華人的自我評價與自我肯定歷程

The Self-evaluation and Self-affirmation Process of Culturally Chinese People

孫蒨如(Chien-Ru Sun)；王崇信(Chung-Hsin Wang)

自我肯定歷程 ； 自我設限 ； 自我評價 ； 社會取向自我 ； 相依我 ； 個人取向自我 ； 華人 ； 獨立我 ； Chinese ； independent self ； individual-oriented self ； interdependent self ； self-affirmation ； self-evaluation ； self-handicapping ； social-oriented self

本土心理學研究

24期（2005 / 12 / 01）

139 - 187

繁體中文

自我肯定歷程的運作一直是許多西方社會心理學者專注探討的主題，研究結果大都發現個人會追求整體自我系統的平衡，試圖保持一個統整的正向自我形象。而當自我受到威脅時，自我肯定的歷程即開始運作，可藉由肯定自我的其他重要面向或其他方式來達到自我肯定的目的。但近年來許多研究顯示不同文化下的個人其自我建構也不相同，歐美人士的自我是所謂的獨立我，而東方人的自我則是以相依我為主。本研究旨在探討維持正向自我評價及自我肯定歷程的運作概念是否也可適用於以社會取向自我（相依我）為主的華人身上，再者則是希望瞭解自我肯定歷程的運作是否可以跨越不同的自我層面，獲致相同的效果。 實驗一主要檢驗以社會取向自我為主的華人個體在個人取向自我，也就是獨立我面向受衝擊後，是否也可藉由自我肯定歷程來恢復自我系統的平衡、維持正向自我評價。本研究為2（個體經濟取向程度：高經濟取向∕低經濟取向）×3（回饋變項：沒有回饋∕正向回饋∕經濟興趣問卷）的二因子受試者間設計。本研究主要依變項為受試者的自我設限指標，亦即所選擇音樂的種類。實驗結果支持自我肯定會減少自我設限行為的假設，我們發現未獲自我肯定的受試者，包括無回饋組、非關聯正向回饋組、及低經濟取向－經濟興趣問卷組的受試者，大都選擇抑制智力表現的音樂，出現自我設限的傾向；而有機會得到自我肯定的受試者，亦即高經濟取向－經濟興趣問卷組，則無自我設限的傾向，甚至會選擇促進智力表現的音樂。 實驗二主要探討在華人所著重的社會取向自我（相依我）層面是否也會出現自我肯定歷程的運作，也同時檢驗這歷程的運作是否可以跨越不同的自我層面。由預試找出高理論興趣取向的受試者，每次聯絡兩名來參與研究。在共同進行一項作業後，受試者會在無意間看到來自另一名受試者的假負向回饋，以衝擊其社會取向自我面向，之後被分派至下列四種情境之一：(1)與父母關係獲得肯定組；(2)與朋友關係獲得肯定組；(3)個人理論興趣價值觀獲得肯定組；(4)填寫無關問卷組，另有一組無回饋組做為控制組。主要依變項為對合作過程、合作夥伴的評價，及情緒狀態測量。實驗的結果顯示，相較於朋友關係獲得肯定組、個人重要理論興趣價值觀獲得肯定組，及填寫無關問卷組等三組而言，無回饋組及與父母關係獲得肯定組這兩組的受試者對合作過程及合作伙伴都有較高的評價。此結果顯示，當個人社會取向自我的面向受到衝擊時，肯定同屬於社會取向自我面向的重要關係（即與父母關係），可使其自我恢復平衡。 本研究結果證明華人也希冀維持正向自我評價，也有自我肯定歷程的運作，但在個人取向自我面向的自我肯定似乎無助於社會取向自我面向自我平衡的恢復，這似乎也隱涵著就自我評價而言，社會取向自我及個人取向自我分屬於兩個不同的自我系統。

Numerous studies conducted in western cultures have demonstrated that the self-affirmation process is trigged when people experience a threat to their self-image and that it runs its course until the image is restored. As self-construal varies with culture, this study investigates the self-affirmation process of culturally Chinese people. In Experiment 1, 96 university students who had been prescreened with a social values scale were randomly assigned to the experimental conditions in a 2 (economic value orientation: high vs. low) × 3 (feedback condition: no feedback vs. positive feedback vs. economic subscale) factorial design. The main dependent measure of interest was the self-handicapping index. As predicted, the self-affirmation process reduced participants' tendency to self-handicap. Those who received non-contingent positive feedback still had a strong tendency to self-handicap. Facing possible impact to the independent self-image, the self-affirmation process was triggered to restore self-evaluation. In Experiment 2, 70 pre-selected theoretical-oriented culturally Chinese university students worked in pairs to complete a task. Threat to the interdependent self aspect was produced by giving the false negative feedback to participants that they were evaluated by the other party as performing inadequately as a partner. Participants were then randomly assigned to one of the following conditions: parent-son relationship affirmation, friend relationship affirmation, theoretical value affirmation, filler questionnaire, or the no feedback condition as the control group. The important dependent measures were the participants’ evaluations of the cooperative process and their partner. Those who filled out the parent-son relationship affirmation questionnaire, as well as those who received no negative feedback, made significantly better evaluations of the cooperative process and the partner than those in other conditions. That is, when experiencing negative impact on their interdependent self-construal, affirming important relationships, especially the one with parents, restores the self-image. When the interdependent self-aspect was threatened, self-affirmation on important personal values did little to restore self-evaluation. Implications are discussed.

1. 楊國樞(2003)。華人自我的理論分析與實徵研究。本土心理學研究，22，11-80。
   連結：
2. Allport, G. W.,Vernon, P. E.,Lindzey, G.(1960).Study of values.Boston:Houghton Mifflin.
3. Arkin, R. M.,Baumgardner, A. H.(1985).Attribution: Basic issues and applications.New York:Academy Press.
4. Berglas, S.,Jones, E. E.(1978).Drug choice as a self-handicapping stratege in response to noncontingent success.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,36,405-417.
5. Brehm, J.(1956).Postdecision changes in the desirabilityof alternatives.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,52,384-389.
6. Frankel, A.,Snyder, M. L.(1978).Poor performance following unsolvable problems: Learned helplessness or egotism.Journal of Social Psychology,36,1415-1423.
7. Greenwald, A. G.(1980).The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personal history.American Psychologist,35,603-618.
8. Gross, S. E.,Markus, H. R.(1991).Cultural adaptation and the self: Self-construal, coping, and the stress.Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Psychological Association.
9. Harris, R. N.,Snyder, C. R.(1986).The role of uncertain self-esteem in self-handicapping.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,51,451-458.
10. Heine, S. J.,Kitayama, S.,Lehman, D. R.,Takata, T.,Ide, E.,Leung, C.,Matsumoto, H.(2001).Divergent consequences of success and failure in Japan and North America: An investigation of self-improving motivations and malleable selves.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,81,599-615.
11. Heine, S. J.,Lehman, D. R.,Markus, H. R.,Kitayama, S.(1999).Is there a universal need for positive self-regard?.Psychological Review,106,766-794.
12. Hetts, J. J.,Sakuma, M.,Pelham, B. W.(1999).Two roads to positive regard: Implicit and explicit self-evaluation and culture.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,35,512-559.
13. Higgins, R. L.,Harris, R. N.(1988).Strategic alcohol use: Drinking to self-handicap.Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,6,191-202.
14. Hirt, E. R.,Deppe, R. K.,Gordon, L. J.(1991).Self-reported versus behavioral self-handicapping: Empirical evidence for a theoretical distinction.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,61,981-991.
15. James, W.(1982).Psychology: The briefer course.New York:Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
16. Kanagawa, C.,Cross, S. E.,Markus, H. R.(2001)."Who am I?" The cultural psychology of the conceptual self.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,27,90-103.
17. Kitayama, S.,Markus, H. R.,Matsumoto, H.,Norasakkunit, V.(1997).Individual and collective processes of self-esteem management: Self-enhancement in the United States and self-depreciation in Japan.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,72,1245-1267.
18. Kolditz, T. A.,Arkin, R. M.(1982).An impression management interpretation of the self-handicapping strategy.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,43,492-502.
19. The hours between night＋day, Audio CD, Manufacturer: Sony
20. Liu, T. J.,Steele, C. M.(1986).Attributional analysis as self-affirmation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,51,531-540.
21. Markus, H. R.,Kitayama, S.(1991).Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.Psychological Review,98,224-253.
22. Mayerson, N. H.,Rhodewalt, F.(1988).The role of self-protective attributions in the experience of pain.Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,6,203-218.
23. Pyszczynski, T.,Greenberg, J.(1983).Determinants of reductions in intended effort as a strategy for coping with anticipating failure.Journal of Research in Personality,17,412-422.
24. Rhodewalt, F.(1988).Self-handicapping: The paradox that isn`t.New York:Plenum.
25. Rhodewalt, F.,Davison, J.(1986).Self-handicappingand subsequent performance: Role of outcome valence and attributional certainty.Basic and Applied Social Psychology,5,197-209.
26. Sedikides, C.,Gaertner, L.,Toguchi, Y.(2003).Pancultural self-enhancement.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,84,60-79.
27. Shikanai, K.(1978).Effects of self-esteem on attribution of success failure.Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,18(1),35-46.
28. Singelis, T. M.(1994).The measurement of the independent and interdependent self-construals.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,20,580-591.
29. Snyder, C. R.,Smith, T. W.(1982).Integrations of clinical and social psychology.New York:Oxford University Press.
30. Spranger, E.(1928).Types of men: The psychology and ethics of personality.New York:Johnson Reprint Co..
31. Steele, C. M.(1988).Advances in experimental social psychology.San Diego, CA:Academic press.
32. Steele, C. M.,Hopp, H.,Gonzalles, J.(1986).Dissonance and the lab coat: Self-affirmation and the free choice paradigm.Unpublished manuscript.
33. Steele, C. M.,Liu, T. J.(1983).Dissonance processes as self-affirmation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,45,5-19.
34. Steele, C. M.,Spencer, S. J.,Lynch, M.(1993).Self-image resilience and dissonance: The role of affirmational resources.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,64,885-896.
35. Takata, T.(1987).Self-depreciative tendencies in self-evaluation through social comparison.Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,27,27-36.
36. Tesser, A.(1986).Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior.New York:Guilford Press.
37. Tesser, A.,Cornell, D. P.(1991).On the confluence of self-process.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,27,501-526.
38. Tice, D. M.(1991).Esteem protection or enhancement? Self-handicapping motives and attributions differ by trait self-esteem.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,61,711-725.
39. Tice, D. M.,Baumeister, R. F.(1990).Self-esteem, self-handicapping, and self-presentation: The Strategy of inadequate practice.Journal of Personality,58,443-464.
40. Trafimow, D.,Silverman, E. S.,Fan, R. M. T.,Law, J. S. F.(1997).The effects of languages and priming on the relative accessibility of the private self and collective self.Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology,28,107-123.
41. Yoshida, T.,Kojo, K.,Kaku, H.(1982).A study on the development of self-presentation in children.Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology,30,30-37.
42. 王有倫(1983)。國立高雄師範學院教育研究所。
43. 何友暉、陳淑娟、趙志裕(1989)。中國人的心理與行為：理念及方法篇（一九九二）。台北:桂冠圖書公司。
44. 周逸衡(1983)。國立政治大學企業管理研究所。
45. 林以正, Y.,Huang, C.,Lieber, E.(1999).Are internality and externality exclusive causes? A Chinese point of view.Progress in Asian Social Psychology,2,63-74.
46. 許烺光, F. L. K.(1985).Cultural and self: Asian and western perspectives.NY:Tavistock.
47. 陳惠邦(1990)。國立政治大學心理學研究所。
48. 費孝通(1948)。鄉土中國。香港:鳳凰出版社。
49. 黃光國(1995)。知識與行動。台北:心理出版社。
50. 黃光國(2005)。儒家關係主義：文化反思與典範重建。台北:台大出版中心。
51. 黃堅厚(1967)。社會興趣量表。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系。
52. 楊國樞(1993)。中國人的心理與行為：理念及方法篇（一九九二）。台北:桂冠圖書公司。

1. 陳政裕、孫蒨如(2018)。怎樣的「我」才真實？關係對華人真實自我展現的影響。本土心理學研究，49，157-206。
2. 闕湘潓,黃逸懷,邱于筑,吳芝儀(2015)。系統理論在青少年生涯決定與探索之應用。諮商與輔導，357，45-49。
3. 孫蒨如、洪嘉欣、林慧慈(2017)。當自我資源耗竭面對維持正向自我評價需求時：自我調控的啟動與運作。中華心理學刊，59(3)，163-181。
4. 葉光輝,張仁和,孫蒨如(2019)。華人本土自我研究的回顧與前瞻。本土心理學研究，51，3-31。
5. (2017)。個體在社會排斥後之因應反應：所屬團體相關因素與個人因素之影響。教育與心理研究，40(2)，61-92。