共变信息的程度差异对归因的影响

本研究通过两个实验探讨了1种自我关联的共变信息的程度差异对归因的影响。实验1中38名被试阅读一些情境,情境中包含被试好/不好的结果、及相关的一致性信息,并操作一致性的程度,然后在原因的4个维度进行归因。结果表明一致性高/低分别被归于人的外/内因,而一致性信息无或不明确时的归因则在内外归因之间。同时在4个原因维度均表现出利己归因偏好,一致性信息的程度差异对利己归因偏好没有显著干扰作用。实验2采用实验1的方法但给予了区别性信息,实验2基本复制了实验1的结果。另外本研究发现一致性或区别性高时在可控制性维度利己归因偏好消失。最后探讨了共变信息对归因及利己归因偏好的影响。     

自我差异对消费者产品属性选择偏好的影响

自我是一个人所持有的关于自我特征的信念,不同的理想和现实自我差异可能带来不同的消费选择。本研究以在校大学生作为被试,通过阅读不同的理想与现实自我材料,启动被试的理想与现实的自我差异,考察其对消费者产品属性选择偏好的影响。结果发现：现实与理想自我差异小的被试,更偏好享乐属性强的产品;现实与理想自我差异大的被试,更偏好功能属性强的产品。     

自我损耗对儿童分享行为的影响

探讨抵制诱惑范式在儿童自我损耗研究中的应用,并研究自我损耗对儿童分享行为的影响。采用双任务范式,任务一为抵制诱惑,任务二为7个连续的分享任务,记录被试分享的数量以及分享的优先性。随机选取某师范大学附属幼儿园共182名儿童,其中有效被试144人。结果表明：与以往研究一致,儿童分享行为不存在性别差异,且所有被试均表现出较强的利己分享倾向;抵制诱惑范式能够有效启动儿童的自我损耗状态,自我损耗抑制儿童分享中的利他倾向,即损耗组被试在分享任务中表现出更强的利己;自我损耗对小班和中班儿童的利他分享影响较大,对大班儿童在分享行为中的利他倾向影响并不明显。     

中国大学生的自我验证动机和自我提高动机研究

当人们寻求别人评价时,会受到自我验证和自我提高动机两大动机的影响,而文化因素却影响了这两种动机的强弱表现。本研究探讨了在中国文化背景下这两种动机的表现,结果发现,我国大学生被试在寻求别人评价时,同时都表现出强的自我提高和自我验证动机。     

一项从自我呈现角度针对中国人自我增强的研究

本文从中国人心理生活的“情境中心”以及“要面子”两个特点入手考查其是否会表现出自我增强。研究过程采用被试问设计，分别设计了两种实验情境（“大争组”与“自然组”），要求其中被试进行自我评价，结果显示处于为大我争面子情境之中的被试的自我评价较自然情境之中的高，进而证实中国人同样需要自我增强，而其是否会表现进行自我增强取决于情境的特点。     

学习动机、归因、自我效能感与学生自我监控学习行为的关系研究

本研究以266名中小学生为被试,研究了学习动机、归因、自我效能感与自我监控学习行为的关系。结果表明:(1)自我监控学习行为与表面型学习动机有非常显着的负相关,与深层型学习动机有非常显着的正相关,与成就型学习动机无显着相关;(2)自我监控学习行为与成功归因的内控分数成正比,但与失败归因的关系不大;(3)自我监控学习行为与自我效能感有显着正相关关系;(4)学习动机、归因、自我效能感是影响自我监控学习行为的几个重要的内部因素。     

脆弱高自尊在自我威胁后的归因与情绪转换

对89名大学生被试在自我威胁条件下的归因与情绪模式进行了实验室研究。结果发现:(1)自我威胁条件下,脆弱高自尊个体会产生即刻的强烈羞愧情绪,之后通过外归因将这种向内的羞愧转换为向外的高敌意;(2)低自尊个体在自我威胁条件下,也会产生即刻的强烈羞愧感,但其外归因和敌意情绪均保持在较低水平,未出现归因与情绪转换。研究结果支持自我威胁后的归因与情绪转换假设。     

道德自我对利己和利他行为倾向的注意偏向

以大学生为被试,通过点探测任务考察高低道德自我水平对利他和利己词汇的注意偏向。结果发现:(1)高道德自我水平个体在利他-利己词语、利他-中性配对出现时,若探测点与利他词语位置一致,被试的反应时比较短,而当探测点与利他词语位置不一致时,被试的反应时会延长;(2)低道德自我水平的个体在探测点与利己词语同位时的反应时短,当探测点同利他词语或中性词语位置一致时反应时增加;(3)高道德自我水平个体对利他词语的注意偏向值为正,即存在注意警觉,而对利己词汇的注意偏向值为负,表现出注意回避;低道德自我水平个体对利己词汇也存在注意回避。结果表明道德自我水平的高低影响个体对利他和利己行为倾向的注意偏向。     

大学生的自我差异与价值偏好

基于以往对自我透视和价值偏好的研究,本研究提出自我差异是引发价值偏好出现分离的原因之一。两项研究对这一假设进行了检验。结果发现：相对于害怕的可能自我,大学生在期望可能自我上体验到更大的差异;在可能自我差异激活后,理想主义价值在个体的价值系统中占据主导地位,而在当前自我差异激活后,实用主义价值占据主导地位;当下目标和当前自我同时启动时,与当下目标未启动时,两组个体对价值偏好无显著差异。     

不同自尊者对自我相关信息的记忆偏好

研究主要采用4(自尊类型)×2(词汇效价)混合设计,探讨了178名不同自尊水平或不同自尊类型大学生对自我相关信息的记忆偏好。结果发现:(1)高外显自尊者比低自尊者有更积极的记忆偏好,消极记忆偏好差异不显著;高内隐自尊者则比低自尊者有更弱的积极回忆偏好及更弱的消极回忆偏好。(2)就作为组内差异存在的记忆偏好而言,所有被试均有积极偏好;就作为组间差异存在的记忆偏好而言,脆弱的高自尊者有更强的积极偏好,但低自尊者也没有表现出明显的消极偏好。结果提示不同自尊者对自我相关信息有不同记忆偏好。     

Cultural differences in emotion regulation during self-reflection on negative personal experiences

Reflecting on negative personal experiences has implications for mood that may vary as a function of specific domains (e.g., achievement vs. interpersonal) and cultural orientation (e.g., interdependence vs. independence). This study investigated cultural differences in the social-cognitive and affective processes undertaken as Easterners and Westerners reflected on negative interpersonal and performance experiences. One hundred Asian Americans and 92 European-American college students were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: interpersonal rejection, achievement failure, or a control condition. Results revealed that Asian Americans experienced greater distress than European Americans after self-reflecting over a failed interpersonal experience, suggesting cultural sensitivity in the relational domain. Consistent with theoretical predictions, analysis of the social cognitive and affective processes that participants engaged in during self-reflection provided some evidence that self-enhancement may buffer distress for European Americans, while emotion suppression may be adaptive for Asian Americans.     

Explanations for cultural differences in thinking: Easterners’ dialectical thinking and Westerners’ linear thinking

ABSTRACT

Since Easterners’ naïve dialectical thinking, which is contrasted with Westerners’ linear thinking, was introduced, many cross-cultural studies on human thinking have been conducted, and explanations for the cultural differences have been proposed. First, after examining the robustness of these cultural differences, two existing explanations are discussed in this paper. The first is based on the discinction between Westerners' analytic cognition and Easterners' holistic cogntion. This is related to the distinction between Westerners’ independent self and Easterners’ interdependent self. The second is based on the philosophical tradition of China’s Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism, which is contrasted with that of Ancient Greece. Second, we propose a new explanation based on the distinction between Westerners’ low-context culture and Easterners’ high-context culture (Beyond culture. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Books/Doubleday.). Finally, we show that this distinction can be based on socioecological approaches, and it is expected to explain the cultural differences between the Chinese and Japanese.     

Inclusion of theory-relevant moderators yield the same conclusions as Sedikides, Gaertner, and Vevea (2005): A meta-analytical reply to Heine, Kitayama, and Hamamura (2007)

Heine, Kitayama and Hamamura (2007) attributed the Sedikides, Gaertner and Vevea (2005) findings to the exclusion of six papers. We report a meta-analysis that includes those six papers. The Heine et al . conclusions are faulty, because of a misspecified meta-analysis that failed to consider two moderators central to the theory. First, some of their effect sizes originated from studies that did not empirically validate comparison dimensions. Inclusion of this moderator evidences pancultural self-enhancement: Westerners enhance more strongly on individualistic dimensions, Easterners on collectivistic dimensions. Second, some of their effect sizes were irrelevant to whether enhancement is correlated with dimension importance. Inclusion of this moderator evidences pancultural self-enhancement: Both Westerners and Easterners enhance on personally important dimensions. The Sedikides et al . conclusions are valid: Tactical self-enhancement is pancultural.     

Inclusion of additional studies yields different conclusions: Comment on Sedikides, Gaertner, & Vevea (2005), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

In a Journal of Personality and Social Psychology article, Sedikides, Gaertner and Vevea (2005) presented two meta-analyses that included eight papers to investigate the question of whether people from Eastern cultures self-enhance more for traits that they view to be important compared to those that they view as unimportant. The results supported their hypothesis: Self-enhancement appears to be pancultural. However, this conclusion is severely compromised by six relevant papers that are not included in their meta-analyses. Importantly, all of these six studies contradicted their hypothesis. When complete meta-analyses are conducted which include all of the relevant papers, a very different pattern of results emerges. Eastern and Western cultures do not differ from each other in the pattern of their self-enhancement of independent and interdependent traits. Furthermore, whereas Westerners self-enhanced significantly more for traits that they viewed to be especially important, East Asians did not. Contrary to the Sedikides et al. (2005) suggestion, the existing evidence suggests substantial cross-cultural variation in self-enhancement, with Westerners being far more self-enhancing than Easterners. Reasons for the conflicting pattern of findings across methods and meta-analyses are discussed.     

Pancultural self-enhancement reloaded: a meta-analytic reply to Heine (2005)

C. Sedikides, L. Gaertner, and Y. Toguchi (2003) reported findings favoring the universality of self-enhancement. S. J. Heine (2005) challenged the authors' research on evidential and logical grounds. In response, the authors carried out 2 meta-analytic investigations. The results backed the C. Sedikides et al. (2003) theory and findings. Both Westerners and Easterners self-enhanced tactically. Westerners self-enhanced on attributes relevant to the cultural ideal of individualism, whereas Easterners self-enhanced on attributes relevant to the cultural ideal of collectivism (in both cases, because of the personal importance of the ideal). Self-enhancement motivation is universal, although its manifestations are strategically sensitive to cultural context. The authors respond to other aspects of Heine's critique by discussing why researchers should empirically validate the comparison dimension (individualistic vs. collectivistic) and defending why the better-than-average effect is a valid measure of self-enhancement.     

Pancultural self-enhancement

The culture movement challenged the universality of the self-enhancement motive by proposing that the motive is pervasive in individualistic cultures (the West) but absent in collectivistic cultures (the East). The present research posited that Westerners and Easterners use different tactics to achieve the same goal: positive self-regard. Study 1 tested participants from differing cultural backgrounds (the United States vs. Japan), and Study 2 tested participants of differing self-construals (independent vs. interdependent). Americans and independents self-enhanced on individualistic attributes, whereas Japanese and interdependents self-enhanced on collectivistic attributes. Independents regarded individualistic attributes, whereas interdependents regarded collectivistic attributes, as personally important. Attribute importance mediated self-enhancement. Regardless of cultural background or self-construal, people self-enhance on personally important dimensions. Self-enhancement is a universal human motive.     

Cultural variations on optimistic and pessimistic bias for self versus a sibling: is there evidence for self-enhancement in the west and for self-criticism in the east when the referent group is specified?

A culturally relevant framework was used to examine variations on optimistic and pessimistic bias in Westerners and Easterners. Study 1 showed that 136 European Americans compared with 159 Japanese were more likely to predict typical positive events to occur to self than to a sibling. The opposite pattern emerged in the prediction of typical negative events. Study 2 replicated these findings on the basis of predictions for atypical events in 175 European Americans and 130 Japanese. Across both studies, within-groups analyses indicated that European Americans held an optimistic bias in the prediction of positive and negative events, whereas Japanese held a pessimistic bias for negative events. These findings are taken to offer support for presumed cultural differences in self-enhancement and self-criticism between Westerners and Easterners, respectively.     

有关自我增强跨文化普遍性的争论

文化自我观点质疑自我增强（self-enhancement）的跨文化普遍性,认为东亚人并非像西方人一样拥有对自我保持积极评价的需要,而是自我提升（self-improvement）。然而,另外一些学者则认为东亚人同样会表现出自我增强,其中“对自我的重要性”被看作是一个重要的中介变量。至此,笔者针对有关自我增强跨文化普遍性的争论做了回顾,并在此基础之上提出从面子角度研究东亚人自尊的建议,以期为澄清此争论提供新的思路与证据     

“Me”, “We”, and Materialism: Associations between Contingent Self-Worth and Materialistic Values across Cultures

Abstract

Individuals with high levels of externally contingent self-worth tend to base their self-esteem on factors such as appearance, competitive success, and others’ approval. Such tendencies might also elevate people’s focus on material possessions. However, cultural moderation of these associations has yet to be explored. A cross-cultural survey among Chinese and Dutch college students examined the link between externally-based contingent self-worth and materialistic values, as well as the mediating roles of need to belong and need for self-enhancement. An initial multi-group path analysis indicated a stronger link between externally contingent self-worth and materialism for Chinese students than for Dutch students. For both Chinese and Dutch students, externally contingent self-worth was positively related to materialistic values, need to belong, and need for self-enhancement. Need to belong and need for self-enhancement were positively linked with materialism, and need to belong and need for self-enhancement mediated the link between externally contingent self-worth and materialism. Though the indirect effect via self-enhancement was somewhat stronger among Chinese participants, this research demonstrates that people’s externally contingent self-worth might be a factor predicting materialism across cultures, with need to belong and need for self-enhancement playing similar roles as underlying processes in different societies.     

Do differences in general trust explain cultural differences in dispositionism?1

Abstract: It has been suggested that Westerners are more inclined than Easterners to endorse dispositionism. To help explain what produces this cultural difference, I examined the responses of Japanese and American students to determine whether levels of general trust, which is the expectation of benign or cooperative behavior based on the goodwill of another person (Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994), would matter. As predicted, in accounting for either a prosocial or deviant behavior, high trusters were more likely than low trusters to show dispositionism on all three measures (dispositional attribution, trait inference, and behavioral consistency), whereas cultural differences in dispositionism almost vanished. This tendency was found regardless of the desirability of behaviors.