| Course | HLTH 8701 Cultural Psychology |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 4 |
| Paper type | Self-construal analysis |
| Length | About 590 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 8701 Week 4
Self-Construal Analysis: Reading a Composite Cancer Patient's Request for a Family Meeting Through Markus and Kitayama's Independent and Interdependent Selves Rather Than Through His Background
Student Name
Walden University
HLTH 8701: Cultural Psychology
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Self-Construal Analysis: Reading a Composite Cancer Patient's Request for a Family Meeting Through Markus and Kitayama's Independent and Interdependent Selves Rather Than Through His Background
The Episode
Mr. R., a composite 64-year-old man at an outpatient oncology clinic, has just learned that his colon cancer has spread to his liver. The oncologist describes two treatment options and asks which he prefers. Mr. R. says he would like to discuss it with his wife, his two adult children and his younger brother before he decides, and asks whether they can all come to the next appointment. The nurse's note reads: "Patient deferring decision to family; cultural." This analysis asks what the episode shows when read through a theory of the self rather than through a label for his background.
The Framework
Markus and Kitayama (1991) described two construals of the self. An independent self-construal treats the self as a bounded, autonomous entity defined by internal attributes such as preferences and abilities; behavior is organized by reference to one's own thoughts and feelings. An interdependent self-construal treats the self as connected to others and defined in part by relationships; behavior is organized by reference to the thoughts, feelings and actions of others in the relationship. In their account, the two construals steer what people notice, feel and strive for, and cultures differ in which construal they encourage, while individuals in any culture can hold either to some degree.
Reading the Episode
Under an independent construal, a treatment decision is an expression of the patient's own values and preferences, and involving others is optional consultation. Under an interdependent construal, a serious decision affects and belongs partly to the people whose lives are bound up with the patient's; consulting them is part of making the decision correctly, not a delay.
Mr. R.'s request fits the interdependent reading. He did not ask his family to decide for him; he asked to decide with them. The treatment choice will affect his wife's work schedule, his children's caregiving and the household's finances. Making it alone could feel, from an interdependent standpoint, like acting without regard for those relationships.
Research on attitudes toward disclosure and decision-making supports the point that preferences for family involvement vary across groups. Blackhall et al. (1995) found that Korean American and Mexican American older adults were less likely than European American and African American older adults to think a patient ought to hear a diagnosis of metastatic cancer directly, or ought to decide alone about life support, and more likely to favor a family-centered model. Their findings also showed wide variation within each group.
Why Not Explain by Background
Explaining the request by Mr. R.'s background would assume he holds the construal his group is said to favor. Within-group variation means that assumption could be wrong, and pooled comparisons of group orientations show differences that are often modest and inconsistent across measures (Oyserman et al., 2002), and it would miss what matters for care: what Mr. R. himself wants. A clinician who knows only his ethnicity might either over-involve his family, assuming he wants them to decide, or under-involve them, assuming autonomy is universal.
Implications for Care
The analysis suggests asking rather than assuming. The oncologist could ask Mr. R. how he usually makes important decisions, whom he wants present and what role each person should play. Scheduling the family meeting he requested respects an interdependent construal without removing his own voice. The clinical note should record his preference, "Wants wife, children and brother present for decision," rather than a label.
References
Blackhall, L. J., Murphy, S. T., Frank, G., Michel, V., & Azen, S. (1995). Ethnicity and attitudes toward patient autonomy. JAMA, 274(10), 820-825. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1995.03530100060035
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
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3-72. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3
Reading the HLTH 8701 Week 4 instructions
Students analyze a health care episode using a theory of the self from cultural psychology. Faculty expect the theory to be stated accurately at the individual level and applied to specific behaviors in the episode, rather than used to classify the person by background. The strongest analyses compare how the episode looks under each construal and explain why one reading fits better. Group-level research may be used to show that preferences vary, but not to assign the person a construal. Faculty also expect the analysis to address the risk of explaining behavior by ethnicity, and to end with practical implications for care, such as how clinicians should ask about decision preferences and how records should describe them. A composite case is acceptable when labeled.
How the HLTH 8701 Week 4 example is put together
The analysis opens with the composite episode and the nurse's note. The framework section summarizes Markus and Kitayama's independent and interdependent construals as properties of individuals that cultures encourage to different degrees. The reading section contrasts the two interpretations of the request and argues that Mr. R. wants to decide with his family. A paragraph cites Blackhall and colleagues on variation in attitudes toward disclosure and life-support decisions across four groups, stressing variation within each. A section explains why explaining the request by background would mislead, citing Oyserman and colleagues. The implications section recommends asking about decision preferences, scheduling the family meeting and rewriting the note.
HLTH 8701 Week 4 rubric: what earns full marks
Faculty grade the analysis on accurate use of theory and on avoiding stereotyping. Labeling the patient as collectivist because of his background earns little and may cost credit. Credit rises when the construals are stated as individual-level properties and applied to the specific request, showing what each reading would predict. Using group-level research only to show variation is valued. The strongest analyses explain why a background-based explanation could lead to care errors in either direction. Practical implications earn credit when they follow from the analysis, such as asking about decision preferences rather than assuming them. Clear writing, accurate citation and a labeled composite case complete a strong paper.
Common HLTH 8701 Week 4 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Self-construal analyses often begin with the patient's ethnicity and work backward to a construal. That reverses the theory, which describes individuals. To write a stronger analysis, start with what the person actually said or did. Describe how the episode would look under each construal. Decide which reading fits better and explain why from the details. Use group-level studies only to show that preferences vary, and say so. Explain how relying on background could lead clinicians astray. Then recommend what clinicians should ask and how they should record the answer. A self-construal analysis of a case from your setting can be written for your prompt.
Get a HLTH 8701 Week 4 example written to your instructions
Share the case your prompt describes, stripped of names and places, and add the rubric. The analysis returned applies independent and interdependent self-construal to the person and to the institution, treats the person's own account as the evidence, and claims nothing about any group. The clinic and patient are invented, and the analysis reaches you in 24 to 48 hours; the first is free.
More HLTH 8701 papers and PhD in Public Health samples
- HLTH 8701 Week 1: Defining Culture Post
- HLTH 8701 Week 2: Collectivism Construct Definition
- HLTH 8701 Week 3: Cross-National Comparison Critique
- HLTH 8701 Week 5: Measurement Invariance Appraisal
- HLTH 8701 Week 6: Mechanism Peer Reply
- HLTH 8701 Week 7: Translated Screener Critique
- HLTH 8701 Week 8: Postpartum Emic Account
- HLTH 8701 Week 9: Evidence Sampling Appraisal
- HLTH 8701 Week 10: Attribution Across Cultures Post
- HLTH 8701 Week 11: Cultural Explanation Paper
- HLTH 8574 Week 4: Prevalence Evidence Audit
- HLTH 8573 Week 4: Youth Population Profile
- HLTH 8560E Week 4: Survey Round Discussion Post
- HLTH 8551 Week 4: Problem Statement Two Drafts
HLTH 8701 Week 4 questions, answered
Does interdependent self-construal mean a person lacks autonomy?
No, and the sample argues against that reading directly. In Markus and Kitayama's account, an interdependent self acts by attending to relationships and fitting into them, which is a form of agency with different reference points. A patient who convenes family before deciding is choosing how the decision will be made. Framing it as dependence imports an independent standard as though it were neutral.
Can self-construal be assigned from someone's ethnicity or country?
Not defensibly. Self-construal is a property measured person by person, and scores vary widely within any population, while context can shift which orientation a person draws on. The sample relies on the patient's own explanation and makes no inference from his background. Your paper can cite average differences between samples, but applying them to one person repeats the very mistake this course trains readers to spot.
Where can I find a free HLTH 8701 Week 4 sample paper?
This page holds the full Week 4 self-construal analysis, reading a composite patient's request for a family meeting through Markus and Kitayama's independent and interdependent selves, with three references.
Did Mr. R. hand the decision to his family?
No. He asked to decide with his wife, children and brother present, which fits an interdependent construal in which a serious decision partly belongs to the people it affects. He kept his own voice in the decision.
How should the clinical note be written instead?
As a stated preference rather than a label, for example that the patient wants his wife, children and brother present for the treatment decision. That records what he asked for without assigning a cultural explanation.