The following answers are meant to summarize the article, "Beyond self-presentation: Evidence for self-criticism among Japanese."

Q1: What was the research about?

We in North America tend to view ourselves positively, and tend to use information we gather to enhance that positive view of ourselves. Many feel that is a universal behavior. However, research on other cultures suggests that self-enhancement may not be the norm in all societies. For example, many in Asian cultures adopt the virtue of humility or modesty and, thus, may be more inclined to view themselves more critically.

The present research compared Canadians versus Japanese in their likelihood to exhibit self-enhancing or self-critical responses to positive and negative feedback. Are Canadians more likely to take credit for their success? Are Japanese more likely to take blame for their failure? This study attempted to determine if cultural differences exist in the way that we present ourselves to others.

Q2: Why did the author(s) do it?

Although a good deal of evidence appears to support the claim that North Americans tend to view themselves in a mostly positive light and Japanese tend to view themselves more negatively, the authors question the manner in which that evidence was gathered. They note that virtually all studies of this topic to date have used questionnaires to elicit subject perceptions. The authors suggest that cultural differences in how we publicly present ourselves might affect how we respond to surveys. Specifically, it was suggested that North American norms encourage people to present themselves in a positive light on surveys. On the other hand, Japanese are encouraged to present themselves more modestly in public. It might be that Japanese engage in self-enhancement just as strongly as North Americans, but they are reluctant to admit to doing so in a questionnaire.

Thus, the authors conducted the present study to ascertain whether or not Japanese would be more or less likely to engage in self-enhancement or self-criticism when they were unaware that their responses could be interpreted publicly. To accomplish this, the authors observed behaviors exhibited by the subjects that appeared to be private rather than asking for questionnaire responses.

Q3: How did they conduct the research?

"Heine, Takata, and Lehman’s participants were all introductory psychology students enrolled at either the University of British Columbia in Canada or at Nara University in Japan. Participants were brought into the lab individually t take part in an experiment entitled Cognition and Judgment which contained 2 phases.

Phase 1 was called the Integrative Cognitive Capacity (ICC) test. Participants viewed grids of colored shapes on a computer and were then asked to answer 20 questions regarding the numbers of certain shapes presented as quickly and accurately as possible. They were told that their speed and accuracy in answering these questions reflected how well they could integrate and manipulate information, a skill they were told is critically linked to intelligence.

Phase 2 was called the Judgment Under Uncertainty task. Participants were told that the experimenters were interested in how well they could make a mathematical judgment with only a limited amount of information. They were urged to make the judgment as soon as they felt that they had seen enough information to be able to determine the correct answer. The judgment that they were to make was whether their performance on the ICC test was better or worse than that of a computer, which participants were told was programmed to function the same as an average UBC/Nara University student.

The computer randomly assigned participants either to a success or a failure condition, and the experimenter was blind to this assignment. In the success condition, the higher scores were under the participant’s identification number; in the failure condition, the higher scores were under the average student’s column. The feedback was designed so that it would be difficult for participants to make their judgments.

After indicating that they had seen enough information to make their decision, participants decided who performed better-themselves or the average student. Next, participants were asked to indicate how confident they were that they had made the correct decision on a scale of 1-9. After completing Phase 2, participants completed a brief questionnaire. After completing the questionnaire, participants were probed for suspicion and thoroughly debriefed."

Q4: What kind of research did they conduct? Briefly explain how you can tell it is that type of research.

"Although this study randomly assigned participants and had dependent measures (p.74) it was not an experimental design because there was not an independent variable that could be manipulated. It was identified in the article that "Because cross-cultural comparisons are inherently correlational in nature (i.e., culture is never manipulated by the experimenter), it is important to consider whether any extraneous factors or third variables may have affected the results."

Q5: What did they find?

Researchers found that the Japanese were more likely to be self-critical than the Canadians while the Canadians were more likely to exhibit self-enhancement. More specifically, the Japanese resisted the notion that they had outperformed their Japanese peers. In fact, when they were told that they exhibited above average performance on the tasks, the Japanese subjects tended to require more information before making a decision, require more time to do so, express less confidence in their decision, and were slightly more likely to dismiss the validity of the test.

On the other hand, the Canadian subjects were more likely to resist the notion that they had been outperformed by their peers when given such feedback. While the Japanese subjects became more hesitant and less confident when given positive (enhancing) feedback, the Canadians slowed down, needed more information and were less confident when receiving more negative (critical) feedback. However, the Canadian subjects still believed that they could outperform most of their peers. In other words, whereas the Japanese were surprised when they outperformed their peers the Canadians were surprised when they did not.

Q6: How might that be relevant to your listener's life?

In general, it is useful to remember that people behave differently in different cultures. It is so easy to adapt to what we have been exposed to in our culture and assume it is the same everywhere. If in our culture we are constantly exposed to ourselves and others exhibiting self-enhancing statements and behaviors, we can easily assume that it is common throughout the world. This study reminds us why we need to be careful jumping to such conclusions. We should be careful not to assume that the behavior of others is "abnormal" or strange just because it is different. Our behavior may look quite odd to them as well.

Additionally, this study illustrates how easy it is to deceive myself as I interpret information or feedback from my world. In my culture (and my listener's) it is common for me to find self-serving explanations and interpretations of negative or less than flattering information. I might think that I am honestly interpreting the feedback, but the motive of self-enhancement often overrides objectivity. Although I cannot eliminate this tendency in my culture I can be more aware of it.