JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY Harrington, Liu / SELF-ENHANCEMENT, BICULTURALISM

Individualism, collectivism, self-enhancing biases, and attitudes toward tall poppies were investigated in New Zealand European and Maori students. Two hundred and eighty (215 women, 65 men) New Zealand European and 88 (55 women, 33 men) Maori students at Victoria University of Wellington participated in the study. Whereas Maori exhibited a stronger orientation to the collective, they also showed higher selfesteem. Group-oriented Maori displayed slightly higher levels of self-enhancement and were more likely to favor the rewarding of high achievers (tall poppies). Both groups displayed high levels of self-enhancement and favored the reward of high achievers, with both self-enhancement on the Self-Attributes Questionnaire and attitudes toward tall poppies being correlated with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Results are discussed in the context of a bicultural nation of both Maori and European origins, and consideration is given to a bicultural rather than categorical perspective on independence and interdependence.

SELF-ENHANCEMENT AND ATTITUDES TOWARD HIGH ACHIEVERS A Bicultural View of the Independent and Interdependent Self
LEIGH HARRINGTON JAMES H. LIU Victoria University of Wellington

The relationship between self-enhancement and cognitive function has been a topic of considerable debate in recent years (see Taylor & Brown, 1988; Colvin & Block, 1994, for overviews of different positions). On one hand, it has been argued that there is a universal tendency for people to have positive illusions about themselves and that this is a healthy aspect of cognitive function (e.g., Taylor & Brown, 1988; Taylor & Gollwitzer, 1995; Lewinsohn, Mischel, Chaplin, & Barton, 1980). On the other hand, there is the idea that different cultures have different self-construals (Epstein, 1992; Kitayama, Markus, Matsumoto, & Norasakkunkit, 1997), and individuals will be more highly motivated to self-enhance in contexts in which they are encouraged to pursue their own goals and feel good about themselves as autonomous individuals. This motivation would be less in contexts in which conformity is stressed and self-aggrandizement is explicitly or implicitly discouraged. The tendency to self-enhance within a particular cultural context will therefore depend on whether it serves the individual or collective purpose to do so (Kitayama et al., 1997). The present study is an exploration of patterns of self-construal within a bicultural society. It is also an examination of Maori as an indigenous people in the context of their current circumstances, which is as a minority people in their own homeland. Investigations of this nature have been remarkably uncommon, and although some researchers have noted the possible effects of interaction between cultures within a society (e.g., Heine & Lehman, 1997), most have examined the differences that exist between societies (e.g., Feather & McKee, 1993; Kitayama et al., 1997). What is more, the preponderance of these studies has focused on comparing Japanese and North American cultures. Consequently, the constructs of independence and interdependence, widely regarded as being epitomized by North America and
AUTHORS NOTE: Thanks to Seymour Epstein for his helpful comments, to Fred Bishop for his contribution to the data entry and survey design, and to Marc Wilson, who provided invaluable help with the data analyses. JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 33 No. 1, January 2002 37-55 2002 Western Washington University

37

38

JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY

Japan, respectively, have been positioned as a dichotomy, particularly in experimental research (see Markus & Kitayama, 1991). However, the blurring of boundaries that is taking place, for example, through globalization (Liu & Rosenau, 1998; Rosenau & Czempiel, 1992) or via the colonization of indigenous cultures by the West, suggests that the relationship between independence and interdependence is more orthogonal than it is dichotomous (Kim et al., 1996; Yamada & Singelis, 1999). A review of relevant research is necessary to set the foundation for our analyses of self-enhancement, attitudes toward high achievers, and the construction of the self in Aotearoa/New Zealand, a bicultural society of both Maori and Europeans (see Liu, Wilson, McClure, & Higgins, 1999).

INDEPENDENT AND INTERDEPENDENT VIEWS OF SELF The independent self is characterized by the assumption of an unequivocal distinction between self and other (Landrine, 1992). This separate self is in control of its own behavior, has rights, and is responsible for its own actions. There is the expectation that the self will take initiative to meet its needs and to self-promote. The independent or referential self
has abilities, preferences, needs, desires, and a style of its own that describe it, refer to it (hence, referential), and differentiate it from other selves. The referential self can be described without reference to others or to a context: The self can be reflected upon; it can be thought about, analysed, and discussed in isolation. (Landrine, 1992, p. 403)

The independent self is also viewed as the primary unit from which all other relationships are derived: Communities, families, and friendships all exist to meet the needs of the individual. If they fail to do so, then they may be rejected. In contrast, the interdependent self exists only within the context of relationships; it has no enduring, trans-situational characteristics, no traits or desires or needs of its own in isolation from its relationships and contexts (Landrine, 1992, p. 406). The individual is not regarded as the determinant of all action, thought, and emotion. Instead, actions and meaning are determined by the perceived thoughts, actions, and feelings of others within the relationship (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Rather than seeking to establish independence, the interdependent self seeks to maintain interconnectedness with others (Liu & Liu, 1999). Whereas the uniqueness of the independent self lies in the particular combination of characteristics and attributes associated with an individual, the interdependent self is viewed as unique in accordance with the specific configuration of relationships between the individual and others (Markus & Kitayama, 1991, p. 227). For the interdependent self, relationships and community are primary. The self is derived from these, adjusting and conforming to function appropriately within them. In individualistic cultures, an independent self-construal is more consistently validated, whereas in collectivist cultures, an interdependent sense of self is more the norm (Kim et al., 1996).

CROSS-CULTURAL ROLES OF SELF-ENHANCEMENT: DIFFERENCE IN PROCESS VERSUS DIFFERENCE IN CONTENT A key question that arises in the investigation of cross-cultural differences is the extent to which we are all the same. The difference-in-process view of cross-cultural differences is that

Harrington, Liu / SELF-ENHANCEMENT, BICULTURALISM

39

they are authentic indications of culture-specific motivational processes. Self-enhancement only has value in societies that endorse such behavior, compared with collectivist cultures, in which such a process does not serve a useful function and therefore either lacks meaning or may be considered as evidence of dysfunction. This stance would predict higher levels of both self and group enhancement in individualistic cultures, to the extent that a positive ingroup assessment will reflect positively on the individual and act as a form of indirect selfenhancement (Heine & Lehman, 1997). It does not predict which form of enhancement people would find more rewarding. The difference-in-process account is consistent with the construction of self put forward by Kitayama et al. (1997), in which, according to the cultural context, psychological processes such as self-enhancement and self-criticism both result from and perpetuate the collective definition and the subjective experience of social actions and situations. Markus and Kitayama (1991) argued that observed differences between cultures are a reflection of differences in individual experiences. Comparing Eastern and Western construals of self, Kitayama et al. (1997) suggested that the Western promotion of a separate, bounded self leads to a motivation to identify positive internal attributes to be expressed in public and confirmed in private and to the use of psychological processes that both preserve and enhance self-esteem (p. 1247). In contrast, in Eastern cultures, instead of self-enhancing, self-criticism is employed. This acts as a form of humility and of subordination to group standards and helps to identify areas of weakness that can then be improved on (Kitayama et al., 1997). The idea of conforming and being average is therefore highly esteemed. We might find that positive illusions in interdependent cultures are illusions of averageness rather than illusions of grandeur, and that these illusions are associated with increased psychological well-being (Heine & Lehman, 1995, p. 605). The contrasting difference-in-content explanation of cross-cultural differences maintains that the underlying motivation to self-enhance is universal but is expressed in different ways and that any differences observed are largely an artifact of ethnocentric methodologies that reflect inadequate translations of scales and concepts (see Heine & Lehman, 1997). Proponents of this approach have put forward a number of alternative explanations in an effort to account for the apparent lack of self-enhancement found among Asians (see Heine, Lehman, Markus, & Kitayama, 1999, for a comprehensive review of these explanations and the corresponding empirical support). The central argument of the difference-in-content account is that differences may be due to researchersassessing target variables that are inconsequential to Asians. It is therefore suggested that if studies were to examine variables that corresponded more closely to the values of interdependent cultures, such as harmonious relationships, perseverance, or attitudes toward the in-group, then one would be more likely to observe self-enhancing biases similar to those found in the West. Another significant contention in favor of the difference-in-content view is that Asians simply have a self-effacing response style, one which does not accurately reflect their true feelings or their approach to self (Heine & Lehman, 1995). At the present time, the balance of evidence seems to support the difference-in-process account (Heine et al., 1999). For instance, Heine and Lehman (1997) found little evidence for domain-specific self-enhancement, instead finding that Japanese enhanced less than Canadians for both family members and the self. Japanese rate themselves as further from their cultural ideals than Americans (Heine & Lehman, 1999) and rate failure situations as more relevant to their self-esteem (Kitayama et al., 1997). Finally, most relevant to the current research, results indicate that a positive relationship between self-enhancement and self-esteem may be more necessary for the subjective well-

40

JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY

being of Americans. Kitayama et al. (1997) found a correlation between levels of selfenhancement and self-esteem in the American sample that was not apparent between selfcriticism and self-esteem among Japanese. Nor were subjective satisfaction, good mood, and sense of well-being correlated with self-esteem for Japanese. Kitayama, Markus, and Kurokawa (1994) found that Americans sense of well-being was associated with feelings of pride and achievement, whereas for Japanese the correlation of well-being was with acceptance and maintenance of interpersonal harmony. Rather than self-enhancement being normal and related to mental health across cultures, Heine and Lehman (1995) suggested that well-being may be better determined by the individual satisfying the cultural criteria for selfhood (p. 605). But, exactly what are these criteria in a bicultural society such as New Zealand? Previous research in the area of attitudes toward high achievers in Australasia (Australia and New Zealand) suggests that this may not be as unequivocal as the distinction between self-enhancing Westerners and self-effacing Easterners.

ATTITUDES TOWARD TALL POPPIES Given the Western emphasis on independence and individual pursuits, one would expect that the high achiever in Western societies should receive positive social recognition and other rewards. However, the phrase bringing down the tall poppy is well known to both Australians and New Zealanders as an aphorism that describes the tendency for these societies to criticize and cut down to size conspicuously successful people. Feather (1989) raised a number of pertinent questions regarding the patterns of tall poppy effects across cultures. For example, denigration of tall poppies may be greater where there are explicitly defined standards of group behavior. Tall poppies who are such because of endorsed group values and who have achieved by excelling within a field that the group values highly are less likely to be denigrated than those who are conspicuous for less accepted reasons. Whereas Feather suggested that negative attitudes toward tall poppies will be greater in collectivist cultures, in which conformity to group norms is valued over individual pursuits and achievement, it is also possible that if individual achievement advances the interests of the collective, members of the collective will value the tall poppy. Feather and McKee (1993) compared global self-esteem and attitudes toward tall poppies in samples of Australian and Japanese university students. They found that Japanese subjects scored lower on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and that they were more in favor of seeing high achievers fall. They also found a negative correlation between global self-esteem and favor fall in the Australian students. Both samples held similar views concerning the degree to which high achievers should be rewarded. However, problems in translating the tall poppy scale from English to Japanese raised the possibility that these results were due to methodological artifacts. A bicultural society is uniquely positioned to answer the questions raised by Feather in a more definitive manner.

MAORI IN NEW ZEALAND Prior to European settlement, Maori society was governed by a concern for the whanau (extended family group) and a high regard for the wider community (Davidson, 1984; Vayda, 1960). Individual identity was determined predominantly by inherited status and

Harrington, Liu / SELF-ENHANCEMENT, BICULTURALISM

41

relationships with the collective (Smith, 1981). Maori embraced the principle of whanaungatanga, a commitment to the collective, in which the individual is expected to subordinate his or her own interests for those of the whanau or hapu (sub-tribe). Responsibility was regarded as lying primarily with the collective, as opposed to the individual (Patterson, 1992). Thus, when an individual transgressed or succeeded, the collective also suffered shame or received glory respectively. Similarly, Maori viewed property, even that which was crafted or purchased by an individual, as belonging to the collective (Patterson, 1992). They placed great value on knowledge of natural and economic lore, as well as on artistic pursuits (e.g., carving, poetry, weaving), all of which functioned within a collective context (Liu & Temara, 1998). Patterson also explained that modern acts, such as valiant efforts on the sports field, can be compared with feats of oratory and acts of bravery by warriors on behalf of the collective. However, the notion of Maori as inherently oriented toward the collective good was counterbalanced by a strong concurrent emphasis on individual actions (Smith, 1981). Whereas individual actions could be seen as contributing to collective purposes, they also bolstered that persons mana or prestige (Liu & Temara, 1998). Inherited rank had to be substantiated by personal achievement. Consequently, self-assertion performed a necessary role in defending the individuals status (Smith, 1981). Mana, central in the establishment of the individuals role within the collective, was unstable and needed maintaining. Thus, as well as being motivated toward conformity to the group, Maori were also likely to pursue individual goals that served to further their status within the group (Vayda, 1960; Smith, 1981). A lack of up-to-date statistics makes it difficult to identify the extent to which Maori still adhere to traditional values (Metge, 1995). Since New Zealand was first colonized by Europeans in the 19th century, Maori have become a minority (see Belich, 1996, for a detailed history). Their culture, language, and values have been subordinated to those of the dominant European culture (see Liu et al., 1999, for a brief psychohistory). The prominence of Maori culture has been attenuated by social institutions (e.g., mainstream education, governing bodies, media) that generally propagate the values and strengthen the position of the dominant culture (Sidanius, Liu, Shaw, & Pratto, 1994; Walker, 1990). Migration from rural to urban areas has steadily increased over the past 50 years, leading to a subsequent breakup of traditional family structures that were strongly associated with specific geographical locations (Liu & Temara, 1998; Metge, 1995).

A BICULTURAL ALTERNATIVE? New Zealand Europeans may also have been influenced by Maori in ways that we are only now beginning to understand (King, 1991; Liu, 1999; Ritchie, 1992). The typical view of Westerners as independent and non-Westerners as interdependent may not accord with the realities of Aotearoa/New Zealand, where both groups have had input into the construction of societal norms. Maori were a majority in New Zealand until the late 19th century (see Belich, 1996). Furthermore, New Zealand Europeans may be less self-enhancing than Americans because they have been subordinate as colonials to a distant British Crown for most of the nations history. Recent research has shown that a cultural revival on the part of Maori has rendered ethnic identity problematic for the majority group, to the extent that even the consensus name for New Zealanders of European ancestry is being disputed (Liu, 1999; Liu et al., 1999).

42

JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY

Studies investigating cross-cultural differences have tended to focus on the two cultures that most characterize the independent and interdependent self. Whereas Markus and Kitayama (1991) stressed that the purpose of this type of research is to challenge the assumed universality of the Western view of self and not to catalogue all types of self-construals (p. 225), we feel that one of its by-products has been the classification of different cultures as either individualistic or collectivist, with decidedly less consideration given to those societies that may have some different mixture of the two. It should, however, be noted that there are an increasing number of exceptions to this. For example, Yamada and Singelis (1999) identified four groups with distinct cultural experiences, each differing in degrees of independence and interdependence, one of which they termed bicultural, as reflected by high scores on both independence and interdependence axis of a self-construal measure (see also Kim et al., 1996). Most relevant to the present study, Kashima and Hardie (2000) have developed and validated a measure of relational, individual, and collective self-aspects, in which the three are seen as separate but related constructs (see also Singelis, 1994). Such a measure allows a more bicultural and even multicultural view of self-definition to emerge.

HYPOTHESES The aim of this study is to explore differences and similarities between Maori and New Zealand Europeans regarding their respective orientations toward individualism and collectivism, and their associated patterns of self-enhancement, global self-esteem, and attitudes toward high achievers. 1. Given that Maori have traditionally been strongly oriented toward the collective, we expected that a similar emphasis on group goals, activities, and values would be demonstrated by a sample of Maori students. We therefore predicted that Maori would score higher on collectivist or group orientation scales than New Zealand Europeans. However, we also predicted that they would score highly on measures of individual self-aspects, both because of the bias toward individualism extant in New Zealand society and because of the aforementioned emphasis that Maori place on the actions of the individual. On the other hand, we predicted that New Zealand Europeans would score higher on individual than on collective selfaspects, as is typical for Westerners. 2. Assuming a strong orientation toward the collective among Maori, we predicted that they would be particularly positive toward tall poppies who were part of their in-group and that they would be more likely than New Zealand Europeans to favor the fall of high achievers who do not conform to societal values. 3. No prediction of differences was hypothesized between Maori and Europeans in terms of levels of self-enhancement. It was, however, expected that the areas in which the two samples self-enhanced most would differ according to the different values held by members of each sample. Self-enhancement should be most pervasive in domains that were valued most highly or considered most important. The one area of obvious difference between the two groups is that Maori are predicted to value cultural knowledge more than Europeans and therefore should self-enhance more in this domain.

Harrington, Liu / SELF-ENHANCEMENT, BICULTURALISM

43

4. Finally, we made predictions concerning the relationship between self-esteem, selfenhancement, and attitudes toward tall poppies. If New Zealand falls into line with other Western nations, then following Feather and McKee (1993), we should find that positive self-esteem is correlated with positive attitudes toward high achievers. Similarly, on the basis of Kitayama et al.s (1997) results, we should expect self-esteem to be correlated with the degree of self-enhancement. The more persons self-enhance, the better they feel about themselves and the less they need to denigrate high achievers. This pattern is expected for New Zealand Europeans, given the high emphasis placed on personal independence. Furthermore, contrary to the notion of collectivism being typically associated with lower selfesteem and less self-enhancement, in a bicultural society, we expect that Maori will regard individual pursuits as contributing to both individual and collective prestige, so a similar or even stronger pattern of support for high achievers, high self-esteem, and high self-enhancement is expected.

METHOD
PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE

The New Zealand European sample consisted of 280 undergraduate students (65 men, 215 women) who were enrolled in either a 1st-year English literature course or a 2nd-year psychology course at Victoria University in Wellington in 1999. The mean age of the sample was 20.6 years (SD = 4.6). The Maori sample included 88 students (33 men, 55 women) who were enrolled in either of the aforementioned courses or in undergraduate Maori courses, also at Victoria University. The mean age of the sample was 25.0 years (SD = 8.2). Participants were included in this sample if they indicated that they were Maori, regardless of whether they indicated also being from other ethnic backgrounds (most Maori are of mixed ancestry). It should be noted that it is less typical for Maori to attend university than Europeans (about 30% of school leavers compared to 50%), and the Maori sample had more mature students. Students from both samples were administered the questionnaire as a part of their class. The questionnaire took approximately 15 minutes to complete.
QUESTIONNAIRE

The questionnaire included a number of scales, some of which were not relevant to the current study. Participants also provided information on their gender, age, ethnicity, family background (number of siblings, parental income, and academic level reached), their own past and expected academic performance, and expected income. The scales relevant to our hypotheses were as follows: Global Self-Esteem (SE). We used the original 10-item version of the Rosenberg SelfEsteem Scale to provide a measure of global self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965). Participants answered each item by circling the number from 1 to 7 that best corresponded with how strongly they agreed with the item (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The scores on the negatively worded items were reversed, and the 10 items were averaged to give selfesteem scores ranging from 1 to 7. The internal reliability of the scale (alpha) was .75 for the European sample and .81 for the Maori sample.

44

JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY

Tall Poppy Scale. Subjects rated 10 items of a shortened version of the Tall Poppy Scale (Feather, 1989). Pilot testing was used to delete items contributing least to scale reliability to reduce the length of the questionnaire. As with the original scale, half of the items express positive attitudes toward tall poppies (e.g., People who are very successful deserve all the rewards they get for their achievements) and half negative attitudes (e.g., Its good to see very successful people fail occasionally). Participants responded on the same 7-point Likert-type scale as for SE. Following the procedure of previous studies (e.g., Feather, 1989; Feather & McKee, 1993), two subscale scores were calculated. The scores from the five positive items were added to obtain a favor reward variable ranging from 5 through 35. The internal reliability of the subscale was .67 for the Maori sample and .65 for the European sample. Similarly, the scores for the five negative items were added to provide a favor fall scale. The internal reliability of this subscale was .84 for the Maori sample and .66 for the European sample. Along with the 10 original items from the Tall Poppy Scale, we also included four further items: Two of these were designed to assess tall poppy attitudes in relation to group membership (High achievers are OK as long as they are part of the group or organisation that I support and High achievers from my own group make me feel proud and I dont like to see them fall), and the other two acted as measures of the value placed on conformity (High achievers should pursue their own goals no matter what others think, High achievers who do not behave in a socially acceptable manner should be cut down to size). Individualism/Collectivism Inventory. A shortened and modified version of Kashima and Hardies (1999) Relational, Individual, and Collective Self-Aspects Scale (RIC) was used to assess the degree of participants orientation to individualism and collectivism. The original scale consists of 10 sections, each made up of three statements reflecting either individual, relational, or group orientation. Pilot testing was used to select the 5 most reliable of the original 10 sections for use in this study, leaving a total of 15 items. Participants were required to indicate how accurately each of the 15 statements described them on a 7-point scale (1 = does not describe me/not true of me, 7 = describes me/is true of me). Subscale scores for individual, relational, and group orientation were obtained by averaging the subjects responses to the five associated items. The internal reliabilities of these subscales for the Maori sample were .67, .64, and .70 for individual, relational, and collective, respectively. For the European sample, the individual, relational, and collective self-aspects yielded internal reliabilities of .69, .63, and .62, respectively. For analytical purposes, only the individual and collective self-aspect scales were important. Individual and Group Rewards Inventory (IGRI). An IGRI was especially constructed for this study as an additional measure of individualism and collectivism. Corresponding to the five domains of the Self-Attributes QuestionnaireShort (SAQ-S) (Pelham & Swann, 1989) plus culture, participants were asked to rate the importance of two events that were positively related to either individual or group activities. For example, the individual and group events relating to academic ability were: Getting the top mark in a test and Your class got the highest average grade in New Zealand for your favourite subject. Ratings for each of the 12 events were given on a 7-point scale of importance. Two subscores for group and individual rewards were then calculated. The internal reliabilities in the Maori sample were .74 for individual and .83 for group rewards, and .59 and .69, respectively, for the European sample. SAQ-S. Participants reported their self-views on the short version of Pelham and Swanns (1989) SAQ. This measure requires participants to rate themselves relative to other univer-

Harrington, Liu / SELF-ENHANCEMENT, BICULTURALISM

45

sity students on five distinct domains of self-evaluation: academic ability, social skills, artistic/ musical ability, athletic ability, and physical appearance. We added a knowledge of own culture and customs domain because Maori have recently experienced a cultural renaissance. For each of these six dimensions, participants rated themselves on a percentile scale ranging from A (bottom 5%) to J (top 5%). After reporting their self-views, participants rated the personal importance of each of the six domains on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all important, 7 = extremely important). This provided a more culturally balanced opportunity for participants to self-enhance. In all analyses to follow, participants were excluded if they were missing data required for that particular analysis.

RESULTS
INDIVIDUALISM/COLLECTIVISM

The means for each samples RIC scores were calculated, along with the mean IGRI scores. t tests comparing Maori and European scores were conducted, and results are presented in Table 1. As predicted by Hypothesis 1, Maori scored significantly higher than the European sample on both collective self-aspects, t (366) = 7.20, p < .001, and the group rewards subscale, t (343) = 3.44, p < .001. No significant differences between the two samples were found on any of the other subscales. Within-sample t tests indicated that both samples were significantly more individual- than collective-orientated on the RIC, although the mean differences were more pronounced for Europeans, t (278) = 19.8, p < .001, than for Maori t (87) = 3.1, p < .01. The European sample favored individual rewards significantly more than group rewards, t (259) = 11.8, p < .001, compared to Maori who scored higher on group rewards than individual rewards, t (82) = 2.3, p < .05.
TALL POPPY SCALE AND SE

Relevant to Hypothesis 4, the Maori sample scored significantly higher than the European sample on self esteem, t (366) = 4.12, p = .001. Significant correlations between SE scores and some of the Favor Fall and Favor Reward subscales suggested that there was a tendency for higher SE to be associated with more positive attitudes toward tall poppies: either to reward them more or to punish them less. This was evident to some degree for both the Maori and European samples (see Table 2). Furthermore, SE was significantly correlated with RICindividual for both Maori, r = .33) and New Zealand Europeans, r = .26. SE was also correlated with RIC-collective to a lesser extent, but this did not reach significance for Maori, and the effect disappears entirely after controlling for the effects of RIC-individual. Maori showed a nonsignificant trend on both Tall Poppy subscales toward greater favoring of high achievers (i.e., more rewarding and less punishing) and, as predicted, were significantly more supportive of tall poppies in their own group than Europeans, t (366) = 17.72, p < .001 and t (366) = 9.67, p < .01 for the High achievers are OK and from my own group make me feel proud, respectively). However, contrary to hypotheses, Maori did not hold more punishing attitudes toward tall poppies who do not behave in a socially acceptable manner, t (365) = .78, p = .45, or to those who set aside collective values to pursue their own goals no matter what others think, t (365) = .93, p = .36.

46

JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY

TABLE 1

Comparisons Between Relational, Individual, and Collective Self-Aspects (RIC) Scores and Individual and Group Rewards Inventory (IGRI) Scores
Subscale RIC-Relational RIC-Individual RIC-Group IGRI-Group IGRI-Individual Maori 5.76 5.76 5.46 29.54 28.02 European 5.82 5.87 4.66 26.34 29.28 T Values 0.705 1.16 7.20*** 3.44*** 1.51

NOTE: Due to missing cases, N for the European sample for the Individual and Group Rewards subscales were 266 and 263, respectively, and for the Maori sample, 88 and 83, respectively. ***p < .001.

TABLE 2

Mean Scores and Correlations Between Global Self-Esteem (SE) and Tall Poppy Attitudes
Maori Variable Global SE Favor Reward Favor Fall Group Individual European Mean Sample SD M 5.74 25.58 16.97 SD 0.79 4.90 6.58 Global SE .09 .21*** .13* .26*** 5.30 1.02 Favor Reward .22* .15* .11 .17*** 24.72 4.64 Correlations Favor Fall .19 .45*** .05 .15* 17.15 4.88 Group .18 .08 .20 .19*** Individual .33*** .04 .18 .27**

NOTE: Correlations for the Maori sample are above the diagonal; correlations for the New Zealand European sample are below the diagonal. *p < .05. ***p < .001

There was a strong negative correlation, r = -.45, between Favor Fall and Favor Reward in the Maori sample, compared to a weaker correlation, r = -.15 in the same direction for the European sample. A comparison of the difference between these correlations using Fishers z transformation was significant, p < .01. This result is different from that obtained by Feather and McKee (1993), who found a tendency toward a stronger negative correlation between favor reward and favor fall in their Australian sample than in their Japanese sample.
SELF-ENHANCEMENT

SAQ-S scores served as a measure of self-enhancement for the two groups. The percentages of subjects from the two samples who rated themselves in the top 50% and top 10% of students reflected a strong tendency by both samples to self-enhance (see Figure 1). Both samples demonstrated self-serving biases in four of the six SAQ-S domains. Scores in athletic and art/music domains reflected more modest self-ratings. The highest selfenhancements were clearly in the Academic and Social domains. Fully 88.5% of Maori and

Harrington, Liu / SELF-ENHANCEMENT, BICULTURALISM

47

96.1% of New Zealand Europeans rated themselves in the top 50% or higher relative to other students on academic ability. Similarly, high scores of 94.3% and 90.7% for Maori and Europeans were found for social skills. The results of t tests and Mann-Whitney U tests comparing Maori and European samples on raw and ipsatized (proportionalized) SAQ-S scores and domain importance are presented in Tables 3 and 4. A comparison of the average SAQ-S raw scores revealed that Maori rated themselves more highly overall than did the European sample. The greatest difference between the two samples SAQ-S scores can be seen in knowledge of own culture, with Maori rating themselves significantly higher. Maori also attributed themselves with significantly higher social skills and athletic ability self-ratings, whereas the European sample rated themselves more highly on artistic/musical ability. Ipsatized scores presented a different view of the data. Scores were ipsatized by dividing each subjects score for individual domains by their total SAQ-S/Importance score. The sample mean for each of these was then calculated, thereby providing an index of the samples relative self-rating, or importance, for each domain (see Pelham, 1991, for a methodological discussion). Ipsatizing scores in this manner eliminates individual or group-based biases toward higher or lower scores, focusing instead on patterns of relative weighting. Ipsatizing scores creates a limited view of the self, whereby each person has the same fixed amount of self-construal resources to allocate, whereas raw scores allow some persons or groups to have higher self-ratings across the domains than others. Of their total ipsatized self-rating, the New Zealand European sample rated themselves proportionally higher than the Maori sample on both artistic/musical and academic domains. Whereas the same difference as for the raw scores was apparent in the culture domain (Maori higher), there were no differences between the two samplesipsatized self-ratings for athletic or social skills. If the self has a limited share of resources, then the one domain in which Maori invest more of themselves compared to New Zealand Europeans is knowledge of culture. Raw importance ratings followed very much in the same pattern as SAQ-S ratings. Maori rated athletics and cultural knowledge as more important than did New Zealand Europeans, who emphasized the importance of art/music more than Maori. Overall, importance ratings by Maori tended to be slightly higher. Therefore, as with the SAQ-S scores, importance scores were ipsatized. The European sample placed greater relative importance than did Maori on social and artistic abilities. Although also deeming academic and social skills as highly important, Maori placed significantly more weighting than did the Europeans on cultural knowledge and on athletic ability. There were no significant differences between the two samples for either academic ability or appearance. When comparing the rank of domains for SAQ-S scores and importance weighting, only minor inconsistencies can be seen. The only difference in the Maori sample was that cultural knowledge, which had the second highest SAQ-S score, was given the highest importance weighting. For the European sample, academic ability and physical appearances were both one position lower on importance than they were on SAQ-S self-ratings. These results were consistent with Hypothesis 3 in that both samples would tend to rate as most important those areas in which they regarded themselves most highly. Indices of subjects investments in their self-perceived strengths and weaknesses were also produced by identifying the ipsatized importance score associated with their best and worst self-views (see Pelham, 1993).1 In cases in which subjects rated themselves equally high (or low) on two domains, the average of the importance scores for these domains was

48

JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY

Figure 1: Percentages of Maori and European Samples Self-Rated Among Top 50% and Top 10% of Students in Six Self-Attributes QuestionnaireShort (SAQ-S) Domains

TABLE 3

Comparisons Between Raw and Ipsatized Self-Attributes QuestionnaireShort (SAQ-S) scores for New Zealand Maori and New Zealand Europeans
SAQ-S scores Domain Academic Social Art/Music Athletic Culture Appearance Average *p < .05. ***p < .001. Maori 6.99 7.61 5.48 5.95 7.40 6.74 6.71 European 7.24 7.20 6.10 5.30 6.04 6.29 6.36 t 1.32 2.16* 2.33* 2.42* 6.43*** 1.95 2.64* Maori .174 .192 .135 .146 .187 .167 Ipsatized SAQ-S scores European .192 .190 .158 .138 .158 .165 U 3.81*** 0.32 3.99*** 1.88 4.89*** 0.35

calculated and ipsatized. Descriptive statistics for the high and low self-rating investment indices for both samples can be seen in Table 5. Mann-Whitney U tests revealed that the European sample placed more importance on domains in which their self-rating was highest compared with Maori, U = 2.13, p < .05. Both samples appeared to place similar importance on their lowest SAQ-S domains. Therefore, whereas both samples were inclined to emphasize the importance of areas in which their selfratings were highest, reflecting a self-serving bias, this tendency was slightly stronger for Europeans than for Maori.
ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AND SELF-RATINGS

Correlations between self-ratings of academic ability and self-reported grade averages were also calculated and revealed similar positive correlations for both samples. The r values

Harrington, Liu / SELF-ENHANCEMENT, BICULTURALISM

49

TABLE 4

Comparisons Between Raw and Ipsatized Importance Scores for New Zealand Maori and New Zealand Europeans
Importance Domain Academic Social Art/Music Athletic Culture Appearance Average *p < .05. ***p < .001. Maori 5.80 5.86 3.97 4.58 6.05 4.80 5.17 European 5.67 5.98 4.71 3.97 4.50 4.68 4.92 t 0.93 1.02 4.60*** 3.49*** 10.75*** 0.59 2.98* Maori .187 .190 .127 .147 .196 .153 Ipsatized Importance European .194 .204 .159 .133 .152 .158 Z 1.29 4.10*** 6.26*** 2.22* 7.80*** 0.56

TABLE 5

Ipsatized Importance Scores Corresponding to Highest and Lowest Self-Attributes QuestionnaireShort Scores for Maori and European Samples
n Highest Self-Rating European Maori Lowest Self-Rating European Maori M SD

273 87 273 87

.2008 .1906 .1219 .1246

.033 .038 .045 .037

were .45 and .43, p < .01, for European and Maori samples, respectively, suggesting that academic self-ratings were positively associated with academic performance. When grade averages were correlated with ipsatized academic SAQ-S scores, the correlations dropped to .26 and .37, respectively, indicating that as academic performance and self-ratings increase, so do self-ratings on other SAQ-S domains.
SELF-ENHANCEMENT AND SELF-ESTEEM

Both samples showed significant correlations between the majority of raw SAQ-S scores and SE (see Table 6). The strongest relationships were found with samplesself-ratings in the social, academic, and appearance domains. Although these tended to be more important domains, they did not correspond exactly. For example, physical appearance, rated fourth most important by both groups, was the second and third strongest predictor of self-esteem for European and Maori students, respectively. Even more notable was the absence of a correlation for Maori between self-esteem and ratings on their knowledge of culture, the domain they considered most important.

50

JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY

TABLE 6

Correlations Between Raw Self-Attributes QuestionnaireShort (SAQ-S) Scores (Self-Enhancement) and Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scores
Domain Academic Social Art/Music Athletic Culture Appearance Total SAQ-S *p < .05. ***p < .001. Maori .398*** .395*** .112 .045 .160 .249* .374*** European .208*** .444*** .086 .213*** .112 .377*** .405***

DISCUSSION Consistent with Hypothesis 1, Maori demonstrated higher group orientation than New Zealand Europeans. Maori scored significantly higher on both the collectivist aspect of the RIC and the Group Rewards subscale of the IGRI than did New Zealand Europeans. The two groups showed similar levels of individual orientation. The Maori students thus exhibited a similar pattern to that of Yamada and Singeliss (1999) bicultural group. For both samples, individual orientation and SE were significantly correlated, with group orientation showing a weaker trend that disappears entirely when regression analyses are used to control for the effects of individual orientation. For New Zealand Europeans, individual orientation was higher than collective orientation on both the RIC and the IGRI, whereas Maori scored higher on the individualist aspect of the RIC but endorsed group rewards more on the IGRI. These results provide tentative support for a bicultural view of self in Aotearoa/New Zealand, where independence and interdependence exist side by side within the same person. This is clearly demonstrated by the New Zealand Maori students, who strongly endorsed both interconnectedness and individual pursuits. Of course, results must be treated with caution because of the limited samples reported. Aside from these critical results, there was generally a high level of consistency between New Zealand Maori and New Zealand Europeans. In accord with Hypothesis 2, but contrary to results obtained by Feather and McKee (1993) for Japanese (collectivists) and Australians (individualists), Maori were supportive of high achievers, despite their orientation toward the collective. Also contrary to Feather and McKees results from Australians and Japanese, the negative correlation between favor reward and favor fall was stronger for the Maori sample than for the European sample. These results indicated that attitudes toward high achievers are more positively influenced by the presence of high self-esteem and an individual orientation than they are by the absence of collectivism. The hypothesis that Maori would be more punishing of tall poppies who disregarded social norms for the group was not supported, but consistent with predictions, Maori did appear to hold more benevolent attitudes toward tall poppies who were in-group members. The similarities between the two samples regarding individual self-aspects were also apparent in their self-ratings on the SAQ-S domains. As predicted, although there were differences in the patterns of response within the domains (e.g., Maori rated themselves as having considerably greater cultural knowledge than did the Europeans, who rated themselves more highly on artistic/musical ability), both groups demonstrated strong tendencies toward

Harrington, Liu / SELF-ENHANCEMENT, BICULTURALISM

51

self-enhancement, particularly in the domains of social and academic ability. Maori were significantly more self-enhancing overall. The results were also consistent with the notion, as with the responses to the individual and collective self-aspects and attitudes toward tall poppies, that in a bicultural society, valuing the collective does not necessitate lower levels of individual pursuit or positive self-assessment. The greatest difference in self-concept between Maori and New Zealand Europeans as measured by raw and ipsatized SAQ-S scores was the Maori emphasis on cultural knowledge, but it is possible that this result was influenced by the classes from which samples were taken. Most of the Maori sample were enrolled in Maori culture or language courses (as are 30% to 40% of Maori tertiary students; see Liu et al., 1999). However, supplementary analyses showed that self-assessments and importance of cultural knowledge for both samples were positively correlated with collective orientation. This suggests that the emphasis placed by Maori on cultural knowledge is related to their greater valuing of the collective, rather than simply reflecting the nature of the classes in which they are enrolled. In accord with Hypothesis 3, the importance ratings of each SAQ-S domain tended to correspond with the self-ratings. That is, the higher the self-rating, the higher the importance of the domain. Europeans were slightly more inclined than Maori to rate as more important those areas in which they were more skilled (see Pelham & Swann, 1989). Consistent with existing research and Hypothesis 4, SAQ-S scores were correlated with SE for both groups. However, an interesting pattern emerged regarding the particular domains most closely associated with self-esteem, especially when these were then compared with the domains considered most important by the two groups. The appearance selfrating, despite being rated by both Maori and European samples as only fourth most important of the domains, was the second highest predictor of self-esteem for the European sample, and the third highest for the Maori sample. Even more notable is the absence of a correlation between self-ratings of cultural knowledge and self-esteem for either group, perhaps particularly surprising for the Maori sample given their high self-ratings and importance weighting on this domain. Two possible interpretations of these results are as follows. First, importance ratings may be superficial, and other factors, such as physical appearances, may be more closely related to self-esteem than participants would like to admit. Second, not all domains may feed into self-esteem to the same degree, so the high self-ratings and importance placed by Maori on culture function to satisfy a separate value system than that assessed by self-esteem. Recent work by Kwan, Bond, and Singelis (1997) has argued that relationship harmony is the central concept mediating between interdependent self-construal and life satisfaction, whereas selfesteem serves the same function for an independent self-construal. Maori emphasis on culture may, therefore, feed into a system of values associated with interdependence that does not emphasize self-esteem as a central construct. However, because we did not assess relationship harmony, the present data are too ambiguous to make such a judgment. Finally, we found that the Maori sample actually showed higher levels of self-esteem than did Europeans. This result, along with the greater overall tendency for Maori to self-enhance and their trend toward higher support for tall poppies, provided support for the fourth hypothesis, that a pattern of relations between self-enhancement, attitudes toward tall poppies, and self-esteem typical of an independent sense of self could be found in a group scoring high in collectivism. These results demonstrate the discrepancy between Maori university students and the archetypal, self-effacing collectivists. Following Yamada and Singelis (1999), they suggest an additive effect between independent and interdependent selfconstrual among bicultural people. Together with data from Liu, Ng, Weatherall, and Loong

52

JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY

(2000) from New Zealand Chinese also showing such an additive effect for attitudes toward elder family, there is growing evidence supporting integration (Berry, Kim, & Boski, 1987) as a viable option for minorities in New Zealand.
INDEPENDENCE AND INTERDEPENDENCE IN A BICULTURAL SOCIETY

There are several ways in which our results might be interpreted in a broader context of theory about culture. The responses of our Maori sample probably reflect the strong influence of Western values, not dissimilar to the findings obtained by Heine and Lehman (1997) regarding the responses of Japanese students living in Canada. It is also likely that even prior to European contact, Maori culture had a set of cultural criteria for selfhood that accommodated collective interests as well as individual pursuits and that Western influences have accentuated the value placed on individuality. This has led Maori to concurrently emphasize both individualist and collectivist values and to engage in associated cognitive processes (e.g., self-enhancement). Such an interpretation is consistent with the views of Heine and Lehman (1997) and Kitayama et al. (1997), who asserted that cognitive processes, such as self-enhancement and favoring high achievers, are employed if they are consistent with cultural criteria for selfhood. These criteria are dynamic, are determined both by the members of that culture and by external factors (e.g., other cultures), and significantly influence the extent of different cognitions associated with self. For Maori, both independent and interdependent selfconstrual may be validated in different contexts. These results encourage thinking outside of a categorical difference between independence and interdependence. The data from Maori, who were high on collectivism, are consistent with the view that such cognitive processes like self-enhancement are not employed solely by individualistic Western cultures, but rather, that there is a growing hybridity within nations. Hence, cognitive processes such as self-enhancement and self-criticism (Kitayama et al., 1997) may not necessarily map directly on to independent and interdependent construals of self. For instance, commenting on their data showing that Canadian individualists all described themselves as individuals in the same way (i.e., 62% claimed to be intelligent, 49% fun), Leuers and Sonoda (1997) posited that the independent self-construal is an illusion. The implication of their argument is that we are all, at the same time as being individuals, fundamentally interconnected and dependent on the collective for our understanding of ourselves and of others.

FURTHER RESEARCH There are several ways in which our research could be further developed for a more thorough investigation of the concepts discussed above. First, there is clearly scope for using larger, more representative samples. Given that students are a comparatively homogeneous group, cross-cultural differences might be more apparent if samples were selected from the wider community. Our Maori sample was better educated and also probably more politically aware than a community cross-section (see Liu et al., 1999). Second, our investigation of tall poppy attitudes was reasonably superficial and failed to assess the effects of variables such as the domain in which the tall poppies succeeded, their

Harrington, Liu / SELF-ENHANCEMENT, BICULTURALISM

53

values, whether they were boastful, the relative position of the person holding the attitude, and whether their status contributed to individual or group esteem. To tap more meaningful, affective responses, future investigations might therefore include more information. Finally, the relationship between Maori knowledge of culture and relationship harmony (Kwan et al., 1997) should be explored in future research. As Maori are investing such a large portion of themselves in cultural knowledge, it would be important to know whether relationship harmony is a central element in the Maori sense of life satisfaction.

CONCLUSION Rather than finding New Zealanders of European and Maori origins polarized on measures of individualism/collectivism and self-enhancement, we found more subtle differences between them, anchored by large amounts of similarity. Our results suggest that a bicultural, rather than categorical, view of independence and interdependence may be a useful way to look at differences between ethnicities within nationality and that this view may in turn inform us about the range of possibilities for developing a culturally validated sense of self in pluralistic societies.

NOTE
1. Ipsatizing the importance scores is particularly important for this analysis because, as well as allowing between-sample comparisons that are not affected by overall response biases, the relative weighting that participants place on a particular domain gives an indication of how important that domain is compared with others. The raw importance score, on the other hand, could be an artifact of the overall pattern of response for that subject.

REFERENCES
Belich, J. (1996). The making of peoples: A history of New Zealand from Polynesian settlement to the end of the nineteenth century. Auckland, New Zealand: Penguin. Berry, J. W., Kim, U., & Boski, P. (1987). Psychological acculturation of immigrants. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Cross-cultural adaptation (pp. 62-89). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Colvin, C. R., & Block, J. (1994). Do positive illusions foster mental health? An examination of the Taylor and Brown formulation. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 3-20. Davidson, J. (1984). The prehistory of New Zealand. Auckland, New Zealand: Longman Paul. Epstein, S. (1992). Coping ability, negative self-evaluation, and overgeneralization: Experiment and theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 826-836. Feather, N. T. (1989). Attitudes towards the high achiever: The fall of the tall poppy. Australian Journal of Psychology, 41, 239-267. Feather, N. T., & McKee, I. R. (1993). SE and attitudes toward the high achiever for Australian and Japanese students. Social Psychology Quarterly, 56, 65-76. Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1995). Cultural variation in unrealistic optimism: Does the West feel more invulnerable than the East. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 595-607. Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1997). The cultural construction of self-enhancement: An examination of groupserving biases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1268-1283. Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1999). Culture, self-discrepancies, and self-satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 72, 1268-1283. Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review, 106, 766-794. Kashima, E., & Hardie, E. (2000). The development and validation of the Relational, Individual, and Collective Self-Aspects Scale (RIC) scale. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3(1), 19-48.

54

JOURNAL OF CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY

Kim, M. S., Hunter, J. E., Miyahara, A., Horvath, A. M., Bresnahan, M., & Yoon, H. J. (1996). Individual versus cultural-level dimensions of individualism and collectivism: Effects on preferred conversational styles. Communication Monographs, 63(1), 29-49. King, M. (Ed.). (1991). Pakeha: The quest for identity in New Zealand. Auckland, New Zealand: Penguin. Kitayama, S., Markus, H.R., & Kurokawa, M. (1994). Cultural views of self and emotional experience: Does the nature of good feelings depend on culture? Unpublished manuscript, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan. Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., Matsumoto, H., & Norasakkunkit, V. (1997). Individual and collective processes in the construction of the self: Self-enhancement in the United States and self-criticism in Japan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1245-1267. Kwan, V.S.Y., Bond, M. H., & Singelis, T. M. (1997). Pancultural explanations for life satisfaction: Adding relationship harmony to self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(5), 1039-1051. Landrine, H. (1992). Clinical implications of cultural differences, the referential versus the indexical self. Clinical Psychology Review, 12, 401-415. Leuers, T.R.S., & Sonoda, N. (1997). Independent self bias. In T. Sugiman, M. Karasawa, J. H. Liu, & C. Ward (Eds.), Progress is Asian Social Psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 78-104), Kyoyook Kwahaksa: Seoul. Lewinsohn, P. M., Mischel, W., Chaplin, W., & Barton, R. (1980). Social competence and depression: The role of illusory self-perceptions. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 89, 203-212. Liu, J. H. (1999, April 8-11). Majority reactions to resurgence in minority identity: Stages of change in New Zealand identity. Paper presented at the fourth annual meeting of the Society of Australasian Social Psychologists, Coolum, Australia. Liu, J.H. & Liu, S.H. (1999). Interconnectedness and Asian social psychology. In T. Sugiman, M. Karasawa, J.H. Liu, & C. Ward (Eds.). Progress in Asian Social Psychology, Vol. 2, pp.9-31. Seoul: Kyoyook Kwahaksa. Liu, J. H., Ng, S. H., Weatherall, A., & Loong, C. (2000). Filial piety, acculturation, and inter-generational communication among New Zealand Chinese. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 22(3), 213-223. Liu, J. H., & Rosenau, J. N. (1998, August 4-7). The psychology of fragmentation: On the uses of a simultaneity of consciousness in the New World Order. Paper presented at the 3rd Conference of the Asian Association of Social Psychology, Taipei. Liu, J. H., & Temara, P. (1998). Leadership, colonization, and tradition: Identity and economic change in Ruatoki and Ruatahuna. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 22, 138-150. Liu, J. H., Wilson, M. S., McClure, J., & Higgins, T. R. (1999). Social identity and the perception of history: Cultural representations of Aotearoa/New Zealand. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 1021-1047. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1996). The mutual interactions of culture and emotion. Psychiatric Services, 47, 225-226. Metge, J. (1995). New growth from old: The Whanau in the modern world. Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University Press. Patterson, J. (1992). Exploring Maori values. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press. Pelham, B. W. (1991). On the benefits of misery: Self-serving biases in the depressive self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 670-681. Pelham, B. W. (1993). The idiographic nature of human personality: Examples of the idiographic self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 665-677. Pelham, B. W., & Swann, W. B. (1989). From self-conceptions to self-worth: On the sources and structure of SE. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 672-680. Ritchie, J. E. (1992). Becoming bicultural. Wellington, New Zealand: Huia, Daphne Brassell Associates. Rosenau, J., & Czempiel, E.-O. (Eds.). (1992). Governance without government: Order and change in world politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Sidanius, J., Liu, J. H., Shaw, J. S., & Pratto, F. (1994). Social dominance orientation, hierarchy attenuators and hierarchy enhancers: Social dominance theory and the criminal justice system. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 338-366. Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580-591. Smith, J. (1981). Self and experience in Maori culture. In P. Heelas & A. Locke (Eds.), Indigenous psychologies: The anthropology of the self. New York: Academic Press. Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 193-210. Taylor, S. E., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1995). Effects of mindset on positive illusions. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 69(2), 213-226. Vayda, A.(1960). Maori warfare [Polynesian Society Monograph 2]. Wellington, New Zealand: A. H. & A. W. Reed. Walker, R. (1990). Ka whawhau tonu (Struggle without end). Auckland, New Zealand: Penguin. Yamada, A. M., & Singelis, T. M. (1999). Biculturalism and self-construal. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 23(5), 697-709.

Harrington, Liu / SELF-ENHANCEMENT, BICULTURALISM

55

Leigh Harrington is currently completing a Post-Graduate Diploma in Clinical Psychology and a Ph.D. at Victoria University investigating the relationship between Theory of Mind deficits, folk psychological explanations of behaviour, and paranoia in clinical and non-clinical populations. Dr. James H. Liu is Senior Lecturer in the School of Psychology at Victoria University of Wellington, where he specializes in a culture-oriented approach to social identity, intergroup relations, and action research. Author of more than 30 papers in 20 different refereed journals, Dr. Liu is also on the Executive Committee of the Asian Association of Social Psychology and a fellow of SPSSI. His recent work has focused on social identity, the social representation of history, and their implications for ethnic, regional, and national identity, as well as culture and positive aging.