Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study developed the Japanese version of the Healthy Selfishness and Pathological Altruism (J-HSPA) scale and examined its reliability and validity. We conducted two online surveys on 665 people (N₁ = 325, N₂ = 340). The results indicated that the J-HSPA exhibits a two-factor structure that consists of healthy selfishness and pathological altruism. The J-HSPA has high internal consistency and test–retest reliability. Moreover, we examined the validity of the J-HSPA in relation to multiple variables. The results demonstrated that healthy selfishness was positively associated with adaptive psychological functions, such as life satisfaction and self-esteem, but pathological altruism was not associated with them. Healthy selfishness was negatively correlated with maladaptive psychological functions, such as depression, while pathological altruism was positively correlated with them. These results generally supported the reliability and validity of the J-HSPA.

Keywords

healthy selfishness pathological altruism scale development

Prosocial interactions are essential for building and maintaining human society (Hamilton, 1964; Nowak & Sigmund, 2005; Trivers, 1971). Altruism refers to the tendency to provide benefits to others at a cost. Altruistic behavior toward others increases the likelihood of the future benefits and survival of individuals. In contrast, selfishness refers to the tendency to prioritize one’s own interests without regard for others. Selfishness may provide short-term benefits, but individuals that exhibit such tendencies encounter societal exclusion, which diminishes prospects for survival. Numerous studies explore the adaptive aspects of altruism and the maladaptive aspects of selfishness to discuss the development and propagation of cooperative human societies (for reviews, see Crocker et al., 2017; Inagaki & Orehek, 2017).

However, altruism is not always beneficial, and selfishness is not always harmful (Bachner-Melman & Oakley, 2016; Kaufman & Jauk, 2020; Oakley, 2013; Oakley et al., 2012). While exhibiting kindness toward others is commendable, is helping others to the extent of disproportionately sacrificing one’s interests adaptive? Conversely, is politely declining social invitations from friends to make time for one’s interests and concerns maladaptive? Altruism as exemplified in the first scenario is referred to as pathological altruism (PA). Altruism is the tendency to self-sacrifice and prioritize the needs of others over one’s own needs, while PA is the tendency to excessively and unreasonably self-sacrifice for the superficial and temporary pleasure of others, even when it is reasonably predictable that it would be harmful to others and to oneself (Bachner-Melman & Oakley, 2016; Oakley et al., 2012). Unfortunately, individuals with a high tendency toward PA are more likely to engage in behaviors that may not only harm themselves but also others despite the intent to benefit others (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020). Selfishness represented by the second scenario is referred to as healthy selfishness (HS). Selfishness is the tendency to prioritize one’s own pleasure without regard for others, but it becomes healthy (i.e., HS) when it respects one’s own pleasure and happiness with the consideration of the negative effect on others (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020). Notably, HS is not diametrically opposed to PA (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020). Previous research demonstrates that HS is associated with higher social aspects such as agreeableness in the Big Five traits and the Light Triad (a personality trait that reflects a love and beneficence orientation toward others; Kaufman & Jauk, 2020). It should be noted, however, that it is difficult to clearly define the point at which altruism becomes pathological and selfishness becomes healthy (Bachner-Melman & Oakley, 2016). Taken together, this suggests that altruism, which is frequently viewed as virtuous, can become maladaptive when taken to extremes. Conversely, selfishness is typically negatively considered, but it can exhibit adaptability when accompanied by concern for others. To fully understand human sociality, adopting an integrative perspective that understands the adaptive and maladaptive aspects of selfishness and altruism is crucial.

Kaufman and Jauk (2020) developed the healthy selfishness and pathological altruism (HSPA) scales, which measure individual differences using the adaptive aspects of selfishness and the maladaptive aspects of altruism. The HSPA consists of two factors, namely, HS and PA, and has sufficient internal consistency. HS is evaluated by items such as “I have a lot of self-care” and “I take good care of myself.” PA is assessed using items such as “I have little time to myself because I am too busy helping everyone” and “I often feel a compulsion to help others, as though I can’t help myself.” Kaufman and Jauk (2020) also assessed the validity of the HSPA by examining associations with multiple variables. The results revealed that HS was moderately positively correlated with life satisfaction, strongly positively correlated with self-esteem, and moderately negatively correlated with depression and unmitigated communion. Conversely, PA was weakly negatively correlated with life satisfaction, moderately negatively correlated with self-esteem, moderately negatively correlated with depression and self-sacrificing self-enhancement, and strongly positively correlated with unmitigated communion. Furthermore, Kaufman and Jauk (2020) examined the relationship among the Big Five traits and found that HS was weakly positively correlated with extraversion and agreeableness and weakly negatively correlated with conscientiousness. In contrast, PA was weakly positively correlated with neuroticism and conscientiousness, and weakly negatively correlated with agreeableness. Kaufman and Jauk (2020) also investigated the relationship with traits in interpersonal situations and reported that HS was weakly positively associated with warmth interpersonal behavioral trait, while PA was weakly negatively associated with coldness interpersonal behavioral trait.

PA is similar to unmitigated communion, which is defined as the tendency to despise the self and place importance on others (Helgeson & Fritz, 1998). PA exclusively reflects self-oriented self-sacrifice motives, while unmitigated communion encompasses self- and other-oriented self-sacrifice motives (Bassett & Aubé, 2013). PA is strongly positively correlated with self-oriented unmitigated communion and other-oriented unmitigated communion (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020). However, Kaufman and Jauk (2020) found that when PA was the dependent variable and self-oriented unmitigated communion and other-oriented unmitigated communion were the independent variables, self-oriented unmitigated communion was a strong positive predictor, while other-oriented unmitigated communion was not. In addition, Kaufman and Jauk (2020) illustrated that PA is more strongly associated with self-oriented motivation in helping others and maladaptive functioning, such as depression, compared with unmitigated communion. These findings suggest that there are distinct differences between PA and unmitigated communion, with PA having a stronger aspect of self-oriented self-sacrifice motives.

The concepts of HS and PA were proposed in western culture, which emphasizes independence. However, it remains unclear whether these concepts can be generalized to other cultures (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020). A comprehensive examination of a variety of samples, including non-WEIRD, is important for a deep understanding of human nature (Henrich et al., 2010). Indeed, in the past two decades, cross-cultural research on selfishness and altruism has flourished and investigated cultural differences in terms of function and development (Baldassarri & Abascal, 2020; Blake et al., 2013). Behavioral tendencies and motivations in social contexts vary according to the values of cultural groups such as independence or interdependence. For example, Japan, which emphasizes interdependence, and the United States, which prioritizes independence, display different motivations of helping behavior. Helping behavior is driven by the motivation to increase closeness with the recipient among Japanese, while it is driven by the motivation to increase one’s own self-esteem among Americans (Chen et al., 2012). Japanese and Americans also exhibit different motivations for returning favors to others who provided them with benefits. Japanese value maintaining the relationship with the benefactor by returning favors, whereas Americans value protecting their own self-esteem by returning favors (Miller et al., 2017). In addition, Japanese individuals tend to be more considerate of others than individuals from other countries (Van Doesum et al., 2021). Given these findings, it is also crucial to examine how the concept and adaptability of the bright side of selfishness (i.e., HS) and the dark side of altruism (i.e., PA) are determined by cultural factors in order to understand the nature of human sociability from multiple perspectives. In particular, by clarifying the nature of HS and PA in non-WEIRD samples, we expect to provide a new perspective on the findings that have been studied using WEIRD samples. Thus, other language versions of the HSPA need to be developed to conduct cross-cultural research on these constructs. However, to the best of our knowledge, only the original English version of the scale is currently available for assessing individual differences in PA and HS (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020).

This study aimed to develop the Japanese version of the Healthy Selfishness and Pathological Altruism Scale (J-HSPA) and to examine its reliability and validity. First, we examined whether or not the J-HSPA possesses the two-factor structure identical to the original version (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020). Second, we assessed the reliability of the J-HSPA by evaluating internal consistency and test–retest reliability. Third, we explored the associations with multiple variables to test the validity of the J-HSPA.

We report our sample size, all data exclusions, and all measures in the study. The data and R code for this study are available on the Open Science Framework [https://osf.io/z3e84/]. This study was not preregistered.

Study 1

In Study 1, we developed the Japanese version of the HSPA and tested its factor structure, reliability (internal consistency), and validity (convergent validity). Consistent with the original version (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020), we predicted that the J-HSPA has the two-factor structure and demonstrates sufficient internal consistency. We also tested the validity of J-HSPA by examining its association with unmitigated communion. Unmitigated communion is conceptually directly related to the J-HSPA because it involves excessive self-sacrifice and neglect of one’s own needs (Fritz & Helgeson, 1998). Thus, unmitigated communion is a suitable construct for use in validating J-HSPA. As in the original version (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020), we predicted that HS, which respects one’s own needs while being considerate of others, would be negatively correlated with unmitigated communion, and PA, which excessively self-sacrifices and irrationally prioritizes the needs of others, would be positively correlated with unmitigated communion. By evaluating these relationships, we aim to determine the validity of J-HSPA.

Method

Participants

Based on the sample size and age groups reported by Kaufman and Jauk (2020), we collected data from 400 people aged between 21 and 59 years (men: 200, women: 200; M_age = 40.22, SD = 10.89) who were registered with an online survey company (Freeasy; iBRIDGE Company, Tokyo, Japan). We recruited 50 participants from each gender (men and women) and age (20s, 30s, 40s, 50s) group. We excluded the data of 75 participants who violated the attention checkpoints (i.e., “Please answer ‘2’ for this item”) and, finally, included the data of the remaining 325 participants (men: 152, women: 173; M_age = 40.58, SD = 10.70) for analysis. We provided the participants with monetary compensation through the online survey company. The study was approved by the Ritsumeikan University Ethics Review Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects (Kinugasa-Human-2022–116).

Measures

HS and PA

We obtained permission to translate from the first author of the original version (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020). Then, three authors, who are native Japanese speakers and have experience in scale translation and development, independently translated the original English version into Japanese. We translated the original version using natural Japanese and expressions that the participants could easily understand without losing the meaning of the original version. The first author of this study compared and integrated each author’s translation and prepared a draft of the Japanese translation. We then used the draft of the Japanese translation and conducted two online pilot studies (N = 70 per study) to examine the floor/ceiling effects, adequate internal consistency, and relationship to validity indices of the scale. We back-translated the scales using the professional back-translation services of a translation company (Ulatus; Crimson Interactive Pvt. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). There were no problems with the back-translation process. Finally, we asked the first author of the original version (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020) to confirm the accuracy of the translation and obtained permission to proceed with the research to develop a Japanese version of the scale.

Table 1 presents all items. We instructed the participants as follows: “Please think about the following statements and choose only one number that best describes you.” Items were rated using a five-point rating scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Table 1.

Items of the Japanese version (J-HSPA) and the original English version (HSPA).

Item number	Japanese version (J-HSPA)	Original English version (HSPA: Kaufman & Jauk, 2020)
Healthy selfishness
HS1	私は適切な距離感で周りの人と関わっている	I have healthy boundaries
HS2	私は自分をとても大切にしている	I have a lot of self-care
HS3	私は自分を適度に尊重しており,周りの人に利用されないようにしている	I have a healthy dose of self-respect, and don’t let people take advantage of me
HS4	私は自分と相手の要求のバランスをとっている	I balance my own needs with the needs of others
HS5	私は自分の要求を主張する	I advocate for my own needs
HS6	私はいい意味で自己中心的で,瞑想や健康的な食事,運動などを行い,他人を傷つけることなく,大きな幸せを感じている	I have a healthy form of selfishness (e.g., meditation, eating healthy, exercising, etc.,) that doesn’t hurt others, but brings me greater happiness
HS7	私はとても周りに気を遣うが,適度に心の疲れをとるようにしている	Even though I give a lot to others, I know when to recharge
HS8	私は必ずしも誰かの役に立てなくても,自分自身が楽しむことを許容する	I give myself permission to enjoy myself, even if it doesn’t necessarily help others
HS9	私は自分自身をいたわる	I take good care of myself
HS10	私は他人から求められることよりも,自分自身の興味や目標を優先する	I prioritize my own personal projects over the demands of others
Pathological altruism
PA1	私は自分の要求や関心を犠牲にして,他人に優しくしたり,尽くしたりする傾向がある	I tend to sacrifice my own needs and interests so that I can devote myself to helping and serving others
PA2	私は周りの人から助けを求められるとどうしても助けたくなってしまう	I am a total pushover when it comes to requests to help others
PA3	私には周りの人を助けなければならないという強迫観念があり,もはや自分ではどうすることもできない	I often feel a compulsion to help others, as though I can’t help myself
PA4	私は自分を傷つけることになったとしても,自分より相手の都合を優先させたい	I am willing to place another’s needs above my own in a way that may cause self-harm
PA5	私は周りの人の望みにきっちり応えようとして,周りの人が何を求めているのかを四六時中予測したり推測したりしてしまう	I am constantly trying to read, anticipate, or guess others’ needs so that I can give them exactly what they want
PA6	私は周りの人を助けるのに忙しくて,自分の時間がほとんどない	I have little time to myself because I am too busy helping everyone
PA7	私はよく周りの人を助けることで疲れ果ててしまう「共感性燃え尽き症候群」に苦しめられる	I often suffer from “empathy burnout”– helping others leaves me feeling exhausted
PA8	私は人から必要とされることを不可欠なものだと思う	I need to be needed
PA9	私は周りの人からの要求に疲れを感じることがよくある	I often feel run down due to the demands of others
PA10	私は周りの人を助ける努力をしても報われないと感じることがよくある	I often feel unappreciated for the work I do to help others

Note. HS: healthy selfishness; PA: pathological altruism.

Unmitigated communion

We used the Japanese version of the Revised Unmitigated Communion Scale (J-RUCS: Hagiwara et al., 2022; original English version: Fritz & Helgeson, 1998) to assess unmitigated communion. The nine items were rated using a five-point rating scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The alpha coefficient of the scale was α = .78, which is equivalent to those of previous studies (Fritz & Helgeson, 1998; Hagiwara et al., 2022).

Statistical analyses

Statistical analyses were performed using R version 4.3.1 (R Core Team, 2021) and the R packages “psych”, “dplyr”, “lavaan”, “irr”, “tidyverse” and “pequod”. First, we performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; two-factor, robust maximum likelihood estimation) to examine whether the J-HSPA exhibited the same two-factor structure as the original version (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020). However, goodness-of-fit was inadequate, as described below. Therefore, to control for acquisition bias, we introduced a random intercept factor into the model in which all the factor loadings of the intercept factor were fixed at 1, and its correlation with other factors was constrained to 0, which isolated common variance due to acquiescence (Maydeu-Olivares & Coffman, 2006). In addition, we performed exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM), which enabled the estimation of factor loadings with cross-loadings. For both CFA and ESEM, model fit was evaluated using the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). Based on standard recommendations (Hu & Bentler, 1999), CFI values of 0.90 or higher and RMSEA and SRMR values of 0.08 or lower were considered to indicate acceptable fit. Although we also report χ² tests, the results notably tend to be significant if the sample size is large. In addition, factor loadings with absolute values of 0.30 or higher were considered meaningful, which served as the basis for determining the adequacy of the factor structure reported in the Results section. Furthermore, we excluded the data of participants who indicated acquiescence responses (responses that are 90% the same) and conducted the abovementioned analyses, because the random intercept factor models are better than the original CFA and ESEM models. Second, we calculated inter-factor correlation between factors and the internal consistency of each factor. Finally, we calculated the correlation coefficients between J-HSPA factors and the J-RUCS. There were no missing data because the responses were mandatory.

Results and discussion

Factor structure

We conducted CFA on the basis of the two-factor structure in the original version (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020). The results demonstrated factor loadings above .38 and inter-factor correlation of r = .07, p = .17. Although comparable to the original version (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020), the goodness-of-fit was inadequate (χ²(169) = 428.55, p < .001, CFI = .85, SRMR = .09, RMSEA = .08; 90% CI [.07, .09]). We replicated the goodness-of-fit of the original version (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020), but attempted to further improve the goodness-of-fit of the J-HSPA. In an attempt to control for acquiescence bias, we introduced a random intercept factor into the model in which all the factor loadings of the intercept factor were fixed at 1, and its correlation with other factors was constrained to 0, which isolated common variance due to acquiescence (Maydeu-Olivares & Coffman, 2006). However, goodness-of-fit did not improve (χ²(168) = 380.54, p < .001, CFI = .88, SRMR = .08, RMSEA = .07; 90% CI [.06, .08]).

We then performed the ESEM. The results showed that the corresponding factor loadings reached more than 0.35 (Table 2) and the goodness-of-fit was improved (χ²(187) = 337.12, p < .001, CFI = .91, SRMR = .06, RMSEA = .06; 90% CI [.05, .07]). The inter-factor correlation between HS and PA reached r = .10, p = .30. Finally, to explore further improvements in goodness-of-fit, we, once again, introduced the random intercept factor and conducted the ESEM. However, goodness-of-fit was not substantially improved (χ² (186) = 334.34, p < .001, CFI = .91, SRMR = .06, RMSEA = .06; 90% CI [.05, .07]). Therefore, we adopted the scales extracted in ESEM without the random intercept factor for the sake of model parsimony. These results indicate that the J-HSPA possesses the two-factor structure and acceptable goodness-of-fit.

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics and factor loadings of the J-HSPA in study 1.

Item number	M	SD	Factor1	Factor2
Healthy selfishness
HS1	3.44	0.89	.70	−.02
HS2	3.09	0.96	.65	−.01
HS3	3.24	0.80	.79	−.04
HS4	3.34	0.78	.67	.07
HS5	3.04	0.93	.47	.08
HS6	2.85	0.97	.50	.14
HS7	3.18	0.90	.54	.25
HS8	3.38	0.85	.61	−.18
HS9	3.33	0.90	.77	−.01
HS10	3.22	0.84	.53	−.15
Pathological altruism
PA1	2.75	1.00	.05	.76
PA2	3.20	0.96	.26	.52
PA3	2.34	1.04	−.11	.74
PA4	2.58	0.99	.01	.67
PA5	2.67	1.03	.04	.65
PA6	2.35	1.00	−.08	.68
PA7	2.48	1.12	−.06	.74
PA8	2.95	0.90	.22	.50
PA9	3.15	0.99	.17	.42
PA10	3.27	0.93	.21	.35

Note. HS: healthy selfishness; PA: pathological altruism. Factor loadings are standardized. The numerals above. 30 factor loading are indicated in boldface.

In the analysis of future studies, if structural equation modeling is used to investigate hypothesized latent factor models, it is preferable to extract factors as in ESEM. However, if this is not the case, or for the sake of simplicity, it is acceptable to assume the factor structure of ESEM and conduct the study using total scores. In addition, we calculated item-total correlations as additional information to assess the validity of each item (Table S1).

Internal consistency

We examined the internal consistency of the J-HSPA and obtained α = .81, ω = .82 for HS and α = .83, ω = .83 for PA. These results replicated those of the original study (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020).

Convergent validity

We calculated the correlation coefficients between J-HSPA factors and the J-RUCS, which indicated that HS was weakly negatively associated with unmitigated communion (r = −.18, p = .003). In contrast, PA was strongly positively correlated with unmitigated communion (r = .68, p < .001). These results indicate that the J-HSPA reached adequate convergent validity, which is similar to the original version (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020).

Study 2

Although the original study and Study 1 examined only internal consistency as a measure of reliability, Study 2 examined test–retest reliability to provide additional evidence of the reliability of the J-HSPA. We set the test–retest interval at 2 weeks as an exploratory approach, because the original study (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020) did not examine test–retest reliability. Notably, previous studies reported that no evidence exists that the reliability coefficient varies significantly with this interval and declines with longer intervals (Oshio, 2016).

In addition, Study 2 examined associations with multiple variables to further assess the validity of the J-HSPA. These variables included unmitigated communion, self-sacrificing self-enhancement, life satisfaction, self-esteem, depression, the Big Five traits, and interpersonal behavioral traits, as in the original study (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020). We focused on unmitigated communion and self-sacrificing self-enhancement because both constructs have conceptual overlap with the J-HSPA. In addition, we included life satisfaction, self-esteem, and depression based on previous findings that well-being is positively associated with HS and negatively associated with PA (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020). Although these variables are not conceptually directly related to HS and PA, but are inferentially related, they are one of the important indicators for assessing the validity of the J-HSPA. Furthermore, we examined the Big Five traits and interpersonal behavioral traits to broadly examine the relationship between the J-HSPA and general personality dimensions. We predicted that HS would be positively correlated with life satisfaction and self-esteem and negatively correlated with unmitigated communion and depression. This is because individuals with high HS tend to respect their own pleasure and happiness with the consideration of the negative effect on others (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020). Regarding the Big Five traits, we predicted that HS would be positively correlated with extraversion and agreeableness and negatively correlated with conscientiousness. This prediction is based on the notion that individuals with high levels of HS are extroverted and cooperative with others, but they are free from an excessive sense of obligation and are flexible in adapting to situations (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020). Concerning interpersonal behavioral traits, we predicted that HS would be positively correlated with warmth interpersonal behavioral traits such as polite, loving, and social vitality. This prediction stems from the understanding that people with high HS exhibit positive interpersonal behaviors in which they respect their own needs while caring for others (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020). We predicted that PA would be positively correlated with unmitigated communion, self-sacrificing self-enhancement, and depression and negatively correlated with life satisfaction and self-esteem. The rationale for this prediction is that individuals with high levels of PA are excessively self-sacrificing and neglectful of their own well-being, resulting in lower mental health (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020; Oakley et al., 2012). Additionally, individuals with high levels of PA exhibit narcissistic tendencies, as there is a distorted self-enhancement motive to show off themselves and their needs in a grandiose manner (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020; Oakley et al., 2012). Regarding the Big Five traits, we predicted that PA would be positively correlated with neuroticism and conscientiousness and negatively correlated with agreeableness. This prediction is based on the understanding that individuals with high levels of PA are nervous and overly obliging, and excessive concern for others leads to interpersonal relationships that are not harmonious. Concerning interpersonal behavioral traits, we predicted that PA would be negatively correlated with coldness and submissiveness interpersonal behavioral traits such as cold, quiet reserved, and unassertive. This prediction stems from the notion that individuals with high levels of PA are less likely to exhibit coldness interpersonal behaviors because they excessively prioritize the needs of others at the expense of the self (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020; Oakley et al., 2012).

Furthermore, we examined the incremental validity of the J-HSPA by testing whether HS and PA are distinct from unmitigated communion in relation to life satisfaction and depression. Kaufman and Jauk (2020) conducted a hierarchical multiple regression analysis of differences between HS, PA, and unmitigated communion with life satisfaction and depression as the dependent variables. Results indicated that HS was a positive predictor of life satisfaction and a negative predictor of depression, while PA was a positive predictor of depression. HS that respects one’s own needs while considering others is more closely related to higher well-being than unmitigated communion that excessively considers others and neglects one’s own needs (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020). In contrast, PA that pays excessive self-oriented self-sacrifice more than Unmitigated communion is closely associated with lower well-being (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020). Its maladaptive aspects are more strongly associated with negative outcomes such as depression than with positive outcomes such as satisfaction (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020). Consequently, we predicted that HS will be positively associated with life satisfaction and negatively correlated with depression, even after controlling for unmitigated communion. We also predicted that PA would be positively associated with depression even after controlling for unmitigated communion.

Method

Participants

Based on the sample size and age groups reported in Kaufman and Jauk (2020), the study recruited 400 people aged between 21 and 59 years (men: 200, women: 200; M_age = 40.32, SD = 10.95) registered with Freeasy (iBRIDGE Company, Tokyo, Japan). There was no overlap of participants between Study 1 and Study 2 because we used an option provided by the online survey company that prevented participants in Study 1 from participating in Study 2. We provided the participants with monetary compensation through the online survey company. The study was approved by the Ritsumeikan University Ethics Review Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects (Kinugasa-Human-2022–116).

To reduce the burden of responding among participants, we developed two questionnaire sets and distributed the first set to 200 participants (Sample 1: 100 men and 100 women; M_age = 40.29, SD = 11.10) and the other set to a different group of 200 participants (Sample 2: 100 men and 100 women; M_age = 40 .35, SD = 10.82). The first questionnaire set (Sample 1) consisted of 63 items included in the J-HSPA, J-RUCS, the Satisfaction with Life Scale, the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, and the Ten Item Personality Inventory. The second questionnaire set consisted of 67 items included in the J-HSPA, the self-sacrificing self-enhancement subscale of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory, the Japanese versions of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and the International Personality Item Pool—Interpersonal Circumplex. We excluded participants who missed the attention checkpoints (i.e., “Please answer ‘2’ for this item”) from analysis. As a result, we analyzed the data of 77 men and 92 women in Sample 1 (M_age = 40.84, SD = 11.31) and 85 men and 86 women in Sample 2 (M_age = 40.70, SD = 10.83). We asked the participants in Sample 1 (N = 169) to complete the J-HSPA again after two weeks, and we collected 160 responses. We excluded three participants who missed the attention checkpoints from analysis. Therefore, we finally included the data of 157 participants (70 men and 87 women; M_age = 41.18, SD = 11.28) for analysis.

Measures

HS and PA

We used the same scale used in Study 1 to assess HS and PA. The alpha coefficients of the two factors in Study 2 (Sample 1: HS: α = .88, PA: α = .86; Sample 2, HS: α = .84, PA: α = .82) were similar to those of Study 1 and the original study (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020).

Unmitigated communion

To assess unmitigated communion, the study employed the scale used in Study 1. The alpha coefficient of the scale (α = .77) was similar to that of Study 1 the previous studies (Fritz & Helgeson, 1998; Hagiwara et al., 2022).

Self-sacrificing self-enhancement

We assessed self-sacrificing self-enhancement using the five subscale items on self-sacrificing self-enhancement of the Japanese version of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory (Kawasaki & Oshio, 2021; original English version: Pincus et al., 2009). Five items were rated using six-point rating scale ranging from 1 (not at all like me) to 6 (very much like me). The alpha coefficient was α = .87, which was better than that of Pincus et al. (2009).

Life satisfaction

We used the Japanese version of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Sumino, 1994; original English version: Diener et al., 1985) to assess life satisfaction. Four items were rated using a seven-point rating scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The alpha coefficient of the scale was α = .89, which was sufficient and similar to that of Sumino (1994).

Self-esteem

We used the Japanese version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Sakurai, 2000; original English version: Rosenberg, 1965) to assess self-esteem. Ten items were rated using a four-point rating scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The alpha coefficient of the scale reached α = .89, which is similar to Sakurai (2000).

Depression

To measure depression, we used the Japanese version of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (Shima et al., 1985; original English version, Radloff, 1977). Twenty items were rated using a four-point rating scale consisting of 1 (less than one day), 2 (1–2 days), 3 (3–4 days), and 4 (5–7 days). The alpha coefficient of the scale reached α = .93, which was sufficient and similar to Radloff (1977).

Big five traits

To investigate the Big Five traits, the study utilized the Japanese version of the Ten Item Personality Inventory (Oshio et al., 2012; original English version: Gosling et al., 2003). This scale uses two items each to assess extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness. The items were rated using a seven-point rating scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly). Because the Ten Item Personality Inventory has only two items per subscale, the Pearson’s correlation coefficient between the two items is more appropriate than the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for assessing internal consistency (Oshio et al., 2014). In addition, Pearson’s correlation between the two items essentially reflects Cronbach’s alpha, and a higher correlation indicates stronger internal consistency. However, because the Ten Item Personality Inventory is designed to cover broad personality dimensions with only two items per subscale, excessively high correlations may limit the measurement range. In our study, the correlations between the two items were .47 for extraversion, .21 for agreeableness, .39 for conscientiousness, .42 for neuroticism, and .38 for openness. Although these values are modest, they are generally consistent with previous studies (Gosling et al., 2003; Oshio et al., 2012), suggesting that the Ten Item Personality Inventory, although less reliable than longer measures, remains acceptable when brevity is considered.

Interpersonal behavioral traits

We used the Japanese version of the International Personality Item Pool—Interpersonal Circumplex (IPIP-IC; Hashimoto & Oshio, 2016; original English version: Markey & Markey, 2009) to assess interpersonal behavioral traits. This scale assesses eight factors related to interpersonal traits, namely, quiet reserved, unassertive, polite, loving, social vitality, social dominance, arrogant calculating, and cold. Notably, the current study uses the labels for each factor as those of Kaufman and Jauk (2020), which is the original study of the HSPA, instead of those by Hashimoto and Oshio (2016), because we are focusing on the comparison between the J-HSPA and HSPA. Table S2 shows the corresponding labels used by Kaufman and Jauk (2020) and Hashimoto and Oshio (2016). The participants rated 32 items using a five-point rating scale ranging from 1 (very inaccurate) to 5 (very accurate). The alpha coefficients for each factor were as follows: quiet reserved: α = .79, unassertive: α = .77, polite: α = .54, loving: α = .83, social vitality: α = .85, social dominance: α = .86, arrogant calculating: α = .84, and cold: α = .70. These coefficients were similar to those of previous studies (Hashimoto & Oshio, 2016; Markey & Markey, 2009).

Statistical analyses

Statistical analyses were performed using R version 4.3.1 (R Core Team, 2021) and the R packages “psych”, “dplyr”, “lavaan”, “irr”, “tidyverse” and “pequod”. First, following Study 1, we excluded the data of participants who indicated an acquiescence response (90% of the responses are the same) and conducted the analysis as described below. Second, we performed ESEM to assess the stability of the two-factor structure across samples, as in Study 1. Third, we calculated correlation coefficients and intra-class correlation coefficients to examine test–retest reliability. Finally, we calculated the correlation coefficients between the J-HSPA and multiple scales to examine convergent and incremental validity. There were no missing data because the responses were mandatory.

Results and discussion

Factor structure

We performed ESEM to assess the stability of the two-factor structure of J-HSPA. The results showed that the corresponding factor loadings were above .45 and the goodness of fit was adequate, χ² (187) = 397.10, p < .001, CFI = .88, SRMR = .06, RMSEA = .06 (90 %CI [.51, .64]). This partially replicates the results of Study 1 and the original version (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020). The inter-factor correlation between HS and PA was r = .00, p = .996.

Test–retest reliability

We examined the test–retest reliability of the J-HSPA by calculating the correlation coefficients, which were significant for HS (r = .78, p < .001) and PA (r = .76, p < .001). We then calculated the intra-class correlation coefficients, which indicated the following: HS: ICC (2, 1) = .78 (95% CI [.71, .84]); PA: ICC (2, 1) = .75 (95% CI [.67, .82]). These results provided additional evidence that the J-HSPA exhibits sufficient reliability.

Convergent validity

We calculated the correlation coefficients between J-HSPA and multiple scales (Table 3). The results indicated that HS was weakly positively correlated with self-sacrificing self-enhancement, moderately positively correlated with self-esteem and life satisfaction, and moderately negatively correlated with depression. PA was moderately positively correlated with depression, strongly positively correlated with unmitigated communion and self-sacrificing self-enhancement. Among the Big Five traits, HS was weakly positively correlated with extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness, whereas it was moderately negatively correlated with neuroticism. Meanwhile, PA was weakly positively correlated with neuroticism. Moreover, among the interpersonal behavioral traits, HS was weakly positively correlated with unassertive, polite, loving, and social vitality, while PA was weakly positively correlated with polite, moderately positively correlated with social dominance, loving, and social vitality, and weakly negatively correlated with cold, quiet reserved, and unassertive. As in the original study (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020), these results generally support the convergent validity of the J-HSPA. The correlation coefficients were also generally similar to the original study (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020).

Table 3.

Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients between the J-HSPA and the other scales in study 2.

	Correlation coefficients				M	SD
	HS	p	PA	p	M	SD
Unmitigated communion (N = 153)	−.14	.091	.72	.000	2.96	0.05
Self-sacrificing self-enhancement (N = 149)	.19	.024	.51	.000	2.98	0.08
Life satisfaction (N = 153)	.46	.000	−.04	.581	3.20	0.11
Self-esteem (N = 149)	.43	.000	.04	.592	2.43	0.05
Depression (N = 153)	−.43	.000	.31	.000	1.95	0.05
Big fivel traits
Extraversion (N = 153)	.28	.001	.00	.955	3.29	0.11
Agreeableness (N = 153)	.27	.001	.09	.244	4.61	0.09
Conscientiousness (N = 153)	.28	.000	.06	.448	3.79	0.11
Neuroticism (N = 153)	−.34	.000	.28	.000	4.26	0.11
Openness (N = 153)	.27	.001	.03	.753	3.39	0.10
Interpersonal behavioral traits
Quiet reserved (N = 149)	.07	.395	−.28	.001	3.35	0.07
Unassertive (N = 149)	.25	.002	−.29	.000	3.62	0.06
Polite (N = 149)	.19	.020	.37	.000	3.13	0.05
Loving (N = 149)	.18	.028	.50	.000	3.20	0.06
Social vitality (N = 149)	.22	.008	.45	.000	2.45	0.07
Social dominance (N = 149)	.13	.120	.48	.000	2.10	0.07
Arrogant calculating (N = 149)	−.11	.194	.12	.142	2.31	0.07
Cold (N = 149)	.09	.251	−.18	.025	2.87	0.06

Note. HS: healthy selfishness; PA: pathological altruism.

Incremental validity

We conducted a hierarchical multiple regression analysis to test whether HS and PA differed from unmitigated communion in relation to life satisfaction and depression. Following Kaufman and Jauk (2020), we entered HS, PA, unmitigated communion and the Big Five traits as independent variables, and life satisfaction and depression as dependent variables (Table 4). In Step 1, unmitigated communion was a significant predictor of depression, but it was canceled when HS and PA were entered. HS was a predictor of life satisfaction, and HS and PA were predictors of depression. Multicollinearity did not occur (VIFs <2.50). Consistent with the original study (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020), these results indicate the incremental validity of HS and PA beyond unmitigated communion.

Table 4.

Hierarchical multiple regression model with life satisfaction and depression as dependent variables in study 2.

	Life satisfaction	Depression
Step 1
Unmitigated communion	.05	.15***
Extraversion	.20	−.07
Agreeableness	−.13*	−.08
Conscientiousness	.23**	−.06
Neuroticism	−.22	.45***
Openness	.09	.00
	R²adj = .24***	R²adj = .33***
Step 2
Healthy selfishness	.35***	−.26***
Pathological altruism	−.08	.24*
Unmitigated communion	.15	−.06
Extraversion	.15	−.03
Agreeableness	−.22*	−.01
Conscientiousness	.22**	−.09
Neuroticism	−.18	.37***
Openness	.07	−.02
	R²adj = .34***	R²adj = .40***

Note. Standardized partial regression coefficients are reported.

^***p < .001, ^**p < .01, ^*p < .05.

General discussion

This study developed the J-HSPA and examined its reliability and validity. We conducted two online surveys on a total of 665 participants (N₁ = 325, N₂ = 340). The results demonstrate that the J-HSPA exhibits a two-factor structure and high reliability, including internal consistency and test–retest reliability. Furthermore, we assessed the (convergent and incremental) validity of the J-HSPA by examining its association with multiple variables. The results indicated that HS was positively associated with adaptive psychological functions such as life satisfaction and self-esteem, but not PA. HS was negatively correlated with maladaptive psychological functions, such as depression, while PA was positively correlated. In summary, these results supported the reliability and validity of the J-HSPA, which confirms its utility as a valuable tool for assessing HS and PA in the Japanese population.

Exploring the adaptive side of selfishness (HS) and the maladaptive side of altruism (PA) may provide a new perspective for an integrated understanding of human sociality. Kaufman and Jauk (2020) developed the HSPA scale to measure individual differences in HS and PA. However, the concepts of HS and PA were proposed in western culture, which emphasizes independence. Therefore, whether or not the previous findings can be generalized to other cultures, especially those that emphasize interdependence, remains unclear. The current study has taken an important step by developing the J-HSPA and demonstrating that the concepts and measurement scales of HS and PA extend beyond western cultural boundaries. This finding poses significant potential in facilitating cross-cultural research in this area. To deeply understand the nature of human sociality, it is important to comprehensively examine a wide variety of samples, including non-WEIRD (Henrich et al., 2010). Indeed, over the past two decades, cross-cultural research on human selfishness and altruism has gained momentum (e.g., Baldassarri & Abascal, 2020). Given that recent studies have also focused on the bright side of selfishness and the dark side of altruism (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020; Oakley, 2013), cross-cultural comparisons between HS and PA should increase in the future. We recommend that future studies develop scales in languages other than English and Japanese. Doing so will enable cross-cultural comparisons of these scales and contribute to a comprehensive understanding of human sociality.

Society highly values altruistic behaviors (Barclay & Willer, 2007; Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006), and researchers have developed several interventions to promote altruistic behaviors to maintain and improve well-being (Dunn et al., 2008; Otake et al., 2006; for a review, see Aknin et al., 2022). However, recognizing that individuals with high levels of PA may engage in maladaptive behaviors that can cause harm to themselves and others is important (Oakley, 2013; Oakley et al., 2012). They also exhibit high levels of depressive symptoms (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020). These findings point to the potential risks of solely focusing on the bright side of altruism in interventions to maintain and improve well-being. In addition, individuals with certain symptoms and disorders, including personality and eating ones, display maladaptive interpersonal styles (American Psychiatric Association, 2013; Del Giudice, 2018). For example, Bachner-Melman and Oakley (2016) note that individuals that exhibit these symptoms have a high tendency for PA, but empirical research that supports this association is currently lacking. Thus, future studies should examine the association between PA and various symptoms and diseases from the clinical perspective and provide empirical evidence.

Consistent with the original study (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020), HS was negatively correlated with unmitigated communion and PA was positively correlated with it. Note that the correlation coefficient between HS and unmitigated communion in Study 2 was similar to that in Study 1, but not significant. Moreover, PA was weakly positively associated with neuroticism, whereas unmitigated communion was weakly positively associated with agreeableness and neuroticism (Table S3). The current study observed differences between PA and unmitigated communion in terms of agreeableness, which confirms that unmitigated communion includes an other-oriented tendency. Furthermore, hierarchical multiple regression analysis showed that PA predicted depression compared to unmitigated communion. These findings were similar to those of the original study (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020) and indicate that PA are distinct from unmitigated communion.

Nevertheless, a few of the results in the current study differed from those of the original study (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020). First, this study found no relationship between HS and PA. Kaufman and Jauk (2020) pointed out that HS and PA are not necessarily negatively correlated, because HS and PA are not opposites but theoretically independent concepts. HS emphasizes a balance between fulfillment of self and concern for others, whereas PA is a tendency toward excessive self-sacrifice and prioritization of others. Therefore, our findings may support the notion of Kaufman and Jauk (2020) that HS and PA are theoretically independent concepts. Note, however, that the survey conducted by Kaufman and Jauk (2020) found a negative correlation between HS and PA. One possible explanation for this discrepancy is cultural differences in the perception of selfishness and altruism. In Western culture, selfishness and altruism may be perceived as opposing tendencies (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020). In contrast, in Japan, self-care and self-sacrifice may be valued simultaneously without being seen as contradictory, or either may be valued depending on the situation (Van Doesum et al., 2021; Yamagishi et al., 2008). In Japan, PA may be more socially reinforced and its negative psychological effects may be perceived as less pronounced than in Western contexts. Therefore, it is possible that there are a certain number of people in Japan who have HS but also have a tendency toward PA and that the correlation was small or absent. Future cross-cultural research should further examine how cultural values and norms shape the conceptualization of HS and PA.

Second, although PA and life satisfaction were negatively associated in the original study (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020), the present study did not identify this association. However, the original study (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020) also found only a weak negative correlation between PA and life satisfaction (Study 1: r = −.14; Study 2: r = −.11). These findings suggest that PA is more strongly associated with maladaptive than with adaptive psychological functions. However, we cannot conclude whether the differences between the present and previous studies (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020) reflect minor or important differences, such as differences in cultural values. Future research should carefully examine the relationship between PA and adaptive psychological functions, considering the possibility of differences in cultural values, to further elucidate the nature of PA.

Third, the present study found that HS was positively associated with openness and negatively associated with neuroticism in the Big Five traits, but Kaufman and Jauk (2020) did not show this association. In addition, our results showed that HS and conscientiousness were positively correlated, whereas Kaufman and Jauk (2020) showed that they were negatively correlated. Given the Japanese cultural values that emphasize social harmony as well as individual pleasure (Hitokoto & Uchida, 2015; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Uchida & Kitayama, 2009), it may be reasonable that HS, which respects one’s own pleasure and happiness while caring for others, is associated with these traits. In addition, this study found no association between PA and conscientiousness and agreeableness, whereas Kaufman and Jauk (2020) found an association. It should be noted, however, that the original study (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020) also found a weak association between PA and conscientiousness (r = .16) and agreeableness (r = −.14). Given the Japanese cultural values that emphasize self-sacrifice and social harmony, it is possible that the association between PA and these traits did not emerge clearly. Although this study used the Ten Item Personality Inventory (Gosling et al., 2003; Oshio et al., 2012), which is a simple measure of the Big Five traits, future studies should examine the validity of these findings and interpretations in multiple countries using a scale that can measure the Big Five traits more broadly (Soto & John, 2017; Yoshino et al., 2022).

Finally, we demonstrated that PA was widely associated with interpersonal behavioral traits, except for arrogant calculating. This differed from the original study (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020), which indicated that the association between PA and interpersonal behavioral traits was unclear with compared with HS. In this study, PA was not only negatively correlated with coldness and submissiveness interpersonal behavioral traits such as cold and unassertive, but also positively correlated with warmth interpersonal behavioral traits such as loving, polite, and social vitality. Considering that PA is the tendency to over-prioritize the needs of others over one’s own needs (Kaufman & Jauk, 2020; Oakley et al., 2012), it is theoretically reasonable that PA is widely associated with interpersonal behavioral traits. Another explanation is that Japan is a mutually cooperative society that emphasizes relationships with others and harmony within groups, and there is a concept of happiness that values in such relationships (Hitokoto & Uchida, 2015; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Uchida & Kitayama, 2009). In these cultural contexts, PA may include behavioral tendencies not only in situations in which people can benefit others but also in general social situations in which people can interact with others. However, these interpretations seemingly contradict the finding that PA was not associated with extraversion and agreeableness in the Big Five traits. This contradiction may be due to the difference in the manner in which the J-HSPA and IPIP-IC items ask about specific interpersonal behavioral tendencies. Alternatively, it may be because the Big Five items focus more on abstract and general personality traits. Future work should more closely examine the validity of these interpretations by more directly comparing data from multiple cultures in a single study.

This study has some limitations. First, this study relied on self-reported data. As such, the extent to which the self-reported HS and PA tendencies of the participants reflect actual behavior is unclear. To address this concern, future research should examine the validity of the scale by assessing other-reports and correspondence with behavioral responses during the cooperative tasks of both constructs. Second, there are limitations related to content validity. Kaufman and Jauk (2020) developed items based on the conceptual considerations of HS and PA discussed in previous studies. We translated an existing scale and did not examine the content validity of the items. For example, items on PA may include items that reflect overlapping elements of not only PA but also altruism and items that do not fully reflect the excessive and unreasonable self-sacrificing aspect of PA. Similarly, items on HS may include items that do not reflect consideration of the negative effects on others and may not clearly distinguish between the elements of typical selfishness. Thus, we needed to examine more closely the conceptual distinctiveness between altruism and PA, and between selfishness and HS, when assessing the validity of the scale. Future studies need to revise the scale with items that fully reflect the definitions of HS and PA, considering item deletion through content validity testing.

In summary, this study developed the J-HSPA and tested its reliability and validity. We expect that future studies will provide in-depth insights into the nature of human sociality by integrating the understanding of the bright and dark sides of altruism and selfishness, respectively.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Development of the Japanese version of the healthy selfishness and pathologicalaltruism scale

Supplemental Material for Development of the Japanese version of the healthy selfishness and pathologicalaltruism scale by Ryuji Oguni, Chiaki Hagiwara and Tadahiro Shimotsukasa in Personality Science

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Development of the Japanese version of the healthy selfishness and pathologicalaltruism scale

Footnotes

Author note

Not applicable.

Acknowledgements

We thank Scott Barry Kaufman for permission to develop the Japanese version and assistance with translation for conducting this study.

Author contributions

Ryuji Oguni: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing- Original draft preparation, Writing- Reviewing and Editing, Project administration, Funding acquisition.

Chiaki Hagiwara: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing- Reviewing and Editing.

Tadahiro Shimotsukasa: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing- Reviewing and Editing, Funding acquisition.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grants 22K20308 and 22K13822.

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.

ORCID iDs

Ryuji Oguni

Chiaki Hagiwara

Tadahiro Shimotsukasa

Data Accessibility Statement

The datasets generated during the current study are available in the Open Science Framework: .

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Note

References

Aknin

L. B.

Dunn

E. W.

Whillans

A. V.

(2022). The emotional rewards of prosocial spending are robust and replicable in large samples. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 31(6), 536–545. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721422112110

American Psychiatric Association . (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596

Bachner-Melman

Oakley

(2016). Giving ‘til it hurts: Eating disorders and pathological altruism. In Latzer

Stein

(Eds.), Bio-psycho-social contributions to understanding eating disorders (pp. 91–103). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32742-6_7

Baldassarri

Abascal

(2020). Diversity and prosocial behavior. Science, 369(6508), 1183–1187. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb2432

Barclay

Willer

(2007). Partner choice creates competitive altruism in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274(1610), 749–753. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.0209

Bassett

R. L.

Aubé

(2013). “Please care about me!” or “I am pleased to care about you!” Considering adaptive and maladaptive versions of unmitigated communion. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 41(2), 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164711304100201

Blake

P. R.

McAuliffe

Corbit

Callaghan

T. C.

Barry

Bowie

Kleutsch

Kramer

K. L.

Ross

Vongsachang

Wrangham

Warneken

(2015). The ontogeny of fairness in seven societies. Nature, 528(7581), 258–261. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15703

Chen

J. M.

Kim

H. S.

Mojaverian

Morling

(2012). Culture and social support provision: Who gives what and why. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211427309

Crocker

Canevello

Brown

A. A.

(2017). Social motivation: Costs and benefits of selfishness and otherishness. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 299–325. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044145

10.

Del Giudice

(2018). Evolutionary psychopathology: A unified approach. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/med-psych/9780190246846.001.0001

11.

Diener

E. D.

Emmons

R. A.

Larsen

R. J.

Griffin

(1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

12.

Dunn

E. W.

Aknin

L. B.

Norton

M. I.

(2008). Spending money on others promotes happiness. Science, 319(5870), 1687–1688. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1150952

13.

Fritz

H. L.

Helgeson

V. S.

(1998). Distinctions of unmitigated communion from communion: Self-neglect and over involvement with others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.121

14.

Gosling

S. D.

Rentfrow

P. J.

Swann

W. B.

(2003). A very brief measure of the big-five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-6566(03)00046-1

15.

Hagiwara

Shimotsukasa

Oshio

(2022). Development of the Japanese version of the revised unmitigated communion scale. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 93(2), 120–128. (In Japanese with English abstract.). https://doi.org/10.4992/jjpsy.93.20216

16.

Hamilton

W. D.

(1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7(1), 17–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(64)90039-6

17.

Hardy

C. L.

Van Vugt

(2006). Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(10), 1402–1413. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206291006

18.

Hashimoto

Oshio

(2016). Development of a Japanese version of the international personality item pool-interpersonal circumplex. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 87(4), 395–404. (In Japanese with English abstract.). https://doi.org/10.4992/jjpsy.87.15215

19.

Helgeson

V. S.

Fritz

H. L.

(1998). A theory of unmitigated communion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_2

20.

Henrich

Boyd

Bowles

Camerer

Fehr

Gintis

McElreath

Alvard

Barr

Ensminger

Henrich

N. S.

Hill

Gil White

Gurven

Marlowe

F. W.

Patton

J. Q.

Tracer

(2005). “Economic man” in cross-cultural perspective: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(6), 795–815. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000142

21.

Hitokoto

Uchida

(2015). Interdependent happiness: Theoretical importance and measurement validity. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16(1), 211–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9505-8

22.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

23.

Inagaki

T. K.

Orehek

(2017). On the benefits of giving social support: When, why, and how support providers gain by caring for others. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(2), 109–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416686212

24.

Kaufman

S. B.

Jauk

(2020). Healthy selfishness and pathological altruism: Measuring two paradoxical forms of selfishness. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1006. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01006

25.

Kawasaki

Oshio

(2021). Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the pathological narcissism inventory. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 92(1), 21–30. (In Japanese with English abstract.). https://doi.org/10.4992/jjpsy.92.19217

26.

Markey

P. M.

Markey

C. N.

(2009). A brief assessment of the interpersonal circumplex: The IPIP-IPC. Assessment, 16(4), 352–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191109340382

27.

Markus

H. R.

Kitayama

(1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224

28.

Maydeu-Olivares

Coffman

D. L.

(2006). Random intercept item factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 11(4), 344–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.4.344

29.

Miller

J. G.

Akiyama

Kapadia

(2017). Cultural variation in communal versus exchange norms: Implications for social support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 81–101. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000091

30.

Nowak

M. A.

Sigmund

(2005). Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature, 437(7063), 1291–1298. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04131

31.

Oakley

Knafo

Madhavan

Wilson

D. S.

(2012). Pathological altruism. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199738571.001.0001

32.

Oakley

B. A.

(2013). Concepts and implications of altruism bias and pathological altruism. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(Suppl 2), 10408–10415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1302547110

33.

Oshio

(2016). Evaluation of test-retest reliability in the development of psychological scales: A meta-analysis of correlation coefficients described in the “Japanese Journal of Psychology”. Japanese Psychological Review, 59(1), 68–83. (In Japanese with English abstract.). https://doi.org/10.24602/sjpr.59.1_68

34.

Oshio

Abe

Cutrone

(2012). Development, reliability, and validity of the Japanese version of ten item personality inventory (TIPI-J). Japanese Journal of Personality, 21(1), 40–52. (In Japanese with English abstract.). https://doi.org/10.2132/personality.21.40

35.

Oshio

Abe

Cutrone

Gosling

S. D.

(2014). Further validity of the Japanese version of the ten item personality inventory (TIPI-J): Cross-language evidence for content validity. Journal of Individual Differences, 35(4), 236–244. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000145

36.

Otake

Shimai

Tanaka-Matsumi

Otsui

Fredrickson

B. L.

(2006). Happy people become happier through kindness: A counting kindnesses intervention. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7(3), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-005-3650-z

37.

Pincus

A. L.

Ansell

E. B.

Pimentel

C. A.

Cain

N. M.

Wright

A. G. C.

Levy

K. N.

(2009). Initial construction and validation of the pathological narcissism inventory. Psychological Assessment, 21(3), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016530

38.

Radloff

L. S.

(1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100306

39.

R Core Team . (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

40.

Rosenberg

(2015). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400876136

41.

Sakurai

(2000). Investigation of the Japanese version of Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale. Bulletin of Tsukuba Developmental and Clinical Psychology, 12, 65–71.

42.

Shima

Shikano

Kitamura

Asai

(1985). New self-rating scale for depression. Clinical Psychiatry, 27(6), 717–723.

43.

Soto

C. J.

John

O. P.

(2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096

44.

Sumino

(1994). Development of Japanese version of the satisfaction with life scale. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of Japanese Association of Educational Psychology, 36, 192.

45.

Trivers

R. L.

(1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35–57. https://doi.org/10.1086/406755

46.

Uchida

Kitayama

(2009). Happiness and unhappiness in east and west: Themes and variations. Emotion, 9(4), 441–456. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015634

47.

Van Doesum

N. J.

Murphy

R. O.

Gallucci

Aharonov-Majar

Athenstaedt

W. T.

Bai

Böhm

Bovina

Buchan

N. R.

Chen

X. P.

Dumont

K. B.

Engelmann

J. B.

Eriksson

Euh

Fiedler

Friesen

Gächter

Garcia

Van Lange

P. A.

(2021). Social mindfulness and prosociality vary across the globe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(35), e2023846118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023846118

48.

Yamagishi

Hashimoto

Schug

(2008). Preferences versus strategies as explanations for culture-specific behavior. Psychological Science, 19(6), 579–584. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02126.x

49.

Yoshino

Shimotsukasa

Oshio

Hashimoto

Ueno

Mieda

Migiwa

Sato

Kawamoto

Soto

C. J.

John

O. P.

(2022). A validation of the Japanese adaptation of the Big five inventory-2 (BFI-2-J). Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 924351. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.924351

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.09 MB

Development of the Japanese version of the healthy selfishness and pathological altruism scale

Abstract

Keywords

Study 1

Method

Participants

Measures

HS and PA

Unmitigated communion

Statistical analyses

Results and discussion

Factor structure

Internal consistency

Convergent validity

Study 2

Method

Participants

Measures

HS and PA

Unmitigated communion

Self-sacrificing self-enhancement

Life satisfaction

Self-esteem

Depression

Big five traits

Interpersonal behavioral traits

Statistical analyses

Results and discussion

Factor structure

Test–retest reliability

Convergent validity

Incremental validity

General discussion

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Development of the Japanese version of the healthy selfishness and pathologicalaltruism scale

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Development of the Japanese version of the healthy selfishness and pathologicalaltruism scale

Footnotes

Author note

Acknowledgements

Author contributions

Funding

Declaration of conflicting interests

ORCID iDs

Data Accessibility Statement

Supplemental Material

Note

References

Supplementary Material