Kuo-Shu Yang’s research while affiliated with Fo Guang University and other places

In a 1982 publication, Ng et al. surveyed the cultural values of select East Asian and Pacific Island nations. In 2002, this study repeated their work, using the same sampling frame, questionnaire, and collaborators, where possible. The authors also reclassified the 1982 and 2002 survey results using Schwartz's cultural-level value dimensions. Submission versus Dionysian values that differentiated the nations in 1982 continued to do so in 2002. Furthermore, nations that endorsed Mastery (and rejected Harmony) in 1982 experienced greater subsequent economic growth than did the other countries. Moreover, economic development in 1982 predicted ensuing changes in Submission versus Dionysian and Hierarchy versus Egalitarianism values. Richer nations tended to endorse Dionysian, Autonomy, and Egalitarianism, whereas poorer nations tended toward Submission, Embeddedness, and Hierarchy values. Overall, the results support both economic and cultural determinism and imply two opposing directions of cultural change.

In the present paper, a preliminary statement on the traditional-modern bicultural self in contemporary Taiwan was proposed and our presentation was organized in four parts. First, a theoretical and conceptual analysis was attempted to describe the emergence and composition of the traditional-modern bicultural self of the contemporary Taiwanese people. The cultural and social roots of such a bicultural self were explored, and its constituting elements delineated and their interrelations analyzed. Second, relevant empirical evidence pertaining to this particular model of the Chinese bicultural self was reviewed. Third, our present model was related and compared against various existing bicultural self models. Finally, directions and issues for future research on the Chinese bicultural self were discussed.

An academic movement to switch from Westernized Chinese psychology to an indigenized Chinese psychology in Chinese societies (Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China) has existed for about three decades. Indigenous-oriented Chinese psychologists have conducted serious indigenized research on about 50 different broad topics. Kuo-Shu Yang's conceptual and empirical analyses on 3 of them are briefly reviewed in this article: (a) Chinese familism, familization and pan-familism; (b) Chinese psychological traditionality and modernity; and (c) theoretical and empirical analyses of the Chinese self. On the first topic, an indigenized conceptual scheme for the psychological components of Chinese familism at the cognitive, affective, and intentional levels was proposed. On the basis of the framework, standardized familism scales were constructed and used to study the relationships among the major components at each psychological level, using Taiwan students and adults as participants. In addition, the process of familization, an important aspect of Chinese familism, and its ability to form pan-familism in outside-family organizations, is briefly analysed. On the second topic, Yang empirically found that Chinese psychological traditionality (T) and modernity (M) were two independent psychological syndromes, each with five factor-analytically identifiable oblique components. Two separate standardized assessment tools were developed and applied in various empirical studies involving T and M. One study revealed that most T factors only negligibly correlated with most M factors, indicating a general trend for the two sets of components to coexist with each other during the process of societal modernization. Finally, on the third topic, Yang developed a four-part theory of the Chinese self from an indigenized perspective, based upon his conception of social vs individual orientation. The theory proposed that the Chinese self is composed of four self subsystems, viz., individual-, relationship-, familistic(group)-, and other-oriented selves, differing from each other in many respects. Yang and associates have conducted a series of empirical studies to examine a number of testable hypotheses derived from the theory. Findings from these studies are basically supportive.

It was once assumed that the bedrock concepts of psychology held true for all the world’s peoples. More recently, post-modern approaches to research have expanded on these Western models, building a psychology that takes into account the sociopolitical, historical, religious, ecological, and other indigenous factors that make every culture, as well as every person as agents of their own actions. Indigenous and Cultural Psychology surveys psychological and behavioral phenomena in native context in various developing and developed countries, with particular focus on Asia. An international team of 28 experts clarifies culture-specific concepts (such as paternalism and the Japanese concept of amae), models integrative methods of study, and dispels typical misconceptions about the field and its goals. The results reflect culturally sound frames of reference while remaining rigorous, systematic, and verifiable. These approaches provide a basis for the discovery of true psychological universals. Among the topics featured: • Scientific and philosophical bases of indigenous psychology • Comparisons of indigenous, cultural, and cross-cultural psychologies • Socialization, parent-child relationship, and family • The private and public self: concepts from East Asia, Europe, and the Americas • Interpersonal relationships: concepts from East Asia, Europe,, and the U.S. • Factors promoting educational achievement and organizational effectiveness in Asia • The growth and indigenization of psychology in developing and developed countries • Are any values, attitudes, beliefs and traits universal? Cross-national comparisons • The potential for indigenous psychology to lead to a global psychology With this book, the editors have captured a growing field at a crucial stage in its evolution. Indigenous and Cultural Psychology benefits students and researchers on two levels, offering groundbreaking findings on understudied concepts, and signaling future directions in universal knowledge.

No abstract available.

Three objectives are addressed in the present study. First, the methodological and conceptual aspects of my long-term research program on psychological (individual) traditionality and modernity in Taiwan are briefly reviewed to provide a background for systematically responding to Kwang-Kuo Hwang's critique of the research program. Second, my reply to Hwang is made in terms of five major issues, viz. the methodological approach adopted, the theoretical or conceptual basis, the explanation of the discontinuity between individual traditionality and modernity, the semantic opposites and psychological opposites, and the conceptual evaluation of the traditionality and modernity items. Third, a plea is made for conducting more and better studies on individual traditionality and modernity in developing Asian countries. Methodological and theoretical issues are further discussed and clarified for the sake of conducting methodologically and theoretically sounder research in this area.

Maslow's theory of basic human needs is criticized with respect to two of its major aspects, unidimensional linearity and cross-cultural validity. To replace Maslow's linear theory, a revised Y model is proposed on the base of Y. Yu's original Y model. Arranged on the stem of the Y are Maslow's physiological needs (excluding sexual needs) and safety needs. Satisfaction of these needs is indispensable to genetic survival. On the left arm of the Y are interpersonal and belongingness needs, esteem needs, and the self-actualization need. The thoughts and behaviors required for the fulfillment of these needs lead to genetic expression. Lastly, on the right arm of the Y are sexual needs, childbearing needs, and parenting needs. The thoughts and behaviors entailed in the satisfaction of these needs result in genetic transmission. I contend that needs for genetic survival and transmission are universal and that needs for genetic expression are culture-bound. Two major varieties of culture-specific expression needs are distinguished for each of the three levels of needs on the left arm of the Y model. Collectivistic needs for interpersonal affiliation and belongingness, esteem, and self-actualization prevail in collectivist cultures like those found in East Asian countries. Individualistic needs are dominant in individualist cultures like those in North America and certain European nations. I construct two separate Y models, one for people in collectivist cultures and the other for those in individualist ones. In the first (the Yc model), the three levels of expression needs on the left arm are collectivistic in nature, whereas in the second (the Yi model), the three levels of needs on the left arm are individualistic in nature. Various forms of the double-Y model are formulated by conceptually combining the Yc and Yi models at the cross-cultural, crossgroup, and intra-individual levels. Research directions for testing the various aspects of the double-Y model are identified for comparisons at these three levels. Future studies theoretically guided by the double-Y model will enable us to systematically understand, at both aggregate and individual levels, the characteristics and interactions of expression and transmission needs, the characteristics and interactions of collectivistic and individualistic expression needs, and the dynamic processes involved in the transformation of needs from collectivistic to individualistic and vice versa under certain specific conditions. The double-Y model, as a whole, represents a serious, systematic attempt to theoretically and empirically integrate the biological and cultural influences on basic motivational states and propensities. Whether this model will eventually prove to be able to survive future empirical testing and conceptual revision remains to be seen. I must hasten to add, however, that there may be other potentially viable models that are worth being advanced in the future for accomplishing the same purpose of integrating the biological and cultural determinants of the formation, development, and function of human motivation.