Article

Social Psychological and

Personality Science
Culture and Self-Esteem Over Time: 1-6
ª The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permission:
A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis Among sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1948550617698205
Australians, 1978–2014 journals.sagepub.com/home/spp

Takeshi Hamamura1 and Berlian Gressy Septarini1

Abstract
Self-esteem is increasing in the United States according to temporal meta-analyses of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. However,
it remains unclear whether this trend reflects broad social ecological shifts toward urban, affluent, and technologically advanced or
a unique cultural history. A temporal meta-analysis of self-esteem was conducted in Australia. Australia shares social ecological
and cultural similarities with the United States. On the other hand, Australian culture is horizontally individualistic and places a
stronger emphasis on self-other equality compared to American culture. For this reason, the strengthening norm of positive self-
esteem found in the United States may not be evident in Australia. Consistent with this possibility, the findings indicated that self-
esteem among Australian high school students, university students, and community participants did not change between 1978 and
2014.

Keywords
culture and self, self-esteem, culture/ethnicity

Because culture shapes people’s beliefs, emotions, and beha-
viors (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), temporal changes in cultural
environment exert influence on psychological processes
(Greenfield, 2009, 2013; Grossmann & Varnum, 2015; Hama-
mura, 2011; Inglehart & Baker, 2000; Twenge & Campbell,
2001; Twenge, Campbell, & Freeman, 2012). This issue is
examined in a number of societies with the findings accumu-
lated the most in the United States illuminating the extent of
temporal changes in psychological traits (Putnam, 2001;
Twenge, 2014).
One of the intriguing findings in the literature is the increas-
ing positive self-esteem. Twenge and colleagues conducted two
temporal meta-analyses of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
(RSES) and found an increase in the level of self-esteem among
American undergraduates since 1960s and among children and
adolescents since 1980s (Gentile, Twenge, & Campbell, 2010;
Twenge & Campbell, 2001). Combined with other findings such
as an increasing narcissism (Twenge, Konrath, Foster, Camp-
bell, & Bushman, 2008), more positive agentic self-evaluation
(Twenge, Campbell, & Gentile, 2012), a declining empathy
(Konrath, O’Brien, & Hsing, 2010), and communal orientation
(Putnam, 2001; Twenge, Campbell, & Carter, 2014; Twenge,
Campbell, & Freeman, 2012), it appears that Americans have
become increasingly individualistic.
It is important to note that this conclusion, the conclusion
of increasing self-esteem in particular, has been questioned.
Concerns were raised about the generalizability of findings
from the temporal meta-analyses (i.e., meta-analyzed sampled
are often drawn from convenient samples) and about the
method of effect size calculation used (Trzesniewski & Don-
nellan, 2009, 2010). Importantly, studies that longitudinally
assessed multiple birth cohorts did not find evidence for the
cohort difference in self-esteem life-span trajectory (Orth &
Robins, 2014). Moreover, an analysis of nationally represen-
tative samples of American high school students did not find
evidence of increasing self-esteem (Trzesniewski & Donnel-
lan, 2010), though this conclusion was challenged (Twenge
& Campbell, 2010). Despite this concern, the utility of tem-
poral meta-analysis should not be written off especially in
examining temporal trend across cultures (Kashima, 2014).
Cross-temporal data obtained from representative sample
across cultures are rare (e.g., World Values Survey), and the
available data provide only a limited scope for analyses. For
example, although WVS is extremely valuable to the
researchers in the field (Hamamura, 2011; Inglehart & Baker,
2000), a temporal analysis of self-esteem is not feasible. As
such, a temporal meta-analysis of widely used measures such
as RSES is a suitable method for examining whether a
1
Curtin University, Bentley, Western Australia, Australia
Corresponding Author:
Takeshi Hamamura, Curtin University, Kent St, Bentley, Western Australia
6102, Australia.
Email: takeshi.hamamura@curtin.edu.au
2 Social Psychological and Personality Science XX(X)
particular temporal trend found in one society (most often the
United States) is evident elsewhere.
Culture and Self-Esteem Over Time
To date, the temporal meta-analysis of RSES has been
extended to China and Japan. In both countries, the findings
indicate that self-esteem is decreasing in the recent decades
(Liu & Xin, 2015; Ogihara, Uchida, & Kusumi, 2016; Oshio,
Okada, Mogaki, Namikawa, & Wakita, 2014). This differs
from the increasing pattern found in the American meta-
analyses (Gentile et al., 2010; Twenge & Campbell, 2001).
What accounts for these temporal trends? Increasing self-
esteem in the United States has been interpreted in two ways.
One interpretation is that it reflects a broad temporal trend
toward individualistic psychology. Changes in social ecology,
in particular a shifting living condition toward urban, affluent,
and technologically advanced, appear to underlie this trend
(Greenfield, 2009, 2013). Because individualism is associated
with many social psychological processes (Markus &
Kitayama, 1991; Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001)
including an emphasis on positive self-esteem (Heine, Lehman,
Markus, & Kitayama, 1999), this theory accounts for temporal
changes in these processes. Many findings support the associ-
ation between individualism and changing social ecology asso-
ciated with economic prosperity (Greenfield, 2009; Grossmann
& Varnum, 2015; Inglehart & Baker, 2000). However, this
association does not appear to extend to self-esteem. In the
United States, the Great Recession reversed some of the
long-term trends toward individualism as expected from
Greenfield’s theory; however, this pattern did not extend to
positive self-evaluation which continued to increase during the
recession years (Park, Twenge, & Greenfield, 2014). More-
over, self-esteem is decreasing among Chinese and Japanese
in the recent decades (Liu & Xin, 2015; Oshio et al., 2014)
despite a transformative social ecological changes toward
urban, affluent, and technologically advanced especially in
China.
Another interpretation of the increasing self-esteem in the
United States is that it reflects American society’s changing
norms of self-evaluation. Twenge and colleagues maintain that
there is a “culture of self-worth” in that American culture in the
recent decades has come to embrace high self-esteem as “not
only desirable in its own right, but also the central psychologi-
cal source from which all manner of positive behaviors and out-
comes spring” (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003,
p. 3). Importantly, this theory maintains that while Western cul-
tures emphasize on individualism, the rising focus on inward
focused selfhood and positive self-evaluation may be unique
to American culture and only in the recent decades (Baumeister
et al., 2003; Gentile et al., 2010; Twenge & Campbell, 2001;
Twenge, Campbell, & Gentile, 2012). As such, this theory sug-
gests that increasing positive self-esteem found in the United
States may not be evident in other Western societies. No data
are currently available on this point. To the extent that temporal
trends in self-esteem are attributed to changes in social norms
of self-evaluation, this theory also suggests that the decreasing
self-esteem in China and Japan (Oshio et al., 2014) may reflect
the strengthened cultural norm on self-criticism, a traditional
element of Asian culture (Heine & Hamamura, 2007; Markus
& Kitayama, 1991).
To summarize, temporal meta-analyses of RSES found an
increasing self-esteem in the United States and a decreasing
trend in China and Japan. It remains unclear whether these
trends reflect shifts in social ecology toward urban, affluent,
and technologically advanced or cultural history in regard to
norms of self-esteem.
Cross-Temporal Analysis of Self-Esteem in Australia
To examine these issues, we conducted a temporal analysis of
self-esteem in Australia. Australia is a suitable context for the
current purpose because its economy has grown since 1991
without any recession (http://www.abs.gov.au/). As such, one
may predict that individualism and associated processes such
as positive self-esteem to have increased in Australia.
In terms of social and cultural history, there are commonal-
ities between Australia and the United States, for example, both
are historical frontiers settled by a large number of indepen-
dently minded individuals (Varnum & Kitayama, 2011). In
fact, the two countries score similarly on several dimensions
of culture commonly used in psychological research, including
individualism-collectivism (Hofstede, 1984). On the other
hand, research indicates that the two countries differ on the
dimension of vertical and horizontal individualism (Shavitt,
Lalwani, Zhang, & Torelli, 2006; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998),
and this difference may implicate different norms of self-
esteem. In vertical individualism, seen in countries such as the
United States, “people tend to be concerned with improving
their individual status and standing out—distinguishing them-
selves from others via competition, achievement, and power”
(Shavitt et al., 2006, p. 326). In contrast, in horizontal individu-
alism, seen in countries such as Australia, “people prefer to
view themselves as equal to others in status. Rather than stand-
ing out, the focus is on expressing one’s uniqueness and estab-
lishing one’s capability to be successfully self-reliant” (Shavitt
et al., 2006, p. 326). Consistent with this theorizing, it has been
noted that in Australia, there is a “distrust of status seekers, a
dislike of rank and privilege––especially if it is not earned––
and a rejection of pretentiousness” (Feather, 1998, p. 757). This
theory suggests that the salient norm of self-other relation is
self-other equality in Australia not self-other distinction as may
be the case in the United States. With a pervasive value on self-
other equality in Australia, an emphasis on positive self-esteem
might have been a less salient cultural element. In fact, a study
comparing self-esteem between Australian and American uni-
versity students found significantly less positive self-esteem
among Australian compared to American students (Feather,
1998). In sum, a norm of positive self-esteem which appears
to be strengthening in American culture (Gentile et al., 2010;
Twenge & Campbell, 2001; Twenge, Campbell, & Gentile,
2012) might have been a less salient part of Australian cultural
Hamamura and Septarini
landscape. As such, there is a reason to suspect that increasing
positive self-esteem found in the United States may not be evi-
dent in Australia.
Method
Literature Search
Studies that measured self-esteem in Australia were searched.
These studies were searched in PsycInfo and AllJournals@O-
vid with key words “self-esteem” and “Australia.” Results from
the initial searches suggested that the measure of self-esteem
used most frequently in Australia is RSES with a smaller number
of studies using other measures including Coopersmith Self-
Esteem Inventory and Marsh’s Self-Description Questionnaire.
The search was restricted to studies that use RSES by adding a
key word “Rosenberg.” In addition to this search, citations to
Rosenberg (1965) were searched on Google Scholar. Over
1,600 papers were identified in these searches for review.
Each paper was reviewed whether (a) RSES was admi-
nistered in Australia, (b) RSES’s response format and sam-
ple mean are reported, and (c) the study did not preselect
participants on relevant variables (old age, illness, high
level of stress and anxiety, unemployment, ethnicity, and
international students). Papers not meeting these criteria
were excluded.
The following rules were used in recording the sample
means. For a longitudinal study, data from the first data point
(i.e., Time 1) were recorded. For an experiment, RSES admi-
nistered before any manipulation or treatment was recorded.
When a paper reports sample means separately for different
subgroups within the sample (e.g., means for men and women),
an overall mean was computed weighted by the percentage of
each subgroup. An exception to this was for age differences.
When a paper separately reported means for different age-
groups (e.g., mean for high school and university students),
they were entered as such. Following prior work in the area
(Oshio et al., 2014; Twenge & Campbell, 2001), this sample
type difference was classified into three groups: high school
students, university students, and community participants. One
study that administered RESE to primary school children was
excluded.
Sample characteristics from each study were also reviewed.
Sample’s gender ratio was reported in most studies and
recorded. Beyond gender and age (as coded above), studies var-
ied greatly in the reported sample characteristics (e.g., birth-
place, religion, urban or rural, sexual orientation, and race)
and only birthplace information was reported at least in 10%
of the studies using a consistent reporting format. Birthplace
information, reported in percentage of participants born in Aus-
tralia, was entered for these studies.
Studies were also coded for the following characteristics
pertaining to RSES’s items and response formats (Table 1).
First, some studies used RSES that was modified by Bachman
and colleagues (1978) who kept 6 items from the RSES and
replaced the remaining 4 items with similar content items. This
3
Table 1. Characteristics of the Studies Analyzed.
Number of
Moderators Studies
Sample type
High school 49
University 43
Community 49
Measures
RSES original 112
Bachman modification 29
Response format
4 Point 80
5 Point 37
2 Point 12
Others (6 point, 7 point, 8 point, 9 point, 11 point) 12
Note. RSES ¼ Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.
difference was coded (0 ¼ RSES, 1 ¼ Bachman version). Sec-
ond, for the response formats, most studies used either the 2-
point, 4-point, or 5-point scale, with a small number of studies
using a variety of other response formats (6-point, 8-point, 9-
point, and 11-point scale). This difference was represented by
three dummy codes with the 4-point set as a reference (vs. 2
point, 5 point, and others). All means were converted on the
4-point scale,1 ranging from 10 to 40, with 40 indicating high
self-esteem. In addition, there were three studies that did not use
all 10 items from the RSES, but due to small n, this characteristic
was not analyzed as a moderator. Year of data collection was
coded as 2 years prior to publication when not specified in the
paper. The coding initially carried out by the first author was
cross-checked by the second author for accuracy.
Results
The data set consisted of 141 sample means with the total n
of 66,776 and the year of data collection ranging from 1978
to 2014. The data set excluded four outliers whose sample
means fell more than three standard deviations away from
the mean. The data points are plotted in Figure 1. A multi-
ple regression model analyzed the association between the
sample means and the data collection years alone in the
base model and with potential moderators in the full model
(Table 2). These analyses examine the differences across the
sample means. As such, regression coefficients from these
analyses describe the strength of association at this level
of analysis. The results are reported using the unstandar-
dized regression coefficients, in terms of changes in the
original metric of the scale (i.e., 10–40 scale) following the
recommendation (Trzesniewski & Donnellan, 2010).
Because the analyses of the moderators were exploratory,
the associated p values were adjusted to reduce the likeli-
hood of false positive findings using the Bonferroni correc-
tion. Data collection year was centered for the analysis and
the sample means were weighted by their sample size.
4 Social Psychological and Personality Science XX(X)
Figure 1. Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale scores in Australia over time
with regression lines for the base and full mode.
In the base model, data collection year was a negative
predictor of sample means (b ¼ 0.07, 95% CI
[0.09, 0.05]). Adding a quadratic of year did not improve
the model, F (1,138) ¼ 1.27, p ¼ .26, indicating the absence
of a curvilinear pattern (b ¼ 0.001, 95% CI [0.001, 0.004]).
With the addition of moderators in the full model, 56% (vs.
27% in the base model) of the variance associated with sample
mean differences was accounted. As such, the full model pro-
vides a more precise estimate of the data collection year. In this
model, main effect of year in predicting sample mean did not
differ from 0 (b ¼ 0.0008, 95% CI [0.07, 0.07]). One year dif-
ference was associated with 0.0008 difference in yearly RSES
average. Using this regression equation, the estimated means
for 1978 and 2014, the earliest and latest time points, were
30.02 and 30.05, respectively. Adding a quadratic of year did
not improve the model, F (1,126) ¼ 0.97, p ¼ .33.
There was no interaction between year and the sample
type dummy variables, indicating that the association
between year and sample mean did not differ across the
three groups. For the variables related to the RSES items
and response formats, there was a main effect of response
format in that the 4-point format resulted in lower scores
compared to the 5-point format (b ¼ 2.09, 95% CI [1.19,
2.98]) and the 2-point format (b ¼ 1.91, 95% CI [1.15,
2.67]). Next, roles of demographic variables were examined.
Sex ratio was available in most studies (135 studies) as such
sex ratio was analyzed by adding it to the full model. The
analysis did not find sex ratio’s main effect (b ¼ 0.007,
95% CI [0.007, 0.02]) or its interaction with year (b ¼
0.0005, 95% CI [0.001, 0.002]) in predicting sample
mean. Birthplace information was available only in 17 stud-
ies. As such, its effect was examined in adding to the base
model. Birthplace’s main effect (b ¼ 0.20, 95% CI [0.09,
0.49]) or interaction with the data collection year (b ¼
0.03, 95% CI [0.06, 0.003]) was not significant.
Discussion
This research examined temporal trends in self-esteem among
Australians by conducting a meta-analysis of the RSES. While
the base model indicated a decreasing self-esteem among Aus-
tralians, this pattern was not evident after controlling for sam-
ple and study characteristics in the full model. We therefore
conclude that self-esteem among Australians has been stable
during the period examined. This is in contrast from the
increasing self-esteem reported in the American meta-
analyses (Gentile et al., 2010; Twenge & Campbell, 2001).
In the United States, Twenge and colleagues estimated self-
esteem among university students rose from 29.82 in 1968 to
33.37 in 2008. In Australia, average self-esteem among univer-
sity students, estimated from the full model, is 30.02 in 1978
and 30.05 in 2014. This comparison indicates that the U.S.–
Australia difference on the RSES reported 20 years ago
(Feather, 1998) may be widening. The Australian pattern also
differs from the Chinese and Japanese finding that indicated
a decreasing self-esteem (Liu & Xin, 2015; Oshio et al., 2014).
Twenge and colleagues maintain that increasing self-esteem
among Americans is indicative of a culture of self-worth in
which positive self-evaluation is pursued in its own right not
necessarily anchored to competencies (Gentile et al., 2010;
Twenge & Campbell, 2001; Twenge, Campbell, & Gentile,
2012). The current finding suggests that this cultural change
is not evident in Australia. A plausible interpretation is that the
difference stems from different historical norms of self-other
relations. In Australia and other countries characterized by hor-
izontal individualism (e.g., Scandinavian countries), a salient
norm of self-other relations is self-other equality and the
emphasis on self-reliance (Shavitt et al., 2006; Triandis & Gel-
fand, 1998). This differs from the salient norm of self-other dis-
tinction and the emphasis on positive self-evaluation found in
the United States and other vertical individualism countries
(e.g., United Kingdom; Shavitt et al., 2006; Triandis & Gel-
fand, 1998). Differences in social norm can lead to different
pathways for cultural change (Kashima, 2016; Mesoudi,
2009). For example, a norm that is shared widely within a cul-
ture can increase its prevalence over time (Fast, Heath, & Wu,
2009) predicting widening differences between cultures that
have different social norms. The current finding is one of the
first empirical demonstrations of this effect in a historical anal-
ysis of culture. This analysis also suggests the possibility of
increasing emphasis on self-other equality and self-reliance
in Australia stemming from the culture of horizontal individu-
alism. This possibility awaits future research.
It is important to note that self-other equality valued in hor-
izontal individualism is not necessarily linked to economic
equality. In fact, income inequality, which is rising in Australia
(Solt, 2016), has been associated with motivation for positive
self-evaluation (Loughnan et al., 2011). As such, temporal
changes in income equality do not account for the current
finding.
A broader question the current finding raises is the extent of
cross-national variation in patterns of cultural and psychological
Hamamura and Septarini 5

Table 2. A Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Sample Means.

Base Model Full Model

Variable b (SE) 95% CI b (SE) 95% CI

Intercept 31.49 (.12) [31.26, 31.72] 30.04 (.33) [29.39, 30.70]

Year 0.07* (.01) [0.09, 0.05] 0.0008 (.04) [0.07, 0.07]
Sample type
High school (vs. university) 0.06 (.32) [0.57, 0.71]
Community (vs. university) 0.92 (.35) [0.23, 1.62]
High School  Year 0.03 (.03) [0.04, 0.10]
Community  Year 0.01 (.04) [0.06, 0.09]
Measure (RSES ¼ 0) 0.34 (.67) [0.99, 1.66]
Measure  Year 0.08 (.09) [0.26, 0.10]
Scale
5 Point (vs. 4 point) 2.09* (.45) [1.19, 2.98]
2 Point (vs. 4 point) 1.91* (.38) [1.15, 2.67]
Others (vs. 4 point) 1.43 (.55) [0.35, 2.51]
5 Point  Year 0.09 (.08) [0.07, 0.25]
2 Point  Year 0.09 (.03) [0.15, 0.03]
Others  Year 0.02 (.07) [0.16, 0.11]
R2 .27 .56
Note. RSES ¼ Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.
*p ¼ .05 is the significant level for year and intercept and p ¼ .004 for other predictors with the Bonferroni correction.

changes. Prior attempts to examine this question compared tem- References

poral changes in world regions that differ greatly in social eco-
logical conditions and cultural heritages (Greenfield, 2009;
Hamamura, 2011; Hamamura & Xu, 2015; Inglehart & Baker,
2000). The current research provides a different insight on this
issue in finding different patterns of temporal changes between
two societies that share cultural and socioecological similarities.
The current finding, therefore, suggests the importance of con-
sidering factors such as cultural history that give rise to different
trajectories of temporal changes in psychology.
Acknowledgment
We acknowledge the data collection assistance Jessica Vance pro-
vided for this research.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
Note
1. The following h formula (Card,
 2015)
i was used:
2 Min2
new score ¼ ðold score  Min1 Þ Max Max1 Min1 þ Min 2; where
Min1 and Max1 are the lowest and highest possible score, respec-
tively, on the scale to be transformed. Min2 and Max2 are the low-
est and highest possible score on the new scale.
Bachman, J. G., O’Malley, P. M., & Johnston, J. J. (1978). Youth in
transition: Vol. VI, Adolescence to adulthood—A study of change
and stability in the lives of young men. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for
Social Research.
Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D.
(2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interper-
sonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological
Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1–44.
Card, N. A. (2015). Applied meta-analysis for social science research.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Fast, N. J., Heath, C., & Wu, G. (2009). Common ground and cultural
prominence how conversation reinforces culture. Psychological
Science, 20, 904–911.
Feather, N. T. (1998). Attitudes toward high achievers, self-esteem,
and value priorities for Australian, American, and Canadian stu-
dents. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 749–759.
Gentile, B., Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2010). Birth cohort
differences in self-esteem, 1988–2008: A cross-temporal meta-
analysis. Review of General Psychology, 14, 261–268. doi:10.
1037/a0019919
Greenfield, P. M. (2009). Linking social change and developmental
change: Shifting pathways of human development. Developmental
Psychology, 45, 401–418.
Greenfield, P. M. (2013). The changing psychology of culture from
1800 through 2000. Psychological Science, 24, 1722–1731.
Grossmann, I., & Varnum, M. E. (2015). Social structure, infectious
diseases, disasters, secularism, and cultural change in America.
Psychological Science, 26, 311–324.
Hamamura, T. (2011). Are cultures becoming individualistic?
A cross-temporal comparison of individualism-collectivism in the
6 Social Psychological and Personality Science XX(X)
United States and Japan. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 16, 3–24.
Hamamura, T., & Xu, Y. (2015). Changes in Chinese culture as exam-
ined through changes in personal pronoun usage. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 46, 930–941.
Heine, S. J., & Hamamura, T. (2007). In search of East Asian self-
enhancement. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 204.
Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is
there a universal need for positive self-regard? Psychological
review, 106, 766.
Hofstede, G. H. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differ-
ences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. (2000). Modernization, cultural change,
and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological
Review, 65, 19–51.
Kashima, Y. (2014). How can you capture cultural dynamics? Fron-
tiers in Psychology, 5, 995.
Kashima, Y. (2016). Cultural dynamics. Current Opinion in Psychol-
ogy, 8, 93–97. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.10.019
Konrath, S. H., O’Brien, E. H., & Hsing, C. (2010). Changes in dispo-
sitional empathy in American college students over time: A meta-
analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 180–198.
Liu, D., & Xin, Z. (2015). Birth cohort and age changes in the self-
esteem of Chinese adolescents: A cross-temporal meta-analysis,
1996–2009. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25, 366–376.
Loughnan, S., Kuppens, P., Allik, J., Balazs, K., de Lemus, S.,
Dumont, K., . . . Matos, L. (2011). Economic inequality is linked
to biased self-perception. Psychological Science, 22, 1254–1258.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implica-
tions for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological
Review, 98, 224–253.
Mesoudi, A. (2009). How cultural evolutionary theory can inform
social psychology and vice versa. Psychological Review, 116,
929–952.
Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture
and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psycho-
logical Review, 108, 291–310.
Ogihara, Y., Uchida, Y., & Kusumi, T. (2016). Losing confidence
over time. SAGE Open, 6, 1–8.
Orth, U., & Robins, R. W. (2014). The development of self-esteem.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 381–387.
Oshio, A., Okada, R., Mogaki, M., Namikawa, T., & Wakita, T.
(2014). Age and survey-year effects on self-esteem in Japan. Japa-
nese Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 273–282.
Park, H., Twenge, J. M., & Greenfield, P. M. (2014). The great reces-
sion implications for adolescent values and behavior. Social Psy-
chological and Personality Science, 5, 310–318.
Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of
American community. New York, NY. Simon and Schuster.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Prince-
ton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Shavitt, S., Lalwani, A. K., Zhang, J., & Torelli, C. J. (2006). The hor-
izontal/vertical distinction in cross-cultural consumer research.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16, 325–342.
Solt, F. (2016). The standardized world income inequality database.
Social Science Quarterly, 97, 1267–1281.
Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of
horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 118–128.
Trzesniewski, K. H., & Donnellan, M. B. (2009). Reevaluating the
evidence for increasingly positive self-views among high school
students more evidence for consistency across generations
(1976–2006). Psychological Science, 20, 920–922.
Trzesniewski, K. H., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). Rethinking
“generation me” a study of cohort effects from 1976–2006. Per-
spectives on Psychological Science, 5, 58–75.
Twenge, J. M. (2014). Generation me-revised and updated: Why
today’s young Americans are more confident, assertive, enti-
tled—and more miserable than ever before. New York, NY. Simon
and Schuster.
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. (2001). Age and birth cohort differ-
ences in self-esteem: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 5, 321–344.
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2010). Birth cohort differences in
the monitoring the future dataset and elsewhere further evidence
for generation me—commentary on Trzesniewski & Donnellan
(2010). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 81–88.
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Carter, N. T. (2014). Declines in
trust in others and confidence in institutions among American
adults and late adolescents, 1972–2012. Psychological Science,
25, 1914–1923.
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Freeman, E. C. (2012). Genera-
tional differences in young adults’ life goals, concern for others,
and civic orientation, 1966–2009. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 102, 1045.
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Gentile, B. (2012). Generational
increases in agentic self-evaluations among American college stu-
dents, 1966–2009. Self and Identity, 11, 409–427.
Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Campbell, W. K., & Bush-
man, B. J. (2008). Egos inflating over time: A cross-temporal
meta-analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal
of Personality, 76, 875–902.
Varnum, M. E., & Kitayama, S. (2011). What’s in a name? Popular
names are less common on frontiers. Psychological Science, 22,
176–183.
Author Biographies
Takeshi Hamamura received his PhD from the University of British
Columbia and is Lecturer at Curtin University. His research interests
include cultural change, acculturation, and cultural dynamics.
Berlian Gressy Septarini is currently a PhD student at Curtin Univer-
sity School of Psychology and lecturer in Organizational Psychology
at Airlangga University. Her research mainly focuses on cross-cultural
analysis in organizational behavior in relation to employee well being
enhancement and promoting work life balance.
Handling Editor: Wiebke Bleidorn