Running Head: Cultural Discrepancies in Self-Appraisals           	Word Count: 9, 997

Cross-Cultural Discrepancies in Self-Appraisals
Michael Ross
University of Waterloo

Steven J. Heine
University of British Columbia

Anne E. Wilson
Wilfrid Laurier University

Shinkichi Sugimori

Gakugei University

Author Note:
	This research was supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada research grants to the first and second authors. We thank Irene Cheung for her help in conducting this research. Correspondence concerning this article can be addressed to Michael Ross, Dept. of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo ON Canada N2L 3G1. Email correspondence can be sent to mross@watarts.uwaterloo.ca

Key words: culture, self-enhancement, social comparisons, temporal comparisons, self-appraisals  

Abstract
Two studies examined self-appraisals in Japanese and Canadian samples. Study 1 included an extensive content analysis of open-ended self-descriptions and Study 2 incorporated indirect measures of self-enhancing tendencies. In Study 1, the findings across measures including spontaneous evaluations of self and others, reflected appraisals, temporal and social comparisons, and evaluations of objects and events revealed that Canadian participants provided self-enhancing self-descriptions, whereas Japanese participants were evenhanded, rather than self-critical or self-enhancing. In Study 2, Canadian participants reported that proud events felt closer in time and were easier to recall than embarrassing events that were as far away in actual time. Japanese participants reported that embarrassing and proud events felt equally far away and were equally memorable. The two studies provide compelling evidence that Canadians possess stronger self-enhancing motivations than do Japanese and enable a cross-cultural analysis of several social psychological theories of self-appraisal. 

Cross-Cultural Discrepancies in Self-Appraisals
One of the most striking findings reported by social psychologists studying cultural differences is that East Asian participants do not exhibit  the self-enhancing tendencies of their Western counterparts. For example, Heine and Renshaw (2002) found that American participants evaluated themselves more positively than they were evaluated by their peers, but that Japanese participants evaluated themselves less favorably than they were evaluated by their peers. Kitayama, Markus, Matsumoto, and Norasakkunkit (1997) asked American and Japanese college students to imagine how their self-esteem would be affected in various success and failure situations. Japanese participants rated failure situations as more relevant to their self-esteem; American participants assessed success situations as more pertinent to their self-esteem. In addition, Japanese participants viewed their self-esteem as changing more after failure than after success. American participants judged their self-esteem as changing more after success than after failure. These studies suggest that Japanese are more inclined than are their Western counterparts to focus on negative aspects of themselves. 
Cross-cultural theorists have offered the following explanation for the more self-critical stance of Japanese. Individuals in East Asian cultures are especially motivated to gain social acceptance and to cultivate and maintain social relationships (e.g., Ho, 1976; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). They adopt a critical orientation to identify aspects of themselves that might jeopardize their social acceptance. Once they identify such features they strive to improve themselves with the goal of ensuring that others will view them favorably (Heine, Kitayama, Lehman, Takata, Ide, Leung, & Matsumoto, 2001; Heine, Lehman, Markus, & Kitayama, 1999; Kitayama et al., 1997).   
Other researchers have argued that the observed cultural differences in self-enhancement are due to various experimental artifacts that have prevented researchers from detecting the self-enhancing motivations of East Asians. For example, some researchers have suggested that East Asians self-enhance in collectivistic domains or in domains that are more important to them (e.g., Sedikides, Gaertner, & Toguchi, 2003), that East Asians self-enhance by viewing their groups in unrealistically positive terms (e.g., Muramoto & Yamaguchi, 1997), or that East Asians feign modesty to conceal their true self-enhancing motivations (e.g., Kurman, 2003). 
In the current article, we report two new methodological approaches to the cross-cultural study of self-enhancing motivations. Most researchers examining self-enhancement biases across cultures have obtained participants’ responses to structured questionnaires that directly assess self-appraisals (e.g., Heine and Renshaw, 2002). Other researchers examined participants’ responses to hypothetical situations (e.g., Kitayama et al., 1997). Although such procedures allow researchers to exercise strong experimental control, the procedures also have drawbacks. Cultural differences in participants’ interpretations of items in structured questionnaires (Kanagawa, Cross, & Markus, 2001) and in their use of response scales (e.g., Chen, Lee, & Stevenson, 1995; Heine, Lehman, Peng, & Greenholtz, 2002) can make cross-cultural comparisons misleading. Also, responses to hypothetical scenarios might not reflect how people would actually respond in everyday life and could be particularly susceptible to self-presentational concerns. With hypothetical scenarios, the purpose of the study is often quite transparent and there is little cost to responding in a culturally “appropriate” fashion. 
In Study 1, we adopt an alternative research approach in which we elicit open-ended self-descriptions from participants. With open-ended self-descriptions, participants are freed from experimental constraints and can focus on aspects that they consider most relevant. In one of the few cross-cultural studies of self-enhancement to use open-ended assessments, Ross, Xun, and Wilson (2002) examined Chinese immigrants to Canada who were fluent in both English and Chinese (Mandarin or Cantonese). These participants were randomly assigned to complete an open-ended self-description in either English or Chinese. When writing in Chinese, Chinese-Canadian participants provided similar numbers of favorable and unfavorable statements about personal aspects of themselves. Chinese-Canadian participants writing in English and participants of European background  provided more favorable than unfavorable personal self-statements. Ross et al. suggested that use of the Chinese language activated the more self-critical East Asian identity in the Chinese-Canadian immigrant group. In contrast, use of the English language activated the more self-enhancing Western identity in the same group (Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martinez, 2000) . 
In Study 1, we investigated open-ended self-descriptions of Japanese and Canadian university students. Unlike Ross et al. who studied bicultural Chinese-Canadians, we compared students currently living in East Asia and North America. Bicultural  immigrants might not be representative of those who remained in their home country. Studies reveal that even students temporarily studying abroad respond differently to measures of self-identity than do students remaining at home (see Heine & Hamamura, 2004, for a review). As well, we conducted a more extensive content analysis of the descriptions than previous researchers. 
Furthermore, in Study 1 we explored a psychological process, temporal self-appraisal, which appears closely linked to self-enhancement. Wilson and Ross (2001a) observed that their Western participants were more critical of their past than of their current selves. Wilson and Ross argued that such retrospective criticism is motivated by a concern for self-enhancement. Individuals can be relatively pleased with their present self, because they regard it as superior to their former selves. Wilson and Ross obtained evidence that retrospective self-criticism is motivated by concerns for self-enhancement. Derogation of past selves is especially evident on important traits, occurs for self-appraisals but not for ratings of acquaintances, and is more pronounced among high than among low self-esteem individuals (Wilson & Ross, 2001b). 
Temporal self-appraisal has not yet been explored across cultures. Would Japanese participants also describe their current selves more favorably than they describe their former selves? If retrospective self-criticism is motivated primarily by concerns for self-enhancement, then Japanese might be no more disapproving of past than of current selves. In Study 1, we obtained descriptions of both former and present selves to determine whether both Japanese and Canadian participants viewed their current selves more favorably than their former selves.  
In Study 2, we took a more indirect approach to the study of self-enhancement. In studies reported by Ross and Wilson (2002), Western participants indicated that they felt farther away in time from earlier experiences with unfavorable implications for their current self-views than from equally distant experiences with flattering implications. For example, participants who performed poorly in a course felt more temporally distant from the course than did participants who performed well. This asymmetry in subjective time estimates occurs even when participants are first reminded of the exact date of the episode. According to Ross and Wilson, the asymmetry in judgments of subjective time reflects the motivation to maintain favorable self-regard. Individuals can attribute a subjectively distant failure to an inferior, former self  and dissociate their current self from blame. In contrast, people can continue to claim credit for former accomplishments by feeling temporally close to such episodes. Subjectively recent accomplishments “belong” to the present self almost as much as to an earlier self. In support of their contention that the temporal bias is motivated by concerns for self-enhancement, Ross and Wilson found that the bias was stronger among high self-esteem individuals (Ross & Wilson, 2002), and that the bias disappeared after participants were given opportunities to affirm their self-worth in a different domain (Wilson & Ross, 2002). 
If this motivational account of the bias in subjective time judgments is valid and if Japanese are not motivated to self-enhance, then Japanese participants should feel equally distant from uncomplimentary and flattering experiences when actual time is controlled for. In this indirect approach to the study of self-enhancement, we do not explicitly ask participants to provide self-appraisals. Estimates of subjective distance should be less vulnerable to self-presentational concerns, because the identity implications of participants’ responses are less obvious. Moreover, we side-step the problem of cross-cultural comparisons on structured scales, because our principal test of self-enhancement is within rather than between cultures. We expected Canadian participants to report that flattering past experiences feel subjectively closer than equally distant uncomplimentary earlier events. We expected Japanese participants to exhibit no systematic bias in their subjective time estimates. 
Study 1
We asked participants to describe what they were generally like and then we coded the open-ended self-descriptions for different indications of self-enhancement. First we coded the written descriptions for favorable and unfavorable self-evaluations. Canadian participants should spontaneously report a higher frequency of favorable self-appraisals and fewer unfavorable self-appraisals than would their Japanese counterparts. As well as describing what they were like at the time of the study, participants described what they were like three years earlier. We examined whether Japanese participants would reveal the retrospective self-criticism that Wilson and Ross (2001a) found with Canadian participants. By collecting two self-descriptions from each participant instead of one, we also obtained a richer data set. The variables we examine are not likely to appear spontaneously with great frequency in people’s self-descriptions; we cast a broader net by doubling the number of self-descriptions obtained from each participant. 
Second, we examined the descriptions for reports of reflected appraisals (statements that others evaluated them favorably or unfavorably). If East Asians are especially concerned about the evaluations of others, then Japanese participants should more readily access reflected appraisals from memory and report them more frequently than Canadian participants. In particular, Japanese participants should report a higher frequency of unfavorable reflected-appraisals if they are particularly concerned with identifying aspects of themselves that might hinder social acceptance. 
Third, we coded participants’ spontaneous favorable and unfavorable evaluations of others. Predictions are less clear-cut for appraisals of others than for self-appraisals. Conceivably, Canadian participants can depict themselves more favorably in their self-descriptions by derogating other people. Alternatively, perhaps Japanese participants are more critical in general, and therefore more disparaging of others, as well as themselves. In previous research using structured questionnaires, North Americans tend to be more positive about others than are East Asians (e.g., Endo, Heine, & Lehman, 2000; Heine & Renshaw, 2002).  
Fourth, we examined the social comparisons (contrasts to other people) and temporal comparisons (contrasts to earlier selves) reported by participants in their self-descriptions. There is little cross-cultural research on either type of comparison and little research on spontaneous comparisons, cross-cultural or not. Most comparisons are elicited in direct response to questions from researchers (Wilson & Ross, 2000; Wood, 1989). One advantage of such direct questioning is that participants are likely to produce comparisons. However, the answers participants can provide are constrained by the questions asked, and the experimenter’s interest in comparison is likely transparent to many participants.  
What cultural differences, if any, might we expect in the types of comparisons reported? With their more interdependent sense of self, East Asians might focus more on social comparisons than would their Western counterparts. In a recent study, White and Lehman (2004) found that, relative to European-Canadians, Asian-Canadians reported engaging more frequently in social comparisons. Also relative to European-Canadians, Asian-Canadians were more likely to seek social comparison after an experimentally induced mediocre performance on a task. In the current study, then, Japanese participants might focus more in their self-description on how they compare to others. Conversely, Canadian respondents, with their more individualistic orientation, might be more concerned with how they have changed over time. 
In the only published cross-cultural study to report a measure of spontaneous social and temporal comparisons, Ross et al. (2002) found no evidence of cultural differences in the self-descriptions of Chinese-Canadian and Euro-Canadians. However, cultural differences in spontaneous comparisons might be more evident in participants from more diverse cultural groups (e.g., those who have grown up and are living in different countries), rather than those who are investigated within the same country (Heine & Hamamura, 2004).
From the perspective of self-enhancement motivation, the important cultural predictions concern the direction rather than the overall frequency of comparisons. Comparisons can be upward (comparing to a superior other person or to a superior past self), downward (comparing to an inferior other person or to an inferior past self), or same-level (comparing to a similar other person or past self). When objective standards are lacking, individuals can best determine their status on various dimensions by invoking same-level comparisons (Albert, 1977; Festinger, 1954) and can best enhance their self-worth by engaging in downward comparisons (Wills, 1981; Wilson & Ross, 2000). Westerners are sometimes interested primarily in accurate self-assessment and at other times concerned with self-enhancement (Wills, 1981; Wilson & Ross, 2000; Wood, 1989). In the present study, then, Canadian participants can be expected to report both same-level and downward social and temporal comparisons (Wilson & Ross, 2000). East Asians have been characterized as self-critical (e.g. Kitayama et al., 1997). If this is the case, they may prefer upward comparisons. On the hand, if East Asians are interested in accurately assessing their flaws rather than simply being critical, they may prefer the possibly more informative same-level comparisons. From this perspective, it would seem that Japanese participants might focus on same-level or upward social and temporal comparisons. There is no direct research evidence to support this hypothesis, however. White and Lehman (2004) did not examine same-level comparisons. They did find that Asian-Canadians reported that upward social comparisons were more appropriate than did European-Canadian participants. Also, following a mediocre performance, Asian-Canadians who were prompted to make comparisons engaged in both more upward and downward social comparisons than did European-Canadians. Finally, Ross et al. obtained no cultural differences in the direction of temporal comparisons, when they compared the self-descriptions of Chinese-Canadians and Euro-Canadians.  
Finally, we coded the self-descriptions for two additional measures, participants’ spontaneous assessments of objects (e.g., possessions) and events (e.g., school activities, parties, etc.) in their lives. If as Prentice (1987) observed, the objects in one’s life serve a self-expressive function, then objects should be appraised similarly  to other aspects of self and Canadian participants should offer more favorable evaluations than their Japanese counterparts. These additional measures also enabled us to determine whether cultural differences in self-criticism reflect a more general orientation. We examined whether, relative to Canadians, Japanese participants are more critical only of the self, or whether they adopt a less positive outlook toward various aspects of their social and object world. 
Method
Participants
	The Canadian sample consisted of 125 students (88 women and 37 men) who were enrolled in introductory psychology courses at the University of Waterloo. They received course credit for taking part in the study. The Japanese sample consisted of 186 students (116 women, 65 men, and 5 who did not report their gender) who were enrolled in introductory psychology courses at  Tokyo University.  The average age was 19.26 for Canadian participants and 19.10 for Japanese participants. The two samples did not differ in gender distribution,  X 2(1, N = 306) = 1.33, or in the age of participants, F = 1.26.
Procedure
	Participants provided an open-ended description of themselves at two points in time—now, and when they were 16 years of age. Half of the participants described their current selves first, whereas the other half described their 16-year-old self first. For most participants, the 16-year-old self was about three years earlier, though there was some range depending on participants’ current age. Participants were provided with the following instructions regarding how they should describe themselves: “In this study, we are interested in how people describe themselves at different points in time. You will be asked to describe yourself by writing about yourself in the spaces provided. You may write about anything, for example memories of your behaviors, thoughts, emotions, or events that seem relevant to you in describing yourself accurately at each point in time. Please provide an honest and detailed self-description that fills up as much of the space provided as possible.” 
Coding Scheme  
The Japanese self-descriptions were translated into English by a Japanese-Canadian research assistant and checked for accuracy by an independent translator. Any comments that would allow a reader to infer home country (e.g., names of universities or cities) were deleted from the descriptions. Prior to coding, the descriptions were parsed into idea units. An idea unit is a phrase that communicates one complete idea, action, thought, feeling, or detail. Each idea unit was coded for the presence or absence of four types of appraisals: self-appraisals (e.g., “I was a good student.”), reflected appraisals (e.g., “My teacher thought I was fooling around too much”), evaluations of other people (e.g., “My classmates were all kind”), and evaluations of events and objects (“I disliked school very much.”) The valence of the appraisals was also noted (favorable, unfavorable). 
Initially, events and objects were coded separately, but the two categories were combined for purposes of analysis because of their infrequency. We originally included a neutral category for the various appraisals. Except in the case of reflected appraisals, however, use of the neutral category was so rare that it did not warrant further analysis.  
We also coded social comparisons and their direction: for example, “I was rather more intelligent than the people in my class” was coded as downward, “At 16 I was typically like most other 16-year-olds” was coded as same-level, and “I often feel very immature, compared to others like my friends” was coded as upward. Similarly temporal comparisons and their direction were coded: for example, “I express my intentions in public more now” was coded as downward, “I don’t feel like I have changed much since I was 16” was coded as same-level, and “I feel that I am becoming less and less mature” was coded as upward.
Reliability of Coding
	The self-descriptions were coded in a random order by 4 assistants, two bilingual Japanese and two Canadians. Two of the assistants each coded 180 self-descriptions, while the remaining 2 each coded 80. Self-descriptions were randomly assigned to coders. To establish the reliability of the coding, we had a random 40 self-descriptions (10 age sixteen and 10 current self-descriptions from Japanese participants and the same number from Canadian participants) coded by all 4 assistants. Reliability is based on the total number of entries in each coding category in each self-description. We obtained a measure of inter-rater reliability for each coding category, across the 4 assistants. Cronbach’s alphas are reported along with the data analysis.
Results
In a preliminary analysis, we examined the number of words in the self-descriptions. Canadian and Japanese participants wrote about the same number of words per self-description (Ms = 85.09, 84.47, respectively, F <1) and wrote more words in their current self-descriptions (M = 88.95) than in their age 16 self-descriptions (M = 80.61), F(1, 298) = 22.40, p < .0001. As well, women wrote more words (M = 90.72) than did men (M = 78.85), F(1, 298) = 8.79, p = .003. To control for individual differences in length of description, we divided the raw frequencies for all measures by the number of words in a person’s self-description (number of words at each age) and multiplied by 100. 
A preliminary analysis revealed few effects for the gender of the participants. Unless noted otherwise, the effects reported are unqualified by gender differences and results are reported collapsed across men and women. Most analyses included age (self-description for age 16 vs. current age) and valence (favorable vs. unfavorable) as repeated-measures factors; order of self-description (age 16 self-description written before vs. after current self-description) and participants’ country (Japan vs. Canada) were between-subjects factors. The analysis of reflected appraisals included neutral as well as favorable and unfavorable appraisals. 
Self-Appraisals
The inter-rater agreement was high for unfavorable and favorable self-appraisals (α = .97 and .94, respectively). A significant main effect for valence, F(1, 307) = 37.65, p < .0001, was qualified by a significant Valence X Country interaction, F(1, 307) = 58.35, p < .0001. The interaction revealed that Canadian participants reported a higher number of favorable than unfavorable self-appraisals, F(1, 123) = 78.55, p < .0001; in contrast, Japanese participants reported nonsignificantly more negative than positive self-appraisals, F(1, 184) = 1.42 (see Table 1 for means on the various appraisal measures). Canadian participants reported a higher number of favorable, F(1, 307) = 39.02, p < .0001, and fewer unfavorable, F(1, 307) = 25.90, p < .0001, self-evaluations than did their Japanese counterparts. Compared to Japanese participants, then, Canadian participants spontaneously described themselves using more favorable and fewer unfavorable evaluations.
Analyses of self-appraisals also revealed a significant Age X Valence interaction, F(1, 307) = 6.87, p = .01. Participants reported a higher number of favorable evaluations in their current self-appraisals than in their retrospective, age 16 self-appraisals (Ms = 4.69 and 4.11 respectively), F(1, 307) = 4.98, p < .03. Participants also reported fewer unfavorable evaluations in their current self-appraisals than in their age 16 self-appraisals (Ms = 2.60 and 3.11), F(1, 307) = 5.12, p = .02. The triple interaction involving age, valence, and country approached significance, F(1, 307) = 2.75, p = .10.
In light of our specific interest in how the self-appraisals of Japanese and Canadian participants differed by age and valence, we conducted additional analyses separately within the Japanese and Canadian samples. Within the Canadian sample, a significant Age X Valence interaction, F(1, 123) = 7.59, p < .01, replicated the Wilson and Ross (2001a) finding that favorable evaluations were more common in current than in retrospective self-descriptions (Ms = 5.96 vs. 5.00, SDs = .36 vs. .40) F(1, 123) = 4.98, p < .03), and unfavorable evaluations were less common in current descriptions (Ms = 1.60 vs. 2.43, SDs = .30 vs. .19), F(1, 123) = 6.04, p < .02. Within the Japanese sample, the Age X Valence interaction did not approach significance, F (1, 184) < 1.  Japanese participants reported nonsignificantly more favorable evaluations for the current (M = 3.42) than for the past (M = 3.21) self, as well as nonsignificantly fewer negative evaluations for the current self (M current self = 3.59, M  past self = 3.79), Fs < 1. Thus, the general age trends are similar across the two cultures, but the magnitude of the difference is greater for Canadian participants. Only Canadian participants showed a significant tendency to appraise the current self more favorably. 
Reflected Appraisals 
	Reflected appraisals are participants’ statements about how others view them. The inter-rater agreement was moderate for unfavorable, neutral, and favorable reflected appraisals (α = .62, .70, and .67, respectively). Relative to Canadian participants (M = .08), Japanese participants (M =.14) reported a higher number of reflected appraisals, F(1, 307) = 5.92, p < .02. This pattern is consistent with a greater orientation on the part of Japanese towards adhering to others’ standards. The Valence X Country interaction was also significant, F(2, 306) = 3.00, p = .05. Canadian and Japanese participants reported the same number of favorable reflected appraisals (Ms = .10 and .10, SDs = .03 and .03), but Japanese participants provided a higher number of neutral (Ms = .07 and .18, SDs = .03 and .03), F(1, 307) = 6.90, p < .01, and negative (Ms = .06 and .16, SDs = .03 and .02), F(1, 307) = 6.27, p = .01, reflected appraisals. The reflected appraisal findings support the hypothesis that Japanese are more concerned than their Canadian counterparts with identifying aspects of themselves that might hinder social acceptance.
Appraisals of Other People
	The inter-rater agreement was high for unfavorable and favorable appraisals of other people (α = .90 and .91). As with self-appraisals, the Valence X Country interaction was significant, F(1, 307) = 10.55, p = .001, but Canadian participants showed quite a different pattern of responding than they did for self-appraisals. When spontaneously evaluating others, Canadian participants were more likely to report negative than favorable appraisals, F(1, 123) = 9.10, p = .003, a reversal of the pattern for self-appraisals. Again Japanese participants were more evenhanded, reporting equivalent numbers of favorable and negative appraisals, F < 1. Comparing across countries, only the frequency of negative appraisals differed. Canadian participants were more likely to report disparaging evaluations of other people than were Japanese participants, F(1, 307) = 18.62, p < .0001. Significant main effects for valence, F(1, 307) = 6.58, p = .01, and country, F(1, 307) = 13.79, p < .0001, were qualified by the Valence X Country interaction. In sum, Canadians tended to view others in rather critical terms, especially in comparison to how they evaluated themselves. Japanese, in contrast, rated others in a evenhanded way, much as they had evaluated themselves.  
	One reason that Japanese and Canadian participants might offer differing appraisals of other people is that the two groups included different types of people in their descriptions. To assess this possibility, we examined the self-descriptions of a random 19 Canadian participants and 18 Japanese participants. Chi Square analyses revealed no significant differences in the types of people reported across the two cultures. The three most common categories of people mentioned by individuals in both cultures were general others, such as classmates or university students (mentioned by 28 participants), specific peers or acquaintances (27 participants), and friends (18 participants). A few additional individuals included family (7 participants) and romantic partners (5 participants) in their self-descriptions.  
Comparisons
In the analyses of social and temporal comparisons, direction of comparison (upward, same-level, downward) was a repeated-measures factor. The inter-rater agreement was high for social comparisons (upward, α = .94, same-level, α = .86, and downward, α = .91), as well as temporal comparisons (upward, α = .76, same-level, α = .82, and downward, α = .88). The means for social comparisons are presented in Table 2 and those for temporal comparisons in Table 3.
Canadian participants reported more social comparisons than did their Japanese counterparts (Ms = .89 vs. .49, SDs = .07 vs. .06), F (1, 298) = 19.65, p < .0001. A main effect for direction of comparison, F (2, 297) = 29.19, p < .0001, was qualified by a Direction X Country interaction, F (2, 297) = 11.31, p < .0001. For Canadian participants, the frequency of downward and same-level comparisons did not differ significantly, F (1, 121) = 1.89, and both of these types of comparisons were more common than upward comparisons, F(1, 121) = 22.81, p < .0001 (downward vs. upward comparison) and F(1, 121) = 27.63, p < .0001 (same-level vs. upward comparison). For Japanese participants, the frequency of same-level comparisons exceeded both downward comparisons, F(1, 177) = 7.71, p = .006, and upward comparisons, F(1, 177) = 10.23, p = .002, which did not differ significantly from each other, F < 1. Relative to Japanese participants, Canadian participants reported more same-level, F (1, 298) = 4.82, p = .03 and downward comparisons, F (1, 298) = 27.79, p < .0001, but about the same number of upward comparisons, F <1. Finally, men (M = .78) tended to reported more social comparisons than did women (M = .60), F (1, 298) = 3.67, p = .06.  
	Canadian participants also reported more temporal comparisons than did Japanese participants, F (1, 298) = 17.80, p < .0001. A significant main effect for direction of comparison, F (2, 297) = 19.82, p < .0001, was qualified by a Country X Direction interaction, F (2, 297) = 6.82, p = .001. The findings are strikingly similar to those obtained for social comparisons. Canadian participants reported about the same number of downward and same-level temporal comparisons, F < 1, and more downward, F(1, 121) = 15.94, p < .0001, and same-level temporal comparisons, F(1, 121) = 6.98, p = .01, than upward temporal comparisons. Japanese participants reported more same-level than downward, F( 1, 177) = 18.24, p < .0001, and upward comparisons, F(1, 177) = 27.73, p < .0001, which did not differ significantly in frequency from each other,  F(1, 177) = 1.11.  
Men (M = .55, SD = .08) reported more temporal comparisons than did women (M = .27, SD = .05), F (1, 298) = 8.70, p = .003. However, the Country X Gender interaction was also significant, F(1, 298) = 5.22, p =.02. The gender difference was greater among Canadian participants (men, M  = .86 and SD = .13; women, M = .36  and SD =  .08) than among their Japanese counterparts (men, M = .24 and SD = .09; women, M = .18 and SD = .07). Finally, an Age X Country interaction, F(1, 298) = 7.06, p = .008, revealed that although participants in both countries reported more temporal comparisons in their current self-description (Japanese, M = .26 and SD = .07; Canadian, M = .78 and SD = .09) than in their age 16 self-descriptions (Japanese, M = .17 and SD = .06; Canadian, M = .44 and SD = .07), the increase was more dramatic among Canadian participants. 
In sum, Canadian participants tended to avoid upward comparisons; in contrast, Japanese participants were more evenhanded, but were particularly inclined to report same-level comparisons. This pattern was observed for both social and temporal comparisons.
Appraisals of Events and Objects
	The inter-rater agreement was moderate for unfavorable and favorable appraisals of objects and events (α = .64 and.79, respectively). The means appear in Table 1. A significant Valence X Country interaction, F(1, 307) = 29.42, p < .0001, revealed that Canadian participants were more likely to report positive than negative evaluations of events and objects, F(1, 123) = 23.87, p < .0001; in contrast, Japanese participants reported comparable numbers of positive and negative evaluations, F(1, 184) = 2.15. Japanese and Canadian descriptions differed only in the number of favorable appraisals: Canadian participants reported more favorable appraisals of objects and events than did their Japanese counterparts, F(1, 307) = 15.76, p < .0001. A main effect for valence, F(1, 307) = 29.42, p < .0001, was qualified by the Valence X Country interaction. In sum, Canadians were more enthusiastic than were Japanese about the events and objects that they reported in their self-descriptions.
Discussion
The findings are quite consistent and the bottom line is clear. Canadian participants provided self-enhancing self-descriptions; Japanese participants did not. The Japanese pattern of responding is perhaps best depicted as evenhanded, rather than self-critical or self-enhancing. Canadian participants provided more favorable than unfavorable self-appraisals. Japanese participants presented as many unfavorable  as favorable self-appraisals. As well, Wilson and Ross’s (2001a) finding that individuals evaluate their present selves more favorably than their earlier selves was replicated among Canadian but not Japanese participants. This result is consistent with Wilson and Ross’s claim that retrospective self-criticism  is motivated primarily by concerns for (current) self-enhancement. Among those with a weaker self-enhancing orientation, such as those with low self-esteem (Wilson & Ross, 2001b) or those from East Asian backgrounds (Heine & Hamamura, 2004), past and present selves are evaluated in the same way.
We also found that the cultures differed in the content of their explicit social and temporal comparisons. Canadian participants made comparisons that could serve both enhancement and accuracy goals: they were as likely to engage in flattering downward comparisons as in the possibly more enlightening same-level comparisons. Again Japanese participants were not overly self-critical—they did not emphasize unflattering upward comparisons Rather, their comparisons seem to reflect  a concern with accurate self-appraisal, as they reported  a predominance of same-level comparisons, and relatively few upward or downward comparisons. Interestingly, the pattern is identical for social and temporal comparisons within each cultural group, supporting Albert’s contention (1977) that the two kinds of comparison serve similar functions. 
We obtained cultural differences in self-enhancement with open-ended descriptions, whereas previous researchers had used closed-ended descriptions or Likert scale responses. Conceivably, biases in the content of items could explain the cultural differences in self-enhancement in previous studies (Sedikides et al., 2003). This alternative explanation can not readily account for the present finding that cultural differences in self-enhancement occur when participants are free to describe themselves using their own words. 
 There was one exception to the finding that Canadian participants provided more flattering evaluations than did Japanese participants. Canadian participants were more likely to evaluate other people negatively, suggesting that Canadians’ views of their social world are not entirely Panglossian.  This result does not replicate an earlier study by Endo et al. (2000) in which Japanese evaluated others as well selves more negatively than did Canadian participants. The two studies differ in several important ways, however. Endo et al. asked participants to evaluate their best friend, closest family member, and romantic partner on a series of close-ended scales. In the present study, participants could choose which other people (if any) they wished to include in their self-descriptions, as well as whether or not to evaluate them. In writing their self-descriptions, Canadian participants appeared to include individuals who made them look better, in their own eyes, at least. By contrast, Japanese participants showed no similar self-serving tendency.  
The observed difference between the appraisals of objects or events and the appraisals of other people is intriguing. The general pattern of more favorable evaluations by Canadian participants was present in evaluations of objects and events. This result likely indicates that the objects and the events in one’s life serve a self-expressive function and are therefore appraised in a manner similar to other aspects of self (Prentice, 1987). As well, to praise the belongings and events in one’s life probably has no negative implications for self-appraisal and may even have positive connotations, suggesting perhaps that one is clever or lucky. By comparison, emphasizing the virtues of other people might serve to highlight one’s own inadequacies. 
Study 2
	In Study 1, participants’ open-ended self-descriptions were anonymous and confidential. Nonetheless, participants were aware that the descriptions would be read and presumably evaluated in some way by researchers. The norms of self-description that guide public self-representations might differ among cultures. Thus one might ask whether the results of Study 1 reflect cultural differences in the motivation to self-enhance or different norms of self-description among cultures (Kurman, 2003; Wang and Ross, in press). Conceivably, during socialization in a culture, individuals learn a "model" of what a self-description should be like (e.g., more or less self-aggrandizing). This model might create a type of “response bias" in self-descriptions, whether or not the descriptions are anonymous and confidential.
In a second study, we used a different, indirect measure of self-enhancement to examine cultural differences. We did not ask participants explicitly to describe or evaluate themselves. Instead, we obtained their estimates of the subjective temporal distance of past events that caused them to feel either proud or embarrassed. Following Ross and Wilson (2002), we expected Canadian participants to report feeling more temporally distant from embarrassing events than from proud ones. According to Ross and Wilson, such differences in judgments of subjective time reflect the motivation to maintain favorable self-regard. If Japanese participants are less concerned with self-enhancement, they should be less likely to exhibit this temporal bias. 
We also examined participants’ reports of the ease with which they could recall the embarrassing and proud events. Ross and Wilson (2002) found that participants’ judgments of ease of recall mirrored their estimates of subjective distance: participants reported that embarrassing events were harder to recall and felt farther away than equally distant proud events. Ross and Wilson suggested that their Canadian participants tended to think more often about their self-enhancing achievements than about their self-deflating embarrassments, and that as result of this differential rehearsal they reported better recall of proud than of embarrassing events (Betz & Skowronski, 1997; Schacter, 1996; Thompson, 1982; Thompson, Skowronski, Larsen, & Betz, 1996). Ross and Wilson also found that subjective distance and ease of recall were only moderately correlated (hard-to-recall events felt more distant than more memorable events) and that the temporal bias in subjective distance remained when ease of recall was statistically controlled in the analysis. They concluded that the two biases are complementary indications of people’s efforts to enhance and maintain their self-esteem. We expected the judgments of Canadian participants in the current study to replicate the Ross and Wilson finding of better recall of proud events. If Japanese participants are less concerned with self-enhancement and more inclined to focus or ruminate on their negative features, then, if anything, they might report superior recall of the embarrassing incidents. 
Method
Participants
	The Canadian sample consisted of 195 students (139 females, 54 males, and 2 who did not report their gender) enrolled in a social psychology course at the University of British Columbia. The average age of the sample was 21.0 years old. The Japanese sample consisted of 87 students (59 females and 28 males) enrolled in an introductory psychology course at Tokyo University. The Japanese participants were, on average, 20.2 years old. The samples did not differ in their gender proportions, χ2(1, N = 280) = .512, ns, but the Canadian participants were older, on average, than the Japanese, F(1, 278) = 4.32, p < .04.
Materials
	Participants completed a brief survey that asked them to consider an event that had happened to them in the past. Half of the participants were instructed to recall an event that made them feel particularly proud, and the other half were asked to recall an event that made them feel especially embarrassed. For example, participants in the proud condition were asked:  “Think of an occasion since the end of high school when you did something that made you feel quite proud (e.g., a special achievement or kind act). Briefly describe the event.” Participants in the embarrassing condition were asked to briefly describe an embarrassing event that occurred during the same time period. 
Participants then rated how proud or embarrassed the event made them feel on an 11-point scale (1 = slightly, 11 = very much), and how close or distant they felt from the event. The temporal distance question was posed as follows: “Past experiences may feel quite close or far away, regardless of how long ago they actually occurred. Think about the incident you described above. Place a mark through the lines below at the points that best indicates how far away the incident feels to you.” Participants placed marks through two 180 mm lines. The first line had endpoints labeled feels very close and feels very distant; the second line had endpoints labeled feels very near and feels very far away. Participants then reported on 11-point scales how easy or hard it was for them to remember the incident (1 = very easy, 11 = very hard), how personally important the event was to them when the event originally occurred, and how personally important the event was to them at the time of the study  (1 = not at all important, 11 = very important). Finally participants indicated when they graduated from high school, estimated  when the event actually occurred, and reported their age and gender.  
Results
Unless noted otherwise, the data were submitted to a Country (Japan vs. Canada) X Condition (proud vs. embarrassing event) X Gender of participant ANOVA. Because the Canadian participants were older than the Japanese, we entered the age of participants as a covariate in the analyses. The sample sizes vary somewhat across the different measures, as some participants failed to complete all of the measures. Participants were excluded from the analyses only for measures they did not complete. 
A preliminary analysis on participants’ reports of the actual date of the events revealed only a significant main effect for country. Canadian participants reported events that were farther away (M = 16.96 months, SD = 1.09) than were the events reported by Japanese participants (M = 11.41 months, SD = 1.51), F (1, 253) = 8.88, p = .003. We included participants’ reports of the number of months since the events occurred as a covariate in the analyses reported below. We thus controlled for participants’ reports of the actual time of the events in all of the analyses. 
Subjective Temporal Distance
Participants’ responses to the two subjective distance questions were averaged, prior to the analyses.1 As in previous studies (Ross & Wilson, 2002), there was a relatively small but significant relation between subjective and actual temporal distance of past events: in the Canadian sample, r(158) = .24, p = .002;  in the Japanese sample, r(83) = .21, p = .06. The ANOVA on the subjective distance estimates revealed a significant main effect for country, F(1, 229) = 28.57, p < .0001 and a Country X Condition interaction, F(1, 229) = 3.87, p = .05. The adjusted means for the analyses are shown in Table 4.  In general the events felt closer to Japanese (M = 58.80) than to Canadian participants (M = 85.91). More important, the Country X Condition interaction revealed that Canadian participants felt closer to proud events than to embarrassing events, F (1, 150) = 17.07, p < .0001, but that Japanese participants felt equidistant from their proud and embarrassing events, F < 1.  
We also examined the types of events reported by Japanese and Canadian participants. In general, the individual events reported were similar in the two samples, with proud events including excelling at school and athletics, and embarrassing events including falling down, vomiting, and telling a joke that no one else found funny. At a more general level, we examined whether the events tended to be self-focused or other-focused, or both. A fluently bilingual Japanese-Canadian research assistant classified each event into one these three categories. To assess the reliability of the classification, we had a second coder classify the events reported by Canadian participants. Percent agreement between the two coders was 78%, with most of the disagreements in the “both” category. The first coder’s classifications were used for the analyses. Almost all of the embarrassing events (90%) were coded as other-focused. Embarrassing events are other-focused in the sense that the presence of an audience is the major source of the embarrassment. Because of the lack of variability for embarrassing events, they were not assessed further. There was more variability regarding proud events. Proud events were sometimes self-focused in that they reflected individual achievements (e.g., “When I got into university”; “Started working, making my own money”; “Finishing a puzzle by myself”); proud events were sometimes other-focused in the sense that participants’ major source of pride came from doing something for other people (e.g., “I helped an elderly customer home when she fell in front of the restaurant”; “Went to another city on my own for two months to volunteer for an organization I valued”; “When I connected with a child and helped her open up”). In a small number of cases the event seemed to fall into both categories (e.g., “I led my team to victory”).    In the Canadian sample, 72% of the proud events were coded as self-focused, 18% as other-focused, and 10% as both. The results were quite different for the Japanese sample: 46% of the events were coded as self-focused, 48% were other-focused, and 6% were assigned to the both category. Considering just the two major categories, self and other-focused, the distribution of responses in Japanese and Canadian participants was significantly different, χ2(1, N = 250)  = 4.93, p < .03 (corrected for continuity).  
Next we reanalyzed the subjective distance data in the proud condition including the nature of the event , self vs. other-focused, as a factor (the data from the few participants reporting both were eliminated from this analysis). The effect for the nature of the event did not approach significance in either sample and does not qualify the results reported above. 
Ease of recall 
Controlling for actual time in months in the analysis, ease of recall was significantly related to subjective distance in both the Canadian, r (148) = .44, p  < .0001 and Japanese, r (79) = .34, p = .002, samples. Participants reported that their own hard-to-recall events felt more distant than their more memorable events. An ANOVA paralleling  the analyses for subjective distance was conducted on the ease of recall measure. Participants’ responses to the ease of recall question revealed a significant main effect for condition, F(1, 248) = 12.08, p = .001, and a Country X Condition interaction, F(1, 248) = 8.31,  p = .004. The ease of recall findings mirror the subjective distance results. Canadian participants reported that embarrassing events were harder to recall than proud events, F(1, 168) = 33.19, p < .0001; Japanese participants reported no difference in the ease of recalling embarrassing and proud events, F < 1. A significant  Country X Gender interaction, F(1, 248) = 3.90, p = .05, revealed that within the Japanese sample, women judged the events to be harder to recall than men did, (Ms = 5.36 vs. 3.96, SDs = .36 vs. .51), F (1, 78) = 3.86, p = .05; within the Canadian sample, gender was unrelated to ease of recall, F < 1. Next we reanalyzed the ease of recall data in the proud condition including the nature of the event (self vs. other-focused) as a factor. The effect for the nature of the event did not approach significance in either sample and does not qualify the results reported above. 
Finally, we reanalyzed the subjective distance data, controlling for ease of recall. The tendency for Canadian participants to feel closer to proud than to embarrassing events remains significant when ease of recall is controlled for,  F(1, 145) = 4.87,  p < .03, as does the tendency for Japanese participants to show no difference in the subjective distance of proud and embarrassing events, F < 1.  
Evaluations of the Events  
Participants evaluated the extent to which the events engendered pride or embarrassment, as well as the importance of the episodes. Compared to their Japanese counterparts, Canadian participants reported greater pride in response to proud events, F (1, 131) = 7.77, p = .006, and nonsignificantly less embarrassment in response to embarrassing events, F <1. The cultural difference in reactions to proud events is consistent with the earlier finding that Americans assess success situations as more pertinent to their self-esteem than do Japanese (Kitayama et al., 1997). Participants’ estimates of how important the event was to them when it occurred and how important it was to them at the time of the study were analyzed as repeated measures. A significant effect for condition, F(1, 257) = 138.12, p < .0001 revealed that participants judged proud (M = 8.12, SD = .20) events to be more important than embarrassing events (M = 4.61, SD  = .22). The Time X Condition interaction was also significant, F(1, 257) = 23.95, p < .0001. Embarrassing events were judged to be more important when they occurred (M = 6.10, SD = .28) than now (M = 3.12, SD = .26), F(1, 123) = 117.29,  p < .0001. The same pattern of results was found for proud results, although the trend was reduced (Ms = 8.73 vs.  7.51,  SDs = .21 vs. .25), F(1, 134) = 27.44, p < .0001. The tendency to regard proud events as having more enduring importance replicates a finding reported by Ross and Wilson (2002) and may well reflect reality. The embarrassments reported were fairly minor and their impact was probably relatively short-lived. More important, the events reported were equally important to Canadian and Japanese participants: the main effect for country and the Country X Condition interaction did not approach significance, Fs < 1.
Finally, we examined whether participants’ experience of pride in response to proud events varied, depending on whether the events were self or other-focused. The main effect for event focus and the Country X Focus interaction did not approach significance, Fs < 1. 
Discussion
Replicating findings reported by Ross and Wilson (2002), Canadian participants reported that proud events felt closer in time than embarrassing events that were equally far away (actual distance was statistically controlled). By subjectively distancing themselves from embarrassing events, Canadian participants can reduce the negative implications of the earlier events for their current self-regard. By feeling subjectively close to proud events, Canadian participants can continue to claim credit for the favorable outcomes. 
Canadian participants reported worse recall of embarrassing than proud events, again replicating a finding reported by Ross and Wilson (2002). The precise basis of this difference in ease of recall is uncertain. One likely possibility is that Canadian participants reminisced more frequently about their proud events, because thinking of these events is self-enhancing (Ross & Wilson, 2002).  As in Ross and Wilson, subjective distance and ease of recall were only moderately correlated. Also, the temporal bias in subjective temporal distance remained when ease of recall was statistically controlled in the analysis. The biases in subjective distance and ease of recall appear to be somewhat independent indications of Canadian participants’ efforts to maintain favorable self-views. 
Japanese participants’ assessments of subjective temporal distance and ease of recall were not significantly influenced by the valence of the recalled event. Japanese participants reported that embarrassing and proud events felt equally far away and were equally memorable. Again, Japanese participants seem to be evenhanded—reacting to embarrassing events very much as they respond to proud events. 
We also examined the degree to which the events reported were self or other-focused. Canadian participants tended to report proud events that were individual achievements, whereas Japanese participants reported both self-focused and other-focused events. This difference in focus, however, did not relate to the degree of pride engendered by the event in either sample or to any of the other measures. 
The findings from Study 2 would seem to contradict the hypothesis that cultural norms for modest self-presentation conceal an underlying self-enhancing motivation among Japanese (e.g., Kurman, 2003). Self-presentational norms for modesty would presumably not prevent people from reporting that proud events feel closer or easier to remember than embarrassing events. 
The evenhandedness of the Japanese participants might seem to imply that they base their subjective time estimates primarily on the actual timing of the event, rather than on such “irrelevant” features as event valence. However, Japanese participants’ subjective time estimates were only weakly correlated with their reports of the actual temporal distance of the events. Indeed, Japanese subjective time estimates were no more related to actual time than were the subjective time estimates of Canadian participants. Japanese reports of ease of recall were related to their subjective time estimates, but again rather modestly. Also the relation between ease of recall and subjective time was no stronger in the Japanese than in the Canadian sample. Our data are uninformative with respect to what additional factors might be influencing the subjective time estimates of Japanese participants. 
Conclusions
Study 2, and to a more limited extent Study 1, represent cross-cultural extensions of earlier research by Wilson and Ross (2001a; Ross and Wilson, 2002). The implications of the current findings for the Wilson and Ross research is mixed. On the one hand, the present studies indicate that the two phenomena identified by Wilson and Ross—derogation of past selves relative to present selves and biases in subjective time estimates—are not universal. At the very least, Japanese college students fail to exhibit these biases. On the other hand, we did replicate the earlier  findings in the Canadian samples. Moreover, the lack of cross-cultural generalization is consistent with Ross and Wilson’s theoretical analysis.  They suggested that both biases are motivated by a concern for self-enhancement. If the motivation to self-enhance is greatly reduced or absent in Japanese, then Japanese participants should not exhibit the biases.  
The results across the two studies provide compelling evidence that Canadians possess stronger self-enhancing motivations than do Japanese. The current studies address some challenges to the contention that enhancement goals differ across cultures. Because structured questionnaires might be interpreted differently across cultures and languages (Kanagawa et al., 2001), we collected open-ended self-descriptions in Study 1. By allowing participants to describe themselves spontaneously on whatever attributes they choose, we also address in part the concern that Asians might not self-enhance because they are often asked to evaluate attributes of greater value to Western society (e.g., Sedikides et al., 2003). Presumably participants in both countries were free to select the attributes and domains that they considered most pertinent to their self-appraisals. In Study 2, we used an indirect measure of self-enhancement to address the concern that Asians’ self-presentational concerns lead them to appear more modest than they actually feel (e.g., Kurman, 2003). It is unlikely that modesty pressures would influence participants’ reports of the subjective distance of past events. Although each of the current studies is vulnerable to some of the methodological critiques, taken together the two studies complement one another by addressing different concerns and demonstrating similar findings. 
The findings of the present studies do lead us to reconsider Westerners’ and East Asians’ precise motivations. Westerners are usually depicted as self-enhancing—meaning that they tend to possess inaccurately favorable views of themselves. Although the current data cannot compellingly speak to accuracy, the findings do indicate that our Western participants had quite favorable self-views. In contrast to Westerners, East Asians are often depicted as self-critical. Self-criticism could reflect an inaccurately harsh view of self or simply an accurate assessment of one’s flaws. If self-criticism serves the function of helping East Asians fit in with their social group, then accurate self-criticism in which individuals correctly identify shortcomings warranting improvement should be most useful. Again the current data do not address accuracy, but the evidence suggests that East Asians are not overly self-critical. Instead they tend to focus on both their strengths and their faults. They appear not to be interested in criticism for the sake of being critical, but rather in a balanced and accurate self-appraisal. 
Finally, the current studies illustrate the value of cross-cultural research for evaluating theories generated in a specific cultural context. Theories based on the premise that people are inclined to self-enhance – such as Ross and Wilson’s theory of temporal appraisal – are likely to be more applicable to North American participants. In contrast, Festinger’s theory of social comparison, with its focus on accurate self-appraisal, might be equally or more applicable to Japanese participants.  Generally, researchers should keep in mind the relative importance of different self-appraisal motivations across cultures when considering the generalizability of their theories. 

References
Albert, S. (1977). Temporal comparison theory. Psychological Review, 84, 485-503.
Betz, A. L., & Skowronski, J. J. (1997). Self-events and other-events: Temporal dating and event memory. Memory and Cognition, 25, 701-714.
Chen, C., Lee, S.-Y., & Stevenson, H. W. (1995). Response style and cross-cultural comparisons of rating scales among East Asian and North American students. Psychological Science, 6, 170-175.
Elliot, A. J., Chirkov, V. I., Kim, Y., & Sheldon, K. M. (2001).  A cross-cultural analysis of avoidance (relative to approach) personal goals. Psychological Science, 12, 505-510.
Endo, Y., Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R. (2000). Culture and positive illusions in relationships: How my relationships are better than yours. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1571-1586.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.
Heine, S. J. (in press-a). Constructing good selves in Japan and North America. In Culture and Social Behavior: The Tenth Ontario Symposium. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Heine, S. J. (in press-b). Where is the evidence for pancultural self-enhancement? Reply to Sedikides, Gaertner, and Toguchi (2003). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Heine, S. J. (2003).  Making sense of East Asian self-enhancement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 596-602.
Heine, S. J., Kitayama, S., Lehman, D. R., Takata, T., Ide, E., Leung, C., & Matsumoto, H. (2001). Divergent consequences of success and failure in Japan and North America: An investigation of self-improving motivations and malleable selves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 599-615.
Heine, S. J., & Hamamura, T. (2004). In search of East Asian self-enhancement. Manuscript under review.University of British Columbia.
Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review, 106, 766-794.
Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Peng, K., & Greenholtz, J. (2002). What's wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales? The reference-group problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 903-918.
Heine, S. J., & Renshaw, K. (2002). Interjudge agreement, self-enhancement, and liking: Cross-cultural divergences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 442-451.
Ho, D. Y. F. (1976). On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology, 81, 867-884.
Hong, Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000).  Multicultural minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition.  American Psychologist, 55, 705-720.
Kanagawa, C., Cross, S. E., & Markus, H. R. (2001). “Who am I?”: The cultural psychology of the conceptual self.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 90-103.
Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., Matsumoto, H., & Norasakkunkit, V. (1997). Individual and collective processes in the construction of the self: Self-enhancement in the United States and self-criticism in Japan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1245-1267.
Kurman, J. (2003). Why is self-enhancement low in certain collectivist cultures? An investigation of two competing explanations.  Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 496-510.
Lee, A. Y., Aaker, J. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). The pleasures and pains of distinct self-construals: The role of interdependence in regulatory focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1122-1134.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Muramoto, Y.,  & Yamaguchi, S. (1997). Another type of self-serving bias: Coexistence of self-effacing and group-serving tendencies in attribution in the Japanese culture. Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 65-75.
Prentice, D.A. (1987). Psychological correspondence of possessions, attitudes, and values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 993-1003.
Ross, M., Xun, W. Q. E., & Wilson, A. E. (2002). Language and the bicultural self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1040-1050.
Ross, M., & Wilson, A. E. (2002). It feels like yesterday: Self-esteem, valence of personal past experiences, and judgments of subjective distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 792-803
Schacter, D. L. (1996). Searching for memory: The brain, the mind, and the past. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., & Toguchi, Y. (2003). Pancultural self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 60-79.
Thompson, C. P. (1982). Memory for unique personal events: The roommate study. Memory and Cognition, 10, 324-332.
Thompson, C. P., Skowronski, J. J., Larsen, S. F., & Betz, A. (1996). Autobiographical memory: Remembering what and remembering when. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum. 
Wang, Q. & Ross, M. (in press). What we remember and what we tell: The effects of culture and self-priming on memory representations and narratives. Memory.
White, K., & Lehman, D. R. (2004). Culture and social comparison seeking: The role of self-motives. Manuscript under review. University of British Columbia.
Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward comparison principles in social psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 245-271.
Wilson, A. E., & Ross, M. (2000). The frequency of temporal-self and social comparisons in people's personal appraisals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 928-942
Wilson, A. E., & Ross, M. (2001a). From chump to champ: People's appraisals of their earlier and present selves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 572-584.
Wilson, A. E., & Ross, M. (2001b). Self-esteem moderates people's appraisals of their earlier and present selves. Unpublished data, University of Waterloo. 
Wilson, A. E., & Ross, M. (2002, February). Distancing the past. Poster presented at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Convention, Savannah, GA.
Wood, J. V. (1989). Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal attributes. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 231-248.

Footnotes
1 A number of participants from both cultures (20) chose to answer only one of these two questions, and their responses were not included in the analyses reported. The significance of the cultural differences is not affected if we include these participants’ single question responses in the analyses.

Table 1
Mean Number of Appraisals by Country and by Statement Valence
	Canada	                    Japan 	
Measure	Positive	Negative	Positive           	Negative	
Self-appraisals	5.48
(.27)	2.05
(.26)	3.28
(.22)	3.69
(.21)	
Evaluations of Other People	.64
(.07)	1.10
(.10)	.58
(.06)	.53
(.08)	
Evaluations of Events and Objects     	.86
(.09)	.29
(.05)	.40
(.07)	.31
(.04)	
Note. Standard deviations appear in parentheses. 

Table 2

Mean Number Social Comparisons by Country and by Direction of Comparison

Direction of Comparison	Canada	Japan	
Down	1.02
(.10)	.36
(.08)	
Same-Level	1.34
(.19)	.81
(.15)	
Up	.33
(.06)	.30
(.04)	
Note. Standard deviations appear in parentheses. 

Table 3
Mean Number of Temporal Comparisons by Country and by Direction of Comparison

Direction of Comparison	Canada	Japan	
Down	.74
(.11)	.13
(.08)	
Same-Level	.72
(.08)	.42
(.07)	
Up	.38
(.09)	.08
(.07)	
Note. Standard deviations appear in parentheses. 

Table 4
Mean Subjective Temporal Distance and Mean Ease of Recall by Country and Nature of the Event
	Canada	Japan	
Measure	Proud	Embarrassing	Proud	Embarrassing	
Degree of Pride or Embarrassment
	8.62
(.22)	6.85
(.31)	7.47
(.31)	7.34
(.43)	
Subjective Temporal Distance	72.67
(4.15)	99.15
(4.32)	55.31
(5.43)	62.29
(5.82)	
Recall Difficulty	2.80
(.31)	5.24
(.34)	4.55
(.42)	4.78
(.46)	
Importance Then	9.09
(.28)	6.42
(.29)	8.38
(.37)	5.77
(.41)	
Importance Now	7.49
(.29)	2.82
(.30)	7.53
(.38)	3.41
(.43)	
Note. Standard deviations appear in parentheses. The means are adjusted for the actual time of
the event and the age of participants. Higher means indicate greater pride or embarrassment, greater subjective temporal distance, more difficult recall, and greater importance.