Good for self or good for others? The well-being benefits of kindness in two cultures depend on how the kindness is framed UC Riverside UC Riverside Previously Published Works Title Good for self or good for others? The well-being benefits of kindness in two cultures depend on how the kindness is framed Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3g5449hf Journal JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY, 15(6) ISSN 1743-9760 Authors Shin, Lilian J Layous, Kristin Choi, Incheol et al. Publication Date 2020-11-01 DOI 10.1080/17439760.2019.1651894 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3g5449hf https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3g5449hf#author https://escholarship.org http://www.cdlib.org/ Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpos20 The Journal of Positive Psychology Dedicated to furthering research and promoting good practice ISSN: 1743-9760 (Print) 1743-9779 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpos20 Good for self or good for others? The well-being benefits of kindness in two cultures depend on how the kindness is framed Lilian J. Shin, Kristin Layous, Incheol Choi, Soojung Na & Sonja Lyubomirsky To cite this article: Lilian J. Shin, Kristin Layous, Incheol Choi, Soojung Na & Sonja Lyubomirsky (2019): Good for self or good for others? The well-being benefits of kindness in two cultures depend on how the kindness is framed, The Journal of Positive Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2019.1651894 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2019.1651894 View supplementary material Published online: 14 Aug 2019. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 62 View related articles View Crossmark data https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpos20 https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpos20 https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/17439760.2019.1651894 https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2019.1651894 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/suppl/10.1080/17439760.2019.1651894 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/suppl/10.1080/17439760.2019.1651894 https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=rpos20&show=instructions https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=rpos20&show=instructions https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/17439760.2019.1651894 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/17439760.2019.1651894 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/17439760.2019.1651894&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2019-08-14 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/17439760.2019.1651894&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2019-08-14 Good for self or good for others? The well-being benefits of kindness in two cultures depend on how the kindness is framed Lilian J. Shina, Kristin Layousb, Incheol Choic, Soojung Nac* and Sonja Lyubomirskya aDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA; bDepartment of Psychology, California State University, East Bay, Hayward, CA, USA; cDepartment of Psychology, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea ABSTRACT In light of cultural differences in conceptions of happiness, we investigated whether members of independent (vs. interdependent) cultures would benefit from prosocial behavior when self-focus is highlighted (vs. when other-focus is highlighted). In a 1-week randomized controlled intervention, U.S. (N = 280) and South Korean (N = 261) participants were randomly assigned to read a news article that described kind acts as good for oneself or good for others, or to read a control article. All participants then performed kind acts throughout the week, and completed pre- and post- measures of subjective well-being, connectedness, competence, and autonomy. Consistent with independent self-construals, U.S. participants who read that kindness was good for themselves showed greater increases in positive affect, satisfaction with life, and feelings of connectedness – and greater decreases in negative affect – than those who read the control article. Future research is needed to continue developing culturally-sensitive designs of positive activities. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 19 June 2019 Accepted 19 July 2019 KEYWORDS Well-being; culture; kind acts; framing; need satisfaction The pursuit of happiness is a global phenomenon, regularly dominating cultural discourse, popular media, and people’s closely held goals (Diener, 2000). Not surprisingly, psychological scientists have been exploring specific strategies – or positive activities – that can sustainably improve happiness. Positive activ- ity interventions experimentally test the practice of simple, self-administered cognitive and behavioral stra- tegies that can increase subjective well-being by pro- moting positive feelings, positive thoughts, and positive behaviors (Layous & Lyubomirsky, 2014). For example, activities such as counting one’s blessings (Chancellor, Layous, & Lyubomirsky, 2015; Emmons & McCullough, 2003; Froh, Sefick, & Emmons, 2008; Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005), writing letters of gratitude (Boehm, Lyubomirsky, & Sheldon, 2011; Layous, Lee, Choi, & Lyubomirsky, 2013; Layous et al., 2017; Lyubomirsky, Dickerhoof, Boehm, & Sheldon, 2011; Seligman et al., 2005), and performing acts of kindness (Chancellor, Margolis, Jacobs Bao, & Lyubomirsky, 2018; Dunn, Aknin, & Norton, 2008; Layous et al., 2013; Nelson et al., 2015; Nelson, Layous, Cole, & Lyubomirsky, 2016; Sheldon, Boehm, & Lyubomirsky, 2012) have been shown to reliably boost well-being. If administered optimally, positive activity interventions can also build positive psychological resources such as social connections and meaning in life, as well as ameliorate existing maladaptive symptoms such as anxiety and rumination (Layous, Chancellor, & Lyubomirsky, 2014; Seligman, Rashid, & Parks, 2006; Seligman et al., 2005; Shin & Lyubomirsky, 2016; Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009; Taylor, Lyubomirsky, & Stein, 2017). A notable criticism of current research testing posi- tive activity interventions is that their trials have been conducted on primarily Anglo/European (i.e., Western) samples (Shin & Lyubomirsky, 2017; but see Layous et al., 2013; Titova, Wagstaff, & Parks, 2017, for exceptions). Because Asians comprise 60 per- cent of the world’s population (Population Reference Bureau, 2014) and Asian Americans are the fastest- growing minority group in the U.S., there is a critical need to address these groups’ mental health needs (U.S. Census, 2010). For example, South Korea cur- rently has the highest rate of hospitalizations for mental illness and the highest suicide rate for a member country of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (WHO, 2017). Self- administered positive activities may be especially valuable for Asians and Asian Americans because they are relatively less stigmatizing, low-cost, and carry minimal side effects. CONTACT Lilian J. Shin LShin004@ucr.edu *Soojung Na is presently at Department of Neuroscience, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here. THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2019.1651894 © 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2019.1651894 http://www.tandfonline.com https://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/17439760.2019.1651894&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2019-08-13 Subjective well-being in independent versus interdependent cultures Although the need for research on strategies to improve mental health among Asians and Asian Americans is clear, investigators should be careful not to assume a one-size-fits-all approach, due to cultural differences in Western and Eastern conceptions of well-being. A widely used definition of subjective well- being in Western (independent) cultures is ‘a prepon- derance of positive affect over negative affect’ and ‘a global satisfaction with one’s life’ (Diener, 1984). In recent years, however, psychologists have sought to distinguish Eastern notions of well-being from those of Western traditions, defining interdependent subjective well-being as ‘the global, subjective assessment of whether one is interpersonally harmonized with other people, being quiescent, and being ordinary, and con- nected to the collective way of well-being’ (Hitokoto & Uchida, 2015, p. 214). These differences in conceptions of subjective well-being build upon Markus and Kitayama’s (1991) work on independent and interdependent self-construals. Markus and Kitayama (1991) define an independent self-construal as a view of the self in which Western individuals see themselves as autonomous entities who assert their rights and act agentically. In contrast, they define the Eastern, interdependent self-construal as a view of oneself as connected, relational, and belonging to a larger social group. These distinct self-views have been found to be associated with socially disengaging and socially engaging behaviors, respectively. Socially disengaging behaviors, such as asserting and protecting one’s rights, acting on the basis of one’s own judgments, and separating or distinguish- ing the self from the context, have been associated with independence and interpersonal disengage- ment of the self in the U.S. (Kitayama, Markus, & Kurokawa, 2000). Applying the concept of indepen- dent self-construal to the pursuit of happiness, sub- jective well-being in Western cultures is generally characterized by an explicit striving for one’s indivi- dual or personal happiness that may involve master- ing one’s environment and achieving goals (including social goals) independently (Uchida, Norasakkunkit, & Kitayama, 2004). In other words, with an independent approach to pursuing subjec- tive well-being, the ultimate goal is personal happi- ness, even if this pursuit may involve other people in the process. Socially engaging behavior, on the other hand, involves taking one’s proper place, perfecting one’s roles, empathizing with others, acting on the bases of others’ expectations, and blurring the distinction between self and others. This type of behavior is preva- lent in East Asian cultures and has been associated with interdependence and interpersonal engagement of the self (Kitayama et al., 2000). Subjective well-being in Eastern cultures thus emphasizes connectedness, group harmony, and the well-being of the collective group (Hitokoto & Uchida, 2015; Uchida et al., 2004) – that is, the ultimate goal is not one’s distinct personal happiness but rather the well-being of the group through harmo- nious and fulfilling relationships. As a case in point, American students’ happiness has been found to be highly correlated with interpersonally disengaged emo- tions such as pride, whereas the happiness of Japanese counterparts has been found to be more closely linked to interpersonally engaged emotions such as friendly feelings towards others (Kitayama, Mesquita, & Karasawa, 2006). Given the different approaches to well-being observed in Western and Eastern cultures, in the cur- rent study, we aimed to test whether framing a validated positive activity (i.e., doing acts of kindness) as good for the self would be additionally beneficial for increasing subjective well-being in a U.S. sample and whether framing it as good for others would be addi- tionally beneficial in a South Korean sample. In other words, by framing a traditional kindness intervention in two different ways, we sought to test cultural differ- ences in the factors that contribute to well-being. Kind acts in independent and interdependent cultures Behaving prosocially has been reliably shown to increase well-being in individuals from Western, inde- pendent cultures (Dunn et al., 2008; Layous et al., 2013; Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, Schkade, 2005; Nelson et al., 2015, 2016; Sheldon et al., 2012). Evidence is mounting, however, that remembering and enacting kindness are positive activities that have the potential to be equally successful in Eastern, interdependent cultures due to their positive focus on others (Layous et al., 2013; Nelson et al., 2015; Otake, Shimai, Tanaka- Matsumi, Otsui, & Fredrickson, 2006). For example, a study in Japan reported that people increased in subjective well-being and became more kind and grateful after counting their own kind acts over the course of 1 week (Otake et al., 2006). In another study, South Koreans showed similar increases in well-being as did Americans when performing acts of kindness (Layous et al., 2013). 2 L. J. SHIN ET AL. Additionally, self-determination theory postulates that humans have three basic needs – including auton- omy (control over one’s choices), competence (feeling that one is effective and skilled), and relatedness (i.e., connectedness; feeling close and connected to others) – and that the fulfillment of these needs is associated with greater psychological well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Paralleling findings in the U.S., engaging in autonomous prosocial behavior in South Korea led to improvements in participants’ subjective well-being, as well as in feelings of autonomy, competence, and con- nectedness (Nelson et al., 2015). As a whole, these results suggest that practicing prosocial behaviors is indeed beneficial to individuals from Eastern cultures. Importantly, not all positive activities work equally well across cultures. As a case in point, when U.S. and South Korean participants were randomly assigned to express gratitude or to perform kind acts, U.S. participants benefitted from both activities, whereas South Koreans benefitted only from perform- ing kind acts but not from expressing gratitude (Layous et al., 2013). The researchers surmised that the South Koreans did not derive as much benefit from practicing gratitude because they felt indebted and/or guilty about being the recipient of others’ kind acts. This interpretation aligns with the idea that interdependent subjective well-being is concerned with the mainte- nance of interpersonal harmony, the welfare of the collective group, and the fulfillment of role obligations in relationships. Consistent with this notion, prosocial behavior may boost East Asians’ well-being by contributing to the expected norms of maintaining the well-being of the collective group. By contrast, for Western (i.e., European or North American) individuals, prosocial behavior may serve to boost well-being because it is relatively less expected and/or confirms that one is a good person. Thus, framing prosocial behavior as good for the self may enhance its ability to increase well-being among a Western sample, whereas framing it as good for others may make it more likely to increase well-being among an Eastern sample. To investigate the idea that members of indepen- dent cultures benefit from prosocial behavior when self-focus is highlighted, whereas members of interde- pendent cultures benefit when other-focus is high- lighted, we designed a 1-week randomized controlled intervention. Participants from the U.S. (independent culture) and South Korea (interdependent culture) were randomly assigned to read a news article that described kind acts as good for oneself or good for others, or to read a control article about the benefits of being organized. All participants were then asked to perform kind acts throughout the week and completed both baseline and post-intervention measures of sub- jective well-being, connectedness, competence, and autonomy. Hypotheses First, we predicted that, due to their independent orien- tation, U.S. participants who read that performing kind acts is good for themselves (i.e., with ‘good for self’ framing) and then perform them would experience greater gains in subjective well-being (namely, increased positive affect, decreased negative affect, and increased life satisfaction), as well as in autonomy, competence, and connectedness, than those who per- form kind acts without any framing (i.e., controls; Hypothesis 1). In contrast, we hypothesized that, due to their inter- dependent orientation, South Koreans who read that kind acts are good for others (i.e., ‘good for others’ framing) and perform them would experience larger improvements in subjective well-being and need satis- faction than controls (i.e., no framing; Hypothesis 2). Method Participants Two samples of students were recruited for this study. The first group comprised undergraduates (n = 309) attending the University of California, Riverside (UCR) – a diverse, large public university in the United States – who completed the study in exchange for course credit. In this group, 29 participants were removed from the sample because they failed to complete the second time point, leaving a total of 280 participants (67% female), ages 18 to 35 (Mage = 19.2, SD = 1.65). Fifty-two percent of participants were Asian/Asian American, 28% Hispanic/Latino(a), 7% White/Caucasian, 3% Black/ African American, and 10% Other/More than one (see Discussion on implications of ethnic identification of U.S. participants). A chi-square test of independence revealed that the participants who failed to complete the second time point did not vary by condition from those who did complete it, χ2 (2, N = 309) = 1.83, p = .40. Drop-out status was examined as a predictor of all of our dependent variables, but no significant differences were found between U.S. participants who remained in the study until the end and those who dropped out after the first timepoint (all ts(307) < |.81|; all ps > .42). Final sample sizes per condition in the U.S. were as follows: Good for Self (n = 112), Good for Others (n = 87), and Control (n = 81). A statistical power THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 3 analysis software program, G*Power 3.1, revealed that for a small effect size (f = .16) and an alpha value of .05, 280 participants in three groups could detect the effect with 79% power (Faul, ErdFelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007). Chi-square tests of independence indicated that gender, χ2 (4, N = 279) = 4.37, p = .36, and ethnicity, χ2 (12, N = 279) = 11.16, p = .52, did not vary by condition for the U.S. participants. The second group comprised undergraduates (n = 340) attending Seoul National University (SNU) – a large public university in South Korea – who also completed the study in exchange for course credit. In this group, 67 participants were removed for not com- pleting the second time point, leaving a total of 273 participants (48% female; 99% Korean, 1% other), ages 18 to 30 (Mage = 21.4, SD = 2.63). A chi-square test of independence revealed that the participants who dropped out did not vary by condition from the parti- cipants who completed, χ2 (2, N = 340) = 2.85, p = .24. Drop-out status did not significantly predict any of our dependent variables (all ts(338) < |1.09|; all ps > .28). Sample sizes per condition in S. Korea were as fol- lows: Good for Self (n = 88), Good for Others (n = 91), and Control (n = 94). For an alpha value of .05, 273 participants in 3 groups can detect a small effect size (f = .16) with 78% power. Finally, neither gender, χ2 (2, N = 273) = 3.31, p = .19, nor ethnicity, χ2 (2, N = 273) = 2.01, p = .37, varied by condition for South Korean participants. Design and procedure A 3 (Condition: Good for Self, Good for Others, Control) × 2 (Cultural Background: U.S., South Korea) × 2 (Time: baseline/pre-intervention, post-intervention) mixed fac- torial design was used in this study (see Figure 1 for study timeline and measures). At baseline, all participants completed demographics and several well-being measures (described below). All measures and intervention instructions were adminis- tered in English for U.S. participants and in Korean for South Korean participants. To create the Korean mea- sures and intervention instructions, the English mea- sures and instructions were translated into Korean by a bilingual speaker and then back-translated into English in order to confirm that the translations con- tained the same content as the English measures and instructions. Participants were then randomly assigned to read news articles – all ostensibly from TIME Magazine for U.S. participants and Naver News for S. Korean partici- pants – about how kindness benefits the self (Good for Self condition), how kindness benefits others (Good for Others condition), or how being organized benefits the self (neutral Control condition).1 As shown in Appendices A and D, the Good for Self group read about evidence that being kind can increase personal happiness, alleviate depression, and boost work productivity, and that these effects occur universally across many cultures. Participants in the Good for Others group read about how being kind can boost the positive emotions, self- esteem, feelings of connectedness, engagement at work, and health of the recipients of kindness, and that these effects are evident across many different cultures (see Appendices B and E). Finally, the Control group read about how organizational skills can increase efficiency, the management of responsibilities, and the attainment of personal goals (see Appendices C and F). After reading their assigned article, all participants were asked to perform acts of kindness for others. They could perform as many kind acts as they wanted, to whomever they chose, and with or with- out the beneficiary’s awareness; the only stipulation was that they were to be performed in all in one day. The instructions were as follows: Complete: Demographics, Positive and Negative Affect, Life Satisfaction, Psychological Needs Read: News Article* Complete: Report Kind Acts, Positive and Negative Affect, Life Satisfaction, Psychological Needs Perform Kind Acts BASELINE Day 1 POST-TEST Day 8 Figure 1. Study timeline and measures. *News Article Conditions: 1) Kindness is good for the self, 2) Kindness is good for others, or 3) Organization is good (control group) 4 L. J. SHIN ET AL. In our daily lives, we all perform acts of kindness for others. These acts may be large or small and the person for whom the act is performed may or may not be aware of the act. Examples include helping your par- ents cook dinner, doing a chore for your sister or brother, helping a friend with homework, visiting an elderly relative, or writing a thank you letter. During one day this week (any day you choose), you are to perform acts of kindness (as many as you want) – all in one day. The acts do not need to be for the same person, the person may or may not be aware of the act, and the act may or may not be similar to the acts listed above. Next week, you will report what acts of kindness you chose to perform. Please do not perform any acts that may place yourself or others in danger. After 1 week, participants logged back into the survey website, reported the kind acts they had performed that week, and completed post-manipulation measures of all of the constructs assessed at baseline. Measures Positive and negative affect Participants’ emotions were assessed using the Modified Differential Emotions Scale (mDES; Fredrickson, Tugade, Waugh, & Larkin, 2003). The mDES requires participants to recall and rate their strongest experience of a variety of positive emotions (e.g. ‘I have felt amused, fun-loving, silly’) and negative emotions (e.g. ‘I have felt angry, irritated, annoyed’) during the past week on a 5-point scale (0 = never, 5 = all of the time). The mDES includes a subscale for positive emotions (e.g., amusement, compassion, con- fidence; Cronbach’s α = .87 at baseline; α = .88 at post- intervention) and a subscale for negative emotions (e.g., anger, sadness, contempt; α = .85 at baseline; α = .88 at post-intervention). Life satisfaction To assess life satisfaction, participants completed the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). The SWLS consists of five items (e.g., ‘In most ways my life is close to my ideal’) rated on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Cronbach’s α coefficients were .85 at baseline and .85 at post-intervention. Psychological need satisfaction Rooted in self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), psychological need satisfaction assesses the degree to which people’s core needs are being met (Sheldon, Elliot, Kim, & Kasser, 2001; Sheldon & Hilpert, 2012). The Balanced Measure of Psychological Needs consists of 18 items, with six each representing autonomy (e.g. ‘I felt free to do things my own way’), connectedness (e.g. ‘I felt a sense of contact with people who care for me, and whom I care for’), and competence (e.g. ‘I felt that I was taking on and mastering hard challenges’ (1 = no agreement, 5 = much agreement; Sheldon et al., 2001). Due to relatively low reliability (α = .58 to .67) of the three types of need satisfaction, results were analyzed by examining the three positively-worded items only (and excluding the three reverse-scored items).2 Studies have suggested that reverse-scored items tend to load onto a separate factor than positively-worded items, compromising the scale’s validity (Gehlbach, 2015). For positively-worded connectedness items, α = .80 at baseline and α = .76 at post-intervention; for positively-worded competence items, α = .81 at baseline and α = .83 at post- intervention; for positively-worded autonomy items, α = .67 at baseline and α = .69 at post-intervention. Because the reliability of positively-worded autonomy items was still low, autonomy was removed when we analyzed the data. Acculturation To assess level of acculturation, Asian and Asian American participants in the U.S. completed a short version of the Suinn-Lew Asian Self Identity Acculturation scale (SL-ASIA; Suinn, Ahuna, & Khoo, 1992). The SL-ASIA consisted of 11 items (e.g., ‘Whom do you now associate with in the community?’) rated on a 5-point scale (1 = Almost exclusively Asians, Asian- Americans, Orientals, 5 = Almost exclusively Anglos, Black, Hispanics, or other non-Asian ethnic groups). An average was computed, with higher scores on this measure indicating greater acculturation. Cronbach’s α coeffi- cient was .80. Results Preliminary analyses We split the data by culture and analyzed participants’ baseline levels of all dependent variables for significant differences among conditions. (See Tables 1 and 2 for baseline and posttest means of all dependent vari- ables.) No differences were found. However, when we explored baseline differences by culture, collapsing across conditions, we found that the U.S. participants started with much higher baseline scores in positive affect, F(1, 643) = 65.71, p < .001, life satisfaction, F(1, 643) = 19.83, p < .001, connectedness, F(1, 643) = 12.66, p < .001, and competence, F(1, 643) = 12.85, p < .001. Because Americans and Koreans seemed to fundamen- tally differ in their initial subjective well-being and need satisfaction, we decided to analyze our results sepa- rately by culture. THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 5 Manipulation check To ensure that the framing kindness articles were dif- ferent in the ways that we intended (e.g. vis-à-vis their implied benefits to self vs. others), we asked indepen- dent raters to judge the English and Korean articles for the number of good-for-others benefits and the num- ber of good-for-self benefits. ICCs for the English and Korean raters ranged from .69 to .98 for the 3 articles, which are considered good to excellent reliabilities (Fleiss, 1986). As intended, in both the English and Korean articles, more good-for-self benefits (M = 7.00 and M = 6.33 for English and Korean, respectively) than good-for-others benefits (M = 0.67; M = 2.00) were counted in the good-for-self article; more good-for- others benefits (M = 6.67; M = 6.00) than good-for-self benefits (M = 1.00; M = 4.00) were counted in the good- for-others article; and, finally, more good-for-self bene- fits (M = 6.33; M = 10.33) than good-for-others benefits (M = 0.00; M = 0.00) were counted in the control article. Changes in subjective well-being, connectedness, and competence Using the data set combined from both cultures, we also examined whether any dependent variables dif- fered as a function of time, condition, and culture. The F-test for the Time X Condition X Culture inter- action was significant for life satisfaction, F(2, 547) = 4.51, p = .01, and connectedness F(2, 547) = 3.27, p = .04. However, in view of our hypotheses, we were most interested in the planned contrast analyses reported below. United States To test Hypothesis 1, we first calculated difference scores by subtracting Time 1 from Time 2 dependent variables – namely, positive emotions, negative emotions, life satis- faction, connectedness, and competence.3 We then con- ducted planned contrasts on these difference scores to compare the Good for Self (+1), Good for Others (0), and Control (−1) conditions in both the U.S. and South Korean groups. The results of these analyses are shown in Table 1 and Figures 2 and 3. In support of Hypothesis 1, U.S. students who read that kindness was good for themselves showed greater increases in positive affect, tcontrast(277) = 3.25, p = .001, satisfaction with life, tcontrast (277) = 2.80, p = .01, feelings of connectedness, tcontrast (277) = 2.58, p = .01, and greater decreases in negative affect, tcontrast(277) = −2.19, p = .03, than those who read that organization was good (control). No differences were found between conditions in the U.S. for compe- tence, tcontrast(277) = .55, p = .58. Notably, our U.S. sample included students from diverse backgrounds, including members of interde- pendent cultures, limiting the validity of the com- parisons we could make to Asian students in Asia. In fact, only 7% of our sample identified as White/ Caucasian, the prototypical race/ethnicity associated with individualism, whereas 52% identified as Asian/ Asian American and 28% as Hispanic/Latino(a) – ethnic groups that have interdependent cultural Table 1. Cell means (Standard Deviations) and results of planned contrast analyses on U.S. Sample. Self (+1) Other (0) Control (−1) Dependent variable Time 1 M (SD) Time 2 M (SD) Time 1 M (SD) Time 2 M (SD) Time 1 M (SD) Time 2 M (SD) t (df) p Well-being Positive affect (mDES) 3.33 (0.65) 3.46 (0.62) 3.45 (0.66) 3.44 (0.75) 3.42 (0.64) 3.26 (0.76) 3.25 (277) 0.001** Negative affect (mDES) 2.24 (0.72) 2.12 (0.79) 2.32 (0.74) 2.22 (0.79) 2.14 (0.65) 2.23 (0.81) −2.19 (277) 0.03* Satisfaction With Life 4.46 (1.16) 4.68 (1.22) 4.56 (1.29) 4.49 (1.23) 4.83 (1.20) 4.66 (1.22) 2.80 (277) 0.01* Need Satisfaction Connectedness 3.77 (0.77) 3.82 (0.76) 3.78 (0.83) 3.75 (0.86) 3.88 (0.87) 3.58 (0.85) 2.58 (277) 0.01* Competence 2.99 (0.86) 3.15 (0.82) 3.05 (0.96) 3.10 (0.88) 3.23 (0.91) 3.28 (0.96) 0.55 (277) 0.58 Note. *p < .05. ** p < .01. Table 2. Cell Means (Standard Deviations) and results of planned contrast analyses on south korean sample. Self (0) Other (+1) Control (−1) Dependent variable Time 1 M (SD) Time 2 M (SD) Time 1 M (SD) Time 2 M (SD) Time 1 M (SD) Time 2 M (SD) t (df) p Well-being Positive affect (mDES) 2.92 (0.67) 3.03 (0.66) 3.02 (0.60) 3.00 (0.59) 3.03 (0.63) 3.09 (0.58) −0.28 (270) 0.78 Negative affect (mDES) 2.40 (0.73) 2.28 (0.85) 2.26 (0.75) 2.20 (0.72) 2.28 (0.72) 2.30 (0.76) −1.28 (270) 0.20 Satisfaction With Life 4.11 (1.14) 4.12 (1.10) 4.26 (1.07) 4.24 (1.14) 4.26 (1.08) 4.47 (1.07) −1.04 (270) 0.30 Need Satisfaction Connectedness 3.47 (0.79) 3.55 (0.71) 3.63 (0.72) 3.46 (0.77) 3.58 (0.82) 3.57 (0.84) −1.35 (270) 0.18 Competence 2.71 (0.91) 2.79 (0.93) 2.85 (0.91) 2.89 (0.88) 2.82 (0.84) 2.78 (0.91) 0.79 (270) 0.43 Note. *p < .05. ** p < .01. 6 L. J. SHIN ET AL. roots (Schwartz, 2007; Shin & Lyubomirsky, 2016). To address this sample characteristic, we ran the ana- lyses exclusively with Asian Americans and found that the Asian Americans in our U.S. sample responded more similarly to the U.S. sample than they did to the South Korean sample. The only variable on which Asian Americans differed from the U.S. sample as whole – albeit marginally – was negative affect, tcontrast(142) = 2.39, p = .09. The other variables showed a similar pattern of effects as the U.S. sample as a whole. Additionally, the mean acculturation level of our Asian American participants was above the midpoint (3.07 on a 5-point scale), indicating that many of them identified at least to a moderate degree with American culture. We conducted regression analyses using acculturation level as a moderator and found that none of the outcome variables were affected by the acculturation level of the Asian Americans. These results support our rationale for using the U.S. participants as our independent cultural sample, despite the high proportion of Asian Americans in the sample. Nevertheless, to provide a sharper contrast to participants residing in Asia, future investigations should aim to include more Western-residing partici- pants with Anglo or European roots. South Korea We conducted parallel analyses (using the following contrast weights: Good for Others [+1], Good for Self [0], and control [−1]) to test Hypothesis 2; the results are shown in Table 2 and Figures 2 and 3. Failing to provide support for this hypothesis, South Korean stu- dents who read that kindness was good for others did Changes in Negative Affect US SK -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 N eg at iv e A ffe ct ( m D E S ) Self Other Control Changes in Positive Affect US SK -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 P os iti ve A ffe ct ( m D E S ) Self Other Control Changes in Satisfaction With Life US SK -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 S at is fa ct io n W ith L ife Self Other Control The Journal of Positive Psychology Figure 2. Changes in subjective well-being for the Self, Other, and Control conditions in the U.S. and South Korea. Note. US = United States, SK = South Korea. Self = Good-for-Self framing, Other = Good-for-Other framing, Control = Organization is good framing. Data represent THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 7 not show greater increases in positive affect, life satis- faction, connectedness, or competence – or decreases in negative affect – compared to those in the control group (all tcontrasts < |1.35|; all ps > .18). Discussion This study tested whether individuals from indepen- dent cultures would benefit in subjective well-being, connectedness, and competence when self-related rewards of prosocial behavior are underscored, while those from interdependent cultures would benefit when other-related rewards are underscored. Summary of findings Supporting Hypothesis 1, U.S. participants who per- formed acts of kindness after reading that they were good for ‘them’ reported greater increases in positive affect, life satisfaction, and connectedness, as well as decreases in negative affect, than those who performed kind acts after reading a neutral framing. The article content may have helped explicate to individualists that they should be motivated to be prosocial because it could be a vehicle for the explicit pursuit of their happiness and also boost their self-esteem. Our results are consistent with the concept of independent subjective well-being, in that members of individualist cultures may benefit from prosocial behavior when it is explicitly framed as a way by which to pursue their personal happiness (Uchida et al., 2004). Another pos- sibility is that the benefits of kindness for others are obvious, so reading an article that frames kindness as good for others was not additionally motivating com- pared to reading an article that frames kindness as good for oneself. Indeed, these results provide addi- tional evidence in support of the existing research that prosocial behavior is an effective way to increase well-being in individualist cultures (Dunn et al., 2008; Layous et al., 2013; Lyubomirsky et al., 2005; Nelson et al., 2015, 2016; Sheldon et al., 2012). Our study, however, failed to support Hypothesis 2 for any of the outcome variables – namely, South Korean students who performed acts of kindness after reading that they were good for others did not increase in well-being, connectedness, and competence com- pared to those who performed acts of kindness after reading the neutral framing. Perhaps South Koreans do not experience additional gains in well-being from con- sidering kind acts as good for others (vs. performing them without reasons/framing) because, due to their interdependent values, the benefits to others are obvious and pointing them out does not provide any further advantage (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Another Changes in Connectedness US SK -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 C o n n e ct e d n e ss Self Other Control Figure 3. Changes in connectedness and competence for the Self, Other, and Control conditions in the U.S. and South Korea. Note. US = United States, SK = South Korea. Self = Good-for-Self framing, Other = Good-for-Other framing, Control = Organization is good framing. Data represent 8 L. J. SHIN ET AL. possible explanation is that the Good-for-Others article presented the benefits of doing kind acts for others’ individual well-being, rather than their benefits to inter- dependent well-being, such as group harmony. To bet- ter appeal to the concepts of well-being shared by members of interdependent cultures, future studies that manipulate the framing of positive activities for collectivist cultures might consider incorporating the benefits for in-group relationships and the group as a whole. Additionally, framing kindness as good for others for South Koreans – especially within close rela- tionships – may not be useful, because it might signal to them that those relationships are distant (Zhang, Li, Bai & Li, 2018). Finally, we may not have found signifi- cant well-being differences in South Korea (but did in the U.S.) because research shows that Americans tend to use more ‘extreme’ (e.g., never or always) responses on rating scales, whereas Koreans, with their preference for low-arousal emotions, are more likely to select answer choices in the middle or neutral point of the scale (Chen, Lee, & Stevenson, 1995; Mayer, Elliot, Haas, Hays, & Weinick, 2016). Limitations and future directions A limitation of our study was that we measured the individual well-being of our American and South Korean participants rather than their interdependent well-being. Hence, we may not have measured what South Koreans actually value as well-being or happi- ness. To assess interdependent subjective well-being from an emic approach, future investigators could incorporate a measure like the Interdependent Happiness Scale (IHS), which has been designed and validated in both Western and Eastern countries (Hitokoto & Uchida, 2015). This scale is designed to answer the questions, ‘Are we happy or not?’ or ‘Am I making others happy?’ rather than ‘Am I happy?’ By incorporating the IHS or similar measures, future researchers may be able to capture not only the happi- ness of individual participants, but also their experi- ences of group harmony and collective well-being, which are critical to the experience of interdependent subjective well-being. Despite this limitation, there is evidence that the IHS is strongly positively correlated with life satisfaction (r = .61) and positive affect (r = .61) and negatively correlated with negative affect (r = −.60), which were measured as outcomes in our study (Hitokoto & Uchida, 2015). Similarly, because collectivists value the appraisal of their lives by close others (Suh, Diener, & Updegraff, 2008), future investigators may wish to consider using alternative measures of life satisfaction that include asking collectivist participants how close others (e.g., family members) would evaluate their lives instead of merely asking how they themselves evaluate their own lives (as we did in the current study). Furthermore, it has also been suggested that researchers who study emotions in members of Asian cultures inquire about psychosomatic symptoms, which might allow Asians to convey their emotions indirectly and thus minimize disruption to relational harmony (Shin & Lyubomirsky, 2016; e.g., see the literature on somatization: Hong, Lee, & Lorenzo, 1995; Kleinman, 1982; Park & Bernstein, 2008; Parker, Cheah, & Roy, 2001; Zhou et al., 2015). Finally, although all three U.S. groups performed kind acts, the control group, which read about the benefits of being organized, displayed decreases in positive affect, satisfaction with life, and connectedness. We found it interesting that these control participants decreased in subjective well-being even after perform- ing kind acts; perhaps, this occurred as a result of a mismatch between what they were led to believe was good for them (organization) and the task they were asked to carry out (kind acts). South Koreans, however, may not have been as affected by this mis- match due to their patterns of dialectical thought and/ or respect for authority (Lu & Gilmour, 2004). To further unpack these results, future research could include comparison conditions with alternative ways of framing kind acts, such as a more neutral control article about kind acts (but not their benefits), or no framing at all. Finally, our U.S. participants who read that organization was good (and subsequently performed kind acts) did not show any differences in competence from partici- pants who learned that kindness is good for the self. We speculate that students who read that organization is helpful may have practiced more organizational skills in addition to kind acts during the intervention period, which, in turn, may have helped maintain their sense of competence. Concluding words The present study contributes to the sparse body of research about subjective well-being in independent versus interdependent cultures. Our results are consis- tent with the notion that Americans appear to value THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 9 independent subjective well-being, while raising ques- tions about what interdependent subjective well-being looks like in modern South Korea. With mental health concerns on the rise in Asian countries, we urge researchers to investigate the optimal design and implementation of positive activity interventions in interdependent cultures. Notes 1. Prior to the current study, we conducted a similar study in which participants read news articles about how happiness is good for the self, how happiness is good for others, or about how being organized was benefi- cial and found no significant differences between these framing conditions for any of the outcome variables, PA, NA, SWL, Connectedness, and Competence (all tcontrasts < |1.78|; all ps > .05). 2. For negatively-worded connectedness items, α = .44 at baseline and α = .43 at post-intervention; for nega- tively-worded competence items, α = .60 at baseline and α = .70 at post-intervention; for negatively-worded autonomy items, α = .57 at baseline and α = .63 at post- intervention. 3. Standardized difference score contrasts (Time 1 was standardized by Time 1 SDs and Time 2 was standar- dized by Time 2 SDs) produced the same (significant) results as the unstandardized contrasts reported in this paper. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. References Boehm, J. K., Lyubomirsky, S., & Sheldon, K. M. (2011). A longitudinal experimental study comparing the effective- ness of happiness-enhancing strategies in Anglo Americans and Asian Americans. Cognition & Emotion, 25(7), 1263–1272. Chancellor, J., Layous, K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2015). Recalling positive events at work makes employees feel happier, move more, but interact less: A 6-week randomized con- trolled intervention at a Japanese workplace. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16(4), 871–887. Chancellor, J., Margolis, S. M., Jacobs Bao, K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2018). Everyday prosociality in the workplace: The benefits of giving, getting, and glimpsing. Emotion, 18(4), 507–517. Chen, C., Lee, S., & Stevenson, H. W. (1995). Response style and cross-cultural comparisons of rating scales among East Asian and North American students. Psychological Science, 6(3), 170–175. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happi- ness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55(1), 34–43. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. Dunn, E. W., Aknin, L. B., & Norton, M. I. (2008). Spending money on others promotes happiness. Science, 319(5870), 1687–1688. Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 377–389. Faul, F., ErdFelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3.1 manual. Behavioral Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. Fleiss, J. L. (1986). The design and analysis of clinical experi- ments. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., & Larkin, G. (2003). What good are positive emotions in crises? A prospective study of resilience and emotions follow- ing the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2001. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 365–376. Froh, J. J., Sefick, W. J., & Emmons, R. A. (2008). Counting blessings in early adolescents: An experimental study of gratitude and subjective well-being. Journal of School Psychology, 46(2), 213–233. Gehlbach, H. (2015). Seven survey sins. Journal of Early Adolescence, 35(5–6), 883–897. Hitokoto, H., & Uchida, Y. (2015). Interdependent happiness: Theoretical importance and measurement validity. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16, 211–239. Hong, G. K., Lee, B. S., & Lorenzo, M. K. (1995). Somatization in Chinese American clients: Implications for psychotherapeu- tic services. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 25(2), 105–118. Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Kurokawa, M. (2000). Culture, emotion, and well-being: Good feelings in Japan and the United States. Cognition and Emotion, 14(1), 93–124. Kitayama, S., Mesquita, B., & Karasawa, M. (2006). Cultural affordances and emotional experience: Socially engaging and disengaging emotions in Japan and the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 890–903. Kleinman, A. (1982). Neurasthenia and depression: A study of somatization and culture in China. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 6(2), 117–190. Layous, K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2014). The how, why, what, when, and who of happiness: Mechanisms underlying the success of positive interventions. In J. Gruber & J. T. Moscowitz (Eds.), Positive emotion: Integrating the light sides and dark sides (pp. 473–495). New York: Oxford University Press. Layous, K., Chancellor, J., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2014). Positive activities as protective factors against mental health conditions. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 123(1), 3–12. Layous, K., Lee, H., Choi, I., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2013). Culture matters when designing a successful happiness-increasing 10 L. J. SHIN ET AL. activity: A comparison of the United States and South Korea. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 1294–1303. Layous, K., Sweeny, K., Armenta, C. N., Na, S., Choi, I., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2017). The proximal experience of gratitude. Plos One, 12(7), e0179123. Lu, L., & Gilmore, R. (2004). Culture and conceptions of happi- ness: Individual oriented and social oriented SWB. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5(3), 269–291. Lyubomirsky, S., Dickerhoof, R., Boehm, J. K., & Sheldon, K. M. (2011). Becoming happier takes both a will and a proper way: An experimental longitudinal intervention to boost well-being. Emotion, 11(2), 391–402. Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 111–131. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. Mayer, L. A., Elliott, M. N., Haas, A., Hays, R. D., & Weinick, R. M. (2016). Less use of extreme response options by Asians to standardized care scenarios may explain some racial/ethnic differences in CAHPS scores. Medical Care, 54(1), 38–44. Nelson, S. K., Della Porta, M. D., Jacobs Bao, K., Lee, H. C., Choi, I., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2015). ‘It’s up to you’: Experimentally manipulated autonomy support for proso- cial behavior improves well-being in two cultures over six weeks. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10, 463–476. Nelson, S. K., Layous, K., Cole, S., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2016). Do unto others or treat yourself?: The effects of prosocial and self-focused behavior on psychological flourishing. Emotion, 16(6), 850–861. Otake, K., Shimai, S., Tanaka-Matsumi, J., Otsui, K., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2006). Happy people become happier through kindness: A counting kindnesses intervention. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7(3), 361–375. Park, S.-Y., & Bernstein, K. S. (2008). Depression and Korean American immigrants. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 22(1), 12–19. Parker, G., Cheah, Y.-C., & Roy, K. (2001). Do the Chinese somatize depression? A cross-cultural study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 36(6), 287–293. Population Reference Bureau (2014). 2014 world population data sheet. Retrieved from http://www.prb.org/pdf14/2014- world-population-data-sheet_eng.pdf Schwartz, S. J. (2007). The applicability of familism to diverse ethnic groups: A preliminary study. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147(2), 101–118. Seligman, M. E. P., Rashid, T., & Parks, A. C. (2006). Positive psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 61(8), 774–788. Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410–421. Sheldon, K. M., Boehm, J. K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2012). Variety is the spice of happiness: The hedonic adaptation preven- tion (HAP) model. In I. Boniwell & S. David (Eds.), Oxford handbook of happiness (pp. 901–914). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What is satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 25–339. Sheldon, K. M., & Hilpert, J. C. (2012). The Balanced Measure of Psychological Needs (BMPN) scale: An alternative domain general measure of need satisfaction. Motivation and Emotion, 36(4), 439–451. Shin, L. J., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2016). Positive activity interven- tions for mental health conditions: Basic research and clin- ical applications. In J. Johnson & A. Wood (Eds.), The handbook of positive clinical psychology (pp. 349–363). New York: Wiley. Shin, L. J, & Lyubomirsky, S. (2017). Positive activity interven- tions for interdependent cultures. In S. Donaldson & M. Rao (Eds.), Scientific advances in positive psychology (pp. 11–36). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive symptoms with positive psychology interventions: A practice-friendly meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65(5), 467–487. Suh, E. M., Diener, E., & Updegraff, J. A. (2008). From culture to priming conditions: Self-construal influences on life satis- faction judgments. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39 (1), 3–15. Suinn, R. M., Ahuna, C., & Khoo, G. (1992). The suinn-lew asian self-identity acculturation scale: Concurrent and factorial validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52 (4), 1041–1046. doi:10.1177/0013164492052004028 Taylor, C. T., Lyubomirsky, S., & Stein, M. B. (2017). Upregulating the positive affect system in anxiety and depression: Outcomes of a positive activity intervention. Depression and Anxiety, 34, 267–280. Titova, L., Wagstaff, A. E., & Parks, A. C. (2017). Disentangling the effects of gratitude and optimism: A cross-cultural investigation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(5), 754–770. U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Overview of race and Hispanic origin: 2010. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/ cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf Uchida, Y., Norasakkunkit, V., & Kitayama, S. (2004). Cultural constructions of happiness: Theory and empirical evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5, 223–239. World Health Organization. (2017). Suicide rates, age-standardized data by country. Retrieved from http:// apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.MHSUICIDEASDR?lang= en Zhang, N., Ji, L. J., Bai, B., & Li, Y. (2018). Culturally divergent consequences of receiving thanks in close relationships. Emotion, 18(1), 46–57. Zhou, X., Min, S., Sun, J., Kim, S. J., Ahn, J., Peng, Y., . . . Ryder, A. G. (2015). Extending a structural model of somatization to South Koreans: Cultural values, somati- zation tendency, and the presentation of depressive symptoms. Journal of Affective Disorders, 176, 151–154. THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 11 http://www.prb.org/pdf14/2014-world-population-data-sheet_eng.pdf http://www.prb.org/pdf14/2014-world-population-data-sheet_eng.pdf https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164492052004028 http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.MHSUICIDEASDR?lang=en http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.MHSUICIDEASDR?lang=en http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.MHSUICIDEASDR?lang=en Abstract Subjective well-being in independent versus interdependent cultures Kind acts in independent and interdependent cultures Hypotheses Method Participants Design and procedure Measures Positive and negative affect Life satisfaction Psychological need satisfaction Acculturation Results Preliminary analyses Manipulation check Changes in subjective well-being, connectedness, and competence United States South Korea Discussion Summary of findings Limitations and future directions Concluding words Notes Disclosure statement References