China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan
Yang (2004b) recently made a systematic distinction between indigenous psychology, Westernized psychology, and indigenized psychology. He defined indigenous psychology as a discipline that applies the scientific method to the study of psychological and behavioural phenomena of people in a specific ethnic or cultural group, in such a way that the theories, concepts, methods, and tools used are highly compatible not only with the studied phenomena, but also with their ecological, economic, social, cultural, and historical contexts. Indigenous psychology is spontaneously, naturally, and gradually formed through an endogenous process without the intrusion and domination of a powerful alien scientific psychology. In contemporary world psychology, only psychologies in the Euro-American countries and the former Soviet Union are genuinely indigenous.
In the last two centuries, these Western indigenous psychologies have hegemonically dominated the initiation and development of scientific psychology in non-Western countries, which have thus generated almost the same kind of artificially transplanted psychology—that is, Westernized psychology. This kind of psychology, now prevalent in most non-Western societies, is formed by a process of academic Westernization through which non-Western psychologists uncritically adopt Western theories, concepts, methods, and tools in their research with local people as participants. Such a culture-ignoring psychology, or more aptly, imposed-etic (Berry, 1969) or pseudo-indigenous psychology, is nothing more than a distorted non-Western copy of Western indigenous psychology.
In recent years, increasing numbers of non-Western psychologists in an increasing number of non-Western societies have criticized the artificiality, superficiality, and incompatibility of their culturally alienated Westernized psychology in understanding, explaining, and predicting their people's mind and behaviour. They aim to transform their seriously undesirable psychology into an indigenized psychology through the process of quasi-indigenization. What they need to do is to consciously and purposely indigenize their research in such a way that the theories, concepts, methods, and tools created and used are sufficiently compatible with the studied local psychological and behavioural phenomena as structurally and functionally embedded in their ecological, economic, social, cultural and historical contexts.
The scientific psychology developed in major Chinese societies (Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China) is also a kind of Westernized psychology. But in the last three decades, an increasing number of Chinese psychologists, mainly those in Taiwan, have devoted themselves to the collective academic enterprise of systematically converting their Westernized Chinese psychology into an indigenized Chinese psychology that is able to understand, explain, and predict Chinese mind and behaviour much more efficiently (Yang, 1993, 1997a, 1997b, 1999). More and more indigenous-oriented Chinese psychologists have been endeavouring to conduct indigenized research on a wider variety of topics in various areas of psychology. There have been about 50 different topics on which serious indigenized studies have been completed. More than half of the topics fall into the field of personality and social psychology, followed by family and developmental psychology, clinical and counselling psychology, and organizational and managerial psychology, in that order.
Since the early 1970s, Yang and his associates have conducted indigenized research on such topics as familism and pan-familism, psychological traditionality and modernity, the Chinese self, Chinese basic personality dimensions, psychology of yuan (beliefs in predestined interpersonal affinity), relationship orientation, psychology of ren (forbearance and endurance), social-oriented achievement motivation, filial piety, and deviant adolescent behaviour. Empirical research on the first three topics will now be briefly reviewed.
CHINESE FAMILISM, FAMILIZATION, AND PAN-FAMILISM
Ever since ancient times, Chinese people have emphasized family as the centre of life, forming a strong sense of familism. At the micro level, Yeh and Yang (1997) defined familism as a person's complex system of social attitudes towards their family, family members, and family-related affairs, and conceived a familistic attitude as comprising three components, viz., cognitive, affective, and intentional (behavioural intention). They proposed a conceptual scheme for the major psychological contents of Chinese familism. According to the scheme, the cognitive contents of Chinese familism are the emphases on one's own family's prolongation, harmony, solidarity, wealth, and fame; the affective contents are the feelings of familial unity (being one), belongingness, concern and love, glory, responsibility, and safety; and the intentional contents are the tendencies to engage in such behaviours as producing offspring, interdependence, forbearance, modesty, conformity, striving for family, respect for seniority, and in-group favouritism. On the basis of this framework, three standardized Chinese familism scales, respectively labelled the Familistic Cognition Scale, the Familistic Affection Scale, and the Familistic Intention Scale, were constructed to measure the three major aspects of Chinese familism.
Using these standardized scales, Yeh and Yang (1997) made further empirical analyses revealing that for both Chinese students and adults in Taiwan, the correlations among the three empirically identified cognition components (solidarity and harmony, family prolongation, and family prosperity) and among the three corresponding intention components (solidarity and harmony, family prolongation, and family prosperity) were all positive and substantial, and that the overall affect or feeling of familial unity was strongly positively correlated with all the cognition and intention components. These and other relevant results attest to the fact that the cognitive, affective, and intentional components of Chinese familism constitute a coherent psychological syndrome.
As Yang (1995, 1998) pointed out, Chinese people's family experiences are so deeply engraved in memory from childhood that they take their family as the prototype for the structuring and functioning of all the other organizations (including social, business, and even government ones). The structural and functional similarities between the family and outside-family organizations tend to make Chinese people transfer or generalize their familistic cognitions, affects, and intentions (and corresponding behaviours as well) to their life in other organizations. Through such a process, Chinese people familize other organizations to such an extent that they can think, feel, intend, and behave in them in a familial way. Yang (1993, 1998) labelled this complex process of stimulus generalization familization. The emergence and functioning of generalized familism in various kinds of nonfamilial organizations is called pan-familism. Yang (1998) reviewed research findings that revealed the existence of pan-familism in industrial and business organizations. An outstanding example of pan-familistic organizational phenomena is the Chinese paternalistic leadership style as recently defined, assessed, and studied by Farh and Cheng (2000).
CHINESE PSYCHOLOGICAL TRADITIONALITY AND MODERNITY
Yang's (2003) long-term programme of research on Chinese psychological traditionality (T) and modernity (M) may be divided into two stages. In the first stage (1972-1984), a measuring instrument, the Chinese Individual Traditionality-Modernity Scale, was constructed under the assumption that T and M constitute a unidimensional, bipolar psychological continuum. This scale was used in quite a number of empirical studies (for review, see Yang, 1996).
In the second stage, starting from 1985, Yang and his associates (Yang, 1996, 2003; Yang, Yu, & Yeh, 1991) adopted a new research strategy with two major assumptions: (1) T and M are two separate independent psychological syndromes, and (2) T and M are two multidimensional psychological syndromes. With these assumptions, and based on separate conceptual schemes of the contents of T and M, two assessment tools, the Multidimensional Scale of Chinese Individual Traditionality (MS-CIT) and the Multidimensional Scale of Chinese Individual Modernity (MS-CIM), were constructed with Chinese university students and adults as participants. The former scale measures five oblique T factors or components: Submission to Authority, Filial Piety and Ancestral Worship, Conservatism and Endurance, Fatalism and Defensiveness, and Male Dominance. The latter assesses five oblique M factors: Egalitarianism and Open-mindedness, Social Isolation and Self-reliance, Optimism and Assertiveness, Affective Hedonism, and Sex Equality (Yang, 1994, 1996, 2003; Yang et al., 1991).
Yang (1994) found that in all samples of students and adults, the total score of the five T components was only minimally negatively correlated with the total score of the five M components. This finding confirms the new assumption that Chinese T and M are two separate and distinct psychological syndromes. Further analyses revealed that the Male Dominance T factor substantially negatively correlated with the Sex Equality M factor, but the other four T factors only negligibly or minimally correlated with the other four M factors. This and other relevant findings were interpreted as indicating a trend for most T components to coexist with, rather than be replaced by, most M components with continued social change in Chinese societies. To explain this and other related phenomena, Yang (1988, 1994, 1996) proposed a cultural-ecological, interactionistic theory of psychological convergence and divergence during the process of societal modernization.
THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL ANALYSES OF THE CHINESE SELF
Yang (1995) termed the psychological pattern of strong autonomy and weak homonomy individual orientation, and that of weak autonomy and strong homonomy social orientation. He further proposed that Chinese social orientation consists of four (sub)orientations, namely, relationship orientation, authoritarian orientation, familistic (group) orientation, and other orientation. Individual orientation and the four social-oriented orientations respectively represent the five sets of characteristics of Chinese daily social interaction in five major life domains: (1) The domain of a person's interactions with himself or herself, (2) the domain of horizontal interpersonal interactions between two related persons with approximately equal power, (3) the domain of vertical dyadic interactions between two persons with unequal power, (4) the domain of a person's interactions with his or her own family or some other membership group, and (5) the domain of a person's interactions with unidentifiable nonspecific others, or the generalized other, as a real or imagined diffuse audience.
According to Yang (2004a), the five Chinese psychosocial orientations are regarded as the results of the Chinese self's successive differentiations between, and integrations within, each of the five life domains of daily social interaction in culturally specific ways in the Chinese lifeworld during the lifelong developmental process. The between-domain differentiations and within-domain integrations tend to make the psychological and behavioural functioning in each of the five life domains so functionally autonomized and structurally specialized that they form the five domain-specific subsystems, or more directly, subselves, that comprise the Chinese self. The five self subsystems are respectively named the individual-, relationship-, authoritarian-, familistic(group)-, and other-oriented selves. Since both the relationship- and authoritarian-oriented selves involve an interpersonal relationship, they are simply combined as the relationship-oriented self.
On the basis of Yang's (1995, 2004a) theoretical analysis of the Chinese self, a series of empirical studies has been conducted to explore the four domain-specific Chinese selves in terms of self-concept, self-esteem, and self-process. Since there are four Chinese selves, there should be four corresponding Chinese self-concepts (Yang, 1995, 2004a). Using university students from Taiwan and China as participants, Yang (2000) carried out a study to construct a tool for assessing the four domain-specific self-concepts. He began with a comprehensive pool of relevant items written on the basis of the conceptual scheme of the four Chinese selves and concluded with a factor analysis of the empirical data to identify the components of Chinese self-concept. Four major psychologically meaningful oblique factors were obtained, respectively labelled Individual-, Relationship-, Familistic-, and Other-oriented Selves. High loading items for the four factors were respectively chosen to construct the Multidimensional Self-Concept Scale for research with Chinese students and adults.
Also based on Yang's four-part model of the Chinese self, Weng, Yang, and Hsu (2004) attempted to develop an instrument for assessing four kinds of specific trait self-esteem as the major aspects of Chinese self-evaluation. Using university students from Taiwan and China as respondents, they obtained four major psychologically meaningful oblique factors, which were labelled Individual-, Relationship-, Familistic-, and Other-oriented Self-Esteem. High loading items for the four factors were respectively selected to construct the Multidimensional Self-Esteem Scale. In addition, Yang (2002) completed a study to analyse Taiwan students' components and changes of state self-esteem under success and failure situations, private and public conditions, and social- and individual-oriented life events. Yang's theory of the Chinese self has also been applied to the study of Chinese self-process, but the findings in this respect are beyond the coverage of this short article.
The reader may have noticed that Yang basically adopted a psychometric dispositional approach in the indigenous studies of all the three topics. This neither means that Yang has not relied on other approaches in doing research on other topics, nor that indigenous-oriented Chinese psychologists have all used the same approach. As a matter of fact, the methods employed by Chinese indigenous psychologists in their indigenized research are widely diversified, ranging from dialogics and heuristics, narrative analysis, analysis of stories and proverbs, and in-depth and semistructured interviews, to questionnaire surveys, standardized scales, and field and laboratory experimentation.
Correspondence should be addressed to Kuo-Shu Yang, Department of Psychology, Fo Guang College of Humanities and Social Sciences, 160 Linwei Rd, Jiaushi Shiang, Ilan Country, Taiwan 26247, ROC, email@example.com
Berry, J. W. (1969). On cross-cultural comparability. International Journal of Psychology, 4, 119128.
Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2000). A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In J. T. Li, A. S. Tsui, & E. Weldon (Eds.), Management and organizations in the Chinese context (pp. 84127). London: Macmillan.
Weng, J. Y., Yang, K. S., & Hsu, Y. (2004). Social- and individual-oriented self-esteem: Conceptual analysis and empirical assessment [in Chinese]. In proceedings of the Conference on Chinese Self-process, Self-concept, and Self-evaluation, held in Ilan County, Taiwan on February 28-29.
Yang, K. S. (1988). Will societal modernization eventually eliminate cross-cultural psychological differences? In M. H Bond (Ed.), The cross-cultural challenge to social psychology (pp. 6785). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Yang, K. S. (1993). Why do we need to develop an indigenous Chinese psychology [in Chinese]? Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 1, 688.
Yang, K. S. (1994). Can traditional and modern values coexist [in Chinese]. In K. S. Yang (Ed.), Chinese values: A social-science perspective (pp. 65120). Taipei, Taiwan: Kwei-kuan Book Co.
Yang, K. S. (1995). Chinese social orientation: An integrative analysis. In W. S. Tseng, T. Y. Lin, & Y. K. Yeh (Eds.), Chinese societies and mental health.. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Yang, K. S. (1996). The psychological transformation of the Chinese people as a result of societal modernization. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 479498). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Yang, K. S. (1997a). Indigenizing Westernized Chinese psychology. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), Working at the interface of cultures: Eighteen lives in social science. London: Routledge.
Yang, K. S. (1997b). Indigenous compatibility in psychological research and its related problems [in Chinese]. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 8, 75120.
Yang, K. S. (1998). Familization, pan-familism, and organizational behavior [in Chinese]. In B. S. Cheng, K. L. Huang, & C. C. Kuo (Eds.), Management in Taiwan and China, Vol. 4: Chinese legacies and management in Taiwan and China (pp. 1959).
Yang, K. S. (1999). Towards an indigenous Chinese psychology: A selected review of methodological, theoretical, and empirical accomplishments. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 41, 181211.
Yang, K. S. (2000). Social- and individual-oriented self-concepts: Conceptualization and measurement [in Chinese]. Unpublished manuscript, Graduate Institute of Psychology, Fo Guan College of Humanities and Social Sciences.
Yang, K. S. (2002). The components and changes of Chinese state self-esteem under success and failure situations, private and public conditions, and social- and individual-oriented life events: A scenario study. [in Chinese]. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, Fu Jen Catholic University.
Yang, K. S. (2003). Methodological and theoretical issues on psychological traditionality and modernity research in an Asian society: In response to Kwang-Kuo Hwang and beyond. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 263285.
Yang, K. S. (2004a). Towards a theory of the Chinese self: Conceptual analysis in terms of social orientation and individual orientation. In Proceedings of the Conference on Chinese Self-process, Self-concept, and Self-evaluation, held in Ilan County, Taiwan on February 28-29.
Yang, K. S. (2004b). Indigenous psychology, Westernized psychology, and indigenized psychology: A non-Western psychologist's view. A keynote plenary address at the 17th International Congress of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology held in Xi'an, China on August 2-6.
Yang, K. S., Yu, A. B., & Yeh, M. H. (1991). Chinese individual traditionality and modernity: Conceptualization and measurement [in Chinese]. In K. S. Yang, & K. K. Hwang (Eds.), The mind and behavior of Chinese people (pp. 241306). Taipei, Taiwan: Kwei-kuan Book Co.
Yeh, M. H., & Yang, K. S. (1997). Chinese familism: Conceptualization and assessment [in Chinese]. Bulletin of the Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica, 83, 169225.
© 2006 International Union of Psychological Science