華人雙文化自我的個體發展階段：理論建構的嘗試

Constructing a Theoretical Framework for the Ontogenetic Development of the Chinese Bicultural Self: A Preliminary Statement

10.6129/CJP.2010.5202.01

楊國樞(Kuo-Shu Yang)；劉奕蘭(Yih-Lan Liu)；張淑慧(Shu-Hui Chang)；王琳(Lin Wang)

社會取向自我發展 ； 個人取向自我發展 ； 華人自我四元論 ； 雙文化自我發展 ； 雙文化自我發展Y型模式 ； four-part theory of Chinese self ； individual-oriented self development ； social-oriented self development ； traditional-modern bicultural self ； Y-model of bicultural-self development

中華心理學刊

52卷2期（2010 / 06 / 01）

113 - 132

繁體中文

近百年來，歷經現代化的社會變遷，華人在思想觀念、動機需求、態度價值、氣質性格、及行為模式等方面，皆已產生廣泛而重大的轉化。影響所及，人們一方面仍保持中國傳統農業社會的若干心理與行為特徵，同時也逐漸形成西方現代工商社會中的若干心理與行為特徵，合而成為一種兼具心理傳統性與現代性的雙文化自我。本文之主要目的是構想一套華人雙文化自我之個體發展階段的理論。首先，我們小幅修改Jane Loevinger (1976, 1983)的自我發展理論，作為個人取向自我發展的五階段模式：(1)前順從階段、(2)順從階段、(3)個人主義化公正階段、(4)自主階段、及(5)個人主義化統合階段。與此五階段相對應之社會取向自我發展的五階段則為：(1)前順從階段、(2)順從階段、(3)集體主義化公正階段、(4)融合階段、及(5)集體主義化統合階段。兩套發展模式之最早的兩個階段相同，後三個階段則不同，因此可用Y型架構予以整合：前兩個階段置於Y型的柄部，後三個階段則分別放在Y型的左右兩臂。最後，本文並提出以實徵方法驗證此一Y型發展階段理論的具體建議。

Cultural ecological research has demonstrated that different ecological environments tend to create different forms of subsistence economy, which in turn make various types of society and culture possible. Thus, agrarian economy facilitates the formation of agricultural society and collectivistic-oriented culture, whereas industrial economy eases the development of industrialized society and individualistic-oriented culture. In order to help the members in these two contrasting types of society and culture to acquire the motives, thoughts, aptitudes, values, temperaments, and behaviors necessary for effectively functioning in their respective subsistence economies, distinctive patterns of socialization practices have to be designed and promoted. The causal sequence as postulated in the above is as follows: Ecological environments→subsistence economies→societies and cultures→socialization practices→psychological and behavioral characteristics. During the long process of societal modernization in Chinese societies (especially Taiwan and Hong Kong) in the last hundred years or so, both traditional agrarian and modern industrial economies have been coexisting for so long a time that a bicultural society has been gradually formed in each of them. In such a society, the collectivistic-oriented and individualistic-oriented cultural elements or aspects are mixed, or even integrated, in daily activities and practices. The traditional-modern bicultural society tends to actualize a bicultural kind of socialization practice, which in turn leads to a bicultural pattern of psychological and behavioral characteristics. In a bicultural society like Taiwan or Hong Kong, people need a bicultural self to integrate their bicultural psychological and behavioral characteristics. Yang (2004) and Lu and Yang (2006) called such a kind of self the traditional-modern bicultural self. Yang proposed that the Chinese bicultural self consists of both the traditional, socialoriented self and the modern, individual-oriented one in accordance with his four-part theory of the Chinese self. The former is further divided into three subselves, respectively labeled as the relationship-, the familistic (group)-, and the other-oriented self. In this paper, a Y-shaped model of the developmental stages for the Chinese bicultural self is proposed. First of all, we slightly modify Jane Loevinger's (1976, 1983) six-stage model of ego development to form a five-stage one for the ontogenetic development of the individual-oriented self: (1) Preconformity Stage, (2) Conformity Stage, (3) Individualistically Conscientious Stage, (4) Autonomous Stage, and (5) Individualistically Integrated Stage. In contrast to this model, a five-stage one for the development of the social-oriented self is constructed to include the following corresponding stages: (1) Preconformity Stage, (2) Conformity Stage, (3) Collectivistically Conscientious Stage, (4) Homonomous Stage, and (5) Collectivistically Integrated Stage. The earliest two stages are identical in the two five-stage models, whereas the later three in one model are diametrically different, in one way or another, from the corresponding ones in the other. It is thus possible to place the early two stages on the stem of the Y-form layout. Beyond the intersection point, the later three successive stages for the social-oriented self are placed on the left arm, and the corresponding three for the individual-oriented self on the right one. A Y-shaped developmental model for the Chinese bicultural self is thus conceptually proposed. The defining psychological (cognitive, motivational, affectional, and intentional) and behavioral characteristics of such a self are described for each stage on the stem and the two arms, so that the empirical test of this Y-form developmental model of the Chinese self could be made feasible. Finally, some preliminary recommendations for empirically testing the Y-model of bicultural-self development are made. It is suggested that the whole age range for the participants to be used should be from 3 to 70 years old, and this range may be divided into three age groups: (1) kindergarten children and 1-4 grade pupils, (2) 5-6 grade pupils and junior and senior high school students, and (3) college students and ordinary adults. The validity of the Y-model will be tested by using participants from the three age groups in three consecutive years in Taiwan and Mainland China.

1. 陸洛(2003)。人我關係之界定—「折衷自我」的現身。本土心理學研究，20，139-207。
   連結：
2. 陸洛、楊國樞(2005)。社會取向與個人取向的自我實現觀：概念分析與實徵初探。本土心理學研究，23，3-69。
   連結：
3. 楊國樞(2004)。華人自我的理論分析與實徵研究：社會取向與個人取向的觀點。本土心理學研究，22，11-80。
   連結：
4. 楊國樞、陸洛(2005)。社會取向自我實現者與個人取向自我實現者的心理特徵：概念分析與實徵衡鑑。本土心理學研究，23，71-143。
   連結：
5. Jung, C. G. (1939). The integration of the personality. New York: Farrar & Rinehart.
6. Horney, K. (1945). Our inner conflicts. New York: Norton
7. Angyal, A. (1941). Foundations for a science of personality. New York: Commonwealth Fund.
8. Weber, M. (1949). The methodology of the social sciences. New York: Free Press.
9. Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press.
10. Allport, G. W.(1961).Pattern and growth in personality.New York:Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
11. Allport, G. W.(1955).Becoming: Basic considerations for a psychology of personality.New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.
12. Ames, R. T.(ed.),Dissanayake, W.(ed.),Kasulis, T. P.(ed.)(1994).Self as person in Asian theory and practice.Albany, NY:State University of New York Press.
13. Ames, R. T.(ed.),Kasulis, T. P.(ed.),Dissanayake, W.(ed.)(1998).Self as image in Asian theory and practice.Albany, NY:State University of New York Press.
14. Bandura, A.(1997).Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.New York:Freeman.
15. Barron, F.(1953).An ego-strength scale which predicts response to psychotherapy.Journal of Consulting Psychology,17,327-333.
16. Berry, J. W.(1976).Human ecology and cognitive style: Comparative studies in cultural and psychological adaptation.New York:Halsted.
17. Block, J.(1982).Assimilation, accommodation, and the dynamics of personality development.Child Development,53,281-295.
18. Bond, M. H.(ed.)(1996).The handbook of Chinese psychology.Hong Kong:Oxford University Press.
19. Bond, M. H.(ed.)(1988).The cross-cultural challenge to social psychology.Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.
20. Bornstein, M. H.(ed.),Lamb, M. E.(ed.)(1999).Developmental psychology: An advanced textbook.Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
21. Chang, W. C.,Wong, W. K.,Koh, J. B. K.(2003).Chinese values in Singapore: Traditional and modern.Asian Journal of Social Psychology,6,5-29.
22. Cohen, D.(2001).Cultural variation: Considerations and implications.Psychological Bulletin,127,451-471.
23. Collins, W. A.(ed.)(1980).Minnesota symposium on child behavior.Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
24. Diamond, J.(1997).Guns, germs, and the steel.New York:Norton.
25. Erikson, E. H.(1950).Childhood and society.New York:Norton.
26. Erikson, E. H.(1985).The life cycle completed: A review.New York:Norton.
27. Erikson, E. H.(1964).Insight and responsibility.New York:Norton.
28. Erikson, E. H.(1959).Identity and the life cycle: Selected papers.Psychological Issues, Monograph No. 1,1
29. Erikson, E. H.(1982).The life cycle completed: A review.New York:Norton.
30. Heider, F.(1958).The psychology of interpersonal relations.New York:Wiley.
31. Holt, R. R.(1974).Review of measuringego development.Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases,158,310-316.
32. Horney, K.(1950).Neurosis and human growth.New York:Norton.
33. Kasulis, T. P.(ed.),Ames, R. T.(ed.).,Dissanayake, W.(ed.)(1993).Self as body in Asian theory and practice.Albany, NY:State University of New York Press.
34. Kegan, R.(1982).The evolving self: Problem and process in human development.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
35. Kim, U.(ed.),Triandis, H. C.(ed.),Kagitcibasi, C.(ed.),Choi, S. C.(ed.),Yoon, G.(ed.)(1994).Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications.London:Sage.
36. Koch, S.(ed.)(1959).Psychology: A study of a science.New York:McGraw-Hill.
37. Kohlberg, L.(1981).Heinz Werner Lecture Series.Worcester, MA:Clark University Press.
38. Kohlberg, L.(1982).The empirical relationship between moral and ego development: A preliminary report.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University, Graduate School of Education.
39. Lapsley, D. K.(ed.),Power, F. C.(ed.)(1988).Self, ego, and identity: Integrative approaches.New York:Springer.
40. Li, S. C.(2003).Bicultural orchestration of developmental plasticity across levels: The interplay of biology and culture in shaping the mind and behavior across the life span.Psychological Bulletin,129,171-194.
41. Lieber, E.,Fung, H.,Leung, P. W.-L.(2006).Chinese child-rearing beliefs: Key dimensions and contributions to the development of culture-appropriate assessment.Asian Journal of Social Psychology,9,140-147.
42. Lin, T. Y.(ed.),Tseng, W. S.(ed.),Yeh, Y. K.(ed.)(1995).Chinese societies and mental health.Hong Kong:Oxford University Press.
43. Loevinger, J.(1976).Ego development: Conceptions and theories.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
44. Loevinger, J.(1966).The meaning and measurement of ego development.American Psychologist,21,195-206.
45. Loevinger, J.(1983).On ego development and the structure of personality.Developmental Review,3,339-350.
46. Loevinger, J.,Wessler, R.(1970).Measuring ego development I: Construction and use of a sentence completion test.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
47. Lu, L.,Yang, K. S.(2006).Emergence and composition of the traditional-modern bicultural self of people in contemporary Taiwanese societies.Asian Journal of Social Psychology,9,167-175.
48. Lukes, S.(1973).Individualism.New York:Harper & Row.
49. Mahler, M. S.(1968).On human symbiosis and the vicissitudes of individuation: Infantile psychosis.New York:International University Press.
50. Mahler, M. S.,Pine, F.,Bergman, A.(1975).The psychological birth of the human infant.New York:Basic Books.
51. Manners, J.,Durkin, K.(2000).Processes involved in adult ego development: A conceptual framework.Developmental Review,20,475-513.
52. Marsella, A. J. (ed.),DeVos, G. (ed.),Hsu, F. L. K. (ed.)(1985).Culture and self: Asian and western perspectives.New York:Tavistock.
53. Maslow, A. H.(1970).Motivation and personality.New York:Harper & Row.
54. Modgil, S.(ed.),Modgil, C.(ed.)(1986).Lawrence Kohlberg: Consensus and controversy.Brighton, UK:Falmer.
55. Murphy-Berman, V.(ed.),Berman, J. J.(ed.)(2003).Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Cross-cultural differences in perspectives on the self.Lincoln, NE:University of Nebraska Press.
56. Siegel, H.(2006).Epistemological diversity and education research: Much ado about nothing much.Educational Researcher,35(2),3-12.
57. Sloan, D.(ed.)(1985).The computer in education: A critical perspective.New York:Teacher's College Press.
58. Sullivan, H. S.(1953).The interpersonal theory of psychiatry.New York:Norton.
59. Triandis, H. C.(1995).Individualism and collectivism.Boulder, CO:Westview Press.
60. Triandis, H. C.(1994).Culture and social behavior.New York:McGraw-Hill.
61. Triandis, H. C.(1993).Collectivism and individualism as cultural syndromes.Cross-Cultural Research,27,155-180.
62. Westenberg, P. M.(ed.),Blasi, A.(ed.),Cohn, L. D.(ed.)(1998).Personality development: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical investigations of Loevinger's conception of ego development.Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
63. Westenberg, P. M.(ed.),Blasi, A.(ed.),Cohn, L. D.(ed.)(1998).Personality development: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical investigations of Loevinger's conception of ego development.Erlbaum:Hillsdale, NJ.
64. White, R. W.(1959).Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence.Psychological Review,66,297-333.
65. Williams, R.(1973).Keywords.Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.
66. Yang, K. S.(ed.),Hsu, K. Y.(ed.)(2004).Proceedings of the Symposium on Chinese Self Process, Knowledge, and Evaluation,I-lan County, Taiwan:
67. 高覺敷(1985)。中國心理學史。北京=Beijing:人民教育=People's Education Press。
68. 楊國樞(2002)。傳統價值觀與現代價值觀能否同時並存？。中國人的價值觀—社會科學觀點，台北市=Taipei:
69. 楊國樞(1997)。心理學研究的本土契合性及其相關問題。本土心理學研究，8，75-120。
70. 楊國樞(1992)。中國人的社會取向：社會互動的觀點。中國人的心理與行為—理念與方法篇（一九九二），台北市=Taipei:
71. 楊國樞(1992)。傳統價值觀與現代價值觀能否同時並存？=Chuantong jiazhiguan yu xiandai jiazhiguan nengfou tongshi bingcun?。華人心理的本土化研究，台北市=Taipei:
72. 楊鑫輝(1994)。中國心理學思想史。江西省南昌市=Nanchang, Jiangxi Province:江西教育=Jiangxi Education Press。
73. 燕國材編(1999)。中國古代心理學思想史。台北市=Taipei:遠流=Yuan-Liou。
74. 盧文格、布萊西、李維譯(1995)。自我的發展：概念與理論。台北市=Taipei:桂冠圖書=Guiguan。

1. 陳彥勻、林家五、吳佳燕(2017)。國際志工經驗對自我概念轉換及展現的影響。本土心理學研究，47，233-304。
2. 洪瑞斌(2017)。「個我」與「大我」：以雙文化自我觀點建構台灣大學生生涯敘說。本土心理學研究，47，161-231。
3. 胡珈華(2021)。當西方諮商與現代華人文化碰撞時。輔導季刊，57(4)，1-10。
4. 簡晉龍(2021)。本土心理學中的創造性「繼承」與「轉化」：以權威取向的理論發展為例。本土心理學研究，55，35-97。
5. 簡心潔、許境頤(2015)。部屬印象整飭策略對威權領導與知覺部屬順從的關聯性之中介效果：併論動機內化的調節角色。組織與管理，8(2)，73-114。
6. 李仁豪(2019)。佛家依存主義。本土心理學研究，52，115-172。
7. 李豫青(2018)。華人文化下的諮商員角色期待。諮商與輔導，395，5-8+59。
8. 劉淑慧,孫頌賢,夏允中,王智弘(2019)。自我及其在生活世界中的運作：從存在現象學處境結構觀之。中華輔導與諮商學報，55，1-25。
9. 劉淑慧、孫頌賢(2016)。主編室的話─細描關係中的辯證發展。中華輔導與諮商學報，47，1-2。
10. 歐麗娟(2016)。襲人之命名探論：《紅樓夢》人物形象與意涵的重省。東吳中文學報，32，149-180。
11. 阮琳雅(2017)。Bowen自我分化概念應用在華人文化脈絡中之初探。諮商與輔導，375，40-44。
12. 楊淑蘭(2019)。建構本土心理諮商（治療）模式之必要性與可能性。本土心理學研究，52，3-68。
13. 葉光輝,陳謙仁(2019)。護親護面型毆妻男性個案多元自我衝突調整理論與介入方案研究。中華輔導與諮商學報，55，59-95。
14. 葉思妤,陳品潔,刑志彬,王毓君,王芊文(2022)。情緒勒索人際互動特質量表之建構。諮商心理與復健諮商學報，37，27-44。
15. 詹介云、許境頤(2014)。威權領導與情緒勞務之關聯研究。人力資源管理學報，14(4)，31-55。
16. 張思嘉,吳志文(2022)。正向與負向婚姻品質對新婚夫妻自我概念的影響：行動者－伴侶相依模式之探討。中華輔導與諮商學報，64，65-97。
17. (2012)。從華人社會「自立」與「泛家族」之概念論少年自立生活方案之設計。靜宜人文社會學報，6(1)，227-270。
18. (2015).The Impact of Intrinsic Motivation on The Effectiveness of Leadership Style towards on Work Engagement.Contemporary Management Research,11(4),327-350.
19. (2016)。一般和排灣族群家長在特殊幼兒的社會距離與接納行為差異之研究。東臺灣特殊教育學報，18，229-254。
20. (2023)。「角色義務」與「獨立自主」的相生相依：矯正學校青年自我「關聯身分」野地闖蕩實踐歷程的現象學探究。本土心理學研究，59，191-257。
21. (2023)。台灣高齡者由自我認同邁向統整之歷程：雙文化自我的觀點。本土心理學研究，59，123-189。
22. (2023)。同「命」卻不相「聯」？〈置疑霸權儒家主義：去中國中心主義與多元性別主體經驗〉回應文。本土心理學研究，60，73-85。