communal Orientation: The instrument correlates positively with the Communal Orientation Scale (Clark et al., 1987; r = .38 to .48, p < .001), showing that high-RISC scorers focus on mutual responsiveness rather than transactional score-keeping.
• Need for Belonging: Scores correlate moderately with Leary and colleagues’ (2013) Need to Belong Scale (r = .30 to .39), reflecting a healthy motivation for interpersonal affiliation.

Discriminant Validity

To demonstrate that the scale does not merely assess general sociability, social desirability, or dependent personality patterns, researchers established key discriminant parameters:

• Collective Interdependence: Scores on the RISC scale show weak to negligible correlations with measures of collective or group-based interdependence, such as the Collective Self-Esteem Scale (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992; r typically < .15), proving that dyadic relationality is distinct from tribal or group identification.
• Social Desirability: Correlations with the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale are non-significant (r = .04 to .08), demonstrating that high scores do not reflect virtue signaling or impression management.
• Anxious Attachment and Pathological Codependency: The scale demonstrates discriminant validity from anxious attachment styles and dependent personality traits (r values typically between -.05 and .12), confirming that relational interdependence represents an adaptive, healthy self-schema rather than neurotic overdependence.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

Laboratory and field experiments reveal striking behavioral predictions:

• Cognitive Organization and Memory: In free-recall experiments, high-RISC participants demonstrate clustered recall for personal information about dyadic partners, exhibiting spontaneous organization around relational schemas (Cross et al., 2000, Study 2).
• Interactional Responsiveness: Dyadic interaction paradigms show that individuals high in relational interdependence disclose deeper emotions, exhibit more attentive listening behaviors, and perceive their partners more accurately than do low-scoring counterparts.
• Conflict Negotiation: In social dilemma and negotiation simulations, high-RISC individuals adopt integrative, problem-solving negotiation strategies that protect long-term relational ties, avoiding destructive competitive posturing.

Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Interdependence (Relative) scale has been confirmed across diverse adult, adolescent, and cross-cultural cohorts:

Internal Consistency

Across the original validation investigations reported by Cross, Bacon, and Morris (2000, Studies 1–4), the scale demonstrated consistently high internal consistency:

• Study 1 (N = 259 university undergraduates): Cronbach’s α = .88.
• Study 2 (N = 176): Cronbach’s α = .85.
• Study 3 (N = 114): Cronbach’s α = .90.
• Subsequent multi-sample replications across Western and non-Western samples report Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging between .83 and .91, and McDonald’s omega (ω) values exceeding .86, demonstrating excellent internal structural coherence.

Test-Retest Stability

Cross et al. (2000) evaluated test-retest reliability across multiple time intervals:

• Over a 1-month interval, the stability coefficient was r = .79 (p < .001).
• Over a 2-month interval, test-retest reliability remained robust at r = .73 (p < .001).
• Extended longitudinal follow-ups spanning one academic semester (approximately 4 months) reported test-retest stability coefficients exceeding r = .70, demonstrating that relational-interdependent self-construal operates as a stable, trait-like disposition rather than a fluctuating emotional state.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the 11-item instrument has been examined using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA):

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In the original scale development phase, principal axis factoring with promax and varimax rotations was conducted on an initial pool of candidate items. The analyses unambiguously revealed a dominant single-factor solution:

• The primary factor accounted for the largest proportion of total common variance (eigenvalue > 4.20), with a sharp “elbow” observed at the second factor on the scree plot (second eigenvalue < 1.10).
• All retained items yielded factor loadings exceeding .40 on the single dominant latent factor, with the majority of loadings falling between .55 and .82.
• Reverse-keyed items (such as items 7 and 9, as well as negatively worded validation variants) loaded cleanly onto the primary construct when reversed, ruling out structural artifacts driven by method effects.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent psychometric investigations utilizing CFA have assessed the goodness-of-fit for the unidimensional model against alternative two-factor or multidimensional models:

• Chi-Square / Degree of Freedom Ratio (χ²/df): Ratios typically fall between 1.45 and 2.30, indicating an adequate to excellent fit.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values consistently range between .94 and .98 (exceeding the conventional .90 threshold for acceptable fit and .95 for good fit).
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Estimates range from .93 to .97.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Values consistently remain between .038 and .058 (with 90% confidence intervals well below the .08 ceiling), confirming minimal residual variance.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Values generally fall below .045.

These robust factor-analytic metrics provide conclusive evidence that the Interdependence (Relative) instrument measures a single, coherent, unidimensional latent continuum.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Official Instrument Title: Interdependence (Relative) Scale (also widely cited as the Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal [RISC] Scale)
• Target Population: Adults and older adolescents (ages 16 and above) across academic, research, and non-clinical settings.
• Administration Modality: Self-administered paper-and-pencil or computerized/online survey format.
• Completion Duration: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes.
• Total Number of Items: 11 items.
• Response Format: 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).
• Scoring Instructions:
  • Before computing scores, reverse-score designated negatively keyed items where high agreement indicates low relational interdependence (e.g., items 7 and 9, and depending on implementation variant, negatively worded items such as 4, 6, 7, 8, 9). For standard 7-point scoring, reverse-scoring is calculated using the formula: Recoded Value = 8 – Original Value.
  • Overall Score Computation: Calculate the mean score across all 11 items by summing the item values (after reverse coding) and dividing by 11. Alternatively, a total sum score (ranging from 11 to 77) may be calculated.
  • Interpretation: Higher scores reflect a stronger relational-interdependent self-construal (defining oneself in terms of close, dyadic relationships). Lower scores reflect a highly independent self-construal where the self is organized separately from personal relationships.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Interdependence (Relative) / Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal (RISC) Scale was published in 2000 by Susan E. Cross, Pamela L. Bacon, and Michael L. Morris in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Volume 78, Issue 4, pages 791–808), copyrighted by the American Psychological Association (APA).

Licensing and Accessibility: The scale items were published in full in the original 2000 academic article for scholarly use. Under standard academic fair-use guidelines, the instrument may be utilized free of charge by academic researchers, educators, and students for non-commercial scientific research, theses, and instructional purposes, provided appropriate scholarly attribution is cited. Any commercial exploitation, corporate assessment distribution, or incorporation into proprietary commercial software typically requires formal copyright permission from the American Psychological Association.

References

• Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596
• Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.83
• Clark, M. S., Ouellette, R., Powell, M. C., & Milberg, S. (1987). Recipient’s mood, relationship type, and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.1.94
• Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. (2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 791–808. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.791
• Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122(1), 5–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.122.1.5
• Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
• Leary, M. R., Kelly, K. M., Cottrell, C. A., & Schreindorfer, L. S. (2013). Construct validity of the Need to Belong Scale: Mapping the nomological network. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(6), 610–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.819511
• Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(3), 302–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292183006
• Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224

Items of the Scale