Harmed or not Harmed? Culture in Interpersonal Transgression Memory and Self-Acceptance

Abstract

This study examined cultural effects on memory for interpersonal transgressions and the relation to self-acceptance. Asian and European American college students each recalled two specific incidents, one in which they hurt or wronged others (perpetrator memory) and one in which others hurt or wronged them (victim memory). Although both Asians and European Americans tended to minimize the harm in the perpetrator memory and maximize the harm in the victim memory, Asians exhibited a greater degree of harm minimization in both types of memories than did European Americans. Furthermore, for the victim memory, harm maximization (i.e., amplifying harms done by others) was negatively associated with self-acceptance for Asians, whereas harm minimization (i.e., downplaying harms done by others) was negatively associated with self-acceptance for European Americans. The culturally divergent implications of self-serving and relationship-serving biases in constructing interpersonal transgression memories are discussed.

Full text

International Journal of Applied Psychology 2014, 4(5): 188-195
DOI: 10.5923/j.ijap.20140405.03
Harmed or not Harmed? Culture in Interpersonal
Transgression Memory and Self-Acceptance
Qingfang Song, Qi Wang*
Cornell University, Ithaca
Abstract This study examined cultural effects on memory for interpersonal transgressions and the relation to
self-acceptance. Asian and European American college students each recalled two specific incidents, one in which they hurt
or wronged others (perpetrator memory) and one in which others hurt or wronged them (victim memory). Although both
Asians and European Americans tended to minimize the harm in the perpetrator memory and maximize the harm in the victim
memory, Asians exhibited a greater degree of harm minimization in both types of memories than did European Americans.
Furthermore, for the victim memory, harm maximization (i.e., amplifying harms done by others) was negatively associated
with self-acceptance for Asians, whereas harm minimization (i.e., downplaying harms done by others) was negatively
associated with self-acceptance for European Americans. The culturally divergent implications of self-serving and
relationship-serving biases in constructing interpersonal transgression memories are discussed.
Keywords Culture, Interpersonal transgression memory, Self-serving bias, Relationship-serving bias, Self-acceptance
1. Introduction
How people remember the interpersonal aspects of their
lives can greatly influence their relationship satisfaction (e.g.,
Karney, & Coombs, 2000; Karney, & Frye, 2002),
evaluations of themselves and others (Takaku, Green, &
Ohbuchi, 2010; Wilson, & Ross, 2001), and subjective
well-being (Kitayama, Markus, & Masaru, 2000). Although
studies have examined factors that moderate people’s
memory for interpersonal transgressions from the
perspectives of the perpetrator and the victim (Feeney & Hill,
2006; Kraft, 2009), no study that we know of has taken into
consideration the role of culture in shaping the remembering
process (Wang, 2013). This study examined perpetrator and
victim memories in Asian and European American young
adults, and how the construction of such memories was
related to individuals’ self-acceptance.
Autobiographical memory is long-lasting memory for
personal experiences “significant to the self-system” (Nelson,
1993; pp. 8). McAdams (2001) has argued that
autobiographical memory entails an internalized and
evolving story of the self for the construction of identity.
Notably, such memory is not a mirror image of the reality but
constructed in accordance with the self-system, whereby our
knowledge, beliefs, self-goals and motive can profoundly
influence what and how we remember our past experiences
* Corresponding author:
qiwang@cornell.edu (Qi Wang)
Published online at http://journal.sapub.org/ijap
Copyright © 2014 Scientific & Academic Publishing. All Rights Reserved
(Conway, 2000; Wang, 2013). One factor of the self-system,
namely, self-serving motivation, may play a particularly
important role in interpersonal transgression memory.
1.1. Self-serving Motivation
Self-serving motivation, also referred to as self-enhancing
motivation, drives people to focus on the positive aspects of
the self and to evaluate the self optimistically so as to
maintain or enhance positive self-regard (Heine & Lehman,
1995; Taylor & Brown 1988). It also drives people to ascribe
successes to their personal qualities and attribute failures to
external causes (Campbell & Sedikides, 1999; Mullen &
Riordan, 1998). Pertaining to memory, studies have shown
that people, especially those with high self-esteem and thus
stronger self-enhancing motivation, remember their past
successes better than failures (Silverman, 1964), and
remember their task performance better than it actually was
(Crary, 1996). Also, to fashion a positive self-appraisal,
people deprecate past successes to accentuate their current
achievements, and they subjectively distance unflattering
experiences while feeling temporally close to favorable
experiences (e.g., Wilson & Ross, 2001, 2003). In general,
people selectively remember positive information that can
boost their self-regard, while forgetting or misrepresenting
negative information related to the self (for a review, see
Sedikides & Gregg, 2003).
The influence of self-serving motivation has also been
observed in memories for interpersonal transgressions,
whereby people often exhibit role-based biases for the

International Journal of Applied Psychology 2014, 4(5): 188-195 189
purpose of maintaining a positive self-evaluation. Rather
than taking responsibilities for a transgression that may shed
negative light on the self, perpetrators who “hurt” or
“wronged” others are more likely than victims to include
happy endings, justify their behaviors, and diminish their
culpability in their memory accounts of transgressions(e.g.,
Baumeister, Stillweli, & Wotman, 1990; Mikula,
Athenstaedt, Heschgl, & Heimgartner, 1998). Victims, in
contrast, tend to maximize the harm resulted from the
perpetrators’ behaviors, describing perpetrators’ intentions
as malicious and emphasizing negative outcomes and
consequences. When participants were asked to retell
ahypothetical story by identifying either with the perpetrator
or the victim, similar discrepancies between perpetrator and
victim accounts were confirmed (Stillweli & Baumeister,
1997). Thus, people selectively emphasize some aspects of
an event and downplay the others in their memories to
maintain favorable self-views, depending on the role they
played in the event. The influence of self-serving motivation
on interpersonal transgression memory may be further
modulated by culture.
1.2. Culture, Self-Serving Bias, and Relationship-Serving
Bias
There has been mixed evidence regarding the cultural
boundary of self-serving bias. Some researchers have argued
that people from many Asian cultures do not exhibit
self-serving biases, at least in some situations such as when
dealing with failures (e.g., Heine, 2005; Heine, Lehman,
Maukus, & Kitayama, 1999). Recent studies, however, have
suggested that self-enhancing or self-serving motivation is
universal and can be observed for culturally valued qualities
(Sedikides & Gregg, 2003; Takaku et al., 2010). For instance,
Asians, both native and overseas, consider themselves better
on collective aspects of the self (Sedikides, Gaertner, &
Toguchi, 2003) and evaluate more favourably their social
traits than do North Americans (Ross, Heine, Wilson, &
Sugimori, 2005), although they do not exhibit self-serving
biases when judging their individual traits.
The influence of self-serving bias on interpersonal
transgression memory may take an interesting twist for
Asians. On one hand, given the inherent social nature of
transgression events, self-serving biases (i.e., minimizing
harms done by oneself in perpetrator memories and
maximizing harms done by others in victim memories) may
still be apparent among Asians for whom maintaining
positive self-regard in interpersonal contexts is of paramount
importance (e.g., Ross et al., 2005; Yashima, Yamaguchi,
Kim, Choi, Gelfand, & Yuki, 1995). On the other hand,
given their relationship focus (Markus & Kitayama, 1991),
Asians may further exhibita relationship-serving bias in their
memory for interpersonal transgressions. Research has
shown that people who greatly value their relationships are
motivated to perceive others and their relationships in a
positive light (e.g., Campbell, Sedikides, Reeder, & Elliot,
2000; Endo, Heine, & Lehman, 2000). When recalling
transgression memories, they often make benign attributions
for others’ wrongful behaviors, produce benevolent
explanations for the transgressions, and construct memories
in ways that enhance positive evaluations of others and the
relationships (Fincham, Beach, & Baucom, 1987; Kearns &
Fincham, 2005; Murray & Holmes, 1993, Murry, Holmes, &
Griffen, 1996). Thus, relationship-serving motivation may
drive Asians to minimize harms done by both themselves
and others to promotesocial harmony. It will be theoretically
informative to examine how self-serving motivation and
relationship-serving motivation both play out in Asians’
interpersonal transgression memories, in contrast to those of
European Americans.
1.3. The Present Study
The purpose of this study is to examine self-serving and
relationship-serving biases in interpersonal transgression
memories in a cross-cultural context. Asian and European
American college students each recalled two interpersonal
transgression memories in which they acted as either a
perpetrator (perpetrator memory) or a victim (victim
memory). Following prior studies (Baumester et al., 1990;
Kearns & Fincham, 2005), the memories were coded for
content categories that were then summed into two scores:
the minimization score reflects the extent of downplaying the
harms caused by an offender, and the maximization score
reflects the extent of amplifying the harms caused by an
offender. Accordingly, for the perpetrator memory in which
the narrator him- or herself was the offender, minimizing the
harm from the offender incurs positive evaluations of the self
and maximizing the harm incurs negative evaluations of the
self. For the victim memory in which the narrator was the
victim and another person was the offender, minimizing the
harm from the offender incurs positive evaluations of the
other person and the relationship and maximizing the
harmincurs negative evaluations of the other person and the
relationship (See Table 1).
Table 1. The implications of minimization and maximization for
evaluations of the self and others in perpetrator and victim memories
Minimization
Maximization
Perpetrator
Memory Harm
caused by self
Positive evaluations
of self
Negative evaluations
of self
Victim Memory
Harm caused by
others
Positive evaluations
of others
Negative evaluations
of others
In line with previous studies (Baumeister et al., 1990;
Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Mikula et al., 1998; Takaku et al,
2010), we expected European Americans to exhibit
self-serving biases in the construction of interpersonal
transgression memories. We also expected Asians to exhibit
such biases for the enhancement of positive self-views in
interpersonal contexts, as well as to show

190 Qingfang Song et al.: Harmed or not Harmed? Culture in Interpersonal
Transgression Memory and Self-Acceptance
relationship-serving biases to promote interpersonal
affiliation and belongingness. Thus, both cultural groups
would be more likely to minimize the harm in the perpetrator
memory than in the victim memory, and more likely to
maximize the harm in the victim memory than in the
perpetrator memory. However, given their greater
relationship concerns (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), Asians
would minimize the harm more in both the perpetrator
memory and the victim memory to enhance the relationships,
when compared with European Americans.
Because the construction of interpersonal transgression
memories may have direct implications for one’s self-regard,
we further examined the relation of the memories to
participants’ self-acceptance, a measure of positive
self-regard that reflects an individual’s positive evaluations
of the self and past experiences, and his or her acceptance
toward both positive and negative qualities of the self (Ryff
& Singer, 2008). We hypothesized that for Asians,
self-acceptance would be positively associated with harm
minimization and negatively associated with harm
maximization in both types of memories. For European
Americans, self-acceptance would be positively associated
harm minimization in perpetrator memories and harm
maximization in victim memories, and negatively associated
with harm maximization in perpetrator memories and harm
minimization in victim memories.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
A total of 168undergraduate students at Cornell
University participated in this study to receive partial course
credits. They included 76 Asians (23 men and 53 women)
and 92 European Americans (15 men and 77 women).
Among the Asians1, 33 were Chinese, 14 were Korean, 10
were Indian, 8 were of other East and South Asian cultural
backgrounds, and 11 did not provide specific information.
Informed consent was obtained from all participants.
2.2. Procedure and Measures
Participants came to the lab in small groups of one to five
and completed a booklet that contained instructions on the
recall of interpersonal transgression memories and a number
of questionnaires. 2 Participants were asked to recall an
incident in which “you hurt or wronged someone other than a
romantic partner” (perpetrator memory), and an incident in
which “someone other than a romantic partner hurt or
1 Sixty-nine participants self-identified as Asian American and 7 self-identified
as Asian. Analyses with or without the 7 participants yielded identical patterns
of results. The final results were based on the entire sample. For simplicity, we
refer to the sample as Asians.
2 Participants also recalled a positive interpersonal event and answered
questions on areas such as environmental mastery, positive relations, purpose in
life, and autonomy. These data were for other research purposes and were not
included in the current study.
wronged you” (victim memory). This method was adopted
from Kearns and Fincham (2005). Participants were
instructed to provide the full story of each event and include
as many details as possible. They also indicated when each
event occurred. The order in which participants reported
different memories was counterbalanced.
After the memory task, participants provided demographic
information and completed a survey on psychological
well-being (Ryff, 1989) that assessed self-acceptance. For
each item (e.g., “When I look at the story of my life, I am
pleased with how things have turned out”), participants
indicated on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly
agree) how well that item described how they thought or felt.
Negative items were reverse coded so that higher scores
reflected more positive appraisals of the self. The scale was
created by summing scores from 9 items, with a Cronbach’s
alpha = .85.
2.3. Coding
To capture the content of the perpetrator memory and the
victim memory, we adapted categories developed by
Baumeister et al. (1990) to evaluate the presence (scored 1)
or absence (scored 0) of a series of themes (see Table 2 for a
list of the coding categories).Two coders independently
coded 20% of the data for intercoder reliability estimate.
Cohen’s Kappa across the 21 categories ranged from .53 to
1.0 (M= .91) for the perpetrator memory and from .65 to 1.0
(M= .90) for the victim memory. Two coding categories for
the perpetrator memory (i.e., victim’s anger was justified,
perpetrator’s behavior described as incomprehensible or
inconsistent) had modest intercoder agreement (kappa < 0.6).
However, when calculated in percent agreement, the
intercoder reliability for the two categories was 83% and
86%, respectively, comparable with those in prior studies
(e.g., Baumeister et al., 1990; Kearns, & Fincham, 2005).
Disagreements between the two coders were dissolved
through discussion. One coder coded the remaining data.
Following prior studies (Baumeister et al., 1990; Kearns &
Fincham, 2005), a minimization score was created for
perpetrator memory and victim memory, respectively, by
summing the 11 coding categories characterizing individuals’
attempt to minimize the severity of harm caused by the
perpetrator’s behavior (e.g., stressing the positive outcome
of the event), and a maximization score was created for each
memory by summing the 10 coding categories characterizing
individuals’ attempt to maximize the severity of harm caused
by the perpetrator’s behavior (e.g., stressing the malicious or
hurtful intention of the perpetrator).

International Journal of Applied Psychology 2014, 4(5): 188-195 191
Table 2. Results of Memory Content Coding
Minimization Categories
Asians
European Americans
%
Perpetrator
%
Victim
p
%
Perpetrator
%
Victim
p
Positive consequences or denial of negative
consequences
12
14
1.00
18
4
.004
Perpetrator apologizes or make amends
27
11
.02
13
7
.21
External or mitigating circumstances
55
14
.000
37
16
.002
Perpetrator’s behavior was impulsive
36
11
.001
25
3
.000
Perpetrator’s behavior could not be helped
9
1
.07
7
0
.03
Perpetrator’s behavior was justified
36
8
.000
25
7
.001
Victim’s response portrayed as an
overreaction
0
1
1.00
0
1
1.00
Victim provoked the incident
17
4
.02
22
1
.000
The cause of the incident includes the victim
51
35
.10
48
20
.000
The perpetrator regrets the incident
40
5
.000
42
4
.000
Self-blame
48
8
.000
36
4
.000
Maximization Categories
Long-term past events preceding the incident
37
27
.17
22
30
.23
Negative consequences
35
34
1.00
28
38
.13
Damage to the relationship
23
19
.68
15
21
.42
Victim is still angry or hurt
0
4
.25
1
5
.22
Perpetrator’s behavior described as
incomprehensible or inconsistent
20
54
.000
21
55
.000
Perpetrator’s behavior was immoral
7
18
.02
15
13
.84
Perpetrator’s behavior was deliberately
hurtful or malicious
4
14
.09
3
7
.51
Victim’s anger was justified
31
65
.000
25
64
.000
Victim was angry but no overt expression of
anger
7
18
.02
8
8
1.00
Multiple or accumulated provocation
17
30
.11
24
25
1.00
Note: McNemar test was conducted without continuity correct and exact p-values were reported.
3. Results
3.1. Preliminary Analyses
In both cultural groups, the most commonly involved
people in perpetrator memories were friends (50% Asian;
45% European American), family members (25% Asian;
28% European American), and acquaintances from school or
workplace (24% Asian; 22% European American). The most
commonly involved people in victim memories were friends
(55% Asian; 61% European American), family members
(8% Asian; 12% European American), and acquaintances
from school or workplace (28% Asian; 22% European
American). Chi-square analyses revealed no significant
cultural differences in the types of people involved in either
perpetrator memories, Χ2(4, N=168) = 3.82, p=.43, or victim
memories, Χ2(4, N=168) = 4.01p=.41. The data from 4
participants whose perpetrator memory or victim memory
involved romantic partners or who did not provide a
perpetrator incident as requested were excluded from
analyses.
Participants’ ages did not differ significantly at the time
when the perpetrator (mean age = 16.38 years, SD = 3.92)
and victim incidents (mean age = 16.18 years, SD = 3.84)
occurred, t(163) = .57, p =.57. The order in which
participants recalled the memories (i.e., perpetrator memory
prior to victim memory vs. victim memory prior to
perpetrator memory) had effects on only 2 out of the total 42
content categories across the two memories. 3Memory order
was therefore not considered further.
Next we present results regarding the influences of
memory type (perpetrator vs. victim) and culture (Asian vs.
European American) on participants’ tendencies to minimize
and maximize harms in their memory accounts. We then turn
to the results concerning relations between harm
minimization and harm maximization in memory accounts
and self-acceptance.
3.2. Minimizing and Maximizing Harms
A series of McNemar tests were conducted to examine the
likelihood that participants referred to each memory content
category as a function of memory type for Asians and
European Americans, respectively. As shown in Table 2,
3 There were no significant effects of order in19 out of 21 content categories
for perpetrator memory (ts = -1.78 to 1.86, ps = .07 to .96), or in all 21 content
categories for victim memory (ts = -1.50 to 1.53, ps = .13 to .98). For
perpetrator memory, the order had significant effects on the descriptions of
perpetrator’s behavior as immoral and as not being able to be helped, ts = -2.17
and 2.02, ps = .03and .05.

192 Qingfang Song et al.: Harmed or not Harmed? Culture in Interpersonal
Transgression Memory and Self-Acceptance
there was a general tendency in which both Asian and
European American participants were more likely to
minimize the harm in the perpetrator memory than in the
victim memory, and more likely to maximize the harm in the
victim memory than in the perpetrator memory.
We further conducted Fisher’s exact tests to examine
whether there were cultural differences in the presence of
each memory content category. Pertaining to perpetrator
memory, Asians were more likely than European Americans
to minimize the harm by describing the perpetrator’s
apologies or amendment, p=.03, and including external or
mitigating circumstances, p=.03, but to maximize the harm
through the inclusion of long-term proceeding events, p=.04.
Pertaining to victim memory, Asians were more likely than
European Americans to minimize the harm by emphasizing
positive consequences or denying negative consequences,
p=.05, describing the perpetrator’s behavior as impulsive,
p=.06, and attributing part of the cause to themselves, p=.03,
but to maximize the harm by admitting their inner angry
feelings, p=.06.
Next, a 2 (memory type) x 2 (culture) mixed analysis of
variance was conducted on the total minimization and
maximization scores, respectively, with memory type as a
within-subject factor and culture as a between-subject factor.
For minimization, there was a main effect of memory type,
F(1, 162)=192.02, MSE=1.89, p< .001, whereby perpetrators
minimized the harm more than victims for both Asians, t(72)
= 8.12, p< .001, and European Americans, t(90) = 12.20, p
< .001. Culture effect was also found for minimization, F(1,
162) = 8.95, MSE = 2.28, p = .004, whereby Asians
minimized the harm to a greater degree than did European
Americans in both the perpetrator memory, t(164) = -2.20, p
= .03, and the victim memory, t(132.43) = -2.36, p = .02. No
significant interaction effect was detected, F(1, 162) = .23,
MSE = 1.89, p = .63.
For maximization, there was also a main effect of memory
type, F(1, 162) = 58.26, MSE = 1.52, p< .001,whereby
victims maximized the harm more than perpetrators for both
Asians, t(72) = -4.75, p< .001,and European Americans, t(90)
= -6.13, p< .001. The two groups did not differ in
maximization in either perpetrator memory, t(164) = -.25,
p=.80, or victim memory, t(164) = -.63, p = .53. No
significant interaction effect was detected, F(1, 162) = .02,
MSE=1.52, p=.89. Figure 1illustrates the mean minimization
and maximization scores as the function of memory type and
culture.
Figure 1. Mean frequency of narrative variables as the function of memory type and group. Error bars represent standard errors of the means

International Journal of Applied Psychology 2014, 4(5): 188-195 193
3.3. Harm Minimization, Harm Maximization, and
Self-acceptance
There was no cultural difference between Asians (M =
4.31, SD = 0.72) and European Americans (M = 4.29, SD =
0.65) in the total score of self-acceptance, t(163) = -.20,
p = .16. Zero-order correlations between self-acceptance and
minimization and maximization scores were calculated for
Asians and European Americans, respectively. For Asians,
self-acceptance was negatively correlated with harm
maximization in the victim memory, r = -.27, p= .02. In
contrast, for European Americans, self-acceptance was
negatively correlated with harm minimization in the victim
memory, r = -.24, p= .02. No significant correlations were
found for perpetrator memory (rs = -.18 to .02, ps = .12
to .88).
4. Discussion
Prior research has demonstrated that perpetrators and
victims construct interpersonal transgression memories
differently in a self-serving manner (e.g., Baumeister et al.,
1990; Kearns & Fincham, 2005; Stillweli & Baumeister,
1997). Yet there has been no study to investigate whether
such biases are prevalent across cultures, in spite of the large
literature concerning the interaction between culture and
self-motivations in influencing cognition and behavior
(Heine, 2005; Heine et al., 1999; Sedikides & Gregg, 2003).
To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine
self-serving and relationship-serving biases in interpersonal
transgression memories as a function of culture, and the
relation to self-acceptance.
As we expected, Asian participants exhibited self-serving
biases in interpersonal transgression memories similar to
those of their European American counterparts. Participants
of both cultures were more likely to minimize the harm in the
perpetrator memory than in the victim memory, whereby
they blamed victims for provoking the incidents, expressed
their regrets and self-blame, and framed their behaviors as
impulsive, justifiable, or excusable due to external or
mitigating circumstances. Participants were also more likely
to maximize the harm in the victim memory than in the
perpetrator memory, whereby they described perpetrators’
behaviors as incomprehensible or inconsistent and justified
victims’ anger. These findings add to the current debate
concerning whether self-serving bias is pan-cultural, and
suggest that individuals of Asian cultural backgrounds also
remember themselves in a favorable light when the events
are situated in interpersonal contexts.
On the other hand, relationship-serving biases also
emerged in Asians’ interpersonal transgression memories.
Compared with European Americans, Asian participants
downplayed interpersonal conflicts by minimizing the harm
to a greater degree in both the perpetrator memory and the
victim memory. This is in line with their motivation to
promotesocial harmony and maintain positive views of
others and interpersonal relationships (e.g., Sedikides et al.,
2003; Ross et al., 2005; Endo et al., 2000).
Analyses of individual memory content categories further
revealed cultural differences in specific ways of minimizing
interpersonal harms in memory accounts. In particular,
compared with European Americans, Asians were more
likely to refer to external or mitigating circumstances for
their hurtful behaviors in the perpetrator memory, and also
more likely to share the blame by admitting themselves as
partly responsible for the incident in the victim memory.
Prior research has shown that Asians, especially East Asians,
are more inclined to attend to the broad context than
European Americans, who tend to focus on the main
characters and attribute their actions to their intentions (e.g.,
Chua, Leu, & Nisbett, 2005).It appears that by taking a
holistic perspective, Asian participants viewed interpersonal
conflicts as likely a result of external circumstances or
shared responsibilities of all parties involved. In this way,
they justified perpetrators’ behaviors and downplayed the
severity of interpersonal harms.
Interestingly, Asians were more likely than European
Americans to refer to past events prior to the target incident
in which they acted as a perpetrator. This may reflect Asians’
greater tendency to reflect on the past from a broad time
frame to learn lessons and guide behaviors when
remembering personal experiences (Wang, 2013; Wang &
Conway, 2004). Asians were also more likely than European
Americans to refer to their angry feelings in the victim
memory. Anger, different from sadness, often focuses on the
cause of a perceived goal failure (e.g., a relationship conflict)
and motivates a goal reinstatement (e.g., to restore the
relationship; Levine, 1995; Wang, 2003). This finding may
therefore reflect the Asians’ greater expectation to reverse
the perpetrator’s harmful behavior and restore social
harmony. It may be fruitful to further examine the specific
ways of minimizing or maximizing interpersonal harms in
future memory research.
Self-serving bias and relationship-serving bias in
interpersonal transgression memories were further
differently related to self-acceptance in the two cultural
groups. As expected, Asians who made more harm
maximization in the victim memory tended to have lower
self-acceptance. Amplifying harms done by others is not
conducive to relationship harmony and, for Asians who
greatly value interdependence (Markus & Kitayama, 1991),
negative self-evaluations may arise as a result. In contrast,
European Americans who made more harm minimization in
the victim memory, namely, those who exhibited less
self-serving bias, tended to have lower self-acceptance.
Downplaying others’ fault may imply that the self should be
partially blamed for the incident and thus may result in
negative self-evaluations. This finding is consistent with the
general literature that among Westerners, people with higher
self-esteem exhibit greater self-serving biases in memory
than those with lower self-esteem (Crary, 1996; Silverman,
1964; Wilson & Ross, 2001, 2003).
The relations of harm minimization and harm
maximization to self-acceptance were only found for the

194 Qingfang Song et al.: Harmed or not Harmed? Culture in Interpersonal
Transgression Memory and Self-Acceptance
victim memory, but not for the perpetrator memory in which
one’s own transgression was at the center. Presumably,
perpetrator memories may deal more directly with one’s
moral weakness. Simply minimizing the negativity of the
transgression or attributing part of the responsibility to the
victim may not be sufficient to facilitate self-acceptance.
Perhaps a more proactive approach to reconstructing the
memories, such as to acknowledge self-weakness as
common humanity (Leary, Tate, Adams, Batts, Hancock,
2007; Neff, 2010), to interpret the transgression as to
promote self-growth (Lilgendahl, McLean, & Mansfield,
2013), or to provide mixed accounts that include both
apology and mitigating and justifiable circumstances
(Takaku et al., 2010), is required to foster self-acceptance.
Notably, the relations of the memory biases to
self-acceptance were based on correlational data. It is
possible that reconstructing interpersonal transgressions in
either a harm-minimizing or a harm-maximizing manner
influences the level of self-acceptance, or self-acceptance
may shape the way people remember interpersonal
transgressions. To identify the direction and causality of the
relationship, future studies can employ experimental
manipulations to, for example, instruct participants to recall
interpersonal transgression memories by using either harm
minimization or harm maximization and then assess the
effects on their subsequent states of self-acceptance.
In summary, biases in constructing interpersonal
transgression memories from the perspectives of perpetrators
and victims are prevalent among both Asian and European
American young adults to fulfill self-serving goals. Yet
Asians, who ascribe greater importance to maintaining
harmonious interpersonal relations, exhibited greater
relationship-serving biases in both the perpetrator and victim
memories, when compared with European Americans.
Remembering interpersonal transgressions appears to have
varied implications across cultures for psychological
well-being.
REFERENCES
[1] Baumeister, R. F., Stillweli, A., & Wotman, S. R. (1990).
Victim and perpetrator accounts of interpersonal conflict.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,
994-1005.doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.994.
[2] Campbell, W. K., & Sedikides, C. (1999). Self-threat
magnifies the self-serving bias: A meta-analytic integration.
Review of General Psychology, 3, 23-43.doi: 10.1037/1089 -
2680.3.1.23.
[3] Campbell, W. K., Sedikides, C., & Reeder, G. D., & Elliot, A.
J. (2000). Among friends? An examination of friendship and
the self-serving bias. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39,
229-239.doi: 10.1348/014466600164444.
[4] Chua, H. F., Leu, J., & Nisbett, R. E. (2005). Culture and
diverging views of social events. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 31, 925-934.doi:10.1177/01461672042
72166.
[5] Conway, M. A., & Pleydell Pearce, C. W. (2000). The
construction of autobiographical memories in the self
memory system. Psychological Review, 107, 261-288.doi:
10.1037/0033-295X.107.2.261.
[6] Crary, W. G. (1966). Reactions to incongruent
self-experiences. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 30,
246-252.doi:10.1037/h0023347.
[7] Endo, Y., Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R. (2000). Culture and
positive illusions in close relationships: How my relationships
are better than yours. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 25, 1571-1586.doi: 10.1177/01461672002612011.
[8] Feeney, J. A., & Hill, A. (2006). Victim-perpetrator
differences in reports of hurtful events. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 23, 587-608.doi: 10.1177/02654075
06065985.
[9] Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R., & Baucom, D. H. (1987).
Attribution processes in distressed and nondistressed couples:
Self-partner attribution differences. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 52, 739-748.doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.
94.2.183.
[10] Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1995). Cultural variation in
unrealistic optimism: Does the west feel more invulnerable
than the East? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
68, 595-607.doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.4.595.
[11] Karney, B. R., & Coombs, R. H. (2000). Memory bias in
long-term close relationships: Consistency or improvement?
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 959-970.doi:
10.1177/0146167200261000.
[12] Karney, B. R., & Frye, N. E. (2002). “But we’ve been getting
better lately”: Comparing prospective and retrospective views
of relationship development. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 82, 222-238.doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.
82.2.222.
[13] Kearns, J. N., & Fincham, F. D. (2005). Victim and
perpetrator accounts of interpersonal transgressions:
Self-serving or relationship-serving biases? Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 321-333.doi: 10.1177/01461
67204271594.
[14] Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Masaru, K. (2000). Culture,
emotion, and well-being: Good feelings in Japan and the
United States. Cognition & Emotion, 14, 93-124.doi:
10.1080/026999300379003.
[15] Kraft, R. N. (2009). The magnitude gap: Revealing
differences in recall between victims and perpetrators. In M.
R. Kelley (Ed.), Applied Memory, (pp. 147-166). Hauppauge,
NY, US: Nova Science Publishers.
[16] Kwan, V. S., Bond, M. H., & Singelis, T. M. (1997).
Pancultural explanations for life satisfaction: Adding
relationship harmony to self-esteem. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 73, 1038-1051.doi: 10.1037/0022-35
14.73.5.1038.
[17] Leary, M. R., Tate, E. B., Adams, C. E., Batts, A. A., Hancock,
J. (2007). Self-compassion and reactions to unpleasant
self-relevant events: The implications of treating oneself
kindly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92,
887-904.doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.887.

International Journal of Applied Psychology 2014, 4(5): 188-195 195
[18] Levine, L. J. (1995). Young children’s understanding of the
causes of anger and sadness. Child Development, 66, 697-709.
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00899.x.
[19] Lilgendahl, J. P., McLean, K. C., & Mansfield, C. D. (2013).
When is meaning making unhealthy of the self? The roles of
neuroticism, implicit theories, and memory telling in trauma
and transgression memories. Memory, 21, 79-96.doi:
10.1080/09658211.2012.706615.
[20] McAdams, D. P. (2001).The psychology of life stories.
Review of General Psychology, 5, 100-122.doi: 10.1037/
1089-2680.5.2.100.
[21] Mikula, G., Athenstaedt, U., Heschgl, S., & Heimgartner, A.
(1998). Does it only depend on point of view?
Perspective-related differences in justice evaluations of
negative incidents in personal relationships. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 931-962.doi: 10.1002/
(SICI)1099-0992(1998110)28:6<931:AID-EJSP904>3.0.CO
;2-5.
[22] Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (1993). Seeing virtues in faults:
Negativity and the transformation of interpersonal narratives
in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 65, 707-722.doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.707.
[23] Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffen, D. W. (1996). The
benefits of positive illusions: idealizations and the
construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 79-98.doi: 10.1037/
0022-3514.70.1.79.
[24] Nelson, K. (1993). The psychological and social origins of
autobiographical memory. Psychological Science, 4, 7-14.doi:
10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00548.x.
[25] Ross, M., Heine, S. J., Wilson, A., & Sugimori, S. (2005).
Cross-cultural discrepancies in self-appraisals. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1175-1188. doi:
10.1177/0146167204274080.
[26] Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it?
Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069-1081.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069.
[27] Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2008). Know theyself and
become what you are: A Eudaimonic approach to
psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9,
13-39.doi: 10.1007/s10902-006-9019-0.
[28] Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., Toguchi, Y. (2003). Pancultural
self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84, 60-79.doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.60.
[29] Sedikides, C., & Gregg, A. P (2003). Portraits of the self. In
M.A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), Sage handbook of social
psychology. London: Sage.
[30] Silverman, I. (1964). Self-esteem and differential
responsiveness to success and failure. The Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69, 115-110.doi: 10.1037/
h0039858.
[31] Stillweli, A., M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). The
construction of victim and perpetrator memory: Accuracy and
distortion in role-based accounts. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1157-1172.doi:10.1177/014616729
72311004.
[32] Takaku, S., Green, J., D., & Ohbuchi, I. (2010).
Cross-national examination of the perpetrator-victim account
estimation bias as a function of different types of accounts.
Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 274-285.doi:
10.1111/j.1467-839X. 2010.01319.x.
[33] Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being:
A social psychological perspective on mental health.
Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.doi: 10.1037/0033-290
9.103.2.193.
[34] Wang, Q. (2003). Emotion situation knowledge in American
and Chinese preschool children and adults. Cognition &
Emotion, 17, 725-746.doi: 10.1080/02699930302285.
[35] Wang, Q. (2013). The autobiographical self in time and
culture. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
[36] Wang, Q. & Conway, M. A. (2004). The stories we keep:
Autobiographical memory in American and Chinese
middle-aged adults. Journal of Personality, 72, 911-938.doi:
10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00285.x.
[37] Wilson, A. E., & Ross, M. (2001). From chump to champ:
People’s appraisals of their earlier and present selves. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 572-584.doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.80.4.572.
[38] Wilson, A. E., & Ross, M. (2003). The identity function of
autobiographical memory: Time is on our side. Memory, 11,
137-149.doi: 10.1080/741938210.
[39] Yashima, Y., Yamaguchi, S., Kim, U., Choi, S., Gelfand, M.
J., & Yuki, M. (1995). Culture, gender, and self: A
perspective from individualism-collectivism research.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,
925-937.doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.925.