In Pursuit of Happiness: the Cultural Psychological Study of SWB

Luo Lu

Department of Psychology, Fu-Jen Catholic University, Taiwan

MS No.: 04036﹔Received: September 26, 2004; Revised: December 11, 2004; Accepted: December 21, 2004Correspondence Author: Dr. Luo Lu, Department of Psychology, Fu-Jen Catholic University, 510 Chong-Cheng Road,Hsing-Chuang, Taipei Hsien 242, Taiwan, ROC.（E-mail： luolu@mails.fju.edu.tw）

中 華 心 理 學 刊

民 94， 47卷， 2期， 99-112

Chinese Journal of Psychology2005, Vol. 47, No. 2, 99-112

In the present paper, we took the positionthat cultural conceptions of happiness are criti-cal aspects of SWB, which has largely beenneglected thus far. We argued that culture andSWB are most productively analyzed togetheras a dynamic of mutual constitution. Adoptinga cultural psychological approach, we selec-tively reviewed our own indigenous Chineseresearch to illuminate on two evolving themesregarding SWB: (1) conceptions of happiness,and (2) cultural correlates of happiness. Wehave shown that distinct characteristics of theconception of happiness are prevalent inChinese and Western cultures, which can besystematically analyzed, discerned, and mea-sured. The individual-oriented Euro-Americancultural conception of SWB is composed oftwo distinct characteristics: personal account-ability and explicit pursuit. In contrast, thesocial-oriented East Asian cultural conceptionof SWB is composed of two distinct character-istics: role obligations and dialectical balance.

We have also demonstrated that culturecan impact on the SWB process throughdiverse self conceptions and their consonantbeliefs. These self-regulatory mechanismsthen determine how people think, feel and

behave in the pursuit of SWB. Finally, we haveunderlined the emerging coexistence of con-trasting cultural rudiments in the case of SWB.

Keywords: happiness, SWB, cultural psychology

Happiness or subjective well-being (SWB) hasbeen studied in a large number of disciplines overmany centuries, and has been defined in ethical,theological, political, economic, and psychologicalterms (see Argyle, 2001; Diener, 1984; Veenhoven,1984 for excellent reviews). SWB is now one ofthe most important fields in the emerging “positivepsychology” (Seligman & Csikszentmihaly, 2000).Over nearly four decades of concerted scientificefforts, certain consensus has been formed amongresearchers. First, happiness is now generallydefined as a predominance of positive over nega-tive affect, and as satisfaction with life as a whole(Argyle, Martin, & Crossland, 1989; Diener,1984). Second, happiness is better conceptualizedas a trait rather than a transient emotional state(Veenhoven, 1994). Third, SWB research has pro-gressed from early social surveys looking for“objective” external indicators (Andrews &Withey, 1976; Campbell, 1976) or scale develop-ment (Andrews & Withey, 1976), to attempts at

This paper is partly based on a keynote speech at the 41 Annual Conference of the Taiwanese Psychological Association (14

September, 2002, Tainan). The author is grateful for the financial support from the Ministry of Education (89-H-FA01-2-4-2)

and the National Science Council (NSC93-2752-H-030-001-PAE) on this series of studies.

100 Luo Lu

explaining psychological mechanisms of happiness(Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999; Headey &Wearing, 1989), largely helped by the advance-ment in multivariate techniques. Finally, the issueof “Culture” is now moving to the center stage,inspired and provoked by intriguing though puz-zling findings from recent large scale cross-culturalcomparisons (Diener, Diener, & Diener, 1995;Veenhoven, 1995).

Despite encouraging progresses, one thornyissue remains: that is psychological research astypically practiced tends to be Western in origin,ideas and instrumentation. On the one hand,research based in the West may well be culturebound in significant ways; and where there arecross-cultural studies, they usually involve apply-ing measures derived from Western cultural tradi-tions and comparing results from different nationswithin a priori Western theoretical frameworks.There is a danger, therefore, of twisting non-Western cultures to create psychological equiva-lence (Brislin, Lonner, & Thorndike, 1973). Thisconcern is all the more pressing for the study ofSWB. The word Happiness (“xing fu”, 幸福) didnot appear in the Chinese language until recently,and Chinese students were less familiar with theconcept of happiness than their American counter-parts (Diener, Suh, Smith, & Shao, 1995). Webelieve that a truly balanced psychology of SWBshould be informed by multiple cultural vantagepoints, Christian, Confucian, Buddhist, Hindu,Muslim and others. Our series of research in thepast decade has focused on contrasting the Chineseagainst the Western (Euro-North American) cultur-al traditions as they construct the conception ofhappiness and consequently constrict its subjectiveexperiences. This paper does not attempt a compre-hensive review of the field, which has been accom-plished by various seasoned scholars; rather wewill use our own indigenous Chinese research toilluminate on two evolving themes regarding SWB:(1) conceptions of happiness, and (2) cultural cor-relates of happiness. “Culture” will be underlinedthroughout.

Conceptions of happiness

With a staunch conviction of scientific meth-ods, Western psychologists have generally left thequestion of “what is happiness” to philosophers fordebate, and gone on to study the perceived happi-ness and its correlates. As stated at the beginningof this paper, a general consensus to operationalizehappiness in terms of (1) positive affect; (2) lifesatisfaction; and (3) absence of negative affect hasbeen achieved. However, such a working definitionis at most an attempt to identify components/ele-ments of the happiness experience, which unravelslittle about the nature and meanings of happiness,or about beliefs people hold regarding happinessembedded in diverse cultural traditions. Someresearchers have criticized the lack of theoreticalsophistication and psychological depth entailed inthe current mainstream SWB research (Ryff,1989). Although empirical study on happiness haswon its legitimacy and recognition in the main-stream scientific psychology, and flourished overthe past four decades, the accumulation of data hasfailed to push up the level of theoretical construc-tion. Comparing the two extensive reviews 15years apart (Diener, 1984; Diener et al., 1999), wenow know more, with more confidence, about cor-relates of SWB, but we are no closer to the heart ofthis ultimate human experience. The hard questionof “what is happiness” is unavoidable, if we are tofurther our understandings of human happiness.Breaking this deadlock can also hopefully enableus to direct our scientific efforts more effectively.To this end, we have conducted two series of stud-ies from somewhat different yet complimentaryperspectives: (1) the folk psychological analysis oflay people’s definitions of happiness, and (2) thecultural analysis of views of happiness molded inthe Chinese and Western cultural traditions.

What is happiness? The folkpsychological approach

Because meanings and concepts are moldedby culture (Bruner, 1990), it seems necessary to

In Pursuit of Happiness 101

explore what people think about happiness asembedded in the world of meanings and valuesconstrued by a unique cultural tradition. As wementioned earlier that the word Happiness (“xingfu”, 幸福) did not appear in the Chinese languageuntil recently, “Fu” (福) or “fu qi” (福氣) is per-haps the closest equivalent of happiness in Chineseancient thoughts. “Fu” appeared as early as in boneinscriptions from Shang Dynasty, expressinghuman desires and prayers to a worshiped god(Bauer, 1976). What were these desires andprayers, then? The interpretation of bone inscrip-tions and the excavated luxurious burial gifts pointto a twofold fundamental conception of happinessat the very beginning of the Chinese civilization:blessings from the supernatural, and pleasures inhuman society.

Later, in the “Shang Shu”, the word “fu” wasmore clearly defined in mundane existence toinclude “longevity, prosperity, health, peace,virtue, and a comfortable death” (Wu, 1991).Another important ancient work, “Classic ofritual” gave “fu” yet another amendment. “Fu” was“fortunate, lucky, smooth and free of obstacles”.Roughly, the Chinese people’s conception of hap-piness can be traced back to the early days of civi-lization, and has kept some of its core ideas whileevolving with the great culture. In folk wisdom,Chinese happiness seems to include material abun-dance, physical health, virtuous and peaceful life,and relief from death anxiety.

The ancient Chinese society was a dual exis-tence. At the top of the societal pyramid, the socialelite presided power and prestige, whose idealswere recorded and carried down through the writ-ings and teachings of great philosophers and schol-ars; the vast majority of working people were ruledaccording to, and preached with those ideals, butconveyed them in folklores as described above.Nonetheless, there is no denying that schools ofgreat philosophy have profoundly shaped theChinese culture and the mentality of Chinese peo-ple for thousands of years. The Tripartite ofConfucianism, Taoism and Buddhism form thebackbone of the orthodox Chinese culture, and

each has distinct views on human happiness. Oursystematic efforts in exploring the philosophicalthinking of Confucian, Taoism, and Buddhismregarding human happiness have already beendetailed in various journal publications (Lu, 1998;Lu, 2001; Lu, Gilmour, & Kao, 2001; Lu & Shih,1997), however, in the interest of depicting a cul-tural background for our later presentation of theChinese fork psychology on happiness, we willsketch a brief summary below.

The Confucian happiness is achieved through“knowledge, benevolence, and harmony of thegroup” (Wu, 1992, p. 31). Confucian philosophystresses the collective welfare of the family, or clan(extending to the society and the entire humanrace) more than individual welfare. Under this col-lectivist or social orientation, Chinese cultureemphasizes sharing the fruits of individual successwith the group. Contributing to the society is theultimate happiness, whereas hedonistic striving forhappiness is regarded as unworthy and evenshameful. In a nutshell, for Confucians, happinessis no longer a set of living conditions, it is the psy-chological state or spiritual world of a living indi-vidual. Happiness is not transient, shallow sensualpleasures, it is an eternal, deeply meaningful worldof reason. Confucians regarded happiness as spiri-tual, not material; as moral, not circumstantial; asself-identified, not other-judged.

Taoism opposes to the idea of happiness as aproduct of material satisfaction, it also opposes theConfucian idea of happiness as a constant self-cul-tivation to achieve moral greatness. Happiness inTaoism is the personal liberation from all humandesires, through following the Natural force, notdoing anything, accepting fate calmly, and facinglife with a peaceful mind. In so doing, one mayreach the ultimate happiness of merging with theuniverse, termed “tian ren he yi” (天人合一).Happiness in Taoism, therefore, is not an emotion-al feeling of joy, rather, it is a cognitive insight andtranscendence.

Although not an indigenous Chinese philoso-phy, Buddhism has incorporated many of theChinese philosophical thoughts and cultural tradi-

102 Luo Lu

tions since its first introduction from India in TangDynasty. Buddhism asserts that there is no suchthing as absolute, lasting happiness in life, all exis-tence on earth was poisoned by unhappiness fromthe very start, and only “nirvana” can offer salva-tion (Chiang, 1996). Happiness in Buddhism canonly be found in the “Paradise of the west” afternirvana, which promises eternal bliss beyondeveryday misery of this world. Physical exercises,meditation, doing charitable deeds, eliminating allhuman desires are all ways to lift up the soul toreach nirvana and eternal happiness.

For scholars, Confucianism, Taoism andBuddhism are three entirely different, even contra-dictory philosophical systems. For ordinary people,however, they have been ingeniously merged andutilized to promote a good life. People may act inaccordance with Confucianism when they are inter-acting with other people, with Taoism when theyare encountering the nature, and with Buddhismwhen they are confronted with the life and death.This is the ultimate achievement of “Chinese prag-matism” (Quah, 1995). It may be fair to concludethat, influenced by Confucian teachings, theChinese conception of happiness is more of a“happiness of the society” emphasizing collectivewelfare rather than a “happiness of the individual”,deemphasizing personal hedonistic pursuits. Inaddition, influenced by Taoism and Buddhismteachings, the Chinese conception of happinessemphasizes more on mental cultivation and spiritu-al enlightenment rather than on material abundanceand worldly successes. With such an understandingof the Chinese “great traditions” includingConfucianism, Taoism and Buddhism, as well asthe “bourgeois traditions” of folklores, we proceed-ed with a thematic analysis of Chinese students’spontaneous accounts of happiness (Lu, 2001).Such a Chinese vantage point is in distinct contrastto the predominant Western cultural perspective inmost SWB research. This endeavour was alsoamong the first attempts to bridge the gap betweenscholarly theories of SWB and ordinary people’slived experiences and deeply held beliefs abouthuman happiness. Although exploratory in nature,

the result is a clear map of the psychological spaceof the Chinese happiness. Later, we continued thisline of enquiry and analyzed conceptions of happi-ness as embedded in the Euro-American cultureand American students’ spontaneous accounts oftheir happiness, to be contrasted with our previous-ly collected Chinese data (Lu & Gilmour, 2004a).

A sketch of the empirical findings is presentedbelow for the purpose of later comparisonsbetween the Chinese and American folk theories,readers please refer to the publications for moredetails. One hundred and forty-two undergraduateChinese students wrote free-format essays inresponse to a simple question, “What is happi-ness?” Using thematic analysis, happiness wasdefined in four aspects: as (a) a mental state of sat-isfaction and contentment; (b) positivefeelings/emotions; (c) a harmonious homeostasis;(d) achievement and hope; and (e) freedom fromill-being.

In addition, Chinese students generally regard-ed happiness as a harmonious state of existence,emphasizing the following conditions: (a) the indi-vidual is satisfied or content; (b) the individual isthe agent of his own happiness; (c) spiritual enrich-ment is emphasized more than material satisfac-tion; and (d) the individual maintains a positiveoutlook for the future.

Another distinct feature of the Chineseaccounts is the emphasis on the dialectical relation-ship between happiness and unhappiness. Thesetwo distinct entities are viewed as locked in anever-ending relationship of interdependence: eachdepends on the other for contrast and meaning.Moreover this relationship between the two oppo-sites is also dynamic and constantly changing.

Chinese students also had their preferred waysof achieving happiness, centering on the followingabilities: (a) the wisdom of discovery; (b) the wis-dom of contentment and gratitude; (c) the wisdomof giving; and (d) the wisdom of self-cultivation.

Ninety-seven white Caucasian American stu-dents wrote free-format essays in response to thesame question, “What is happiness?” Using the-matic analysis, happiness was defined in seven

In Pursuit of Happiness 103

aspects: as (a) a mental state of satisfaction andcontentment; (b) positive feelings/emotions; (c)achievement and control; (d) self-autonomy; (e)freedom from ill-being; (f) relating to people; and(g) the ultimate value in life.

Reading through students’ rich and vividaccounts of happiness, we could easily spot bothsimilarities and differences. Direct comparisonswere thus made between the Chinese and Americanlay theories of happiness on each theme, especiallysubtle distinctions in terms of both the substancesof, and approaches to, SWB, as mandated by cul-tural traditions in the East and the West. Againlimited by space, we will present only summariesbelow.

First, for the Chinese, happiness was promi-nently conceptualized as a harmonious homeostasiswithin the individual as well as between the indi-vidual and his surroundings. However, words suchas “harmony”, “balance” and “fit” were nowhere tobe found in the Americans’ accounts. While theAmerican accounts were emotionally-charged,upbeat, and unmistakably positive, the Chineseones were solemn, reserved, and balanced. TheChinese concept of harmonious homeostasis seemsto capture the core implication of happiness beinga dynamic process of achieving and maintaining agood fit from within to outward. One Chinese stu-dent’s view was rather representative: “Happinessis the inner well-being and contentment, as wellas the feeling of harmony with the externalworld. It is also trust, safety and stability.”

The Chinese concept of homeostasis has aphilosophical depth, firmly rooted in the ancientYin-Yang philosophy which stresses a state ofhomeostasis in the human mind and body, in theindividual and his social, spiritual and natural envi-ronment. Harmony between Heaven, Earth andPeople is also the ultimate happiness aspired byTaoism. In short, conceptualizing happiness as aharmonious homeostasis seems a distinctlyChinese view, deeply embedded in the culturalmilieu, and sharply contrasting with a Westernview of linearly pursuing positivity to reach happi-ness.

Secondly, perhaps related to the first point, theChinese conception of happiness clearly empha-sized spiritual enrichment over hedonistic satisfac-tion, whereas the spiritual element of happinesswas only mentioned by two American students inthe context of religion. While the Americans gener-ally emphasized concrete achievement, self-auton-omy, and positive evaluations of the self, theChinese generally emphasized mind work, self-cul-tivation, and positive evaluations of the self by oth-ers. The Chinese emphasis on spiritual enrichmentunderlines the view that happiness is not a merereflection of the objective world. Striking demon-strations of mind power as a passport to eternalhappiness are prevalent in both Buddhism andTaoism. Confucian philosophy too stresses mindwork to suppress selfish desires and irrationaldemands in order to be virtuous and serve the col-lective. All these Chinese traditional teachingsplace great emphasis on spiritual enrichment, andplay down, even deny, the role of material gratifi-cation, physical comfort, and hedonic pleasures inthe experience of happiness. One Chinese studentexpressed this solemn view of happiness: “Onlywhen the spirit is rich, the mind is peaceful andsteady, happiness is then possible. Happiness isan inner feeling, not resides in the externalmaterial world.” Although this conceptualizationof happiness as an individual mental state and spir-itually-focused is not limited to the Chinese cultur-al tradition, it has not been stressed in the West inrecent times. In the West, rather, the focus hasbeen more on a conception of happiness in terms ofstriving for material gratification and personalachievement.

Third, the Chinese conceptions of happinessclearly reflect a dialectical view, whereas the rela-tionship between happiness and unhappiness wasonly lightly touched on by a very few of theAmerican students. For the Chinese, happiness andunhappiness are ever-present as the background toeach other, whereas for the Americans, their rela-tionship only comes to notice when one is currentlyunhappy. As briefly discussed earlier, the Yin-Yangphilosophy takes a clear dialectical view of the

104 Luo Lu

happiness-unhappiness relationship. The cosmo-logical view that everything from the cosmos tohuman life is a never-ending, cyclic process ofchange, between good and bad, happiness and mis-ery, well-being and ill-being, is best expressed in aChinese proverb: “Happiness is dependent onunhappiness, while unhappiness is hidden in happi-ness” (Lu, 1998). It seems that the dialectical viewof happiness is a distinctive feature of Eastern con-ceptions of SWB, as our research on Chinese cul-ture shows, and as can be seen elsewhere - forexample, in the Japanese “habit of hesitation”towards happiness (Minami, 1971).

Overall, our empirical evidence pertaining toboth the Chinese and American lay theories of hap-piness supports our theoretical stance that culturemolds meanings and concepts of psychological sig-nificance such as SWB. Both similarities and dif-ferences we observed in the data provide testimonyto the cultural psychological claim of “one mind,many mentalities” (Shweder, Goodnow, Hatano,LeVine, Markus, & Miller, 1998, p. 87). In the cur-rent case of SWB, the empirical evidence generallysupports our assertion that distinct characteristicsof the conception of happiness are prevalent inChinese and Western cultures. For the Chinese, laytheories of happiness emphasize role obligationsand dialectical balance; for the Americans, lay the-ories of happiness emphasize personal accountabil-ity and explicit pursuit. Basing upon such rich tex-tual materials of the Chinese and Americans’ laytheories of happiness, a more systematic and com-prehensive theoretical analysis of cultural concep-tions of SWB can then be attempted and a genericcultural theory of SWB developed to guide andconsolidate further empirical research.

Individual-oriented and social-orientedconceptions of SWB: The culturalpsychological approach

To reiterate, we take the position that culturalconceptions of happiness are critical aspects ofSWB, which has largely been neglected thus far.Our views of culture and human behavior are con-

sonant with the cultural psychological approach,whose goal is to examine the ways in which cultureand the psyche intersect and interact (Markus &Kitayama, 1998; Shweder, 1991). The cultural per-spective assumes that psychological processes - inthis case the nature and experiences of SWB - arethoroughly culturally constituted. Thus, culture andSWB are most productively analyzed together as adynamic of mutual constitution (Kitayama &Markus, 2000).

Taking the cultural psychological stance, weshould not superimpose the Western conception ofSWB onto other cultures; instead, indigenous con-ceptions of SWB bred in particular cultural con-texts should be unraveled and systematicallymapped out. In the Chinese case, this is exactlywhat we accomplished in our systematic examina-tion of SWB-related concepts and ideas embeddedin the classic Tripartite of Confucianism, Taoismand Buddhism (Lu, 1998, 2001), those conveyed infolklore and practiced as social customs (Lu,2001), as well as those reflected in people’s freeaccounts of causes (Lu & Shih, 1997) and defini-tions of happiness (Lu, 2001).

Nonetheless, the predominant Western con-ception of SWB is itself one of the indigenous cul-tural conceptions. Its cultural contexts, tacit under-standings, implicit assumptions, invisible commit-ments, as well as its lived experiences for ordinarypeople need to be explored and contrasted withother indigenous cultural conceptions such as thoseof the Chinese. Our recent effort (Lu & Gilmour,2004a) mentioned above revealed interesting cul-tural discourses manifested in American students’free accounts of definitions of happiness. AsKitayama and Markus (2000) point out, well-beingis a “collaborative project”, in the sense that thevery nature of what it means to be well or to expe-rience well-being takes culture-specific forms(Shweder, 1998). Borrowing Suh’s (2000, p. 63)metaphor of “self as the hyphen between cultureand subjective well-being”, the construction ofself, the participation of self in social institutionsand the daily lived world may hold the key to ourunderstanding of the meaning of happiness in vari-

In Pursuit of Happiness 105

ous culture systems. Below we will contrast twosuch cultural systems of SWB: Euro-Americanindividual-oriented and East Asian social-orientedcultural conceptions of SWB. Again as full textscan be found in published literature (Lu, 2003a; Lu& Gilmour, in press), only brief summaries are pre-sented here. It is to be noted that our analysis wasconducted at the theoretical level, taking a culturalcontrast perspective, under the premise that thepursuit of well-being emanates from the self whichcarries cultural mandates. However, empirical find-ings generated from the previously presented folkpsychological approach served to support, validate,enrich, and elaborate our theoretical statements. Italso needs to be clearly stated that we believe ourwork on delineating components of the Chinesecultural conceptions of happiness can be general-ized to a large extent to people living in other EastAsian countries, such as Japan, Korea, andSingapore. People in these East Asian countriesshare similar collectivist culture and are all funda-mentally influenced by the Confucian tradition,like the Chinese, to have earned the name of the“Confucian circle” (Berger, 1988). “BourgeoisConfucianism”, a deeply held and diligently prac-ticed web of values and beliefs synthesizingConfucian and Taoist thoughts characterizes theworldly mentality of these East Asians and setthem diametrically apart from Euro-American peo-ple. East Asian Buddhism is likely another com-mon thread holding these people together, thoughthis line of influence is very much under studied.

Western Euro-American theories of SWB arefirmly based on a highly individualistic conceptionof the self, which views the person as a bounded,coherent, stable, autonomous, free entity, settingcontrastively against the social environment.Furthermore, social customs, institutions and themedia in the West all conspire to foster the agenticway of being, emphasizing free will and individualreason (Markus & Kitayama, 1998).

Embedded in such a historical and culturalmilieu, one distinct characteristic of the Euro-American cultural conceptions of SWB is personalaccountability, which essentially claims that happi-

ness is everyone’s natural and inalienable right;furthermore, one should be responsible for his ownhappiness. Being happy is seen as a personalaccomplishment, and the Western culture isobsessed with achieving personal happiness.

Another distinct characteristic of the Euro-American cultural conceptions of SWB is explicitpursuit, which essentially claims that people shouldactively strive for happiness, and the pursuit ofhappiness should not be jeopardized in any ways.On the one hand, the active and explicit pursuit ofhappiness is one of the best ways of living out anindependent personhood, which masters and con-trols the external environment, identifies and real-izes potentials, creates and achieves goals. On theother hand, with an infrastructure of democracyand social equality, a constitution that upholdsindividual rights, social customs that encouragepersonal striving and reward achievement, theopportunities and freedom to pursuit happiness inthe West are abundant.

To sum, a free individual unceasingly pursu-ing happiness with the blessings of the society thusbest portraits the Euro-American cultural concep-tions of the individual-oriented SWB, composed oftwo distinct characteristics: personal accountabilityand explicit pursuit.

The East Asian view of the self, in sharp con-trast to the Western view, is of a connected, fluid,flexible, and committed being who is bound to oth-ers. Furthermore, social customs, institutions andthe media in the Asia all conspire to foster the rela-tional way of being, emphasizing roles, statusesand in-group membership (Markus & Kitayama,1998).

Within this particular historical and culturalmilieu, East Asian cultural conceptions of SWBhas a distinct characteristic of role obligations,which state that happiness should be based uponthe fulfillment of social role obligations, andaccomplished through self-cultivation. In so doing,group welfare and social harmony can be ensured.Consequently, in the East Asian social-orientedcultural conceptions of SWB, the fulfillment ofrole obligations in interdependent social relation-

106 Luo Lu

ships, the creation and maintenance of interperson-al harmony, the striving to promote the welfare andprosperity of the collective (e.g. family), even at acost to one’s personal welfare, are the core issues.Such a view of SWB is consonant with aConfucian obligation-based moral discourse, incontrast to a Euro-American right-based one(Hwang, 2001).

Another defining characteristic of Asiansocial-oriented cultural conceptions of SWB is aview of dialectical balance. “Happiness” and“unhappiness” are viewed as two sides of a coin.People should not pursuit happiness in excess,rather they should search for deeper internal home-ostasis and external fusion. This characteristic ori-ental reservation may be traced back to the ancientYin-Yang philosophy which takes a cosmologicalview that everything from the cosmos to humanlife is a never-ending cyclic process of change,between good and bad, happiness and misery, well-being and ill-being. To exemplify in the case ofhappiness/unhappiness: “Happiness is dependenton unhappiness, while unhappiness is hidden inhappiness” (Lu, 1998).

To sum, a self-cultivated person diligently car-rying out his moral duties to pursue happiness forthe society with the cooperation of others thus bestcaptures the essence of the East Asian cultural con-ceptions of SWB. We termed this view the social-oriented cultural conceptions of SWB, composedof two distinct characteristics: role obligations anddialectical balance.

We have so far clearly demonstrated that hap-piness is constructed very differently in East Asianand Western cultures. Constructing a cross-cultur-ally fair and balanced measurement for the concep-tions of SWB is now the next logical step to go.Adopting both inductive and deductive approaches,the “Individual-oriented and Social-oriented cultur-al conceptions of SWB Scales” (ISSWB) was thusdeveloped and evaluated in a series of two studiesinvolving Chinese and American participants (Lu,2003a; Lu & Gilmour, 2004a). The 51-item mea-sure showed good internal consistency reliability,temporal reliability, convergent and divergent

validity. Further analysis showed that the Chinesepossessed stronger social-oriented SWB than theAmericans, while the Americans possessedstronger individual-oriented SWB than theChinese. There were also intra-cultural differencesamong the Chinese people. Overall, evidence wassupportive for the utility of ISSWB scales in futuremono-cultural and cross-cultural studies. Mostimportantly, our ability to measure individual-ori-ented and social-oriented cultural conceptions ofSWB as dimensions of culture at the psychologicallevel thus provides a basis to launch a concertedresearch effort looking at the intricate relationbetween psychology and culture.

The central thesis of our generic cultural theo-ry of SWB is as follows. Culture can be a majorforce constructing the conception of happiness andconsequently shaping its subjective experiences. Inparticular, members of different cultures may holddiverse views of happiness, covering definitions,nature, meanings and ways to strive for SWB.Culture also constrains preferences for differentconceptions of SWB (i.e. individual-oriented vs.social-oriented), and thus prescribes differentsources and conditions of SWB for its members(Chiasson, Dube, & Blondin, 1996; Furnham &Cheng, 2000; Lu & Shih, 1997). Beyond suchdirect impact on SWB, culture also influencesSWB in the way it gives shape and form to the self.Different self views (e.g. independent self vs. inter-dependent self) function as regulatory mechanismswhen the individual attempts to judge his or herwell-being. These self-regulatory mechanismsguide the individual to attend to and process infor-mation pertaining to certain aspects of the environ-ment emphasized by the culture (Diener & Diener,1995; Kwan, Bond, & Singelis, 1997; Lu &Gilmour, 2004b). Such mechanisms also determinehow people think, feel and behave in the pursuit ofSWB (Suh, 2000). Below we will summarize ourempirical findings pertaining to psychologicalmechanisms or pathways to achieve happinessadopting an individual differences approach.Informed by the above outlined generic culturaltheory, our recent studies have a clear focus on cul-

In Pursuit of Happiness 107

tural, in contrast to the prevailing focus on person-ality and attributional correlates in the mainstreamWestern SWB research.

Cultural correlates of happiness

One approach guided by our cultural theory ofSWB is to look at various ways of achieving SWBfor people living in individualistic and in collec-tivist societies. At first, culture selects, activates,elaborates, maintains and strengthens one distinctview of the self over another. The independent andinterdependent self then represent culture at theindividual level. They shape and direct the individ-ual’s behaviors to reflect the core underlying cul-tural concerns. In the interpersonal realm, peoplewith independent self tend to believe in active, pri-mary control, whereas people with interdependentself are more inclined to emphasize secondary con-trol and relationship harmony. Extending Weisz,Rothbaum, and Blackburn’s (1984) conceptualiza-tion of primary vs. secondary control, people withprimary control beliefs will typically strive toenhance their rewards by influencing existingsocial realities such as increasing effort in the rela-tionship work, whereas people with secondary con-trol beliefs will typically seek to enhance theirrewards by accommodating to existing social reali-ties such as downgrading the importance of a failedrelationship. These self-regulatory mechanismsthen guide peoples’ everyday social behaviors, andthe resultant feelings about these interactions willcontribute to their overall SWB.

This pan-cultural multiple-way SWB modelwas thus tested and generally supported in twocross-cultural studies involving Chinese andBritish as respondents (Lu, Gilmour, Kao, Wong,Hu, Chen, et al., 2001; Lu & Gilmour, 2004b).Thus, it was shown that these various ways ofachieving SWB were independent and pervasiveacross the two markedly contrasting culturalgroups. The two self views were co-determinantsof SWB, acting through the mediating variables ofbelief systems and social relationships.

Another bi-cultural individual level analysis

also showed that values closely related to the coreof cultural collectivism, such as “social integra-tion” and “human-heartedness” led to greater hap-piness for the Chinese but not the British (Lu,Gilmour & Kao, 2001). All the evidence suggeststhat culture impacts on SWB through multiplemediators and complex mechanisms.

More recently, we have noticed that the degreeof congruence between people’s individual psycho-logical culture and the larger cultural environmentwithin which they live is also crucial for SWB,which we termed the “cultural fit” proposition (Lu,2004). We reasoned that if the larger cultural tradi-tion is individualistic, people with consonant inde-pendent self and active control beliefs may find iteasier to achieve SWB; if, in contrast, the largercultural tradition is collectivistic, people with con-sonant interdependent self and harmony beliefsmay find it easier to achieve SWB. This proposi-tion was tested with 3 diverse Chinese samplesfrom Taiwan and Mainland China (total N = 581).We again found that independent and interdepen-dent self, active control and harmony beliefs asindividual-level culture were consistently related toSWB. Furthermore, while we found that people inaccord with their societal culture were generallybetter off in SWB than those in discord, “gettingahead” was more advantageous than “laggingbehind”. We argued that what constitutes “gettingahead” or “lagging behind” and their differentialeffects on SWB needed to be understood in thelarger cultural milieus of the contemporary Chineseworld. Numerous evidence have suggested that theChinese people are leveling with or even surpass-ing their Western counterparts in individualisticvalues and attitudes such as the independent selfand active control beliefs (Lu, 2003a; Lu &Gilmour, 2004b; Lu & Yang, 2004; Yang, 1988,1996). This “psychological modernizing” trend isparticularly salient for the young, educated andurban residents (Lu & Kao, 2002). It thus seemsthat the current social milieu of cultural fusion andsocietal modernization may have provided theChinese people with a stronger impetus to developmore assertive self-expression and active control

108 Luo Lu

over the surrounding environment. It is reasonableto infer that moving with rather than against thishistorical and societal tide of modernity would pro-mote personal well-being. More specifically,“moving ahead” for the contemporary Chinesemeans moving towards psychological moderniza-tion as a result of incorporating Western originatedvalues and beliefs, while “lagging behind” meansholding on to traditional Chinese cultural valuesand beliefs. In our study, “moving ahead” as mani-fested in endorsing higher independent self thanthe average person in the society held a clearadvantage over “lagging behind” as manifested inthe opposite pattern. Thus, “cultural fit” proposi-tion was largely supported and the assertion to takeinto account the larger social milieus in examiningthe relationship between culture and SWB wasunderlined.

Postlude: The coexistence and integration ofcontrasting cultural rudiments

One thing keeps popping out in our culturalpsychological studies of SWB is that the seeminglycontrasting cultural systems coexisted at the indi-vidual level. Starting from a cross-cultural compar-ison perspective, such findings were at first puz-zling, upsetting, and provocative, but eventuallybecome enlightening and groundbreaking. Thisturn of events was brought about by the introduc-tion of some form of bi-cultural concepts. Mostrecently, Lu and Yang (2004) attempted the firstsystematic theoretical and conceptual analysis todescribe the emergence, composition and change ofthe traditional-modern bicultural self of the con-temporary Chinese people. The cultural and socialroots of such a bicultural self were explored, itsconstituting elements delineated and their interrela-tions analyzed, and the trend of its change predict-ed. They then selectively reviewed empirical evi-dence pertaining to the Chinese bicultural self,including topics on psychological traditionality andmodernity, self concept, self-esteem, self-evalua-tion, and self-actualization. As we argued earlierthat conceptions of SWB emanate directly from

conceptions of the self, and the subjective experi-ence of SWB is an ultimate product of the selfprocess, bi-cultural SWB is more than likely.

In the case of the self, Lu (2003b) proposed aconstruct of “composite self” to characterize anevolving self-system among contemporary Chinesepeople. This system of “composite self” intricatelyintegrates the traditional Chinese construct of“self-in-relation” (interdependence) with theWestern construct of “independent andautonomous self” (independence). For the contem-porary Chinese, the neglected even suppressedindependent self may be nurtured, developed, elab-orated and even emphasized in certain domains oflife, such as work. An attitude favoring the coexis-tence and integration of independent and interde-pendent self to help deal with the apparent con-flicts between strong traditionality and requisitemodernity, might well be the most favorable out-come for people in contemporary Chinese soci-eties, and possibly other Asian societies. Such acomposite self with equally strong convictions ofindependence and interdependence can then beseen as a way of expressing two basic humanneeds: uniqueness and relatedness.

In the case of SWB, we have not only consis-tently found a significant coexistence of the inde-pendent and interdependent self in cross-culturalanalyses (Lu et al., 2001; Lu & Gilmour, 2004b),but also noticed that independent self rather thaninterdependent self predicted happiness sometimes(Lu et al., 2001). For both the Chinese people andAmerican students, the individual-oriented andsocial-oriented cultural conceptions of SWB alsocoexisted (Lu, 2003a; Lu & Gilmour, 2004b).Although cross-cultural analysis still revealed amain effect of culture: the Chinese avowedstronger social-oriented SWB than the Americans,while the Americans avowed stronger individual-oriented SWB than the Chinese, mono-culturalanalysis showed that the Chinese actually hadequally strong conviction of individual-orientedand social-oriented SWB conceptions. This hybridof “bicultural SWB” is very likely emanated fromthe Chinese composite or bicultural self.

In Pursuit of Happiness 109

Nonetheless, more systematic and fine grainedanalysis is needed to look at the exact process anddynamism of such cultural integration as well as itsfunctional values. In view of social change andpsychological transformation, as the Chinese peo-ple are becoming increasingly individual-orientedin general (Lu & Yang, 2004), we may expect thatindividual-oriented cultural conceptions of SWBwill have an increasingly stronger hold on theChinese mind, and individual-oriented ways toachieve happiness will more evidently manifest inthe Chinese behaviors.

As a final note, we are convinced that both thecultural psychological approach and the socialchange perspective are called for if we are to betterunderstand the mentality of contemporary Chinesepeople. The cultural psychological viewpoint helpsto highlight the cultural roots of our happiness con-ceptions and habitual ways of pursuing happinessin life, whereas the social change perspectiveinjects momentum into a static system to highlightthe complex dynamism of any human encounterwith the social environment. Specific hypothesescan be derived incorporating these two theoreticalperspectives and tested within the realm of a scien-tific psychology. These are the challenges we willhappily face. As Chinese psychologists, we firmlybelieve that we have a moral obligation as well asacademic interests to understand how the contem-porary Chinese people strive to coordinate, regu-late, compromise, synthesize, and integrate thecontrasting cultural rudiments, in the pursuit of amore balanced, effective, and happy life. Ourrequest has begun and will continue to the end.

References

Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indica-tors of well-being. New York: Plenum.

Argyle, M. (2001). The psychology of happiness (2nded.). London: Routledge.

Argyle, M., Martin, M., & Crossland, J. (1989).Happiness as a function of personality and socialencounters. In J. P. Forgas & J. M. Innes (Eds.),Recent advances in social psychology: An inter-national perspective (pp. 189-203). North Holland:

Elsevier.Bauer, W. (1976). China and the search for happiness:

Recurring themes in four thousand years ofChinese cultural history. New York: The SeaburyPress.

Berger, P. L. (1988). An East Asian developmentmodel? In P. L. Berger & H-H. M. Hsiao (Eds.),In search of an East Asian development model(pp. 3-11). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Inc.

Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, R. M.(1973). Cross-cultural research methods. NewYork: John Wiley.

Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Campbell, A. (1976). Subjective measures of well-being. American Psychologist, 31, 117-124.

Chiang, C. M. (1996). The philosophy of happiness: Ahistory of Chinese life philosophy. In Chinese,Taipei: Hong Yie Publication Co.

Chiasson, N., Dube, L., & Blondin, J. (1996).Happiness: A look into the folk psychology offour cultural groups. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 27, 673-691.

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. PsychologicalBulletin, 95, 542-575.

Diener, E., & Diener, M. (1995). Cross-cultural corre-lates of life satisfaction and self-esteem. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 653-663.

Diener, E., Diener, M., & Diener, C. (1995). Factorspredicting subjective well-being of nations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,851-864.

Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L.(1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades ofprogress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276-302.

Diener, E., Suh, M., Smith, H., & Shao, L. (1995).National and cultural differences in reported sub-jective well-being: Why do they occur? SocialIndicators Research, 31, 103-157.

Furnham, A., & Cheng, H. (2000). Lay theories of hap-piness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1, 227-246.

Headey, B., & Wearing, A. (1989). Personality, lifeevents, and subjective well-being: Toward adynamic equilibrium Model. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 57, 731-739.

Hwang, K.K. (2001). Morality: East and West. In N. J.Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), Internationalencyclopedia of the social and behavioral sci-ences (pp. 10039-10043). Oxford: Pergamon.

110 Luo Lu

Kitayama, S., & Markus, H. R. (2000). The pursuit ofhappiness and the realization of sympathy:Cultural patterns of self, social relations, andwell-being. In E. Diener & E. M. Sul (Eds.),Culture and subjective well-being (pp. 113-162).Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Kwan, V. S. Y., Bond, M. H., & Singelis, T. M. (1997).Pancultural explanations for life satisfaction:Adding relationship harmony to self-esteem.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,1038-1051.

Lu, L. (1998). The meaning, measure, and correlates ofhappiness among Chinese people. Proceedings ofthe National Science Council: Part C, 8, 115-137.

Lu, L. (2001). Understanding happiness: A look into theChinese folk psychology. Journal of HappinessStudies, 2, 407-432.

Lu, L. (2003a). Individual oriented and social orientedSWB: Conceptual analysis and measure develop-ment (Tech. Rep. No. 89-H-FA01-2-4). Taipei,Taiwan: National Taiwan University.

Lu, L. (2003b). Defining the self-other relation: Theemergence of a composite self. IndigenousPsychological Research in Chinese Societies, 20,139-207.

Lu, L. (2004). The fit between personal and societal cul-ture and its impact on happiness and emotionsamong modern Chinese people (Tech. Rep. No.89-H-FA01-2-4). Taipei, Taiwan: NationalTaiwan University.

Lu, L., & Gilmour, R. (2004a). Culture and conceptionsof happiness: Individual oriented and social ori-ented SWB. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5,269-291..

Lu, L., & Gilmour, R. (2004b). Culture, self and ways toachieve SWB: A cross-cultural analysis. Journalof Psychology in Chinese Societies, 5, 51-79.

Lu, L., & Gilmour, R. (In press). Individual-orientedand socially-oriented cultural conceptions of sub-jective well-being: Conceptual analysis and scaledevelopment. Asian Journal of Social Psychology.

Lu, L., Gilmour, R., & Kao, S. F. (2001). Culture valuesand happiness: An East-West dialogue. Journal ofSocial Psychology, 141, 477-493.

Lu, L., Gilmour, R., Kao, S. F., Wong, T. H., Hu, C. H.,Chern, J. G., Huang, S. W., & Shih, J. B. (2001).Two ways to achieve happiness: When the Eastmeets the West. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 30, 1161-1174.

Lu, L., & Kao, S. F. (2002). Traditional and modern

characteristics across the generations: Similaritiesand discrepancies. Journal of Social Psychology,142, 45-59.

Lu, L., & Shih, J. B. (1997). Sources of happiness: Aqualitative approach. Journal of SocialPsychology, 137, 181-187.

Lu, L. & Yang, K.S. (2004, August). The emergence,composition, and change of the traditional-modernbicultural self of people in contemporary Chinesesocieties. Paper presented at the Bicultural SelfSymposium, Hong Kong, China.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1998). The cultural psy-chology of personality. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 29, 63-87.

Minami, H. (1971). Psychology of the Japanese People.Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Quah, S. H. (1995). Socio-culture factors and productiv-ity: The case of Singapore. In K. K. Hwang (Ed.),Easternization: Socio-culture impact on produc-tivity (pp.266-333). Tokyo: Asian ProductivityOrganization.

Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it?Exploration on the meaning of psychologicalwell-being. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 57, 1069-1081.

Seligman, M., & Csikszentmihaly, M. (2000). Positivepsychology: An introduction. AmericanPsychologist, 55, 5-14.

Shweder, R. A. (1991). Thinking through cultures:Expeditions in cultural psychology. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Shweder, R. A. (1998). Welcome to Middle Age! (andOther Cultural Fiction). Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Shweder, R. A., Goodnow, J., Hatano, G., LeVine, R.,Markus, H., & Miller, P. (1998). The culturalpsychology of development: One mind, manymentalities. In W. Damon (Ed.), Handbook ofchild psychology: Theoretical models of humandevelopment, Vol. 1. New York: Wiley.

Suh, E. M. (2000). Self, the hyphen between culture andsubjective well-being. In E. Diener & E. M. Sul(Eds.), Culture and subjective well-being (pp. 63-86). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Veenhoven, R. (1984). Conditions of happiness.Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel PublishingCompany.

Veenhoven, R. (1994). Is happiness a trait? Tests of thetheory that a better society does not make peopleany happier. Social Indicators Research, 32, 101-

In Pursuit of Happiness 111

160.Veenhoven, R. (1995). The cross-national pattern of

happiness: Test of predictions implied in threetheories of happiness. Social Indicators Research,34, 33-68.

Weisz, J. R., Rothbaum, F. M., & Blackburn, T. C.(1984). Standing out and standing in: The psy-chology of control in America and Japan.American Psychologist, 39, 955-969.

Wu, J. H. (1992). Sources of inner happiness. Taipei,Taiwan: Tong Da Books. [In Chinese]

Wu, Y. (1991). The new transcription of “shang shu”.

Taipei, Taiwan: Shan Min Books. [In Chinese]Yang, K. S. (1988). Will society modernization eventu-

ally eliminate cross-culture psychological differ-ences? In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The cross-culturechallenge to social psychology (pp. 67-85).Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Yang, K. S. (1996). Psychological transformation of theChinese people as a result of societal moderniza-tion. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The handbook ofChinese psychology (pp. 479-498). New York:Oxford University Press.

112 Luo Lu

「幸福觀」是主觀幸福感的重要面向，但長久以

來卻一直為西方主流心理學所忽視。我們相信將文

化與主觀幸福感視為動態的交互建構是最佳的研究

策略。採取上述的文化心理學立場，本文選擇性地

回顧了我們在台灣進行的本土化研究，以開顯主觀

幸福感領域中日漸成形的兩大重要議題：（1）幸福的觀念；（2）幸福的文化性相關因子。

我們的研究指出，中華文化與西方文化中各有

獨特的幸福觀念，而我們可以有系統地分析、抽

離、以及測量這些觀念。歐美文化中「個人取向的

幸福觀」主要由兩大元素組成：個人負責與直接追

求；東亞文化中「社會取向的幸福觀」也主要由兩

大元素組成：角色責任與辯證均衡。

我們的研究還發現，文化除了直接型塑幸福

觀，還會經由建構不同的自我觀來影響主觀幸福感

的歷程，這些自我調控的機制進而決定了人們在追

求幸福時的想法、感受、及行為。文末，我們也特

別指出日漸明顯的雙文化並存現象。

關鍵詞：幸福，主觀幸福感，文化心理學

追求幸福—主觀幸福感的文化心理學研究

陸洛

輔仁大學心理學系