Dialectical Self-Esteem and East-West Differences in Psychological Well-Being

10.1177/0146167204264243PERSONALITYSpencer-Rodgers AND et al. SOCIAL / DIALECTICAL PSYCHOLOGY SELF-ESTEEM BULLETIN Dialectical Self-Esteem and East-West Differences in Psychological Well-Being Julie Spencer-Rodgers Kaiping Peng University of California, Berkeley Lei Wang Yubo Hou Peking University A well-documented finding in the literature is that members of well-being are also lower among individuals in many East many East Asian cultures report lower self-esteem and psycholog- Asian countries than in Western nations (Diener, Suh, ical well-being than do members of Western cultures. The Smith, & Shao, 1995; Kitayama et al., 2000). Likewise, authors present the results of four studies that examined cultural within various multicultural societies, such as the United differences in reasoning about psychological contradiction and States, East Asian minority groups report lower self- the effects of naive dialecticism on self-evaluations and psycho- esteem, poorer life satisfaction, and greater anxiety and logical adjustment. Mainland Chinese and Asian Americans depression than do Caucasians and other racial/ethnic exhibited greater “ambivalence” or evaluative contradiction in groups (Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998). their self-attitudes than did Western synthesis-oriented cultures Scholars have proposed a number of cultural theories on a traditional self-report measure of self-esteem (Study 1) and that may elucidate East-West differences in well-being. in their spontaneous self-descriptions (Study 2). Naive dialecti- Individualism-collectivism (Oyserman, Coon, & cism, as assessed with the Dialectical Self Scale, mediated the Kemmelmeier, 2002; Triandis, 1995), independent- observed cultural differences in self-esteem and well-being interdependent self-construals (Heine & Lehman, (Study 3). In Study 4, the authors primed naive dialecticism 1997a; Markus & Kitayama, 1991), and cultural norms and found that increased dialecticism was related to decreased governing the experience and expression of emotion (Diener et al., 1995) have received much attention in the psychological adjustment. Implications for the conceptualiza- literature. The cultural dimension of naive dialecticism tion and measurement of self-esteem and psychological well- may offer further insight into culture and well-being. being across cultures are discussed. Our theoretical perspective draws from three broad areas of research on naive dialecticism (Peng & Nisbett, Keywords: self-esteem; well-being; self-concept; cross-cultural differences; attitudinal ambivalence; East Asians Authors’ Note: We wish to thank Oliver John, Serena Chen, Helen Boucher, Melissa Williams, and the Culture and Cognition lab for their helpful comments. This research was supported by a National Science A common and well-documented finding in the litera- Foundation (NSF) Dissertation Enhancement Award, a National Insti- ture is that many East Asian cultures and East Asian tute of Mental Health (NIMH) National Research Service Award, and minority groups report lower levels of self-esteem and a Positive Psychology Microgrant awarded to Julie Spencer-Rodgers, and a National Natural Science Foundation of China grant well-being than do Western cultures. To illustrate, Japa- (NSFC70201006) awarded to Yubo Hou and Kaiping Peng. We also nese, Chinese, and Koreans report lower life satisfaction, wish to thank Eva Liao, Emily Li, and Alice Lin for their assistance with more negative affect (e.g., guilt and shame), and greater the data collection and coding. Correspondence concerning this arti- anxiety, depression, and pessimism than do other cul- cle should be addressed to Julie Spencer-Rodgers, Department of Psy- chology, 4143 Tolman Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA tural groups (Diener & Diener, 1995; Heine & Lehman, 94720-5050; e-mail: [email protected]. 1997a; Kitayama, Markus, & Kurokawa, 2000; Kitayama, PSPB, Vol. 30 No. 11, November 2004 1416-1432 Markus, Matsumoto, & Norasakkunkit, 1997; Lee & DOI: 10.1177/0146167204264243 Seligman, 1997). Judgments of happiness and subjective © 2004 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc. 1416 Spencer-Rodgers et al. / DIALECTICAL SELF-ESTEEM 1417 1999), cultural differences in the structure of the self- mism have been referred to as characteristic of “normal concept (e.g., Campbell et al., 1996), and attitudinal human thought” (Taylor & Brown, 1988, p. 193). We ambivalence (e.g., Thompson, Zanna, & Griffin, 1995). contend that East Asians more readily tolerate psycho- We submit that cultural differences in reasoning about logical contradiction, including positive and negative psychological contradiction account, in part, for the views of the self. Rather than implausible or maladjusted, East-West variance in well-being. Relative to Western cul- we propose that dialectical cultures exhibit greater tures, East Asians are inclined to acknowledge and “ambivalence” or evaluative contradiction in their self- accept psychological contradiction. As a result, they may evaluations. exhibit greater evaluative ambivalence in their self- appraisals and judgments of happiness. Naive Dialecticism East Asian epistemologies tend to tolerate, rather Dialectical Versus Synthetic Thinking than eschew, psychological contradiction (Peng, Ames, Culturally shared folk epistemologies influence peo- & Knowles, 2001). For dialectically oriented cultures, ple’s reasoning about contradiction as well as their toler- and dialectically oriented individuals within various cul- ance for ambiguity (Peng & Nisbett, 1999). Western psy- tures, the nature of the world is such that masculinity and chology has largely assumed that individuals are femininity, strength and weakness, good and bad, and so uncomfortable with incongruity and that they possess a on exist in the same object or event simultaneously. Rec- basic need to synthesize contradictory information ognizing and accepting the duality in all things (yin/ about an attitude object (Festinger, 1957; Lewin, 1951; yang), including the self, is regarded as normative and Thompson et al., 1995). Although attitudes are recog- adaptive in dialectical cultures. Dialectical thinking is nized to be complex and multidimensional, they have rooted in East Asian philosophical and religious tradi- traditionally been conceptualized as dichotomous or tions, including Confucianism and Buddhism (Peng & bipolar in nature. That is, one’s attitude toward an object Nisbett, 1999). It is based on three primary tenets: the or event is either positive or negative, but not both. principle of contradiction (two opposing propositions Operationally, attitudes have been assessed with bipolar may both be true), the principle of change (the universe scales (e.g., dislike-like), which are designed to elicit an is in flux and is constantly changing), and the principle overall summary judgment. According to Thompson of holism (all things in the universe are interrelated). et al. (1995), there has been less acknowledgement and Contemporary dialectical thought is embedded within study of attitudinal ambivalence in psychology. Most the lay cultural beliefs and folk epistemologies of numer- conventional theorizing assumes that attitudinal incon- ous East Asian cultures, including Chinese, Japanese, sistency leads to psychic tension or conflict and the need and Koreans, among others (Peng & Nisbett, 1999). for synthesis (e.g., cognitive dissonance theory, In contrast, Western cultures tend to be more linear Festinger, 1957; field theory, Lewin, 1951). However, a or synthetic in their cognitive orientation: They consider growing corpus of cross-cultural research has cast doubt both sides of an opposing argument and then they on whether these theoretical assertions are tenable search for synthesis and the resolution of incongruity across cultures (Choi & Choi, 2002; Heine & Lehman, (Lewin, 1951; Peng & Nisbett, 1999). As Lewin (1935) 1997b; Peng & Nisbett, 1999). asserted, Western folk epistemologies are rooted in Aris- First, some Western research indicates that people totelian traditions, which emphasize three basic princi- possess inconsistent attitudes toward certain attitude ples (Peng & Nisbett, 1999): the law of identity (if A is objects, such as racial/ethnic outgroups and significant true, then A is always true), the law of noncontradiction others (Thompson et al., 1995). Split semantic differen- (A cannot equal not A), and the law of the excluded mid- tial scales, which allow for the possibility of two evaluative dle (all propositions must be either true or false). As a dimensions, also have shown that individuals may associ- result, Westerners are generally less comfortable with ate positive and negative emotions, such as love and contradiction and attitudinal ambivalence is associated hate, relatively independently with certain objects with psychic tension and conflict (Festinger, 1957; (Thompson et al., 1995). Nevertheless, to evaluate the Lewin, 1951). Several decades of research have shown self as both good and bad, simultaneously, would appear that Westerners experience cognitive dissonance when improbable, illogical, or even irrational in most Western their values, preferences, and actions are incongruent nations. Self-evaluative ambivalence may seem especially (Thompson et al., 1995). improbable in societies where positive self-regard is cul- Dialecticism and Well-Being turally mandated, highly valued, and strongly inculcated in the home and educational system (Heine, Lehman, Dialectical cognitive tendencies influence

Load more