167 research outputs found
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)
No full textHeine, 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
Evaluating the evidence for pancultural self-enhancement
No full textWe do not regard the better-than-average effect as 'the only acceptable measure of self-enhancement' (Heine, Kitayama, & Hamamura, 2007b). Rather, we object to meta-analytical inclusion of effects that are incapable of testing the tactical self-enhancement hypothesis. In Investigation 1 of Sedikides, Gaertner, and Vevea (2007a), 12 of the 24 effects involved attributes that were unvalidated for domain (collectivistic vs individualistic): these effects are uninformative. The 12 domain-validated effects supported the hypothesis. In Investigation 2 of Sedikides et al. (2007a), 12 of the 29 effects were deemed irrelevant. None of these effects involved a correlation between: (a) a participant's rating of self and his/her rating of another person; and (b) idiographic importance rating of the comparison attributes. These effects, then, cannot test whether the self–other comparison varies with the personal importance of the comparison attributes. The 17 relevant effects supported the hypothesis. The weight of the evidence points to the panculturality of self-enhancement
It's not weird, it's wrong: When researchers overlook underlying genotypes, they will not detect universal processes
No full textWe dispute Henrich et al.'s analysis of cultural differences at the level of a narrow behavioral-expression for assessing a universalist argument. When Researchers Overlook uNderlying Genotypes (WRONG), they fail to detect universal processes that generate observed differences in expression. We reify this position with our own cross-cultural research on self-enhancement and self-esteem
Pancultural self-enhancement reloaded: a meta-analytic reply to Heine (2005)
No full textC. Sedikides, L. Gaertner, and Y. Toguchi (2003; see record 2002-08440-007) reported findings favoring the universality of self-enhancement. S. J. Heine (2005; see record 2005-13803-005) 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
On the motivational primacy of the individual self: “I” is stronger than “We”
No full textThe self-concept is dynamic, with momentary definition shifting from a representation of self as a unique and independent social agent to an undifferentiated and interchangeable group member. Indeed, the individual self and collective self are fundamental components of the self-concept, with each being important and meaningful to human experience. However, are those selves equally important and meaningful? We review a program of research empirically testing three competing hypotheses that suggests that the motivational core of human experience is (a) the individual self, (b) the collective self, or (c) determined by contextual factors that make a given self momentarily accessible. The research furnished unanimous and consistent evidence that the individual self is the motivationally primary form of self-definition
Socio-cultural influences on self-evaluation
No full textThe need for a positively valued self is a human universal. How that need manifests, however, is shaped by culture, which serves as a powerful form of normative and informational influence. This chapter reviews the empirical literature demonstrating that desire for high self-esteem and the corresponding motivations of self-enhancement and self-protection have (a) pancultural presence, (b) cultural manifestation, and (c) a pancultural function of promoting psychological health
Self-esteem and favoritism toward novel in-groups: the self as an evaluative base
No full textThe self-as-evaluative base (SEB) hypothesis proposes that self-evaluation extends automatically via an amotivated consistency process to affect evaluation of novel in-groups. Four minimal group studies support SEB. Personal trait self-esteem (PSE) predicted increased favoritism toward a novel in-group that, objectively, was equivalent to the out-group (Study 1). This association was independent of information-processing effects (Study 1), collective self-esteem, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), and narcissism (Studies 2 and 3). A self-affirmation manipulation attenuated the association between in-group favoritism and an individual difference associated with motivated social identity concerns (RWA) but did not alter the PSE effect (Study 3). Finally, the association between PSE and in-group favoritism remained positive even when the in-group was objectively less favorable than the out-group (Study 4)
Self-enhancement and self-protection motivation: from the laboratory to an evolutionary context
No full textExisting data suggest that the self-enhancement and self-protection motivations (which elevate or protect the positive self-concept) exert a pivotal influence on self-evaluation and behavior. Moreover, these motivations are more potent than the self-assessment motivation (which works to increase the accuracy of the self-concept) or the self-verification motivation (which works to confirm the self-concept). The data also suggest that the self-enhancement and self-protection motivations serve crucial mental health functions and that these functions are apparent across different cultures. This article relates these findings to the possible evolutionary utility of these motivations. It is argued that self-enhancement and self-protection motivations were evolutionarily selected, because they offered personal, relational, and group-rank advantages to species members who possessed these traits
Wanting to be great and better but not average: on the pancultural desire for self-enhancing and self-improving feedback
No full textWhat is the nature of self-evaluation motives? The relativist perspective suggests that self-evaluation motives vary culturally, with self-enhancement developing in Western culture and self-effacement and self-improvement developing in East Asian culture. The universalist perspective suggests that self-enhancement and self-improvement are basic human motives that coexist in the self-system and are prevalent across cultures. We tested the competing perspectives in a cross-cultural study. Chinese and American students rated the degree to which they want to receive four types of feedback (self-enhancing, self-effacing, self-improving, and no-feedback) from four sources (parents, teachers, friends, and classmates). Chinese and Americans (a) overwhelmingly wanted self-enhancing and self-improving feedback more than self-effacing feedback and no-feedback and (b) were uninterested in self-effacing feedback. These findings attest to the universal nature of self-enhancement and self-improvement motive
Pancultural self-enhancement
No full textThe 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
- …
