Jochen E. Gebauer

Religiosity as Self-Enhancement: A Meta-Analysis of the Relation Between Socially Desirable Responding and Religiosity:

In a meta-analysis, the authors test the theoretical formulation that religiosity is a means for self-enhancement. The authors operationalized self-enhancement as socially desirable responding (SDR) and focused on three facets of religiosity: intrinsic, extrinsic, and religion-as-quest. Importantly, they assessed two moderators of the relation between SDR and religiosity. Macro-level culture reflected countries that varied in degree of religiosity (from high to low: United States, Canada, United Kingdom). Micro-level culture reflected U.S. universities high (Christian) versus low (secular) on religiosity. The results were generally consistent with the theoretical formulation. Both macro-level and micro-level culture moderated the relation between SDR and religiosity: This relation was more positive in samples that placed higher value on religiosity (United States > Canada > United Kingdom; Christian universities > secular universities). The evidence suggests that religiosity is partly in the service of self-enhancement.

Religiosity, Social Self-Esteem, and Psychological Adjustment On the Cross-Cultural Specificity of the Psychological Benefits of Religiosity

Studies have found that religious believers have higher social self-esteem (Aydin, Fischer, & Frey, 2010; Rivadeneyra, Ward, & Gordon, 2007) and are better psychologically adjusted (Koenig, McCullough, & Larson, 2001; Smith, McCullough, & Poll, 2003) than nonbelievers. Is this relation true across cultures—which would attest to the robustness of religiosity as a wellspring of psychological benefits—or is it found only in specific cultures—which would attest to the relativism of religiosity and its embeddedness within a larger cultural framework? The religiosity-as-social-value hypothesis sides with the latter possibility. The religiosity-as-social-value hypothesis posits that religiosity receives high social valuation in most societies (Sedikides, 2010) and that, consequently, religious believers are highly valued members of most societies (Sedikides & Gebauer, 2010). Being socially valued is associated with psychological benefits (e.g., social self-esteem, psychological adjustment; Rokeach, 1973; Sedikides & Strube, 1997). The hypothesis predicts, then, that believers will enjoy more psychological benefits in cultures that tend to value religiosity more; alternatively, the less a culture values religiosity, the more likely it is that believers and nonbelievers will enjoy equivalent psychological benefits. Here, we report a study in which we tested this hypothesis.

Pancultural Nostalgia: Prototypical Conceptions Across Cultures

Nostalgia is a frequently experienced complex emotion, understood by laypersons in the United Kingdom and United States of America to (a) refer prototypically to fond, self-relevant, social memories and (b) be more pleasant (e.g., happy, warm) than unpleasant (e.g., sad, regretful). This research examined whether people across cultures conceive of nostalgia in the same way. Students in 18 countries across 5 continents (N = 1,704) rated the prototypicality of 35 features of nostalgia. The samples showed high levels of agreement on the rank-order of features. In all countries, participants rated previously identified central (vs. peripheral) features as more prototypical of nostalgia, and showed greater interindividual agreement regarding central (vs. peripheral) features. Cluster analyses revealed subtle variation among groups of countries with respect to the strength of these pancultural patterns. All except African countries manifested the same factor structure of nostalgia features. Additional exemplars generated by participants in an open-ended format did not entail elaboration of the existing set of 35 features. Findings identified key points of cross-cultural agreement regarding conceptions of nostalgia, supporting the notion that nostalgia is a pancultural emotion.

Age and gender differences in self-esteem—A cross-cultural window.

Research and theorizing on gender and age differences in self-esteem have played a prominent role in psychology over the past 20 years. However, virtually all empirical research has been undertaken in the United States or other Western industrialized countries, providing a narrow empirical base from which to draw conclusions and develop theory. To broaden the empirical base, the present research uses a large Internet sample (N = 985,937) to provide the first large-scale systematic cross-cultural examination of gender and age differences in self-esteem. Across 48 nations, and consistent with previous research, we found age-related increases in self-esteem from late adolescence to middle adulthood and significant gender gaps, with males consistently reporting higher self-esteem than females. Despite these broad cross-cultural similarities, the cultures differed significantly in the magnitude of gender, age, and Gender × Age effects on self-esteem. These differences were associated with cultural differences in socioeconomic, sociodemographic, gender-equality, and cultural value indicators. Discussion focuses on the theoretical implications of cross-cultural research on self-esteem. (PsycINFO Database Record

Big Two Personality and Religiosity Across Cultures: Communals as Religious Conformists and Agentics as Religious Contrarians

How are the Big Two personality dimensions of agency (e.g., competence, uniqueness, ambition) and communion (e.g., warmth, relatedness, morality) related to religiosity? A standard view assumes that communion encourages religiosity, whereas agency is independent of religiosity. Our model is more nuanced, taking into account the Big Two’s motivational base as well as culture: Because communal individuals seek assimilation with their ambient culture, they should be most religious in religious cultures and least religious in nonreligious cultures. Conversely, because agentic individuals seek differentiation from their ambient culture, they should be most religious in nonreligious cultures and least religious in religious cultures. Data from 187,957 individuals across 11 cultures supported this model. Thus, direct relations between the Big Two and religiosity are not culturally universal. Instead, communal individuals are religious conformists, whereas agentic individuals are religious contrarians. In this sense, the patterns are culturally universal.

Cross-cultural variations in big five relationships with religiosity: a sociocultural motives perspective.

A sociocultural motives perspective (SMP) on Big Five relationships is introduced. According to the SMP, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness elicit assimilation to sociocultural norms, Openness elicits contrast from these norms, and Extraversion and Neuroticism are independent of sociocultural assimilation and contrast. Due to sociocultural assimilation, then, relationships of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness with an outcome wax (become more positive or less negative) with that outcomes increasing sociocultural normativeness. Due to sociocultural contrast, relationships of Openness with an outcome wane (become less positive or more negative) with that outcomes increasing sociocultural normativeness. We tested the SMP using religiosity as our outcome. Study 1 included 4 cross-sectional self-report data sets across 66 countries (N = 1,129,334), 50 U.S. states (N = 1,057,342), 15 German federal states (N = 20,885), and 121 British urban areas (N = 386,315). Study 2 utilized informant-report data across 37 countries (N = 544,512). Study 3 used longitudinal data across 15 German federal states (N = 14,858). Results consistently supported the SMP. Relationships of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness with religiosity were more positive in religious sociocultural contexts than in secular contexts. Relationships of Openness with religiosity were more negative in religious sociocultural contexts than in secular contexts. At a more general level, the SMP offers theory-driven explanations for cross-cultural variations in Big Five relationships with their outcomes.

Chapter Five - A Three-Tier Hierarchy of Self-Potency: Individual Self, Relational Self, Collective Self

Abstract The self-system consists of three fundamental components: the individual self, the relational self, and the collective self. All selves are important and meaningful and all are associated with psychological and physical health benefits. However, the selves are not equally important and meaningful. We propose a three-tier hierarchy of the motivational potency of the self-system, with the individual self on top, followed somewhat closely by the relational self, and followed distantly by the collective self. Engaging in competitive testing, we conducted a variety of experiments in which we implemented diverse methods for controlling the accessibility of the selves, introduced different forms of threat or enhancement, sampled several relational and collective selves, measured the independent reaction of each self, and assessed an array of responses to threat or enhancement (e.g., mood, anger, distancing, impact of feedback, derogation of feedback, impact on life, sentiments of “real you,” goals, monetary allocations). The findings were consistent with the three-tier hierarchy of motivational self-potency.

Dynamics of Identity: Between Self-Enhancement and Self-Assessment

Identity, in the psychological sense, denotes a significant subset of self-construals: those that are relatively accessible mentally, deemed essential to who one is, and valued as important. Given that identity matters, it is a locus of affect and motivation. Nonetheless, the number, nature, strength, and interrelation of distinct identity motives remains contested. This chapter focuses on one key pair of motives involved in self-evaluation: self-enhancement and self-assessment. The former denotes the drive to see oneself positively, the latter, the drive to see oneself accurately. Probable signs and dynamic effects of both motives abound. Examples of self-enhancement include above-average effects and cognitive dissonance; examples of self-assessment include the respective attenuation of these by semantic precision and self-affirmation. Often, the self-enhancement “accelerator” competes with the self-assessment “brake” in this way, and several conditions have been established under which one or the other motive predominates. As regards the relative adaptiveness of self-enhancement or self-assessment, the findings are complex and mixed. However, moderate self-enhancement often promotes psychological and physical well-being, albeit at the expense of interpersonal relations, probably because it serves to sustain good spirits and goal-pursuit. Many other identity motives have been postulated. These include drives for meaning, continuity, coherence, communion, and agency. Such motives cannot be completely reduced to self-enhancement and self-assessment, nor vice versa. Still, self-enhancement and self-assessment partly pervade other identity motives: the latter cannot be easily satisfied without also entailing tolerably favorable implications for self, nor unless sufficient warrant exists to conclude they really have been satisfied.

Cultural norm fulfillment, interpersonal belonging, or getting ahead? A large-scale cross-cultural test of three perspectives on the function of self-esteem

What is the function of self-esteem? We classified relevant theoretical work into 3 perspectives. The cultural norm-fulfillment perspective regards self-esteem a result of adherence to cultural norms. The interpersonal-belonging perspective regards self-esteem as a sociometer of interpersonal belonging. The getting-ahead perspective regards self-esteem as a sociometer of getting ahead in the social world, while regarding low anxiety/neuroticism as a sociometer of getting along with others. The 3 perspectives make contrasting predictions on the relation between the Big Five personality traits and self-esteem across cultures. We tested these predictions in a self-report study (2,718,838 participants from 106 countries) and an informant-report study (837,655 informants from 64 countries). We obtained some evidence for cultural norm fulfillment, but the effect size was small. Hence, this perspective does not satisfactorily account for self-esteems function. We found a strong relation between Extraversion and higher self-esteem, but no such relation between Agreeableness and self-esteem. These 2 traits are pillars of interpersonal belonging. Hence, the results do not fit the interpersonal-belonging perspective either. However, the results closely fit the getting-ahead perspective. The relation between Extraversion and higher self-esteem is consistent with this perspective, because Extraversion is the Big Five driver for getting ahead in the social world. The relation between Agreeableness and lower neuroticism is also consistent with this perspective, because Agreeableness is the Big Five driver for getting along with others.

The Psychological Benefits of Income are Contingent on Individual-Level and Culture-Level Religiosity

Higher income is related to better psychological adjustment. We propose that religiosity attenuates this relation. First, in comforting the poor, religious teachings de-emphasize the importance of money, which would buffer low-incomes psychological harms (religiosity as poverty buffer account). Second, religious teachings convey antiwealth norms, which would reduce incomes psychological benefits (religiosity as antiwealth norms account). A study involving 187,957 respondents from 11 religiously diverse cultures showed that individual-level, as well as culture-level, religiosity weakens the relation between personal income and psychological adjustment in accordance with the religiosity as antiwealth norms account. Performance self-esteem mediated this relation. Religiositys moderating effects were so pervasive that religious individuals in religious cultures reported better psychological adjustment when their income was low than high.