Inclusion of theory‐relevant moderators yield the same conclusions as Sedikides, Gaertner, and Vevea (2005): A meta‐analytical reply to Heine, Kitayama, and Hamamura (2007)

2007/03/26 by Constantine Sedikides, Lowell Gaertner, Jack L. Vevea · 3 citations
Psychology · Social Sciences · Mathematics · #Cultural Differences and Values #Social and Intergroup Psychology #International Student and Expatriate Challenges #Moderation #Psychology #Meta-analysis #Collectivism #Inclusion (mineral) #Dimension (graph theory) #Social psychology #Individualism #Mathematics #Internal medicine

paper · pdf · doi:10.1111/j.1467-839x.2007.00212.x

openalex publication_date 2007/03/26 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/02

Abstract

Heine, Kitayama and Hamamura (2007) attributed the Sedikides, Gaertner and Vevea (2005) findings to the exclusion of six papers. We report a meta‐analysis that includes those six papers. The Heine et al . conclusions are faulty, because of a misspecified meta‐analysis that failed to consider two moderators central to the theory. First, some of their effect sizes originated from studies that did not empirically validate comparison dimensions. Inclusion of this moderator evidences pancultural self‐enhancement: Westerners enhance more strongly on individualistic dimensions, Easterners on collectivistic dimensions. Second, some of their effect sizes were irrelevant to whether enhancement is correlated with dimension importance. Inclusion of this moderator evidences pancultural self‐enhancement: Both Westerners and Easterners enhance on personally important dimensions. The Sedikides et al . conclusions are valid: Tactical self‐enhancement is pancultural.

Citations

• Individual and collective processes in the construction of the self: Self-enhancement in the United States and self-criticism in Japan.
• Is there a universal need for positive self-regard?
• Divergent consequences of success and failure in Japan and North America: An investigation of self-improving motivations and malleable selves.
• Where Is the Evidence for Pancultural Self-Enhancement? A Reply to Sedikides, Gaertner, and Toguchi (2003).
• Portrait of the self-enhancer: Well adjusted and well liked or maladjusted and friendless?
• Pancultural self-enhancement.
• Inclusion of additional studies yields different conclusions: Comment on Sedikides, Gaertner, & Vevea (2005), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
• Cultural variation in unrealistic optimism: Does the West feel more vulnerable than the East?
• Pancultural self-enhancement reloaded: A meta-analytic reply to Heine (2005).
• Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology

Cited by

• Which studies test whether self‐enhancement is pancultural? Reply to Sedikides, Gaertner, and Vevea, 2007
• On Pancultural Self-Enhancement
• Self-enhancement [wikipedia]