華人本土自我研究的回顧與前瞻

A Review of Chinese Indigenous Research on the Self

張仁和(Jen-Ho Chang) ； 孫蒨如(Chien-Ru Sun) ； 葉光輝(Kuang-Hui Yeh)

《本土心理學研究》 51期 (2019/06) Pp. 3-31

https://doi.org/10.6254/IPRCS.201906_(51).0001

摘要

本文對《本土心理學研究》這25年來在華人自我的研究進行回顧反思，進而提出對未來研究之可能方向。整體而言，華人本土之自我研究可從兩部分著手，分別是自我結構與自我歷程。在華人自我結構的研究裡，目前主要以華人自我四元論以及華人大七性格為主。另方面，也有從無我觀的角度切入，較有別於以往之自我架構。在華人自我歷程的研究中，則有從個人和社會取向之雙文化自我整合與平衡，及個人與情境互動下的自我調節兩部分為主。在研究方法上，包含有質性訪談研究、內容分析，到量化的問卷調查、實驗操弄，進而有質量並用的混合研究方法，未來如何相互整合不同方法為後續研究的重點。最後，在未來的研究建議上，期許能突破以往個人和社會取向的二元架構，像是無我觀之展現。並且，應同時關注近代急遽的社會變遷與科技發展，對於個體內在心理歷程造成的影響，期多管齊下更完整掌握當代華人自我之結構和歷程特性。

關鍵字

自我 ； 自我結構 ； 自我歷程 ； 華人自我四元論 ； 華人大七性格 ； 無我觀

並列摘要

According to our systematic review of research on the self that has been published in Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, the most discussed domains of research relate to self-structure (self as an object) and self-process (self as an agent). The main topics in the self-structure domain are the four-part theory of the Chinese self, and the big seven factor model of Chinese personality. The former indicates that the Chinese self contains four sub-selves: the individual-oriented self, the relationship-oriented self, the familistic (group)-oriented self, and the other-oriented self. In addition, each sub-self has two domains (public and private), and four aspects (actual, ideal, ought, and possible). The whole self-structure consists of these 4 × 2 × 4 dimensions. Most current empirical research on this domain focuses mainly on distinguishing between the individual-oriented self and the social-oriented self (including the relationship-oriented self, the familistic or group-oriented self, and the other-oriented self). In addition, a non-self perspective has been proposed in recent years. It provides a relatively unique approach to understanding the Chinese self-structure. However, the non-self model is currently solely theoretical without related measurements or experimental paradigms. Empirical investigation is needed to examine the validity of its psychological propositions, and then explores its specific psychological mechanism. The traditional big five model (openness, consciousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) has been challenged in the Chinese cultural context. Full support for this model has not been found in Chinese sample. After a series of studies that applied a more culturally appropriate perspective and research design, researchers proposed the big seven factor model of Chinese personality: competence, industriousness, other-orientedness, agreeableness, extraversion, large-mindedness, and contentedness. It showed better model fit and validity in Chinese societies. The major topics in the domain of self-process are the bicultural composite self, and person-situation interactive self-regulation. Some research has revealed that modern Chinese people develop an integrated self that includes both individual and social orientations. How these individuals behave is contingent on the context. They behave more interdependently in the social-oriented context, and more independently when they encounter an individual-oriented context. The person-situation fit indicates that in Chinese societies, the self is not a fixed or static entity. It is quite flexible and malleable to fit in the demanding of the situation. It has process-based characteristics, and it operates dynamically with agency. That is, as an agent, the goal of the self is frequently to balance the needs of both oneself and others in different contexts. The underlying mechanism of how these different selves are integrated, composited, or balanced still remains unclear. In our review of Chinese indigenous self research, we also noticed that the research methods employed by Chinese indigenous self researchers include qualitative interviews, content analyses, questionnaires, survey investigations, and experimental manipulations. How to combine these different qualitative and quantitative methods to gain an advantage in conducting studies of the Chinese indigenous self also needs to be considered. Finally, we expect the future indigenous research on the Chinese self can go beyond the dual structural perspective of individual and social orientation and explore new issues, such as providing further theoretical elucidation and empirical testing of the construct of selflessness. Moreover, we should pay more attention to the social changes and technological developments of the modern impetuousness on the Chinese self. For instance, the digital interfaces and mobile phones such as ＂i＂ generation effect (iPhone, internet, and I), and population aging in Chinese societies. These changes might have great impacts on the psychological process of the individual, and on the management of the structure and the process characteristics of the contemporary Chinese self. These important issues also need to be addressed in future research.

並列關鍵字

big seven factor model of Chinese personality ； four-part theory of the Chinese self ； individual-oriented self ； non-self ； self ； self-process ； self-structure ； social-oriented self

參考文獻

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252-1265. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252

Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2016). Strength model of self-regulation as limited resource. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 67-127. doi:10.1016/bs.aesp.2016.04.001

Benet-Martinez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural identity integration (BII): Components and psychosocial antecedents. Journal of Personality, 73, 1015-1049. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00337.x

Brewer, M. B., & Chen, Y. R. (2007). Where (who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism. Psychological Review, 114, 133-151. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.114.1.133

Cai, H., Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., Wang, C., Carvallo, M., Xu, Y., ... Jackson, L. E. (2011). Tactical self-enhancement in China: Is modesty at the service of self-enhancement in East Asian culture? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(1), 59-64. doi:10.1177/1948550610376599