2022
Annual Report
ReportEffects of cultural values and self-monitoring on explicit andimplicit self-esteem
Megumi M. OHASHI（Tokyo Future University ）This study examined how explicit (i.e., self-report) and implicit (i.e., hidden, unconscious) self-esteem are affectedby cultural values and self-monitoring. Ninety-five Japanese undergraduate students participated in an online
experiment. The results revealed that implicit self-esteem was positive overall, while explicit self-esteem wasconsistently negative, and these two were not significantly correlated. Moreover, collectivistic tendencies and explicit
self-esteem were negatively correlated among participants who were high in self-monitoring, while they were notrelated among those who were low in self-monitoring. In addition, implicit self-esteem was not associated with selfmonitoring or collectivistic tendencies. These results imply the need to consider cultural and personal values whenmeasuring self-esteem.

Keywords : Self-esteem, self-monitoring, collectivism, Implicit Association Test (IAT)

Implicit attitudes about the self

Many psychology studies have been
conducted on the construct of self-esteem, which
represents the degree to which one values oneself.
The most commonly used tools for measuring selfesteem are self-report scales; for example, Rosenberg's(1965) Self-Esteem Scale asks respondents to answer
ten introspective questions about how positively
they view themselves. In such measurements, theconscious self-evaluations made by respondents canbe described as “explicit self-esteem.”
However, in light of findings that
unconscious factors influence our behavior andcognition, this implicit component of self-esteem iscurrently drawing researchers' attention. Therefore,
recently, there has been a proliferation of researchusing implicit measures such as the Implicit
Association Test (IAT) (e.g., Banaji & Greenwald, 2013;
Falk & Heine, 2015).
Greenwald and his colleagues introduced thenotion that implicit attitudes operate unconsciously
and represent people’s “true feelings.” They argue
that implicit attitudes can be activated automatically,
influencing people’s thoughts and behaviors.
For example, Greenwald and Banaji (1995, p.11)
describe implicit self-esteem as “the introspectively
unidentified (or inaccurately identified) effect of theself-attitude on evaluation of self-associated and selfdissociated objects.” Thus, implicit attitudes are basedon automatic links or associations of concepts arisingfrom experience. It is believed that when a concept is
activated, the emotional valence associated with it isalso aroused.
The IAT requires participants to categorize
words presented on a screen by clicking one oftwo buttons as quickly as possible. The speed

48

Annual Report 2022

and correct answer rates differ depending on theconcepts presented; the strength of the association isreflected in the difficulty of categorizing the stimuli.
Therefore, the stronger the association, the easierthe categorization task becomes, and the quicker
the concept can be categorized. The critical pointis that items pertaining to the “self ” share the same
response key as “pleasant” or “unpleasant” items. This
relationship implies that participants with a positive
self-image should respond faster when the “self” words
share the same response key as “pleasant” words thanwhen they are paired with “unpleasant” words. The
IAT score is based on the latency of responses to two
kinds of tasks with different instructions on using two
response keys for classifying four stimulus categories.
Thus, IAT reveals implicit attitudes about various
constructs, including stereotypes.

Relationship between explicit and implicit selfesteem

Although potential indicators have beenused for various psychological phenomena (Banaji& Greenwald, 2013), implicit self-esteem is poorly
correlated with explicit self-esteem (measured using
conventional self-report questionnaires). Its predictive
validity is low (e.g., Bosson et al., 2000; Greenwald &Banaji, 2017; Yamaguchi et al., 2007) even thoughthese two are believed to measure the same concept.
These findings are consistent across cultures,
including Japan (e.g., Harashima & Oguchi, 2007).
One reason may be that explicit self-esteem measures
may reflect humility and feelings of self-worth at thesame time, while implicit self-esteem measures reflect
only feelings of self-worth.
As with other psychological concepts, thecorrelation between explicit and implicit attitudes

Annual Report 202248

remains low, although there are concept-dependent
differences (e.g., Greenwald & Banaji, 2017). The
implications of the gap between explicit and implicit
self-esteem are still being examined. Some studies
have pointed out that the wider the discrepancy
between att itudes, the g reater is the level ofpsychological maladaptation (Jordan et al., 2003),
and the more negative the emotions experienced, forexample, loneliness and depression (Fujii, 2014).

Cultural differences

Psychologists have long recognized theinfluence of culture on self-esteem. In several theories
about the axis that captures cultural differences, theconstructs of individualism and collectivism, and therelated construct of self-construal have attracted
attention.
Individualism and collectivism refer todifferences in the degree to which the goals andinterests of an individual’s affiliated group takepriority over their own. “Individualists give priority
to personal goals over the goals of collectives;
collectivists either make no distinctions between
personal and collective goals or if they do make such
distinctions, they subordinate their personal goals
to the collective goals” (Triandis 1989, p. 509). An
example of collectivistic behavior is the performanceof overtime work without the expectation of overtime
pay.
Cultural self-construal refers to culturaldifferences in people’s shared views of human beings(e.g., Markus & Kitayama, 1991, 2010; see also
Hashimoto & Yamagishi, 2016). Independent selfconstrual, which is predominant in North America
and Europe, is the belief that a human being is aninternally driven entity detached and distinct fromothers. On the other hand, interdependent selfconstrual, which is predominant in Asia, refers
to a culturally shared belief that an individual isembedded in relationships with others and cannot
be independent. To build a good reputation incollectivist societies, people must be sensitive toothers’ needs and sentiments and avoid offensive
behavior. People with an interdependent self-viewcare about others’ feelings, resulting in their not
displaying high self-esteem explicitly while still
holding high self-esteem implicitly. Moreover, thecultural view of self-theory argues that East Asians
generally have a lower need for high self-esteem(Markus & Kitayama, 1991).

49

Annual Report 2022

East Asians, such as the Japanese, are said tobe predominantly collectivist with an interdependent
self-view. They rarely self-aggrandize or proclaim theiraccomplishments out of consideration for those aroundthem. It is unclear whether collectivists’ true selfesteem is as high as individualists’. Still, a comparison
between Japan and the United States, using the IAT,
showed no significant cultural differences (Yamaguchi
et al., 2007).
The present study used a collectivism scale
to assess individual differences in cultural values. Outof several collectivism/individualism scales, the study
chose one that evaluated preferences relating to theingroup and the self (Yamaguchi et al., 1995).

Purpose of the present study

This study examined how self-monitoring
and cultural values associated with humility relate toself-esteem. Self-monitoring refers to an individual’s
tendency to “monitor (observe and control) their selfpresentation and expressive behavior” (Snyder, 1974,
p.527) out of concern for social appropriateness,and to adjust their words and behaviors to thepeople around them. Snyder lists five self-monitoring
goals: “(a) to communicate accurately one’s trueemotional state by means of intensified expressive
presentat ions; (b) to communicate accurately
an arbitrary emotional state which need not be
congruent with actual emotional experience; (c)to conceal adaptively an inappropriate emotional
state and appear unresponsive and unexpressive;(d) to conceal adaptively an inappropriate emotional
state and appear to be experiencing an appropriate
one; (e) to appear to be experiencing some emotion
when one experiences nothing and a nonresponse isinappropriate” (p. 527).
The present study focused on how culturalvalues related to humility and self-monitoring
influence explicit and implicit self-esteem. Explicit selfesteem, but not necessarily implicit self-esteem, should
be low in collectivistic cultures such as Japan, where
humility is considered a virtue, as previous studies
showed. It is also true that there are some variations
within a culture. Cultural values can be studied at theindividual and cultural levels because these two are
different units of analysis (Yamaguchi et al., 1995).
At the individual level, too, it can be expected that themore collectivistic the person is, the lower his/her
explicit self-esteem would be, but this is not true for
implicit self-esteem, because those who self-promote

Annual Report 202249

or proclaim their value appear to disregard others’
opinions.
In addition, self-monitoring can affect
explicit self-esteem. Those high in self-monitoring
tend to change their words and behaviors dependingon the people around them, while those low in selfmonitoring do not. Thus, it is expected that those
low in self-monitoring overall may feel hesitant toshow explicit self-esteem in Japan where modesty isvalued, even if they are not collectivists themselves.
As individuals, the Japanese are less collectivistic
now than in past eras. Still, they believe that mostother Japanese have collectivistic ideas (Hirai, 2000).
Those with low self-monitoring would not be awareof the diminished status of their cultural values muchand still follow these values, resulting in hesitancy toappear superior to others. On the other hand, among
those high in self-monitoring, the less collectivistic theperson is, the more he/she would show explicit selfesteem.

MethodParticipants

The participants were 95 Japanese
undergraduate students (29 men and 66 women)
enrolled in a psychology class with a mandatory
research participation assignment. Their average age
was 19.56 years (SD = 0.82). The participants gave

informed consent for the use of their data.

Procedure

An experiment was conducted in acomputer room with one station per student. First,
the participants were asked to provide personal
information (age, gender, and nationality). Then,
two types of self-esteem were measured. Implicit
self-esteem was measured using the IAT, basedon Greenwald and Farnham (2000), using Inquisit
4.0 (Millisecond). Four categories—“self,” “others,”“pleasant,” and “unpleasant”—were used. The IAT
score is based on latencies for two tasks that differ in
instructions for using two response keys to classify
four categories of stimuli. The participants wererequired to categorize each target word, either leftor right, as fast as possible and correctly by pressing
an assigned key. Shorter response latency indicatesa stronger association between paired categories.
The more positive the score is, the more positive theimplicit self-esteem. D1 of Greenwald et al., (2003)

50

Annual Report 2022

was used among some variations in calculating thescore.
Explicit self-esteem was measured using
Rosenberg’s (1965) Self-Esteem Scale which consistsof 10 items rated on a 5-point scale. The order of the
explicit/implicit measurements was counterbalanced(the implicit first, n = 57; the explicit first, n = 38).
Finally, the self-monitoring scale (Snyder,1974) and a collectivism scale (Yamaguchi et al.,1995) were administered to the participants. The selfmonitoring scale comprised several subscales. The
total score was used because the internal correlation
was high. After the experiment, the participants were
debriefed.
The experiment was approved by the
research ethics committee of the university withwhich the author is affiliated (No.37).

Results
Table 1 summarizes the scores of the two
self-esteem measurements. The average score of
Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale was significantly lower
than the mid-point (30), while the average IAT score
was significantly higher than the mid-point (0). The
IAT score and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale score
did not significantly differ depending on the orderof administration (t [93] = 0.28, d =.06, ns ; t [93] =0.38, d = 0.08, ns ).The two scores were independent(r = .05, ns ). These results are consistent with thoseof previous research in Japan. Table 2 shows thecorrelations between the variables.
Two multiple regression analyses wereconducted to understand better the type of person
who had a higher Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale scoreand IAT score. Variance inflation factors were lessthan 1.5, indicating that there was no problem withmulticollinearity. As shown in Table 3, no predictor
was significant for the IAT score. For the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale score, there was a marginallysignificant interaction effect between the collectivism
and self-monitoring scores, and a significant negative
correlation with the collectivism score. The interaction
patterns are shown in Figure 1. Simple slope tests
indicated that the collectivism score did not affect
the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale score among those
low in self-monitoring (b = -.07, b SE =.18, ns ). In
contrast, the higher the collectivism score, the lower
Rosenberg’s score was among those high in selfmonitoring (b =-.47, b SE =.11, p < .001).

Annual Report 2022

50

Table 1

Descriptive statistics about self-esteem

M

(SD )

Theoretical
midpoint

ｔ value

Rosenberg's
scale score26.65(7.57)

30

-4.31

***

IAT score

0.74(0.54)

0

13.47

***

*** p < .001

Table 2

Correlations of variables
Rosenberg’sscoreIAT score

IAT score.05

SM score.09.05

collectivism score-.27**-.08

SM score.10** p < .01
Note: IAT, implicit association test; SM, self-monitoring

Table 3

Multiple regression analysis predicting explicit and implicit self-esteem
Rosenberg’s scale score

IAT score

predictive variablesβCI (95%)

Collectivism score-.27 *

-0.48

-0.06

-.14

-0.36

0.08

.13

-0.06

0.32

.03

-0.18

0.23

Collectivism score*Self-monitoring-.20 +

-0.40

0.01

.05

-0.17

0.27

R2

.16 **

Self-monitoring score

βCI (95%).02** p < .01, * p < .05, + p < .10

Rosenberg's  score

35
30
25
SM-­‐1SD

20

SM+1SD

15
10-­‐1SD+1SD
collectivism

Figure 1. Interaction of self-monitoring (SM) and collectivism
Note . Error bars mean SE. SM, self-monitoring.

51

Annual Report 2022

Annual Report 2022

51

Discussion

References

The present study examined the effectsof cultural values and self-monitoring on implicit
and explicit self-esteem. Implicit self-esteem wasunrelated to cultural values and self-monitoring,
possibly because implicit attitudes are difficult
to control. Furthermore, implicit self-esteem has
been conceptualized as self-esteem based on pastexperiences and, thus, is relatively stable (e.g., Banaji& Greenwald, 2013). On the other hand, what IAT
measures is still a matter of debate, as implicit factors
are more stable than explicit ones (Gawronski et al.,2017), and internal correlations were low (Bosson etal., 2000).
As expected, explicit self-esteema n d c o l l e c t i v i s m w e r e n e g a t i ve l y c o r r e l a t e d .
Understandably, those with traditional collectivist
values tend not to display their self-esteem, out of
humility. Moreover, the results also revealed that
self-monitoring, the tendency to observe one’s
surroundings and adjust one’s behavior, moderated
the relationship between collectivism and explicit selfesteem. The results indicated that only individualists
with high self-monitoring and low collectivism showhigh self-esteem. In other words, those who are low
in self-monitoring do not show high-self-esteem even
if they are not collectivists, possibly because they
may adapt to the predominant Japanese collectivistic
values. This interaction effect suggests the need toconsider cultural and personal values in understanding
self-esteem among Japanese individuals.

Ba naji , M.R ., & Greenwa ld, A .G. (2013). Blindspot .
Brockman.
Bosson, J. K., Swann Jr, W. B., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2000).
Stalking the perfect measure of implicit selfe s te em : T h e bl i nd m en a nd t h e eleph a nt
revisited? Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology , 79, 631–643.
Falk, C. F., & Heine, S. J. (2015). What is implicit selfesteem, a nd does it va r y acros s cu lt u res?

Personality and Social Psychology Review , 19,
177–198.
Fujii, T. (2014). Relationships between explicit/implicit
sel f- e steem d i sc repa nc y a nd me a su re s ofdepression, loneliness, and in-group favoritism.

The Japanese Journal of Psychology , 85, 93‒99.
(In Japanese)
Gawronski, B., Morrison, M., Phills, C. E., & Galdi, S.
(2017). Temporal stability of implicit and explicit
measures: A longitudinal analysis. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin , 43, 300–312.
Gre enwa ld , A . G., & B a naji , M . R . (1995). I mpl ic itsocial cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, andstereotypes. Psychological Review , 102, 4–27.
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2017). The implicit
revolution: Reconceiving the relation between
conscious and unconscious. American

Psychologist , 72, 861–871.
Greenwald, A. G., & Farnham, S.D. (2000). Using theimplicit association test to measure self-esteem
and self-concept. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology , 79, 1022–1038.

Note. This study was partially supported by aresearch grant from Tokyo Future University.

Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003).
Understanding and using the implicit association
test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology , 85, 197216.
Harashima, M., & Oguchi, T. (2007). Effects of explicit
and implicit self-esteem on in-group favoritism.

Japanese Journal of Experimental So cial
Psychology , 47, 69–77. (In Japanese)
Ha sh i moto, H., & Ya mag i sh i, T. (2016). D ua l it y of
Independence a nd Interdependence. Asian

Journal of Social Psychology , 3, 19, 286–297.
H i ra i , M . (20 0 0). Stereot y pe s about t he Japa ne se
d i f fer en c e s i n ev a lu at ion s b et we en “ T h e
Japanese” and “myself”. The Japanese Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology , 39, 103–113. (InJapanese)52

Annual Report 2022

Annual Report 2022

52

Jordan, C. H., Spencer, S. J., & Zanna, M. P., HoshinoBrowne, E., & Correll, J. (2003). Secure anddefensive high self-esteem. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology ,85, 969–978.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and theself: Implications for cognition, emotion, andmotivation. Psychological Review , 98, 224–253.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2010). Cultures and selves:
A cycle of mutual constitution. Perspectives on

Psychological Science , 5, 420–430.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and adolescent self-image.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 30,
526–537.
Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior indiffering cultural contexts. Psychological Review ,96, 506–520.
Yamaguchi, S., Greenwald, A. G., Banaji, M. R., Murakami,F., Chen, D., Shiomura, K., Kobayashi, C., Cai,
H., & Krendl, A. (2007). Apparent universalityof positive implicit self-esteem. Psychological

Science , 18, 498‒500.
Yamaguchi, S., Kuhlman, D. M., & Sugimori, S. (1995).
Per sona l it y cor relat ions of a l locent r ic
tendencies in individualistic and collectivistic
cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology ,26, 658–672.

53

Annual Report 2022

Annual Report 2022

53

日本語タイトル
文化的価値観とセリフモニタリング傾向が顕在的自尊心及び潜在的自尊心に与える影響
著者名
大橋 恵（東京未来大学こども心理学部）
要旨
本研究では，顕在的（自己報告による）自尊心と潜在的（隠された無意識の）自尊心に，文化的価値観，セルフモ
ニタリング傾向がどのように影響するかを検討した。対象者は日本人大学生95名であり，彼らはオンライン上にあるプログラムを用いて実験を受けた。その結果，セルフモニタリングの程度が高い者たちの間で集団主義の程度と顕在的自尊心に負の相関が見られた。セルフモニタリング傾向が低い者たちの間ではこの関係は見られず，また潜在的自尊心はセルフモニタリングの程度及び集団主義の程度と関連が見られなかった。この結果は，文化全体の価値観と個人の価値観の両方を考慮する必要性を示すだろう。なお，潜在的自尊心は中点よりも肯定的，顕在的自尊心
は中点よりも否定的であり，この二者の相関関係は有意ではなかった。
キーワード：自尊心，セルフモニタリング，集団主義，潜在連合テスト（IAT）―2021.10.18 受稿 , 2022.01.19 受理―

54

Annual Report 2022

Annual Report 2022

54