| Autor: |
Buchtel EE; 1 Department of Psychology, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China., Ng LCY; 1 Department of Psychology, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China., Norenzayan A; 2 Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada., Heine SJ; 2 Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada., Biesanz JC; 2 Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada., Chen SX; 3 Department of Applied Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong S.A.R., China., Bond MH; 4 Department of Management and Marketing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong S.A.R., China., Peng Q; 5 Department of Psychology, Peking University, Beijing, China., Su Y; 5 Department of Psychology, Peking University, Beijing, China. |
| Abstrakt: |
In this investigation of cultural differences in the experience of obligation, we distinguish between Confucian Role Ethics versus Relative Autonomy lay theories of motivation and illustrate them with data showing relevant cultural differences in both social judgments and intrapersonal experience. First, when judging others, Western European heritage culture (WEHC) participants (relative to Confucian heritage culture [CHC] participants) judged obligation-motivated actors more negatively than those motivated by agency (Study 1, N = 529). Second, in daily diary and situation sampling studies, CHC participants (relative to WEHC participants) perceived more congruency between their own agentic and obligated motivations, and more positive emotional associations with obligated motivations (Study 2, N = 200 and Study 3, N = 244). Agentic motivation, however, was universally associated with positive emotions. More research on a Role Ethics rather than Relative Autonomy conception of agency may improve our understanding of human motivation, especially across cultures. |
