Compassionate and Self-Image Goals in the United States and Japan

Abstract

In American samples, compassionate goals to support others enhance relationships, whereas self-image goals to construct and defend desired self-images undermine relationships. But do these goals exist as separate factors, and do they predict similar outcome variables in Japan? How much do compassionate goals overlap with having an interdependent self-construal? We examined the factor structure of compassionate and self-image goals scale among American undergraduates, Japanese undergraduates, and Japanese adults and obtained similar correlated two-factor solutions in all three samples. In all three samples, compassionate goals were associated with non-zero-sum belief, growth-seeking, and self-compassion, whereas self-image goals were associated with validation-seeking and defensive responses to conflicts. Although compassionate goals correlated with interdependence in Japan, controlling for interdependence did not affect the above associations.

Keywords

compassionate goals self-image goals interdependence interpersonal relationships United States Japan

People approach interpersonal situations with various goals. Some may try to project desirable self-images to receive acknowledgment and praise. Others may seek to promote others’ well-being by providing them with support. Using American undergraduate samples, Crocker et al. (Canevello & Crocker, 2010; Crocker & Canevello, 2008) showed that compassionate goals to support others enhance relationships, whereas self-image goals to construct and defend desired self-images undermine relationships. But do these goals exist as separate factors in non-American cultures as well? How much do compassionate goals overlap with having an interdependent self-construal? We compared the factor structure of compassionate and self-image goals scales in the United States and Japan and tested whether these two goals correlate with similar constructs in the two cultures. We also differentiated compassionate and self-image goals from interdependence by examining whether these correlations hold even after controlling for interdependence.

Compassionate and Self-Image Goals as Predictors of Relationship Outcomes

Compassionate goals focus on supporting others, not to obtain something for the self but out of concern for others’ well-being (Crocker & Canevello, 2008; Crocker, Oliver, & Nuer, 2009). When people have compassionate goals, they want to be a constructive force in their interactions with others and to avoid harming others (Crocker & Canevello, 2008; Crocker et al., 2009). In contrast, self-image goals focus on constructing, maintaining, and defending desired public images of the self. When people have self-image goals, they care about what others think of them and try to get something from others. Of course, people who care about relationships can, and often do, have both of these goals over time. Yet despite their positive correlation, compassionate and self-image goals have distinct, and often opposite, consequences for close relationships (see Crocker & Canevello, 2012, for a discussion). Furthermore, within-person fluctuations in compassionate and self-image goals from week to week or day to day predict distinct changes in relationship functioning the following day or week (Canevello & Crocker, 2010).

People with compassionate goals become more responsive to others’ needs, which leads others to become more responsive in return, resulting in more satisfying relationships. Crocker and Canevello (2008) examined a group of college freshmen over their first semester in college and found that controlling for self-image goals, compassionate goals were associated with non-zero-sum belief (i.e., the belief that one person’s success need not detract from others’ success; Crocker & Canevello, 2008), self-compassion (i.e., being kind to oneself in instances of failure, perceiving one’s experience as part of the larger human experience, and holding painful feelings in mindful awareness; Neff, 2003), closeness, and feeling clear and connected. Compassionate goals also increased social support and trust over the semester. In contrast, Crocker and Canevello (2008) showed that controlling for compassionate goals, self-image goals predicted greater zero-sum belief and less self-compassion at pretest and greater conflict, loneliness, and afraid and confused feelings over the semester. In a sample of freshmen roommate pairs, Canevello and Crocker (2010) further showed that students’ compassionate goals predicted increased whereas self-image goals predicted decreased students’ responsiveness to their roommates, which in turn predicted increases in their roommates’ responsiveness to them.

People with self-image goals may also react defensively to relationship conflict. Instead of discussing problems, sorting out misunderstandings, and finding constructive solutions, people with self-image goals may avoid bringing up the issues to avoid “unnecessary” conflicts with others, thereby creating the appearance of being a good relationship partner. Although avoiding conflict might seem related to compassionate goals, we believe it is more likely to reflect a desire to be liked or the fear of appearing to be a bad relationship partner. Consequently, we hypothesized that defensive responses to conflict would be associated with self-image but not compassionate goals.

Compassionate and Self-Image Goals as Predictors of Growth and Validation Motives

Compassionate goals orient people toward growing in competence, whereas self-image goals orient them toward validating their competence. Achievement motivation researchers have often noted that students’ goals to construct desired images of themselves as smart and competent can affect how they approach academic tasks, their experience while doing so, and their academic achievement (Covington, 2000). We propose that self-image goals correlate with the goal to demonstrate and validate ability (Dykman, 1998; Grant & Dweck, 2003; Nicholls, 1984).

In contrast, compassionate goals should increase the desire to grow. When people want to support others, they have a reason to persevere through hardships and expand their capacities even when doing so is uncomfortable for self-esteem. For example, a college student who wants to comfort a broken-hearted friend may want to learn active listening skills or improve on his or her ability to express empathy. We postulated that the increased desire to expand one’s interpersonal competence would then activate a general, growth-oriented mindset. Consistent with this reasoning, compassionate goals in college freshmen strengthened the belief that difficulties can lead to growth in friendships (Canevello & Crocker, 2011). In a study of freshmen roommate pairs, compassionate goals to support roommates predicted an increase in the desire to grow and improve roommate relationships, which in turn predicted an increase in the desire to grow and expand capacities in academics (Mischkowki, Crocker, Niiya, Canevello, & Moeller, 2011).

Compassionate Goals and Interdependence

Despite the accumulating evidence that compassionate and self-image goals predict relationships and growth, a question remains as to whether these goals exist as separate factors and whether they predict similar outcome variables in non-American cultures. In addition, no research to date has examined the extent to which having an interdependent self-construal overlaps with pursuing compassionate or self-image goals. Our research examined the correlations between these interpersonal goals and interdependence in the United States and Japan and also tested the generalizability of the American findings in Japan.

An interdependent self-construal is defined as a “flexible, variable” self that emphasizes (a) external, public features such as statuses; (b) belonging and fitting in; (c) occupying one’s proper place; and (d) indirectness in communication (Singelis, 1994). Because interdependent orientation relates to the overall tendency to pursue communal goals over personal goals (Bresnahan, Chiu, & Levine, 2004; Yamaguchi, 1994) and the belief that one’s fate depends on the group (Kitayama, Duffy, & Uchida, 2007), having compassionate goals may be undistinguishable from having an interdependent self-construal. If people do not distinguish between compassionate goals and interdependence, these constructs should be highly correlated in the United States and Japan.

We believe, however, that compassionate goals differ from interdependence in both cultures, although the two constructs overlap to some extent. Behaving interdependently may serve multiple goals. For example, some people driven by self-image goals may sacrifice their self-interest for the benefit of their group so as to be liked by the other members or to avoid being criticized. Others, driven by compassionate goals, may do so because they believe that by behaving unselfishly, they can better support their group members. In sum, we argue that interdependence is distinct from having compassionate and self-image goals, although it may be positively correlated with both goals.

One can also expect that compassionate goals, self-image goals, and interdependence would correlate differently in Japan and in the United States. In a culture that emphasizes interdependence, the self is defined within social context, intricately connected and overlapping with others (Kitayama et al., 2007). People in collectivistic cultures such as Japan tend to give priority to communal goals over personal goals (Yamaguchi, 1994) and value empathy (omoiyari; Tobin, Wu, & Davidson, 1989). If having compassionate goals is normative in Japan, then having compassionate goals might be a means for the Japanese to promote a positive self-image. Consequently, the Japanese may not distinguish compassionate from self-image goals. Alternatively, self-image goals may not exist as such in Japan because the motivation for positive self-views is less important in East Asia than in the United States (Heine, 2007; Heine & Hamamura, 2007; Heine, Lehman, Markus, & Kitayama, 1999). According to this reasoning, compassionate and self-image goals in Japan may load on a single factor or show a factor structure different from that in the United States.

We predict, however, that compassionate and self-image goals exist as two distinct constructs in Japan as well as in the United States and that these constructs predict relationship and growth measures above and beyond the effect of interdependence. Although Japanese do not self-enhance as Americans do, research shows that the Japanese do enhance their positive self-image (Brown & Kobayashi, 2002; Kurman, 2003; Sedikides, Gaertner, & Vevea, 2005; Takata, 2000) and validate their self-worth indirectly through others (Dalsky, Gohm, Noguchi, & Shiomura, 2008). Research on the concept of face (Hamamura & Heine, 2008; Heine, 2005; Ting-Toomey, 1994) suggests that maintaining and restoring public images of the self are crucial elements of Japanese interactions. These descriptions indicate that Japanese do care about their self-images and that they are likely to have self-image goals, even if the content of the desired self-images may vary by culture.

Research Overview and Hypotheses

To test whether the Japanese can distinguish compassionate from self-image goals, we first compared the factor structures of the compassionate and self-image goals scales among American undergraduates, Japanese undergraduates, and Japanese adults. Although it is common practice in cross-cultural studies to use undergraduate samples, our study also included a Japanese adult sample that was randomly selected from the general population. The inclusion of this additional sample allowed us to generalize our findings across age groups in Japan. We expected a correlated two-factor structure in all three samples with the compassionate goals items loading on one factor and the self-image goals items loading on the other. With the Japanese adult sample, we also tested whether the correlated two-factor structure fit the data better than other plausible factor structures.

Next, we tested whether compassionate and self-image goals correlate with non-zero-sum belief, defensive responses to conflicts, validation and growth-seeking, and self-compassion, similarly in the United States and Japan. In all three samples, we expected that compassionate goals would be positively correlated with non-zero-sum belief, growth-seeking, and self-compassion. In contrast, we expected self-image goals to correlate positively with defensive responses to conflict and validation-seeking. In addition, we expected that these correlations would not statistically differ by cultures; that is, we predicted non-significant interactions between culture and goals.

Finally, we examined how compassionate and self-image goals correlate with interdependence and whether compassionate and self-image goals explain associations after controlling for interdependence. We expected a positive but moderate correlation between compassionate goals and interdependence and that controlling for interdependence would not alter the associations between goals and outcome measures.

Method

Participants

In the United States, 130 undergraduate students (66% female) who were enrolled in an introductory psychology course in a Midwestern university completed an online survey outside of their class for partial course credit. All the participants were born in the United States and had lived in the United States for their entire lifetimes. A majority (88%) indicated their race as White, 7% as “mixed,” and 5% as Black. The age ranged from 18 to 33 with a mode of 18 and a mean of 18.8 (SD = 1.45).

The Japanese data consisted of two samples. In the first, 203 undergraduate students (62% female) were recruited from a large private university in Tokyo and received 1,000 yen (approximately US$12) for completing the paper version of the questionnaire. Their age ranged from 18 to 27, with a mode of 19 and a mean of 19.8 (SD = 1.37). With the exception of three international students (two from Korea and one from Taiwan), participants indicated their nationality as Japanese. Participants came to the lab individually to complete the questionnaire. Due to time constraints 80 participants completed only the measures of compassionate and self-image goals and non-zero-sum belief and defensive responses to conflict, while the remaining 123 participants completed all measures.

For the second Japanese sample, we mailed the questionnaire to 1,000 randomly selected adult residents of the Nerima ward in Tokyo (approximate population 576,000). To ensure random sampling, we first randomly selected 14 precincts out of 71 after adjusting for the number of voters. Then, at the second stage, we randomly selected 71 to 72 residents from each precinct. A total of 320 respondents returned the survey, resulting in a response rate of 32%. The age of the respondents ranged from 20 to 73, with a mean of 47.1 (SD = 13.3) and a median of 47. Slightly more than half (56%) were women. The survey also contained questions not related to this research.

Measures

Compassionate and self-image goals

Compassionate and self-image goals were measured with 12 items adapted from Crocker and Canevello (2008). Participants selected one person (e.g., a friend, a girl/boyfriend, a sibling) who was important to them and indicated how much they wanted or tried to do the following in their relationship with this person. Six items assessed compassionate goals: “Be supportive of this person,” “be constructive in your comments to this person,” “have compassion for this person’s mistakes and weaknesses,” “avoid doing anything that would be harmful to this person,” “avoid being selfish or self-centered,” and “avoid doing things that aren’t helpful to you or this person.” Six items assessed self-image goals: “get this person to notice your positive qualities,” “get this person to like you,” “convince this person that you are right,” “avoid being rejected by this person,” “avoid being wrong,” and “avoid showing your weaknesses.” Both scales included approach and avoidance items to avoid confounding compassionate and self-image goals with approach and avoidance goals. In Crocker and Canevello (2008), mean reliabilities across 10 weeks were .83 for self-image goals and .90 for compassionate goals.¹ The response scale ranged from 1 (always) to 5 (not at all) in the American and Japanese undergraduate samples and from 1 (always) to 4 (not at all) in the Japanese adult sample. All the items were reversed before analyses so that higher values indicate higher endorsement of each goal.

Interdependence

Interdependence was measured with eight items from the modified Singelis scale (Na, Grossmann, Varnum, Kitayama, Gonzalez, & Nisbett, 2010; Uchida, Park, & Kitayama, 2008). Four items were taken from the Singelis (1994) interdependence scale ( “I respect people who are modest about themselves,” “I will sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of the group I am in,” “I often have the feeling that my relationships with others are more important than my own accomplishment,” and “I feel my fate is intertwined with the fate of those around me”) and four items from Takata’s (2000) interdependent self-construal scale (“I am concerned about what people think of me,” “I avoid having conflicts with members of my group,” “when my opinion is in conflict with that of another person’s, I often accept the other opinion,” and “depending on the situation and the people that are present, I will sometimes change my attitude and behavior”). The response scale ranged from 1 (describes me very much) to 5 (doesn’t describe me at all) in the undergraduate samples and from 1 (describes me very much) to 4 (doesn’t describe me at all) in the adult sample. All the items were reversed before analyses so that higher values indicate greater interdependence. In our study, Cronbach’s alphas were .65 for Americans, .62 for Japanese undergraduates, and .51 for Japanese adults.

Non-zero-sum belief

Four items (Crocker & Canevello, 2008) measured how much people believe that both parties can benefit in a given situation instead of believing that gains for one person come at the expense of another (e.g., “It is usually possible for both individuals to get what they need”). Cronbach’s alphas were .79 for Americans, .70 for Japanese undergraduates, and .69 for Japanese adults.

Defensive responses to conflict

Three items from Knee, Lonsbary, Canevello, and Patrick (2005) were adapted in this study to measure participants’ reluctance to discuss problems with the person they selected at the beginning of the questionnaire (e.g., “When I have issues with this person, I find the best approach is not to discuss it, and see if it goes away”). The original scale had six items, and reliabilities ranged from .69 to .95. In our study, Cronbach’s alphas were .56 for Americans, .55 for Japanese undergraduates, and .49 for Japanese adults. Our reliabilities were lower than in past research (Knee et al., 2005), but we considered them acceptable given the smaller number of items included in our research (Cortina, 1993).

Validation and growth seeking

Validation and growth seeking were measured with six items taken from Dykman’s (1998) Goal Orientation Inventory. Three items assessed validation seeking (e.g., “I feel like I’m constantly trying to prove that I’m as competent as the people around me”), and three items assessed growth seeking (e.g., “The attitude I take toward possible setbacks and disappointments is that they’ll end up being good learning experiences”). The original scale had 18 items each, and reliabilities were .97 for validation-seeking and .96 for growth-seeking. In our study, Cronbach’s alphas for validation and growth seeking were .81 and .80 for Americans, .62 and .77 for Japanese undergraduates, and .71 and .77 for Japanese adults.

Self-compassion

To measure self-compassion, we included four items from Neff’s (2003) Self-Compassion Scale (e.g., “I try to see my failings as part of the human condition”). The original scale had 26 items and a reliability of .92. In our study, Cronbach’s alphas were .79 for Americans, .65 for Japanese undergraduates, and .52 for Japanese adults.

Non-zero-sum belief, defensive responses to conflict, validation and growth-seeking, and self-compassion were rated on a scale that ranged from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) in the undergraduate samples and from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree) in the adult sample. All the items were reversed before analyses so that higher values indicate higher endorsement of the statements. We first created the questionnaire in English and developed the Japanese version using the back-translation method. Although non-zero-sum, defensive responses to conflict, validation and growth goals, and self-compassion have not been validated in Japan, these variables were correlated with each other similarly across the three samples (e.g., growth-seeking and self-compassion were correlated at .28, .38, and .59; non-zero-sum belief and defensive responses were correlated at −.34, −.29, and −.37 in the three samples), suggesting that these constructs were not completely foreign to the Japanese.

Results

Overview of Analyses

First, we conducted exploratory factor analyses (EFA) with the American and Japanese undergraduate samples to examine the factor structure of compassionate and self-image goals scale in both cultures. Second, we conducted confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) with the Japanese adult sample to see whether the factor structure obtained for the American and Japanese undergraduates also applies to the general Japanese population. Third, we examined how compassionate and self-image goals correlate with interdependence, non-zero-sum belief, defensive responses to conflicts, validation and growth-seeking, and self-compassion in all three samples. Finally, we tested whether compassionate and self-image goals predicted the above measures even after we statistically controlled for interdependence.

Exploratory Factor Analysis with the American and Japanese Undergraduate Sample

We checked whether items of compassionate and self-image goals load on the intended factors in the American and Japanese undergraduate samples. Although confirmatory factor analyses are superior to exploratory factor analyses for testing similarity of factor structures across samples (Byrne, 1994; Kline, 1998), the limited sample sizes did not allow us to obtain stable solutions. Therefore, we ran exploratory factor analyses separately for each culture, with principal factors extraction and promax rotation. Examination of eigenvalues and initial scree plot indicated a two-factor solution in both samples. Specifying a two-factor solution resulted in a relatively clear factor structure in both cultures except for a few items. In the United States, all the compassionate goals items loaded highly (> .45) on the first factor, with cross-loadings of less than .10, except one item (“be constructive in your comments to this person”), which had a main loading of .45 and a cross-loading of .32. All the self-image goals items loaded highly (> .50) on the second factor, with cross-loadings of less than .21, except one item (“convince this person that you are right”) that had a main loading of .17 and a cross-loading of .08.² Except these two inconsistencies, overall, we confirmed that the factor structure of compassionate and self-image goals scale in our American undergraduate sample is comparable to that of Crocker and Canevello (2008). The two factors explained 48% of the variance and were correlated at .25.

In Japan, all the self-image goals items loaded highly (> .40) on the intended factor, with cross-loadings of less than .21. Four compassionate goals items loaded highly (> .40) on the intended factor, with cross-loadings of less than .10. However, one compassionate goals item (“avoid doing things that aren’t helpful to you or this person”) loaded more on the self-image goals factor (.34) than on the compassionate goals factor (.20), while another compassionate goals item (“avoid being selfish or self-centered”) loaded equally on both factors (.29 on the compassionate goals factor and .23 on the self-image goals factor). Deleting these two compassionate goals items resulted in clearer factor solutions. As shown in the left column of Table 1, all the self-image goals items and the four compassionate goals items loaded highly (>.38) on the intended factors, with cross-loadings of less than .22. All the main loadings exceeded the cross-loadings by a ratio of 2:1 or greater. The two factors explained 43% of the variance and were correlated at .32.

Table 1.

Summary of Factor Loadings and Communalities for Promax Two-Factor Solution for the Compassionate and Self-Image Goals Scale

	Japan (n = 203)			United States (n = 130)
	Factor			Factor
Item	1	2	h²	1	2	h²
1. Have compassion for this person’s mistakes and weaknesses.	.72	−.23	.33	.72	−.06	.41
2. Be supportive of this person.	.70	−.11	.32	.65	−.04	.33
3. Be constructive in your comments to this person.	.46	.03	.19	.40	.34	.31
4. Avoid doing anything that would be harmful to this person.	.40	.11	.20	.68	−.02	.36
5. Get this person to like you.	.22	.63	.44	.13	.71	.49
6. Get this person to notice your positive qualities.	.13	.62	.36	.21	.67	.48
7. Convince this person that you are right.	−.15	.44	.25	.11	.17	.25
8. Avoid being rejected by this person.^a	.15	.44	.33	.03	.57	.34
9. Avoid being wrong.^a	−.13	.38	.16	−.21	.50	.40
10. Avoid showing your weaknesses.	−.20	.38	.16	−.35	.59	.33
Factor correlations	.32			.21

These items were later deleted from the scale after the confirmatory factor analyses with the Japanese adult sample.

Because deleting items could change the factor structure, we re-analyzed the American undergraduate data to see whether deleting two compassionate goals items would still result in clear factor solutions in the United States. As shown in the right column of Table 1, deleting two items did not substantially change the American results. The self-image goals items still loaded highly (> .50) on the intended factor, with cross-loadings of less than .21, except one item (“convince this person that you are right”) that had a main loading of .17 and a cross-loading of .11. The four compassionate goals items loaded highly (> .40) on the intended factor, with cross-loadings of less than .10, except one item (“be constructive in your comments to this person”) that also loaded on the self-image goals factor (.34). The two factors explained 50% of the variance and were correlated at .21.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis with the Japanese Adult Sample

Next, we conducted CFA to test whether the correlated two-factor model obtained with the undergraduate samples fit the Japanese adult data. We specified a model in which the six self-image goals items load on the self-image goals factor only and the four compassionate goals items load on the compassionate goals factor only. We also estimated the correlation between the two factors. Standardized solutions are presented in Table 2, and the summaries of the goodness-of-fit indices appear in Table 3. As shown in the left column of Table 2, all items loaded significantly on the intended factor, with standard loadings ranging from .32 to .75. However, the correlated two-factor model did not have an excellent fit as indicated by the significant χ², the normed fit index (NFI), the nonnormed fit index (NNFI), and the comparative fit index (CFI) under .90, and the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) above .10 (see first line of Table 3). The modification indices showed that allowing two self-image goals items (“avoid being rejected by this person” and “avoid being wrong”) to cross-load on the compassionate goals factor would statistically improve the fit of the model. We therefore re-ran the CFA, allowing these two items to load on both factors. As predicted in the modification indices, the model fit improved. However, as shown in the middle column of Table 2, these two items loaded more on the compassionate goals factor (.36 for both items) than on the self-image goals factor (.22 and .13). Therefore, we ran another CFA after deleting these two self-image goals items. This time, the model had a good fit, as indicated by a significant but reduced χ², NFI, NNFI, and CFI above .90, and RMSEA under .10 (see the third line in Table 3). As shown in the right column of Table 2, the four compassionate goals items (“have compassion for this person’s mistakes and weaknesses,” “be supportive of this person,” “be constructive in your comments to this person,” and “avoid doing anything that would be harmful to this person”) loaded significantly on the first factor with standardized factor solutions between .49 and .76 (α = .72) and the four self-image goals items (“get this person to like you,” “get this person to notice your positive qualities,” “convince this person that you are right,” and “avoid showing your weaknesses”) loaded significantly on the second factor with standardized factor solutions between .27 and .79 (α = .62). The two factors were correlated at .36.

Table 2.

Factor Loadings and R-Squares by Confirmatory Factor Analysis With the Japanese Adult Sample (n = 320)

	Two-Factor Model			Modified Two-Factor Model^a			Modified Two-Factor Model^b
	Factor			Factor			Factor
Item	1	2	R²	1	2	R²	1	2	R²
1. Have compassion for this person’s mistakes and weaknesses.	.75		.56	.74		.55	.76		.58
2. Be supportive of this person.	.72		.52	.68		.47	.72		.52
3. Be constructive in your comments to this person.	.56		.31	.58		.34	.55		.31
4. Avoid doing anything that would be harmful to this person.	.50		.25	.53		.28	.49		.24
5. Get this person to like you.		.73	.54		.76	.58		.79	.62
6. Get this person to notice your positive qualities.		.73	.53		.75	.57		.74	.54
7. Convince this person that you are right.		.43	.19		.42	.17		.42	.18
8. Avoid being rejected by this person.		.40	.17	.36	.22	.23
9. Avoid being wrong.		.32	.10	.36	.13	.18
10. Avoid showing your weaknesses.		.32	.10		.30	.09		.27	.07
Factor correlations	.45			.35			.36

Modified model that allowed Items 8 and 9 to load on both factors.

Modified model without Items 8 and 9

Table 3.

Goodness of Fit Indices of the Models for the Compassionate and Self-Image Goals Scale (n = 320)

Model	df	χ²	χ²/df	Δχ²	NFI	NNFI	CFI	RMSEA
Two-factor model	34	164.04	4.82	—	.75	.72	.79	.113
Modified two-factor model^a	32	113.49	3.55	−50.55	.83	.81	.87	.092
Modified two-factor model^b	19	46.06	2.42	−117.98	.91	.92	.94	.068
Single-factor model	20	185.36	9.27	139.30	.63	.51	.65	.164
Approach-Avoidance model	19	184.87	9.73	138.81	.63	.49	.65	.168

Note. NFI = Bentler-Bonett Normed Fit Index; NNFI = Bentler-Bonett Non-Normed Fit Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = root mean-square error of approximation.

The modified model allowed Items 8 and 9 (“avoid being rejected by this person” and “avoid being wrong”) to load on the compassionate goals factor.

The modified model excluded Items 8 and 9.

Because we hypothesized a positive correlation between compassionate goals and self-image goals, a plausible alternative model would have all the items loading on a single factor, capturing an overall motivation to maintain the relationship. We compared the correlated two-factor model with four compassionate and four self-image goals items against the one-factor model, which has all eight items loading on the same factor. As shown in the fourth line of Table 3, the one-factor model had a worse fit than the two-factor model.

We also checked whether our two-factor model fit the data better than another two-factor model in which the approach-worded items (e.g., “have compassion for this person’s mistakes and weaknesses” and “get this person to like you”) load on one factor and the avoidance-worded items (e.g., “avoid doing anything that would be harmful to this person” and “avoid showing your weaknesses”) load on another. The approach-avoidance model had worse fit than the compassionate-self-image goals model.³

We computed compassionate and self-image goals scores by taking the mean of items (four items each) that remained in the final model of the Japanese adults’ data. Table 4 indicates the means, standard deviations, and Cronbach αs of the measures and their intercorrelations for each of the three samples.

Table 4.

Means, Standard Deviations, Reliability Coefficients, and Intercorrelations of the Major Variables in the United States and Japan

		n	M	SD	α	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1	Compassionate goals
	U.S.	130	4.44	.51	.68
	Japan: Student	203	4.13	.62	.63
	Japan: Adult	318	3.26	.47	.72
2	Self-image goals
	U.S.	130	3.69	.65	.55	.24**
	Japan: Student	203	3.19	.75	.56	.14+
	Japan: Adult	318	2.63	.48	.62	.32**
3	Interdependence
	U.S.	131	2.54	.52	.65	−.08	−.01
	Japan: Student	123	3.77	.56	.62	.38**	.14
	Japan: Adult	319	2.90	.34	.51	.32**	.19**
4	Non-zero-sum belief
	U.S.	131	4.23	.59	.79	.37**	−.06	−.09
	Japan: Student	202	3.76	.72	.70	.33**	.14+	.18*
	Japan: Adult	317	3.06	.47	.69	.37**	.16**	.26**
5	Growth seeking
	U.S.	131	3.64	.82	.80	.24**	−.12	−.17+	.37**
	Japan: Student	123	4.11	.75	.77	.31**	.13	.21*	.09
	Japan: Adult	315	3.25	.55	.77	.42**	.15*	.24**	.35**
6	Self-compassion
	U.S.	131	3.52	.70	.79	.26**	.07	−.25**	.24**	.58**
	Japan: Student	123	3.32	.76	.65	.21*	.09	.28**	.03	.38**
	Japan: Adult	315	2.93	.48	.52	.33**	.22*	.22**	.30**	.59**
7	Defensive responses
	U.S.	131	2.32	.81	.56	−.36**	.19*	−.16+	−.34**	−.05	.04
	Japan: Student	202	2.58	.80	.55	−.18*	.18**	.07	−.29**	−.01	−.01
	Japan: Adult	318	2.16	.55	.49	−.18**	.07	.06	−.37**	−.14*	−.01
8	Validation seeking
	U.S.	131	3.44	.97	.81	−.09	.20*	−.41**	−.05	−.14	.01	.19**
	Japan: Student	123	3.27	.87	.62	.01	.34**	.06	.16+	−.12	−.13	.09
	Japan: Adult	317	2.28	.62	.71	.09	.40**	.18**	.10+	.09	.15**	.04

Note. The American and Japanese student samples used 5-point scales, whereas the Japanese adult sample used 4-point scales.

p < .01. *p < .05. +p < .10.

Correlations Between Compassionate Goals and Interdependence

Compassionate goals correlated positively with interdependence in Japanese undergraduate and adult samples (rs = .38 and .32, respectively, ps < .001) but not in the American sample (−.08).⁴ Because the reliabilities of the interdependence measure were less than optimal, we tested the correlation between interdependence and compassionate goals at the latent construct level. Structural equation modeling revealed that compassionate goals were negatively correlated with interdependence in the United States (r = −.16, p < .05) and positively correlated in Japan (rs = .36 and .56, respectively, for the student and adult samples, ps < .001). Although compassionate goals overlap with interdependence, the moderate correlations suggest that wanting to support others and being interdependent are related but distinct constructs.

Compassionate and Self-Image Goals Predicting Relationship and Growth Measures

In all three samples, compassionate goals correlated positively with non-zero-sum belief, growth-seeking, and self-compassion, and negatively with defensive responses to conflicts. Self-image goals correlated positively with validation-seeking in all three samples, and with defensive responses to conflicts in the American and Japanese undergraduate samples but not in the Japanese adult sample. Overall, these results suggest that compassionate and self-image goals are meaningful in the Japanese culture.

To test whether compassionate and self-image goals predict non-zero-sum belief, defensive responses, validation-seeking, growth-seeking, and self-compassion similarly in the United States and Japan, we conducted hierarchical multiple regression analyses for each of these outcome variables and examined the interactions between the goals and culture. We compared the American and Japanese undergraduate data only. We did not include the Japanese adults’ data in the same regressions because the latter was on a scale ranging from 1 to 4, whereas the former two were on a scale from 1 to 5.⁵ In the first step, we entered culture (United States = 0, Japan = 1), compassionate goals, and self-image goals as predictors. Compassionate and self-image goals were centered around the grand mean of the two samples (Aiken & West, 1991). Then, in the second step, we entered two interaction terms: Compassionate Goals × Culture and Self-Image Goals × Culture. A significant Compassionate Goals × Culture interaction would indicate that the association between compassionate goals and the outcome measure (e.g., non-zero-sum belief) differs by culture, and a significant Self-Image Goals × Culture would indicate that the association between self-image goals and the outcome measure differs by culture. In our study, we expected similarity across cultures—that is, we expected these interactions to be nonsignificant.

Table 5 summarizes the results of the hierarchical multiple regression analyses. A main effect of culture emerged for non-zero-sum belief, defensive responses to conflicts, and growth-seeking, indicating that compared to Americans, Japanese are more likely to endorse zero-sum belief, more likely to avoid discussing problems, and more likely to seek growth. Compassionate goals predicted greater non-zero-sum belief, greater growth-seeking, greater self-compassion, and reduced defensive responses. In contrast, self-image goals predicted greater defensive responses and greater validation-seeking. These main effects were not qualified by culture, except for the association between compassionate goals and defensive responses. Separate analyses by culture indicated a stronger association between compassionate goals and reduced defensive responses among the Americans (β = −.43, p < .001) than the Japanese (β = −.21, p < .001). In other words, for the Americans, compassionate goals predicted greater likelihood of discussing problems, whereas for the Japanese the association was somewhat weaker. Although not central to our hypotheses, we also found a significant interaction between culture and self-image goals on non-zero-sum belief and growth-seeking. Separate analyses by culture showed that in the United States, self-image goals predicted lower non-zero-sum belief (β = −.15, p = .08) and lower growth goals (β = −.19, p < .05), whereas in Japan, these associations were all nonsignificant (βs = .03 and .12, respectively). Overall, the results suggest that there is (1) no significant cultural difference in the correlations between compassionate goals and non-zero-sum belief, growth-seeking, and self-compassion, and (2) no significant cultural difference in the correlations between self-image goals and defensive responses and validation-seeking.

Table 5.

Hierarchical Regression Analyses Summary for Culture, Compassionate, and Self-Image Goals Predicting Relationship and Growth Measures (n = 333)

	Non-Zero-Sum Belief		Growth-Seeking		Self-Compassion		Defensive Responses		Validation-Seeking
Step and Predictor Variable	β	ΔR²	β	ΔR²	β	ΔR²	β	ΔR²	β	ΔR²
Step 1		.22**		.15**		.07**		.15**		.09**
Culture (U.S. = 0, Japan = 1)	−.24**		.34**		−.06		.24**		−.01
Compassionate goals	.33**		.27**		.23**		−.26**		−.08
Self-image goals	.03		−.03		.06		.23**		.29**
Step 2		.02		.02*		.01		.03**		.01
Compassionate Goals × Culture	−.04		−.03		−.05		.26**		.12
Self-Image Goals × Culture	.22*		.24*		.06		−.12		.02

p < .05. **p < .01.

Associations between Compassionate Goals and Outcome Measures Controlling for Interdependence

Finally, we examined whether compassionate goals predicted non-zero-sum belief, reduced defensive responses, growth-seeking, and self-compassion in all three samples, even after we controlled for interdependence. We conducted separate regression analyses for each outcome measure, separately for each sample. We entered interdependence in the first step, and compassionate and self-image goals simultaneously in the second step. As shown in Table 6, even after controlling for interdependence, compassionate goals still predicted greater non-zero-sum belief and greater growth-seeking in all three samples, and greater self-compassion and reduced defensive responses in the American undergraduate and Japanese adult samples. After controlling for interdependence, self-image goals still predicted greater defensive responses and greater validation-seeking in all three samples. Although compassionate goals failed to significantly predict reduced defensive responses and greater self-compassion in the Japanese undergraduate samples, overall, we concluded that compassionate and self-image goals predict these outcome measures above and beyond interdependence.

Table 6.

Hierarchical Regression Analyses Summary for Compassionate and Self-Image Goals Predicting Relationship and Growth Measures After Controlling for Interdependence

	Non-Zero-Sum Belief		Growth-Seeking		Self-Compassion		Defensive Responses		Validation-Seeking
Step and Predictor Variable	β	ΔR²	β	ΔR²	β	ΔR²	β	ΔR²	β	ΔR2
U.S.
Step 1		.01		.03+		.06**		.03+		.16**
Interdependence	−.09		−.17+		−.25**		−.16+		−.41**
Step 2		.16**		.08**		.06*		.22**		.07**
Compassionate goals	.40**		.27**		.24**		−.45**		−.19*
Self-image goals	−.15+		−.19*		.01		.29**		.24**
Japan: Student
Step 1		.03		.04*		.08**		.01		.01
Interdependence	.18*		.21*		.28**		.07		.02
Step 2		.09**		.07**		.01		.05*		.11**
Compassionate goals	.30**		.27**		.12		−.15		−.01
Self-image goals	.14		.11		.05		.18*		.34**
Japan: Adult
Step 1		.07**		.06**		.05**		.01		.03**
Interdependence	.26**		.24**		.22**		.06		.18**
Step 2		.10**		.13**		.09**		.06**		.14**
Compassionate goals	.31**		.39**		.26**		−.26**		−.07
Self-image goals	.05		.01		.11*		.13*		.40**

p < .05. **p < .01.

Discussion

The main purpose of this research was to test whether compassionate goals to support others and self-image goals to maintain positive self-images exist as separate factors in Japan and predict relationship and growth measures as in the United States. With the exception of four items, a correlated two-factor structure emerged in the American undergraduate, the Japanese undergraduate, and the Japanese adult samples, indicating that compassionate and self-image goals exist as separate factors in non-American culture and that they can be reliably distinguished from each other. The existence of self-image goals among the Japanese suggests that although the Japanese do not self-enhance as much as the Americans (Heine, 2007; Heine & Hamamura, 2007), they do want others to form positive impressions of them, as proposed in research on face (Heine, 2005; Ting-Toomey, 1994).

Compassionate and Self-Image Goals Scale in the United States and Japan

Two compassionate goals items (“avoid doing things that aren’t helpful to you or this person” and “avoid being selfish or self-centered”) and two self-image goals items (“avoid being rejected by this person” and “avoid being wrong”) showed high loadings on the unintended factors in Japan and had to be deleted from the scale. Because all four items were about avoidance, one could speculate that the Japanese may have had difficulty interpreting them as active goals people pursue. We believe, however, that this is not the case: exploratory factor analysis with the Japanese undergraduate sample did not suggest a third factor comprised of avoidance items, and the structural equation modeling with the adult sample showed that the model separating avoidance and approach items had a poor fit.

That we had to drop two compassionate goals items when comparing the factor structure of American and Japanese undergraduate samples may indicate that the nature of compassionate goals differs across cultures. For example, we can speculate that “avoid doing things that aren’t helpful to you or this person” loaded more on the self-image goals factor than on the compassionate goals factor because the Japanese may have judged the first half of the statement (“avoid doing things that aren’t helpful to you”) to reflect self-image goals and the latter half (“avoid doing things that aren’t helpful to this person”) to reflect compassionate goals but with less weight. “Avoid being selfish or self-centered” loaded equally on both factors, probably because being unselfish is a highly desirable self-image in Japan. Parents and teachers instruct children to “avoid being selfish or self-centered” from early childhood (Tobin et al., 1989) or else they would be ostracized from the group.

That we had to drop two self-image goals items when validating the factor structure of Japanese adult sample suggests that the nature of self-image goals also differs across age groups. For undergraduate students, to “avoid being rejected by this person” may mean that one is trying to get affection or approval from the person, reflecting self-image goals. However, the Japanese adults may actively avoid being rejected by the person, not necessarily to get approval for the self but to make the person happy or to maintain group harmony. Similarly, for undergraduate students, to “avoid being wrong” may reflect the desire to promote their self-image of competence, but for Japanese adults, it may reflect the desire to avoid causing trouble for others by providing them with inaccurate information.

Despite some differences in the nature of these goals, once we selected items that capture the underlying goal constructs that are similar across cultures, the correlations with other constructs were almost all as predicted. This finding suggests that the revised scales nonetheless capture compassionate and self-image goals and that these goals are correlated with similar constructs across culture.

Compassionate and Self-Image Goals and Interdependence

Our study also demonstrated that compassionate goals and interdependence are correlated differently across cultures. The positive correlations between interdependence and compassionate goals in Japan (.36 among the students and .56 among adults) suggest that in Japan, interdependence may encourage people to endorse compassionate goals. In contrast, the negative correlation in the United States (−.16) suggests that interdependence may inhibit people from pursuing compassionate goals. Although speculative, one could argue that interdependence may have a more positive meaning in Japan than in the United States. When the Japanese endorse the interdependent items such as “I avoid having conflicts with members of my group” or “I will sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of the group I am in,” they may feel that they are actively choosing these behaviors to better support and contribute to their group, reflecting compassionate goals. In contrast, when the Americans endorse the above items, they may feel that they are at the mercy of their group, and hence, they may not want to contribute or support their group, reflecting low compassionate goals.

The positive but moderate correlation between interdependence and compassionate goals in Japan indicates that despite some conceptual overlap, they are different constructs and that having compassionate goals is not the only way Japanese exhibit interdependence. Some people may emphasize group harmony because they care about others’ needs. But others may do so simply because they want to appear harmonious to gain approval or avoid rejection from the group, a motive that can be labeled as self-image goals. Indeed, in Japanese college and adult samples, interdependence was positively correlated with both compassionate and self-image goals, although the correlations were weaker (and even nonsignificant) for the latter. It would be interesting to examine in future studies a situation where contribution to a group requires one to risk a positive self-image. For example, when a group is about to make a poor decision, one has to choose whether to follow the majority decision to maintain group harmony or to speak up and save the group from making a poor decision at the risk of being criticized or scorned. We predict that people with self-image goals would choose to remain silent to protect their self-image, whereas those with compassionate goals would speak up. In this case, interdependence may not predict either outcome.

Compassionate and Self-Image Goals and Outcome Variables

Finally, our study provided the first empirical evidence that compassionate goals are associated with non-zero-sum belief, growth-seeking, and self-compassion and that self-image goals are associated with defensive responses to conflict and validation-seeking similarly across cultures (Table 5). These results attest that compassionate and self-image goals have implications for relationships and growth in non-Western culture as well as in the United States. The replication with the Japanese adult sample further showed that compassionate and self-image goals are meaningful constructs, not only across cultures but also across age groups in Japan. However, a careful comparison between the age groups showed that controlling for interdependence and self-image goals, compassionate goals are associated with reduced defensive responses to conflict (β = −.26, p < .01) and greater self-compassion (β = .26, p < .01) among the Japanese adults but that these associations are not significant among the Japanese students (βs = −.15 and .12, respectively, ns). Future studies should examine whether these age differences in the associations with compassionate goals reflect a cohort difference or a developmental change.

We have to acknowledge that we only had cross-sectional data. It is possible that some correlations may have been inflated due to common method variance. Further research should investigate whether the two goals predict changes in relationship and growth measures over time. It would be also important to replicate the findings with a different measure of interdependence that has a higher reliability.

Despite these limitations, this study demonstrated that Japanese can distinguish compassionate from self-image goals and that the goals have different implications for relationships and growth, similarly in the United States and Japan. We also showed that these associations persisted above and beyond the effect of interdependence. Further research should examine how Japanese pursue their self-image goals and what self-images are considered positive in Japan. We hope that our study lays the groundwork for further cross-cultural research in compassionate and self-image goals.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank Manabu Honda, Ayako Kaiho, Saki Nishioka, Mai Ouchi, Emma Rosen, and Shoko Tana for their assistance with data collection and entry.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The study was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists 20830100 by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science to Yu Niiya.

Notes

References

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Bresnahan

M. J.

Chiu

H.- C.

Levine

T. R.

(2004). Self-construal as a predictor of communal and exchange orientation in Taiwan and the USA. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 187-203.

Brown

J. D.

Kobayashi

(2002). Self-enhancement in Japan and America. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 145-168.

Byrne

B. M.

(1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Canevello

Crocker

(2010). Creating good relationships: Responsiveness, relationship quality, and interpersonal goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 78-106.

Canevello

Crocker

(2011). Changing relationship growth belief: Intrapersonal and interpersonal consequences of compassionate goals. Personal Relationships, 18, 370-391.

Cortina

J. M.

(1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104.

Covington

M. V.

(2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An integrative review. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 171-200.

Crocker

Canevello

(2008). Creating and undermining social support in communal relationships: The role of compassionate and self-image goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 555-575.

10.

Crocker

Canevello

(2012). Consequences of self-image and compassionate goals. In Devine

P. G.

Plant

(Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 45, pp. 229-277). New York: Elsevier.

11.

Crocker

Oliver

M.- A.

Nuer

(2009). Self-image goals and compassionate goals: Costs and benefits. Self and Identity, 8, 251-269.

12.

Dalsky

Gohm

C. L.

Noguchi

Shiomura

(2008). Mutual self-enhancement in Japan and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 215-223.

13.

Dykman

B. M.

(1998). Integrating cognitive and motivational factors in depression: Initial tests of a goal-orientation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 139-158.

14.

Garland

(1991). The mid-point on a rating scale: Is it desirable? Marketing Bulletin, 2, 66-70.

15.

Grant

Dweck

(2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 541-553.

16.

Hamamura

Heine

S. J.

(2008). The role of self-criticism in self-improvement and face maintenance among Japanese. In Chang

E. C.

(Ed.), Self-criticism and self-enhancement: Theory, research, and clinical implications (pp. 105-122). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

17.

Heine

S. J.

(2005). Where is the evidence for pancultural self-enhancement? A reply to Sedikides, Gaertner, and Toguchi (2003). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 531-538.

18.

Heine

S. J.

(2007). Culture and motivation: What motivates people to act in the ways that they do? In Kitayama

Cohen

(Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 714-733). New York: Guilford Press.

19.

Heine

S. J.

Hamamura

(2007). In search of East Asian self-enhancement. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 1-24.

20.

Heine

S. J.

Lehman

D. R.

Markus

H. R.

Kitayama

(1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review, 106, 766-794.

21.

Kitayama

Duffy

Uchida

(2007). Self as cultural mode of being. In Kitayama

Cohen

(Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp.136-174). New York: Guilford Press.

22.

Kline

R. B.

(1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.

23.

Knee

C. R.

Lonsbary

Canevello

Patrick

(2005). Self-determination and conflict in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 997-1009.

24.

Kurman

(2003). Why is self-enhancement low in certain collectivist cultures? An investigation of two competing explanations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 496-510.

25.

Mischkowki

Crocker

Niiya

Canevello

Moeller

(2011). Benefits of compassionate goals for relationships: Increased academic growth goals and engagement. Unpublished manuscript, The Ohio State University.

26.

Grossmann

Varnum

M. E. W.

Kitayama

Gonzalez

Nisbett

R. E.

(2010). Cultural differences are not always reducible to individual differences. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 6192-6197.

27.

Neff

K. D.

(2003). Development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self and Identity, 2, 223-250.

28.

Nicholls

J. G.

(1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328-346.

29.

Sedikides

Gaertner

Vevea

J. L.

(2005). Pancultural self-enhancement reloaded: A meta-analytic reply to Heine (2005). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 539-551.

30.

Singelis

T. M.

(1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580-591.

31.

Takata

(2000). Sogo dokuritsu teki sogo kyocho teki jikokan shakudo ni tsuite [On the scale for measuring independent and interdependent view of self]. (Bulletin of Research Institute, 8, 145-163). Nara, Japan: Nara University, Department of Sociology.

32.

Ting-Toomey

(Ed.). (1994). The challenge of facework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues. New York: State of New York–Albany Press.

33.

Tobin

J. J.

D. Y. H.

Davidson

D. H.

(1989). Preschool in three cultures: Japan, China, and the United States. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

34.

Uchida

Park

Kitayama

(2008, February). Explicit and implicit social orientations: Independence and interdependence in Japan and the U.S. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

35.

Yamaguchi

(1994). Collectivism among the Japanese: A perspective from the self. In Kim

Triandis

H. C.

Kagitcibasi

Choi

S.- C.

Yoon

(Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 175-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.