Wellness
20 Comparing Subjective Well-Being
across Cultures and Nations The "Whatn and "Whyn Questions
EUNKOOK M. SUH andjAYOUNG Koo
Diener's (1984) landmark review paper published in Psychological Bulletin sparked numerous lines of research activities under the heading of subjective well-being. One research area that started to create its own niche i:n the early 1990s was the field of culture and subjective well-being. This period overlapped with the publi cation of prominent articles on culture (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1989), and also :with the growing recognition that subjective well-being should be understood as an individual-level as well as a collective-level phenomenon.
A number of early articles set the stage for this field and challenged some of the prevalent opinions of the time. In particular, three papers are noteworthy. Diener, Diener, and Diener (1995) found that one of the strongest predictors of national differences in subjective well-being was the degree of collectivism individualism (even after controlling for national income level). This was a very important finding because at the time economic factors were deemed most criti cal for the occurrence of national differences in subjective well-being. An article by Diener and Diener (1995) also drew attention because it suggested that self esteem, a psychological factor traditionally deemed indispensable for mental health in the West, seemed far less crucial in determining subjective well-being
414
415 Subje~tive Well-Being across Cultures and Nations
m other cultures. Finally, Diener, Suh, Smith, and Shao (1995) demonstrated that several methodological artifacts that may plague cross-cultural research (e.g., response bias, translation) do not completely explain the subjective well-being differences between cultures. The reasons underlying cultural differences in sub jective well-being levels seemed to be substantial ones (e.g., difference in emo tion norms) rather than methodological errors .
Prompted by these initial research issues, the field of culture and subjective well-being has grown rapidly in a short span of time. Figure 20.1 shows the number of publications Gournal articles, books, dissertations) · found by PsycINFO using the combined keywords of culture and well-being from 1991 to 2005. In a single decade (from 97 during 1991-1995 to 481 during 2001-2005), there has been roughly a fivefold increase in the sheer number of publications on this topic! Along with the quantitative increase, a special issue published by the Journal ef Happiness Studies (Suh & Oishi, 2004), an Annual Review ef Psychology chapter (Diener, Oishi, & Lucas, 2003), and an edited volume (Diener & Suh, 2000) has been recently devoted to the topic of culture and subjective well being.
Given the highly vibrant research activities during the past decade, it seems like an C?PPOrtune time to evaluate and digest the major findings from this pro ductive period and to target the set of issues that warrants more concentrated research attention in the upcoming years. Although a wide array of questions ,has been investigated during the decade, many of those were serial efforts prompted by the two large questions set up by the early papers. What are the key compo nents of subjective well-being across cultures (Diener & Diener, 1995)? Why do national/cultural differences in mean levels of subjective well-being occur (Diener, Diener, & Diener, 1995; Diener et al., 1995)?
500 450 400 350
Number of 300 Publications 250
200 150 100
50 0
1991-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005
Period
FIGURE 20. 1. Total number of publications on culture and well-being from 1991 to 2005. Data from PsycINFO.
416 SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING IN THE INTERPERSONAL DOMAIN
It is not the goal of this chapter to offer an exhaustive review of the latest research. Rather, attention is selectively centered on a few lines of findings that have been particularly influential in informing us of the interplay between cul ture and subjective well-being. Also, because the vast majority of empirical data come from East Asian (e.g., Japan, Korea, China) and U.S. samples, discussions focus most often on these two cultural regions.
What Makes Up Happiness across Cultures?
Virtually all human beings-from Nigerians to Peruvians to French-Canadians think happiness is a desirable state. The precise affective experiences, the recom mended means, and the conceptualizations surrounding this ultimate human desire, however, seem to show cultural variations.
An analogy is provided by humor: Everyone across the globe enjoys humor, but each cultural group is drawn to particular types of humor and has different ways of telling a joke. This analogy naturally raises two questions. First, what are the most popular types ofjokes in each culture and how are they delivered? This is akin to asking what the culture-specific contents of happiness are. The second (and tougher) question is whether the jokes in some cultures are intrinsically more hilarious than those of others, and if so, why (i.e., why are some cultures happier than others?). A decade of research offers some insights on these two questions. Let's begin with the relatively easier one-what makes up happiness in different cultures? .
To begin, there seem to be some cultural differences in the definitional accounts ofhappiness. Although this idea is hardly surprising, empirical investiga tion on this topic has been scarce, in part because of the practical and method ological difficulties posed by qualitative data. However, Lu and Gilmour (2004) recently asked Chinese and U .S. students to write essays on "What Is Bappi ness?" Although both groups agreed that happiness is a positive, desirable state of the mind, the Chinese emphasized spiritual cultivation and transcendence of the present, whereas the Americans' account of happiness was comparably more uplifting, elated, and emphasized the enjoyment of present life. Also importantly, the Asian respondents expressed the desire for a balanced emotional life and underlined the importance offulfilling social expectations in their overall sense of happiness. The Americans, in · contrast, asserted the importance of personal agency over social restrictions and believed that the pursuit of personal happiness cannot be compromised in any way.
Recent empirical findings (for review, see Diener et al., 2003; Uchida, Norasakkunkit, & Kitayama, 2004) strike a similar cord with the open-ended responses documented by Lu and Gilmour (2004). Generally speaking, the criti cal predictors of happiness among W estem cultural members are comprised of
417 Subjective Well-Being across Cultures and Nations
elements that promote, signify, and maintain a highly independent and agentic mode of being. Important predictors of happiness in the East, on the other hand, seem to affirm the fundamental interconnectedness between the self and signifi cant others (Kitayama & Markus, 2000). Among the wide array of specific affec tive, cognitive, and motivational phenomena that support this general picture, several findings stand out.
First, the role of emotion in people's judgment and experience of subjective well-being seems to vary. Compared to individualistic cultural members, collec tivists are less inclined to equate an emotionally "happy life" with a "good, satis fying life." The correlation between affect balance (relative frequency of pleasant minus unpleasant emotions) and overall life satisfaction is much weaker in collec tivist than in individualistic nations (Schimmack, Radhakrishna, Oishi, Dzokoto, & Ahadi, 2002; Suh, Diener, Oishi, & Triandis, 1998). The relatively idiosyn cratic and unique nature of emotional experience may embody less significance compared to social cues, such as the opinions held by others in one's life (c£ Pot ter, 1988) . In direct support of this idea, when the social connectedness of self identity is primed, individuals pay greater attention to how their life is appraised by significant others than to their inner emotions in their life satisfaction judg ment process (Suh, Diener, & Updegraff, in press).
Another interesting finding in the affect and subjective well-being area is that pleasant emotional experience, such as happiness, explicitly requires a social component in East Asian cultures. According to Kitayama, Markus, and Kurokawa (2000), happiness is associated more strongly with interpersonally engaging emotions (e.g., friendly feelings) in Japan, whereas it is more closely related with interpersonally disengaging emotions (e.g., pride) in the United States. In a related line, Park, Choi, and Suh (2006) recently found that the amount of pleasantness reported by Koreans while engaging in a task varied sig
. nificantly between interpersonal conditions-whether they collaborated with a friend or a stranger. This discriminative emotional experience pattern was espe cially prominent among individuals with a strong interdependent self In other words, the "with whom" factor seems to loom large in determining the experi ence of pleasant emotions of those with a strongly relation-oriented identity.
Research on motives and goals is another piece in the what puzzle. Given the centrality of others in conceptualizations of self-identity, the happiness of Asian Americans, more so than European Americans, is elevated after fulfilling goals that are directed to please or receive approval from significant others (Iyengar & Lepper, 1999; Oishi & Diener, 2001; Oishi & Sullivan, 2005). On surface, these findings may seem inconsistent with recent claims that, regardless of culture, self-directed goals are more conducive to subjective well-being than externally imposed goals (e.g., Chirkov, Ryan, & Wiliness, 2005; Sheldon et al., 2004).
How should we reconcile this latest controversy on goals and subjective well-being? The key seems to be the degree of internalization of the culturally
418 SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING IN THE INTERPERSONAL DOMAIN
sanctioned values. Even among East Asians, not all derive greater pleasure from fulfilling parental expectations than from engaging in personally rewarding activi ties. It depends on whether the person following the parent's desires feels coerced and obligated or is acting spontaneously with sincere pleasure. The cultural dif ference is that the probability of encountering a person who genuinely prefers to satisfy his or her parents' wishes before his or her own is higher in the East than West. Regardless of the content of the behavior, it seems reasonable to conclude that humans, by design, have a greater chance of experiencing positive experi ences when they do "what they enjoy and believe in" (Sheldon et al., 2004, p. 220). Much of the cultural variations documented in this area seems to be about the "what" part; the "enjoy and believe in" part seems universal.
Finally, several dispositional qualities that were traditionally believed to be essential for mental health are being reevaluated in a cross-cultural context. For instance, recent findings suggest that psychologists might have overestimated the importance of having a strong sense of personal control (Morling, Kitayama, & Miyamoto, 2003), high self-esteem (Diener et al., 1995; Chen, Cheung, Bond, & Leung, 2006), and a consistent self-identity (Suh, 2002) in the achievement of mental health. These are important findings that highlight the power of cultural influence. At the same time, however, it is important not to overinterpret the data. At an intracultural level, even in Eastern cultures, individuals with high self esteem and a more consistent self-identity are happier than those who score low on these dimensions. These constructs seem less critical in predicting the person's subjective well-being in the East only in an intercultural sense (compared to the West). To date, no psychological quality has been found that strongly and consis tently correlates with subjective well-being in opposite directions between cul tures.
Returning to our humor analogy, the types of jokes that are most popular in one culture may not be the most enjoyed ones in another. That is, a great deal of cultural nuance exists in the conceptualization of, and in the shades of experiences related with happiness. However, are these differences simply a matter of different cultural tastes, or do they partly explain why some cultures are happier than others? With this key question in mind, we move on to the next section.
Why Are Some Cultures Happier Than Others? ·-.
Arguably-one of the most solid findings from the cross-cultural/national research on subjective well-being is that individualistic nations are happier than collec tivistic countries (Diener et aL, 1995; Diener & Suh, 1999; Veenhoven, 1999). The mean-level difference between individualistic and collectivistic cultures, to some extent, arises from societal and political factors confounded w:ith individu
419 Subjective Well-Being across Cultures and Nations
alism (e.g., income level , Diener et al., 1995; democracy, Inglehart & Klinge n1ann, 2000; political empowerment, Frey & Stutzer, 2002).
However, a decade of research makes it clear that these socioeconomic con ditions alone are insufficient for explaining why individualistic nations consis tently report higher levels of happiness than collectivistic nations. Besides income level or political structure, cultures also vary along a wide spectrum of psycho logical habits and characteristics that are related to the experience and expressions of happiness. For instance, emotion norms (Eid & Diener, 2001), socialization of emotions (Diener & Lucas, 2004), and cognitive biases (Diener, Lucas, Oishi, & Suh, 2002; Oishi, 2002) associated with happiness vary considerably across cul tures.
A recent study by Rice and Steele (2004) further implies that cultural differ ences in subjective well-being may reflect something more than the objective conditions of life. They found that the relative ranking of the subjective well being levels ofAmericans with ancestors from 20 different nations is quis..e similar to the subjective well-being levels obtained from the citizens of the correspond ing nations. By surveying U.S. residents only, this study controls for many of the confounding social-condition factors between cultures/nations. The findings by Rice and Steele suggest that the cultural agents that influence subjective well being might be quite amorphous and stubborn, and this might partly explain why national differences in subjective well-being are temporally so stable (Inglehart & Klingemann, 2000; Veenhoven, 1999).
One key reason for examining mean differences in subjective well-being between nations/cultures is to gain insights about the collective conditions that enhance or suppress human happiness. At first brush, individualism and collectiv ism neither seems to have a clear edge in producing higher subjective well-being (c£ Diener & Suh, 1999). Different cultural members may prefer different activi ties and experiences in their pursuit of happiness, but one might think that the different paths are equally potent means for reaching the destination. If this is the case, should we expect the "perfect Japanese" to be every bit as happy as a "per fect American"? Many of the current investigators in this field may answer "yes" to this question; however, it is quite plausible that the answer is "no."
A strong version of cultural relativism (i.e., different cultural strategies for achieving happiness are equally viable; they are merely different in content) would find it difficult to explain why the difference in subjective well-being level between individualistic and collectivistic societies remains so robust. All cultures are evolved to efficiently resolve pressing human needs, such as reproduction or safety needs. However, ecological opportunities and restrictions configure the nuts and bolts that sustain each cultural system, including its norms, values, prac tices, and central ideologies (Triandis & Suh, 2002). Among the various meta assumptions held by cultures, particularly significant is the one concerning the re lation between the individual and the society. Certain cultures are built around
420 SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING IN THE INTERPERSONAL DOMAIN
the premise that the individual exists for the larger collective unit; in other cul tures, the opposite is assumed. Crudely speaking, collectivism is prototypical of the former type of culture, and individualism is a prime example of the latter.
Most important to our discussion, these two contrasting cultural schemes may not be designed to produce the same type of cultural capital (see Ahuvia, 2002). Collectivism has its ultimate sight on social order and harmony, and hence the system constantly reinforces and idealizes the type of self that is able to keep its desires in check for the greater goods of the family, group, and community. Self-regulation is sanctioned over self-expression, and fulfillment of social obliga tions comes before discussions of personal rights and preferences. In contrast, individualism believes in the irrevocable value, power, and capabilities of, ·liter ally, the individual. The normative cultural expectation is that each person should be self-directive and self-sufficient, and find, consolidate, and uplift the best within the sel£ Self-actualization, the key word in the discussion of ideal liv ing in the West, encapsulates these beliefs. In the East, in contrast, people are encouraged to perfect the inner attributes of the self for a social reason-to be used appropriately for the service of the larger society (Cho, 2006).
Between the two cultural systems, which one has an edge in producing "happy individuals"? This chapter suggests two general possibilities for why indi vidualistic cultures may have the advantage. First, greater sacrifice of instinctive needs and desires is required to live an "appropriate" collectivist than an individ ualist life. As Freud (1930/1961) claimed in Civilization and Its Discontents, con flict and friction between individual desires and social constraints is the rule rather than an exception. In the continuous bargain between the self and society, the individual gives up his or her instinctive impulses in exchange for social rewards. One of the biggest social awards is social acceptance by others (Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Twenge, 2005), which is more crucial for the functioning of a collectivistic than an individualistic pattern of life. As a result, by necessity, collectivist cultural members are more likely than individualists to curb their instinctive, self-gratifying desires (often including personal happiness) in their bargain for social approval.
One might argue that the social gains (e.g., social approval, respect) may fully make up for the negatives of giving up personal desires in collectivistic cul tures. This would be a valid argument only if one unit of social reward translated to an exactly equivalent amount of personal happiness in Eastern cultures. This idea seems rather unrealistic:. AJ.though it is true that social rewards constitute a very important part of the collectivist's sense of personal happiness, incorµmensu rable differences still remain between the two. Social rewards are strongly related to happiness in the East, but still, it is not happiness itself
In fact, several scholars have argued that even in collectivistic cultures, peo ple who adopt individualistic values report higher levels of subjective well-being and self-esteem than the more collective-minded ones (Heine, Lehman, Markus,
421 Subj ective Well-Being across Cultures and Nations
& Kitayama, 1999). Preliminary findings from Korean university samples indicate that subjective well-being is related positively with independent self-construal and negatively with the interdependent self-view (Koo & Suh, 2006). Similarly, from mainland Chinese and Taiwanese samples , Lu and Gilmour (2006) found that the frequency of experiencing positive emotions is related more closely with the independent than the interdependent self.
The above findings have an important implication. They seem to go against the idea that those who enjoy high levels of happiness are people who have psy chological dispositions that fit into the cultural template (e.g., being interdepen dent in collectivistic cultures). Rather, these latest findings imply that, regardless of the cultural context, the independent styles of thinking and behaving may have a more direct connection to personal happiness than the collectivistic approach. However, the individualistic strategies will meet a "tipping point" where the personal costs incurred by ignoring collective demands start to out weigh the positive payoffs. Collectivist cultural members confront this tipping point more often, and in more domains of life, than individualist cultural mem bers.
Secondly, collectivism may nurture various dispositional qualities that unin tentionally create potholes in the road to happiness. It seems that the East Asian self-system is optimized for maintaining social connections with others. How ever, a self that is preoccupied with social concerns m.ay acquire a wide range of psychological characteristics-motivational, cognitive, emotional, and behavioral-that create friction in the pursuit of personal happiness (see Suh, in press, for a detailed discussion). For instance, at a cognitive level, the highly socially oriented self construes and evaluates itself more often by concrete and specific social criteria (e.g., gaining admission to a top college) than by idiosyn cratic terms. Many findings demonstrate that chronic reliance on explicit external criteria, such as social comparison information, is related with lower levels of subjective well-being (Lyubomirsky & Ross, 1997; White & Lehman, 2005) . This is because external social standards allow less latitude in interpretation and therefore are more difficult to tailor to the advantage of the self than idiosyncrati cally defined standards (e.g., Dunning & McElwee, 1995).
Other disadvantages could occur at the motivational and behavioral levels for the highly collectively oriented East Asians. When the focal concern is fulfill ing social obligations and living up to the expectations of others (as in Japan), failing to meet these standards ha,_s a bigger blow than the rewards for surpassing them (Heine et al., 2001). In the long run, individuals in such cultures find themselves framing goals more in prevention-oriented than in promotion oriented terms (Elliot, Chirkov, Kim, & Sheldon, 2001). This is unfortunate because a large body of evidence indicates that positive emotions and subjective well-being are inherently related to approach-oriented behaviors, thoughts, and neurological processes (e.g., Elliot & Thrash, 2002; Lee, Aaker, & Gardner,
422 SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING IN THE INTERPERSONAL DOMAIN
2000; Updegraff, Gable, & Taylor, 2004; Urry et al., 2004). Finally, at the level of emotion, the experience and expression of positive affect are not as much ide alized in Eastern cultures as in the West (Eid & Diener, 2001; Diener & Lucas, 2004; Diener & Suh, 1999). This is probably because East Asians believe that strong positive emotions (pride, happiness) have a potential to disrupt interper sonal harmony or lead to negligent behaviors. Such beliefs may have a cost. They could discourage individuals from engaging in various behavioral and cognitive practices that are found to enhance or prolong subjective well-being (see Larsen & Prizmic, Chapter 13, this volume), such as capitalizing on positive life events (Gable, Reis, Impett, & Asher, 2004).
In conclusion, it is worth questioning whether the ultimate blueprint of all cultures is to enhance happiness at a personal level. Some cultures, such as East Asian collectivistic societies, might have arrived at the present form because it maximized the chances of maintaining collective harmony and order. Believing that happiness is meant to be the goal of life could be a view most representative of contemporary Western cultures.
For the Future
Merely a decade ago, the terms subjective well-being and culture were rarely paired together in the research agendas of psychologists. In a relatively short span of time, however, the almost nonexistent field has become a highly active research area of subjective well-being. Much research has accumulated during the past decade, thanks to innovative studies, bold ideas, and improvements in measure ments and data analyses strategies. In short, the past decade has been an extremely fruitful one. Following are a few research agendas that might make the upcoming decade an even more productive one.
First, it is hoped that the methodological arsenals in this field continue to develop and expand in the upcoming years. Various developments have occurred in the areas of measurement (e.g., Kim, 2004; Scollan, Di~ner, Oishi, & Biswas Diener, 2004; Suh & Sung, 2006) and statistical methods (e.g., Eid & Diener, 2001). Particularly promising is the finding by Scallon et al. that different mea surements render similar conclusions about the relative position of the subjective well-being of different cultural groups. Hopefully, future studies will include two types of powerful data that are currently missing in the field: longitudinal and brain imaging techniques. .
At the conceptual level, two questions seem particularly worthy of future investigation. First, what are the consequences of happiness in different cultures? Lyubomirsky, King, and Diener (2005) offered compelling evidence that positive affect, at least in the United States, is a cause of many desirable life outcomes. Does this finding hold· true in cultures that express somewhat ambivalent atti
423 Subjective Well-Being across Cultures and Nations
tudes about happiness? It seems extremely unlikely that happiness is a personal liability in any culture. However, the particular life domains in which the happy person benefits the n1ost and the magnitude of this outcome need to be deter mined empirically, especially through longitudinal data.
Another highly promising research candidate is the study of lay theories about happiness. One important reason for why various aspects of subjective well-being differ across cultures is because different cultural members have dif ferent ideas about the genesis, attainability, desirability, and outcomes of happi ness. Whether such lay beliefs are really true is not the point; what is impor tant is the fact that the way happiness is represented in people's mind (even if incorrectly) affects virtually every decisions and judgments made about happi ness.
To illustrate, unlike Western cultural members, East Asians take a more dia lectic perspective on the relation between happiness and unhappiness (Kitayama & Markus, 1999; Suh, 2000). One outcome of such belief is the prediction of future happiness. For instance, the happiness that has linearly increased since the past is expected to reverse its future trajectory by Chinese, whereas Americans believe that the trend will continue Gi, Nisbett, & Su, 2001). Prediction of hap piness is related to another type of lay belief In an ongoing line of research (Koo & Suh, 2006), we are examining people's belief about whether a fixed or an unlimited amount of happiness exists in their personal lives and in the world. As expected, the "finite amount" theory holders were reluctant to capitalize on pos .itive events (probably fearing that happiness would vanish), predicted that future fortune would reverse the current trend, and perceived overly happy people as being naive and immature. Understanding the lay beliefs about happiness will offer refreshing insights about why, when, and how people feel happy in differ ent cultures.
In Closing
There is limited scientific value in merely describing cultural differences in sub jective well-being. Such descriptive efforts, however, are necessary for under standing the various why questions that arise in the study of culture and subjective well-being. One question that has occupied the minds of many researchers is why happy people are more easily found in individualistic than in collectivistic cultures. In search for the ans~er, the possibility that cultures are not equally enthusiastic about the idea ofpromoting individual happiness needs full consider ation. This line of thinking does not imply that certain cultures are intrinsically better than others; it simply means that different cultures might have different opinions about what is most worth the pursuit. The opinion may change over time. But, very slowly.
l
l
424 SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING IN THE INTERPERSONAL DOMAIN
References
Ahuvia, A. (2002). Individualism/collectivism and cultures of happiness: A theoretical conjecture on the relationship between consumption, culture and subjective well being at the national level. Journal ef Happiness Studies, 3, 23-36.
Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Twenge, J. M. (2005). Social exclusion impairs self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8 8, 589 604.
Chen, S. X., Cheung, F. M., Bond, M. H., & Leung, J. (2006). Going beyond self esteem to predict life satisfaction: The Chinese case. AsianJournal of Social Psychology, 9, 24-35.
Chirkov, V., Ryan, R., & Wiliness, C. (2005). Cultural context and psychological ·needs in Canada and Brazil: Testing a self-determination approach to the internalization of cultural practices, identity, and well-being. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 3 6, 423-443.
Cho, G. (2006). The ideal personhood: East versus West. Seoul: Jishiksanup-sa. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542-575. Diener, E., & Diener, M. (1995). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and -self
esteem. Journal ef Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 653-663. Diener, E., Diener, M., & Diener, C. (1995). Factors predicting the subjective well-being
of nations. Journal ef Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 851-864. Diener, E., Lucas, R., Oishi, S., & Suh, E. M. (2002). Looking up and looking down:
Weighting good and bad information in life satisfaction judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 437-445.
Dieµer, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 403 425.
Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (1999). National differences in subjective well-being. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations ef hedonic psychology (pp. 434-450). New York: Sage.
Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (2000). Culture and subjective well-being. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Diener, E., Suh, E., Smith, H., & Shao, L. (1995). National differences in subjective well-being: Why do they occur? Social Indicators Research, 34, 7-32.
Diener, M., & Lucas, R. E. (2004). Adults' desires for children's emotions across 48 countries: Associations with individual and national characteristics. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 35, 525-547.
Dunning, D., & McElwee, R. 0. (1995). Idiosyncratic trait definitions: Implications for self-description and social judgment. journal ef Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 936-946.
Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2001). Norms for experiencing emotions in different cultures: Inter- and intranational differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 869-885.
Elliot, A. J., Chirkov, V. I., Kim, Y., & Sheldon, K. M. (2001). A cross-cultural analy sis of avoidance (relative to approach) personal goals. Psychological Science, 12, 505 510.
425 Subjective Well-Being across Cultures and Nations
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M . (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. journal of Personality and Social Psy chology, 82, 804-818.
Freud, S. (1961). Civilization and its discontents. New York: Norton. (Original work pub lished 1930)
Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2002). Happiness and economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni versity Press.
Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Impett, E ., & Asher, E. (2004) . What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 228-245.
Heine, S., Kitayama, S., Lehman, D. R ., Takata, T ., Ide, E., Leung, C., et al. (2001). Divergent consequences of success and failure in Japan and North America: An investigation of self:...improving motivations and malleable selves. Journal q Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 599-615.
Heine, S., Lehman, D., Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review, 106, 766-794.
Inglehart, R., & Klingemann, H. (2000) . Genes, culture, democracy, and happiness. In E. Diener & E . M. Suh (Eds.), Culture and subjective well-being (pp. 165-184). Cam bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Iyengar, S., & Lepper, M . (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 349-366.
Ji, L., Nisbett, R., & Su, Y . (2001). Culture, change, and prediction. Psychological Science, 12, 450-456.
Kim, D. Y. (2004) . The implicit life satisfaction measure. Asian journal of Social Psychology, 7, 236-261.
Kitayama, S., & Markus, H. (1999) . The yin and yang of the Japanese self: The cultural psychology of personality coherence. In D. Cervone & Y. Shoda (Eds.), The coher ence ofpersonality: Social cognitive bases ofpersonality consistency, variability, and organiza tion (pp. 242-302). New York: Guilford Press.
Kitayama, S., & Markus, H. R. (2000). The pursuit of happiness and the realization of sympathy: Cultural patterns of self, social relations, and well-being. In E . Diener &
· E. M. Suh (Eds.), Culture and subjective well-being. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. · Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Kurokawa, M. (2000). Culture, emotion and well-being:
Good feelings inJapan and in the United States. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 93-124. Koo,]., & Suh, E . M. (2006) . [Belief in fixed amount of happiness (BIFAH) and subjec
tive well-being.] Unpublished raw data, Yonsei University, Korea. Lee, A. Y., Aaker, J. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). The pleasure and pains of distinct self
f construals: The role of interdependence in regulatory focus. Journal ef Personality and r Social Psychology, 78, 1122-1134.
t.fo.· ~ Lu, L., & Gilmour, R. (2004). Culture and conceptions of happiness: Individual oriented ~· ~ and social oriented SWB. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5, 269-291.
Lu, L., & Gilmour, R. (2006). Individual-oriented and socially oriented cultural concep tions· of subjective well-being: Conceptual analysis and scale development. Asian
Journal ef Social Psychology, 9, 36-49. Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005) . The benefits of frequent positive affect:
Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin., 131, 803-855.
426 SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING IN THE INTERPERSONAL DOMAIN
Lyubomirsky, S., & Ross, L. (1997). Hedonic consequences of social comparison: A con trast of happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1141-1157.
Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Morling, B., Kitayama, S., & Miyamoto, Y. (2003). American and Japanese women use different coping strategies during normal pregnancy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2 9, 1533-1546.
Oishi, S. (2002). The experiencing and remembering of well-being: A cross-cultural analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1398-1406.
Oishi, S., & Diener, E. (2001). Goals, culture, and subjective well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1674-1682.
Oishi, S., & Sullivan, H. (2005). The mediating role of parental expectations in culture and well-being. Journal of Personality, 73, 1267-1294.
Park, J., Choi, I., & Suh, E. M. (2006). The "whom" versus "what" in the Korean's equation of happiness. Manuscript in preparation. ,.,,
Potter, S. H. (1988). The cultural construction of emotion in rural Chinese social life. Ethos, 16, 181-208.
Rice, T. W., & Steele, B. J. (2004). Subjective well-being and culture across time and space. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 633-647.
Schimmack, U., Radhakrishnan, P., Oishi, S., Dzokoto, V., & Ahadi, S. (2002). Culture, personality, and subjective well-being: Integrating process models of life satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 582-593.
Scollon, C. N., Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2004). Emotions across cul tures and methods. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 304-326.
Sheldon, K., Elliot, A., Rtan, R., Chirkov, V., Kim, Y., Wu, C., et al. (2004). Self concordance and subjective well-being in four cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy chology, 35, 209-223.
Suh, E. M. (2000). Self, the hyphen between culture and subjective well-being. In E. Diener & E. M. Suh (Eds.), Culture and subjective well-being (pp. 63-86). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Suh, E. M. (2002). Culture, identity consistency, and subjective well-being. Journal ofPer sonality and Social Psychology, 83, 1378-1391.
Suh, E. M. (in press). Downsides of an overly context-sensitive self: Implications from the culture and subjective well-being research. Journal of Personality.
Suh, E. M., & Diener, E. (2006). Stereotypes ofa "happy person": Cultural variations. Manu script in preparation, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea.
Suh, E. M., Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Triandis, H. C. (1998). The shifting basis oflife satis faction judgments across cultures: Emotions versus norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 482-493;
Suh, E. M., Diener, E., & Updegraff, J. (in press). From culture to priming conditions: How self-construal influences life satisfaction judgments. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology.
Suh, E. M., & Oishi, S. (2004). Culture and subjective well-being: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5, 219-222.
Suh, E. M., & Sung, M. (2006, August). Affective experience patterns across interpersonal con
427 Subjective Well-Being across Cultures and Nations
texts: Findings from the day reconstruction method (DRM). Paper presented at the annual Korean Psychological Association Conference, Seoul, Korea.
Triandis, H. C . (1989)._ The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psycho
logical Review, 96, 506-520. Triandis, H. C., & Suh, E. M. (2002). Cultural influences on personality. Ann11al Review
of Psychology, 53, 133-160. ' Uchida, Y., Norasakkunkit, V., & Kitayama, S. (2004). Cultural constructions of happi
ness: Theory and empirical evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5, 223-239. Updegraff, J. A., Gable, S. L., & Taylor, S. E. (2004). What makes experience satisfying?
The interaction of approach-avoidance motivations and emotions in well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 496-504.
Urry, H., Nitschke, J., Dolski, I., Jackson, D., Kim, D., Mueller, C., et al. (2004). Making a life worth living: Neural correlates of well-being. Psychological Science, 15,
367-372. Veenhoven, R. (1999). Quality-of-life in individualistic society. Social Indicators Research,
48, 159-188. White, K., & Lehman, D . R. (2005). Culture and social comparison seeking: The role of
self-motives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 232-242.