PERSONALITY AND CULTURAL PREDICTORS OF THE QUIET EGO:

COMPARING TURKEY AND THE UNITED STATES

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
OF
MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

BY

ECE AKÇA

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

SEPTEMBER 2014
Approval of the Graduate School of Social Sciences

Prof. Dr. Meliha Altunışık

Director

I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of
Master of Science.

Prof. Dr. Tülin Gençöz

Head of Department

This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science.

Prof. Dr. Heidi Wayment Prof. Dr. Nebi Sümer

Co-Supervisor Supervisor

Examining Committee Members

Prof. Dr. Orhan Aydın (U. Ü., PSY)

Prof. Dr. Nebi Sümer (METU, PSY)
Assist. Prof. Dr. Emre Selçuk (METU, PSY)
I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and
presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also
declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and
referenced all material and results that are not original to this work.

Name, Last name : Ece, Akça

Signature :

iii
 ABSTRACT

PERSONALITY AND CULTURAL PREDICTORS OF THE QUIET EGO:

COMPARING TURKEY AND THE UNITED STATES

Akça, Ece
M.S., Department of Psychology
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Nebi Sümer
Co-Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Heidi Wayment

September, 2014, 141 pages

Although high self-esteem has been shown to strongly relate to numerous positive
psychological outcomes, previous research has shown that it is also linked with a
defensive attitude and yields negative outcomes when the self is threatened by an
external source. The concept of quiet ego, which is defined as a balanced
integration of the self with others by turning down the volume of the ego, has been
coined as a plausible alterative that can mitigate the potential negative effects of
fragile high self-esteem. Considering that both cultural differences and personality
characteristics have an impact on the conceptualization of the self, quiet ego, and its
predictors are expected to vary across cultures. Therefore, the aim of this thesis is
two-fold. First is to examine the psychometric properties of The Quiet Ego Scale in
Turkish culture and the second is to investigate cultural similarities and differences
between Turkey and the USA on quiet ego, its personality and cultural correlates
(predictors). The current study was conducted with 248 Turkish and 690 American

iv
university students. In addition to the Quiet Ego Scale, participants completed the
measures of self-esteem, Big-Five personality traits, individualism and collectivism,
affect, life satisfaction, happiness, empathy, identification with people and nature,
mindfulness, well-being, self-compassion. Factor analyses on the items of the Quite
Ego Scale supported its construct validity consistent with its theoretical base among
Turkish participants. Gender differences were found on the majority of the main
variables. Cultural differences were identified on quiet ego, as well as on
compassion, interdependence and mindfulness dimensions of quiet ego. As
expected, the quiet ego was positively associated with the indicators of the well-
being and certain personality traits. Among the personality characteristics, openness
to experience was the strongest predictor of quiet ego in both cultures. Moreover,
whereas agreeableness, extraversion and conscientiousness predicted quiet ego in
the US, neuroticism predicted quiet ego strongly in Turkey. Culture was thereby
found to moderate the effects of personality traits. For instance, on low levels of
neuroticism, Turkish participants scored higher than their American counterparts on
quiet ego and this pattern was reversed for high levels of neuroticism. Results were
discussed considering the implications of cultural differences and limitations of the
study.

Keywords: Quiet Ego, Self, Personality Traits, Culture

v
 ÖZ

SAKİN BENLİĞİN KİŞİLİK VE KÜLTÜREL YORDAYICILARI:

TÜRKİYE – AMERİKA BİRLEŞİK DEVLETLERİ KARŞILAŞTIRMASI

Akça, Ece
Yüksek Lisans, Psikoloji Bölümü
Tez Yöneticisi: Prof. Dr. Nebi Sümer
Ortak Tez Yöneticisi: Prof. Dr. Heidi Wayment

Eylül, 2014, 141 sayfa

Yüksek benlik saygısının bir çok psikolojik değişkenle olumlu yönde ilişkili olduğu
geçmiş yazında yaygın olarak gösterilmesine karşın, başka çalışmalar benliğin bir
dış kaynak tarafından tehdit edildiğinde savunmacı bir tutum alabileceğini ve
yüksek benlik saygısının olumsuz sonuçlar da doğurabileceğini göstermiştir.
Benliğin, bir anlamda “bencil sesinin” bastırılarak, diğerlerinin kişinin benliğine
dengeli bir şekilde entegre edilmesi olarak tanımlanan sakin benlik kavramı,
özellikle yüksek fakat kırılgan benlik saygısının potansiyel olumsuz sonuçlarını
azaltabilecek bir alternatif olarak görülmektedir. Hem kişilik özelliklerinin hem de
kültürel farklılıların benliğin kavramsallaştırılmasındaki etkisi düşünüldüğünde,
sakin benlik ve yordayıcılarının bireyci ve ilişkisel kültürler arasında değişiklik
göstermesi beklenmektedir. Bu bağlamda, bu çalışmanın iki temel amacı vardır. İlk
amaç Sakin Benlik Ölçeği’nin Türk kültüründeki psikometrik özelliklerini
incelemektir. İkinci amaç ise sakin benlik kavramı ve bunun kişilik ve kültürle ilgili

vi
yordayıcılarının Amerika Birleşik Devletleri (ABD) ve Türk kültürlerindeki
benzerlikleri ve farklılıklarını incelemektir. Bu çalışmada 248 Türk ve 690 ABDli
üniversite öğrencisi yer almıştır. Sakin Benlik Ölçeği’nin yanında katılımcılara Beş
Faktör Kişilik özellikleri, bireycilik toplulukçuluk, duygu durumu, yaşam doyumu,
mutluluk, empati, insan ve doğa ile özdeşleşme, farkındalık, iyilik hali, öz-
duyarlılık ölçekleri uygulanmıştır. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonuçları Sakin Benlik
Ölçeği’nin Türk örnekleminde kuramsal temeline uygun olarak yapı geçerliliğini
desteklemiştir. Çalışmadaki bir çok değişkende cinsiyet farklılıkları saptanmıştır.
Hem genel sakin benlik değişkeninde hem de sakın benliğin alt boyutları olan, bakış
açısı alma, özdeşleşme ve farkındalık boyutlarında kültürel farklılıklar saptanmıştır.
Çalışmanın beklentilerine uygun olarak, sakin benlik, iyilik hali göstergeleri ve
belirli kişilik özellikleri ile olumlu yönde ilişkilidir. Kişilik özellikleri arasında
sakın benliğin en güçlü yordayıcısının “değişime açıklık” olduğu bulunmuştur.
Bunun yanında, sakin benliği ABD’de uyumluluk, dışa dönüklük ve sorumluluk
kişilik özellikleri yordarken, Türkiye’de sadece duygusal dengesizlik
yordamaktadır. Dolayısıyla, kültür, kişilik özelliklerinin etkisinde düzenleyici bir
rol oynamaktadır. Örneğin, yüksek nevrotiklik düzeyinde, Amerikalı katılımcıların
sakin benlik düzeyleri değişmezken Türk katılımcılarda anlamlı bir düşüş
gözlenmiştir. Bulgular kültürel farklılıkların etkileri göz önünde bulundurularak
tartışılmış ve çalışmanın sınırlılıkları belirtilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Sakin Benlik, Benlik, Kişilik Özellikleri, Kültür

vii
To My Mother

&

My Family

viii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Dr.

Nebi Sümer and co-supervisor Prof. Dr. Heidi Wayment for their guidance and
patience through my thesis process, I am also thankful to Dr. Melikşah Demir and
every person who contributed efforts to data collection procedure in the US for their
valuable contributions and cooperations.
I also would like to thank you to the examining committee members Prof.
Dr. Orhan Aydın and Asisst. Prof. Emre Selçuk for their valuable comments,
feedbacks and advices for my future studies, and Prof. Dr. Nuri Bilgin for his
unlimited understanding, and tolerance.
I owe a great gratitude to all my friends especially Suzan, Damla, Beril,
Gülden, Canay, Ezgi and Liam for their incredible supports, friendships and
contributions to my endless academic writing mistakes and for teaching me English
during my thesis process. I also would like to thank you to Sercan Karlıdağ and for
each person in Special Topics in Social Psychology course for their valuable
contributions to Turkish part of my thesis.
I would like to express my appreciation to Selahattin for his delicious foods,
perfect service and help, and most importantly for his trustful and positive approach
toward my hopeless attitude.
Most importantly, to my mom and my family thank you for your courage
and emotional support whenever I wanted to give up, and understanding me in most
stressful times of my life. I owe you so much and I love you.

ix
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PLAGIARISM ..................................................................................................... iii

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................ iv
ÖZ ........................................................................................................................ vi
DEDICATION .................................................................................................. viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................... ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................... x
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................ xiii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................... xiv
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...................... 1
1.1 General Introduction ............................................................................. 1
1.2 The Quiet Ego ....................................................................................... 2
1.3 Conceptualization of the Quiet Ego ...................................................... 4
1.4 Four Features of Quiet Ego ................................................................... 6
1.4.1 Detached Awareness ..................................................................... 6
1.4.2 Interdependent Identity ................................................................. 7
1.4.3 Perspective Taking ........................................................................ 8
1.4.4 Growth ........................................................................................... 9
1.5 Measuring the Quiet Ego: The Quiet Ego Scale ................................... 9
1.6 Brief Literature Review on the Correlates of Quite Ego .................... 10
1.6.1 Mindfulness ................................................................................. 10
1.6.2 Affect ........................................................................................... 12
1.6.3 Personality ................................................................................... 13
1.6.4 Life Satisfaction ........................................................................... 15
1.6.5 Happiness .................................................................................... 17
1.6.6 Self-Esteem ................................................................................. 18

x
 1.6.7 Empathy ...................................................................................... 19
1.6.8 Identification ............................................................................... 21
1.6.9 Well-Being .................................................................................. 22
1.6.10 Self-Compassion ....................................................................... 24
1.6.11 Cultural Orientations ................................................................. 25
1.7 The Current Study ............................................................................... 27
2. METHOD .................................................................................................. 29
2.1 Participants ......................................................................................... 29
2.2 Procedure ............................................................................................ 30
2.3 Instruments ......................................................................................... 30
2.3.1 Demographic Questionnaire ........................................................ 31
2.3.2 The Quiet Ego Scale ................................................................... 31
2.3.3 The Big Five Inventory ............................................................... 31
2.3.4 The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule ............................... 32
2.3.5 The Satisfaction with Life Scale ................................................. 32
2.3.6 The Subjective Happiness Scale ................................................. 33
2.3.7 The Interpersonal Reactivity Index ............................................. 33
2.3.8 The Allo-Inclusive Identity Scale ............................................... 34
2.3.9 The Mindful Attention Awareness Scale .................................... 34
2.3.10 The Ryff Scale of Psychological Well-Being ........................... 35
2.3.11 The INDCOL Scale ................................................................... 35
2.3.12 The Self-Compassion Scale-Short Form .................................. 36
2.3.13 The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale ............................................ 36
3. RESULTS .................................................................................................. 38
3.1 Psychometric Properties of the Quiet Ego Scale ................................ 42
3.2 Descriptive Analysis and Correlations among Study Variables ......... 45
3.2.1 Descriptive Statistics ................................................................... 45
3.2.2 Cultural Differences among the Study Variables ....................... 46
3.2.3 Correlations among the Study Variables .................................... 50
3.3 Predictive Power of Study Variables on the Quiet Ego in the US and
Turkish Culture ......................................................................................... 53

xi
 3.4 The Moderation Effect of Culture ....................................................... 58
4. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................ 67
4.1 Cultural Differences ............................................................................ 77
4.2 Well-Being as the Correlate of QE ..................................................... 78
4.3 Predictive Power of Study Variables .................................................. 79
4.4 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies ................................. 81
4.5 Contributions of the Study .................................................................. 83
REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 85
APPENDICES
A. Gönüllü Katılım Formu .......................................................................... 102
B. Demographic Questions .......................................................................... 103
C. The Quiet Ego Scale ............................................................................... 104
D. The Big Five Inventory ........................................................................... 105
E. The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule ............................................ 107
F. The Satisfaction with Life Scale ............................................................. 108
G. The Subjective Happiness Scale ............................................................. 109
H. The Interpersonal Reactivity Index ........................................................ 110
I. Factor Structure of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index ............................ 112
J. The Allo-Inclusive Identity Scale ............................................................ 114
K. Factor Structure of the Allo-Inclusive Identity Scale ............................. 116
L. The Mindfulness Attention Scale ............................................................ 117
M. Factor Structure of the Mindfulness Attention Scale ............................. 119
N. The Ryff Scale of Psychological Well-Being ......................................... 120
O. Factor Structure of the Ryff Scale of Psychological Well-Being ........... 121
P. The INDCOL Scale ................................................................................. 122
Q. The Self-Compassion Scale-Short Form ................................................ 125
R. Factor Structure of the Self-Compassion Scale-Short Form ................... 127
S. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale .......................................................... 128
T. TÜRKÇE ÖZET ...................................................................................... 129
U. TEZ FOTOKOPİSİ İZİN FORMU ......................................................... 141

xii
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLES
Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, Reliability Statistics and Results of t – Test
among Study Variables ................................................................................. 40
Table 2 Factor Structure of the Quiet Ego Scale....................................................... 44
Table 3 Adjusted Means, Standard Deviations, and Cross-Cultural Comparisons of
the Study Variables for Turkish and American Sample ................................ 49
Table 4 Pearson Correlation Coefficients between the Study Variables and Quiet
Ego................................................................................................................. 51
Table 5 Regression of the Personality Characteristics on Quiet Ego in Turkish
Sample ........................................................................................................... 54
Table 6 Regression of the Personality Characteristics on Quiet Ego in American
Sample .......................................................................................................... 54
Table 7 Regression of Dimensions of Empathy on Quiet Ego in Turkish Sample ... 56
Table 8 Regression of Dimensions of Empathy on Quiet Ego in American
Sample .......................................................................................................... 56
Table 9 Regression of Cultural Orientations on Quiet Ego in Turkish Sample ........ 57
Table 10 Regression of personality characteristics on quiet ego where culture is
moderator ...................................................................................................... 60
Table 11 Regression of personality characteristics on perspective taking dimension
of quiet ego where culture is moderator ........................................................ 64
Table 12 Regression of personality characteristics on growth dimension of quiet ego
where culture is moderator ............................................................................ 68
Table 13 Regression of personality characteristics on mindfulness dimension of
quiet ego where culture is moderator ............................................................ 72

xiii
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURES
Figure 1 Quiet ego was predicted by agreeableness in Turkish and American
Culture ........................................................................................................... 61
Figure 2 Quiet ego was predicted by neuroticism in Turkish and American
Culture .......................................................................................................... 62
Figure 3 Perspective taking dimension of quiet ego was predicted by agreeableness
in Turkish and American culture .................................................................. 65
Figure 4 Perspective taking dimension of quiet ego was predicted by neuroticism in
Turkish and American culture ...................................................................... 66
Figure 5 Growth dimension of quiet ego was predicted by extraversion in Turkish
and American culture .................................................................................... 69
Figure 6 Growth dimension of quiet ego was predicted by agreeableness in Turkish
and American culture .................................................................................... 70
Figure 7 Mindfulness dimension of quiet ego was predicted by conscientiousness in
Turkish and American culture ...................................................................... 73
Figure 8 Mindfulness dimension of quiet ego was predicted by neuroticism in
Turkish and American culture ...................................................................... 74

xiv
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

1.1. General Introduction

Thinking about taking an important exam or participating in a competition

makes most of us feel a pang of anxiety. Similarly, some feel embarrassed when
they fall over in public. What unites those feelings is their base implication that they
come from selfish concerns about one’s ego. People feel anxious during an exam
because they are concerned not only with answering the questions correctly, but
also the consequences of not being successful enough or failing the whole thing.On
the one hand, winning a competition is an important desire, but this success brings
pride, respect and some secondary rewards. On the other hand, failure may bring
feelings of shame and humiliation. Falling down in front of the others hurts a person
physically, yet it hurts a person more in that it also makes others laugh. Such selfish
and egoistic concerns lead people to feel anxious and embarrassed and affect
psychological functioning and one’s happiness.
However, there are other thoughts coming to mind, that may result in less
anxiety. Even if one is faced with failure, accepting oneself and focusing on the
successful parts of the life can be more beneficial for psychological functioning. For
example, regarding an exam, one can focus on the real purpose of the exam, that is
– answering all the questions which one knows correctly, instead of focusing on
thoughts stemming from the exam – such as how much one has studied for this
exam, or which grade one will get. This change of focus from oneself to the
situation would be less threatening for the self and would lead less anxious and
defensive behaviours.

1
1.2 The Quiet Ego

Studies on the self, especially on self-esteem, have been increased

extensively in recent decades, and occupied a central space in social psychology.
Although high self-esteem has been seen as a panacea for all sorts of personal and
social problems for a long time, recent research has shown its potential negative
effects. In the review article, Baumeister, Smart and Boden (1996) point out “the
dark sides of high self-esteem” (p.5); especially when it is combined with ego
threat, because when an ego is threatened by an extrinsic source, a psychological
need to protecting self-esteem is awakened. They concluded that people with high
self-esteem are prone to take risks and to raise their favourable self-evaluations after
failure, because they trust in their own capacities more than those with low self-
esteem. In order to make “rational” decisions, a more compassionate view toward
the self is needed. In addition, Baumeister and his colleagues (1996) point out the
blurred perception of people with high self-esteem. Indeed, people with high self-
esteem perceive external evaluations according to their self-perceptions. More
specifically they reject evaluations which contradict their self-view and react
aggressively, whereas they welcome evaluations which support their self-view.
Similarly, people with high self-esteem make favourable self-attributions for
positive events. However, this attribution style does not work for negative events as
much as it does for positive ones (Campbell, Chew, & Scratchley, 1991).
Furthermore, individuals with high self-esteem also deflect reality and exaggerate
their success (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003). However, this will
restrain people from growing, because accepting one’s failures and deriving lessons
from one’s mistakes leads the person a step further in personal development.
Baumeister and his colleagues (1996) conclude that one of the main reasons for
violence is the discrepancy between self-appraisals and external evaluations; the
higher the discrepancy, the stronger the aggressive reaction. If the ego were not be
overly bolstered, the discrepancy between self-appraisals and external evaluations

2
would not affect behaviour in such a way. Thus, a more balanced evaluation of the
self is needed for healthy psychological functioning.
In order to find a balanced model for person’s self-evaluation, Kernis (2003)
proposes “optimal self-esteem” by differentiating fragile and secure high self-
esteem, and characterizes individuals with secure high self-esteem as people who
“like, value, and accept themselves, imperfections and all.” (p.3). Individuals who
have secure high self-esteem know who they truly are, and thus, their self-esteem is
not devastated easily by negative feedback. Those with optimal (secure) high self-
esteem present themselves as they are, that means they do not distort self-
presentations to show themselves better and to suit socially desirable attitudes. They
have a positive self-image implicitly, and present this implicit goodness explicitly.
Moreover, secure high self-esteem is a marker of a stable positive self-evaluation,
and it does not show immediate fluctuations as a reaction to external negative
information. Authenticity is a key component for reaching an optimal self-esteem,
and it can be characterized by four components: awareness of oneself, accepting
external information without deterioration in the manner the self gets benefits,
behaving according to one’s own true self, and having social relationships in which
one feel valuable and appreciated. Although authenticity has many psychological
benefits, focus of the attention is still on the “I”. However, it is important to look at
oneself from outside and being purified of selfish desires. Bilgin (2007) rendered
this situation as being able to see the self as an object from an external point of
view, and evaluating it in an objective way.
Focusing one’s self in an egoistic manner and making a conscious effort to
control one’s behaviours generally backfires. Leary, Adams and Tate (2006)
propose instead, a strategy known as hypo-egoic self-regulation – a self-regulatory
strategy which requires alienating oneself from the self-focus. Hypo-egoic self-
regulation is defined as “relinquishing conscious control over one’s own
behaviour”. This definition may seem fictitious, but self-regulatory systems
function better without ego involvement and accompanied by increased self-
awareness, in the same way in which, for instance, trying to sleep and thus thinking
over and over about sleeping, generally backfires. Leary and his colleagues

3
suggested two paths to reach hypo-egoic state. One is decreasing the amount of the
time spent in a state of self-awareness, which means behaving automatically and
unconsciously as much as possible. Meditation, which is a conscious effort to keep
ones attention on the present moment, helps people follow this path, because it
eases the shift of focus from the self to the situation. Another way for this path is
practicing learned behaviours such as playing piano or riding a bicycle, regularly.
Transcendence, or more specifically, temporarily losing one’s personal identity, is
another way to follow this path. The same goes for dwelling on and living in the
present moment – being aware of the current time, and being purified of abstract
selfish desires. Mindfulness, proposed by Brown and Ryan (2003) covers the
second pathway well. Thinking about one’s unique identity dissociates people from
the environment which all human beings belong. Hence, in order to achieve a more
balanced and positive psychological functioning, decontaminating one’s perception
from selfish and egoistic desires is needed.

1.3. Conceptualization of the Quiet Ego

The concept of quiet ego has been coined as a plausible alternative that can
mitigate the potential negative effects of fragile high self-esteem, and differentiate
the noisy ego from the core self. Quiet ego is indeed a recent self-conceptualization
strategy, proposed by Bauer and Wayment (2008). It involves turning down the
volume of the ego, and absolving oneself from selfish desires. In other words, the
concept of quiet ego is based on an alternative way of conceptualization the self, a
more compassionate self-identity (Wayment, Bauer, & Sylaska, 2014), which
includes integration of others into the self in a balanced way, by turning down the
volume of the ego, having an accepting view towards oneself, one’s personal
growth, as well as hypo-egoic states such as awareness of the present moment. If
ego is conceptualized as a unidimensional continuum, one end of this line would be
the screaming ego. Screaming ego is too noisy; so that it cannot hear any other
voices except one’s own, it cannot see others’ point of views because its highly
valued ego blurs its view and receives new information by straining the self. Noisy

4
ego is necessarily defensive, because it needs to protect its privilege of place.
People in possession of a noisy ego alter the interpretation of situations and perform
positive self-affirmations in order to protect their ego (Hewitt, 1998). The other end
of this continuum is the voiceless ego, which bows to other people so consistently
that it cannot hear its own voice. The voiceless ego can be characterized as the loss
of identity or the self; because this type of ego extensively cares about others'
thoughts and ideas; however it cannot realize its own needs in terms of happiness
and existence. The key point for reaching the quiet ego is bringing these ends into
balance.
Behaviours aspiring to bolster or protect the ego blur individuals’
perception, and then incline individuals to make self-enhancing attributions
(Sylaska, 2011). Contrary to behaving with the aim of receiving self-appraisal from
the experiences, the quiet ego suggests a more inviting attitude towards
momentarily experiences and has an open stance toward the self, and others.
Quieting the ego clears the person’s vision, and leads to a less defensive stance
toward both the self and others. Quiet ego includes acceptance the self and the
situation as the way they are, and this in turns, gives one the opportunity to integrate
others into the self.
Wayment and her colleagues (2014) pointed out two approaches that the
quiet ego may take in order to turn down the volume of the noisy ego; growth and
the balance approach. Growth approach refers to developing through time as a self
and a human being. It includes personal development and perceptions of the
environment to discover opportunities for learning, changing, and developing. The
balance approach aims to find the equilibrium between positive and negative
aspects of the self. Through balance, quiet ego can scan the environment with
increased awareness, can feel the connection between the self and the others. By
virtue of cooperation of these two approaches, the ego quiets.
Bauer and Wayment (2008; 2014) identified four main characteristics of
quiet ego: namely, (1) detached awareness, (2) interdependent identity, (3)
perspective taking, and (4) growth. In the following parts, the main characteristics

5
of the quiet ego will be elaborated, how they promote the ego in a way of quieting
will be explained, and their relationship with each other will be discussed.

1.4. Four Features of Quiet Ego

There are a number of critical features of quiet ego, basically stemming

from positive psychology. Because it aims to increase people’ happiness and health,
and to compose a new ego in a more integrative way, many well-known concepts,
such as sacrifice, aggression, negative affectivity, are also related with quiet ego.
However, Bauer and Wayment (2008) specify four main characteristics of the latent
variable for quiet ego, which explains high proportion of variance in quiet ego in
their studies.

1.4.1. Detached Awareness

Bauer and Wayment (2008) defined detached awareness as a non-defensive

interpretation of the present situation without giving more weight than it deserves to
the expectations and previous experiences. It requires being pure of selfish
judgments and leads to having a clearer vision of the present moment without
thinking how much the ego will gain benefit from the present situation. The already
existing concept of mindfulness corresponds to detached awareness as well.
Mindfulness is defined as being aware of what is happening at the present (Brown
& Ryan, 2003). People generally screen the environment in order to acquire self-
appraisals from their experiences. However, detached awareness opens a road for
people to be able to see the reality. The first feature of the quiet ego, detached
awareness, can be conceptualized as awareness about the external world, which is
separated from desirable, selfish outcomes, expectations, and desired profits.
As mentioned above, the noisy ego is indeed defensive, and thus, it
investigates the situation and engages with information in a biased way. A non-
judgemental way of processing information and seeing a situation in the way as it
is, help people quiet their ego. Greater mindfulness is related to engaging

6
information about the self through a non-defensive perspective by showing lower
levels of verbal defensiveness (Lakey, Kernis, Heppner, & Lance, 2008) and
psychological mindfulness is positively associated with quiet ego and negatively
associated with negative affectivity and aggression among Buddhist practitioners
(Wayment, Wiist, Sullivan, & Warren, 2011). Mindfulness also regulates the
information processing motives with the intent of ego protection (Carlson, 2013).
Non-defensive means of interpreting a situation helps people turn down the volume
of the ego, and thus, quietens it.

1.4.2. Interdependent Identity

Interdependent identity can be defined as conceptualization of the identity as

a part of relation with others (Bauer & Wayment, 2008). In other words,
interdependent identity is the interpretation of the identity combining the self and
others in a balance, by understanding others’ points of view (Davis, 1996). The
ability to understand others’ perspectives lies at the core of interdependence. In that
way, one’s perspective expands and helps to identifying other people (Sylaska,
2011). Bauer and Wayment (2008) explain the fundamental component of
interdependence as the ability to see circumstances from others’ perspectives. One
can identify themselves with other people as they develop the ability of
interdependency. Interdependence and trying to understand other people do not
imply simply conforming to others’ views. Although it is associated with greater
relatedness, there is a negative correlation between quiet ego and psychological
entitlement (Wayment, et al., 2014). Indeed, it is rather necessary to recognize the
fundamental similarities between people, instead of the differences and superiority
of the self. In this regard, perspective taking is the key of the interdependent
identity, the greater the empathy the greater the identification with others and
redefining the self. Feeling a connection and seeing others as a part of the self may
lead individuals to have a less defensive stance toward the others. Thus,
interdependence helps facilitate ego quieting.

7
1.4.3. Perspective Taking

This component of the quiet ego has been identified as compassion in early
studies of quiet ego. However, in recent research the third dimension classified as
perspective taking consistent with the factors of the Quiet Ego Scale. Wayment and
her colleagues (2014) define perspective-taking as projection of the others’ point of
views into the self. Perspective-taking and interdependent identity, function
together in quieting the ego. A more compassionate self-identity (Wayment et al.,
2014) is the end of identifying with another human being and requires a shift of
attention away from the preoccupation of the self (Wayment & O’Mara, 2008). The
ability to understand others’ point of views facilitates personal functioning, leads
individuals to have less egocentric behaviours and less selfish desires (Davis, 1983).
Integrating another’s view into the self provides a path to less defensive
communication.
The four basic qualities of quiet ego work together for personal functioning.
For instance, especially in the case of conflict, detached awareness serves an
opportunity to interdependent identity and compassion by clearing the way for
perspective taking (Bauer & Wayment, 2008). Similarly, increased mindfulness by
stress reduction therapies can also aid people in understanding others’ perspectives
(Birnie, Speca, & Carlson, 2010). Past studies on perspective taking also provide
support for this argument. For example, self-focused people find it hard to take
romantic partners’ perspective into consideration during an argument when they
have the power in the relationship (Gordon & Chen, 2013), whereas being aware of
the both sides of the situation may regulate the strength of their reactions, which in
turn may allow them to accommodate the other’s perspective. During an argument,
being alienated from one’s own ideals, expectations, and values helps one
understanding others’ perspective in intimate relationships (Gottman, Coan,
Carrere, & Swanson, 1998). If a person can distinguish how one sees the situation
from another angle, it will be easier to transfer others’ perspective into one’s own
(Abbate, 2006).

8
1.4.4. Growth

Bauer and Wayment (2008) characterized the growth component of the quiet
ego as development through time with “humanistic and prosocial” (p. 13) way.
Growth can be conceivable as a last step of the quiet ego, containing all other
characteristics of quiet ego such as mindfulness, interdependence, and perspective
taking (Bauer & Wayment, 2008; 2014). Egotism leads people to think immediate
consequences of their actions due to limited time for bolstering the ego currently.
However, growth perspective guides people to think about the long-term effects of
their current actions (Sylaska, 2011). Those who can reach at a certain level of
growth reflect the current life as a process of a long way road. Having a growth
manner as ego quiets has been closely associated with openness to experience,
finding the meaning of one’s life, having tolerance toward others and oneself
(Bauer, 2008).
As would be expected, mindfulness training such as mindfulness-based
stress reduction programs increases participants’ spirituality (Birnie, Speca, &
Carlson, 2010). Searching for opportunities for humanistic personal development
help one to see the other’s perspectives (Bauer and Wayment, 2008). Self-
compassion with a humanistic view is positively associated with wisdom (Neff,
Rude, & Kirkpatrick, 2007), which is clearly related with greater growth. Similarly,
Ardelt (2008) posits that growing people possess greater wisdom, which requires
being less selfish and less self-centeredness. Hence, the volume of ego quiets down
in time by being less selfish.

1.5. Measuring the Quiet Ego: The Quiet Ego Scale

Although the quiet ego has four main characteristics, it is a higher-order

construct composed of those four components. The Quiet Ego Scale (Wayment, et
al., 2014) is developed to measure “person’s readiness to think, feel, and behave in
ways that are compassionate in a broad sense”. The scale has composed of already
existing valid and reliable scales which separately measures all four characteristics

9
of the quieter ego by summarizing them into three or four items. Thus, by
considering the Quiet Ego Scale, one can measure both characteristics of the
concept and the global quiet ego. It is recommended to use the scale in aggregate,
but in the current study, each of the subscales was also analyzed individually to see
whether these sub-dimensions function differently in terms of their associations
with the other variables in concern.
Wayment and her colleagues (2014) investigated the relationship between
quiet ego and numerous psychological constructs. Considering their findings, this
study attempts to replicate and test them in a relatively different Turkish cultural
context. Therefore, both previously utilized variables by Wayment and her friends
and the other variables which are conceptually associated with quite ego, were
included in the current study.
As briefly explained above, the concept of quite ego is closely linked with
many self-related processes. Therefore, the fundamental correlates of the quite ego
will be briefly reviewed below.

1.6. Brief Literature Review on the Correlates of Quite Ego

1.6.1. Mindfulness

Brown and Ryan (2003) developed the Mindfulness Attention Awareness

Scale and defined mindfulness as “the state of being attentive to and aware of what
is taking place in the present” (p.822). Memories from the past or expectations
about the future might function as a filter while experiencing the present moment.
Being aware of and attentive to the present moment requires being open, while
gaining acceptance and consciousness of what is happening in the mind and the
outside world.
Mindfulness is associated with many psychological constructs, such as
openness to experience, and self-consciousness (Brown & Ryan, 2003), and has a
number of positive outcomes including mental and physical health, and healthier
relationships (Brown, Ryan, & Creswell, 2007). Practicing mindful thinking in daily

10
life is linked with the interdependent self with all living things; people feel
healthier, with decreased aggression and less negative affectivity (Wayment et al.,
2011). Similarly, a mindful state of mind is related to emotional, psychological and
social well-being, feeling more connected and related to the nature (Howell, Dopko,
Passmore, & Buro, 2011). Mindfulness is also facilitated self-knowledge. Carlson
(2013) proposes that mindfulness clears the way to receiving external information,
which is generally interpreted as more positive in order to escape negative feelings.
Hence, mindfulness can be seen as opposed to self-focused constructs, such as
private self-consciousness and self-awareness.
Instead of focusing thoughts and emotions stemming from the current
experience, mindfulness focuses on experiencing the situation without misguided
observations (Carlson, 2013). Mindfulness may change the focus of the attention
from the self to the others. Collaterally, mindfulness helps individuals by being less
defensive to ego-threat. A person who is mindful about what is happening outside
and has self-knowledge may not feel defensive to protect the ego. By the means of
being mindful, people usually give some space for others as well. In addition, after
receiving stress reduction therapy by increasing mindfulness, patients showed lower
stress and greater self-compassion (Birnie et al., 2010). Since mindfulness is one of
the main components of quiet ego (Wayment et al, 2011), its relation with quiet ego
was also investigated in the current study.
Non-evaluative observation of the environment should help people to
decrease their defensiveness to bolster ego. Past studies have shown that
mindfulness training and dispositional mindfulness were associated with less
emotional reactivity and more open to experience negative emotions (Arch &
Craske, 2006), decreased stress perception (Creswell, Pacilio, Lindsay, & Brown,
2014), smoothen neuroendocrine reactions and affective responses toward stress
(Brown, Weinstein, & Creswell, 2012), increased emotional control toward
negative events (Modinos, Ormel, & Aleman, 2010; Way, Creswell, Eisenberger, &
Lieberman, 2010).
According to terror management theory, people tend to behave defensively,
holding onto world views, trying to increase self-esteem and suppress death-related

11
thoughts (Greenberg, Solomon, & Pyszczynski, 1997, as cited in Pyszczynski, et al.,
2004). After mortality salience sessions, participants who were higher in trait-
mindfulness were more open to accept death-related thoughts, and were less
defensive (Niemiec et al., 2010). Another study, which supports the relationship
between mindfulness and becoming less defensive, found that mindfulness is
positively associated with lower levels of verbal defensiveness (Lakey, Kernis,
Heppner, & Lance, 2008).
Although mindfulness is one of the main components of the quiet ego, quiet
ego is also distinct from it and a higher order construct including mindfulness
(Wayment, et al., 2014). In the current study, it is expected that quiet ego which is
having a less defensive stand toward daily life will be associated with greater
mindfulness.

1.6.2. Affect

Affect, emotion, and mood have been among the main research topics in
psychology over the past 40 years. Over these years of research, affect was mainly
characterized as two dimensions: Positive and negative. Positive and negative affect
have been regarded as opposites on the different ends of one continuum; however
they are actually two distinct dimensions of affect (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen,
1988), especially as measured by the PANAS (Egloff, 1998), which is used in the
current study.
Positive affect (PA) is generally described as a state of feeling that is
“enthusiastic, active, and alert” (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988, p. 1063). Being
energetic and fully concentrated on an event are characteristics of high PA, and
feeling sad and saturninity are those of low PA. Conversely, negative affect (NA) is
characterized by sadness and feelings such as anger, disgust, and guilt. Calmness
and serenity are classified under low NA (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988).
Positive and negative affect have been linked to many psychological and
physiological constructs, well-being, and daily events. For instance, negative affect
has been found strongly correlated with measures of general distress and

12
dysfunction; in fact using them interchangeably has been suggested (Watson, Clark,
& Tellegen, 1988). Similarly, negative affectivity was related with depression
symptoms and A-state (see Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), more physical
problems (Clark & Watson, 1988), decreased perceived health (Tessler &
Mechanic, 1978; Watson, 1988), increased perceived stress (Watson & Pennebaker,
1989), and it has moderated individuals' reactivity to problems faced in the work
environment (Parkes, 1990). In contrast, positive affectivity has been found to have
negative correlations with depression symptoms and A-state (Watson, Clark, &
Tellegen, 1988), and positive correlations with self-efficacy, work satisfaction, and
mental health (Schutte, 2014; Watson, 1988), daily social interactions (Clark &
Watson, 1988), and extraversion (Watson, Clark, McIntyre, & Hamaker, 1992).
Affectivity has also been related to the perception of the daily routines
(Watson, 1988). For example, people who have been high on negative affectivity
have been found to perceive the world and themselves more pessimistically
(Watson & Clark, 1984). Affectivity has a negative correlation with defensiveness;
however, no effect of defensiveness for reducing negative affection due to thinking
too much about the negative event was found (Thomsen, Jogersen, Mehlsen, &
Zachariae, 2004). In addition, quiet ego is negatively associated with physical and
verbal aggression, negative affect, and hostility, and positively associated with
affect balance (Wayment et al., 2014)
Realizing one's own emotions, searching for the reasons for those emotions,
and having an accepting attitude toward all levels of affectivity may regulate
depressive results stemming from negative affectivity and may increase healthier
outcomes resulting from positive affectivity. Thus, in the current study, a positive
relationship between positive affectivity and the quiet ego, and a negative one
between negative affectivity and quiet ego was expected.

1.6.3. Personality

On the way to a quieter ego, a number of personality factors play critical

roles. For instance, Diener and Seligman (2002) have conducted a study with "very

13
happy people" within the scope of positive psychology to determine the sufficient
and necessary conditions for happiness. They found that individuals who were
happy most of the time scored higher on extroversion and on agreeableness and low
on neuroticism than the “neutral” and “sad” groups. Similarly, a meta-analytic study
found that personality traits predict satisfaction with life, levels of happiness, and
positive affectivity (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998). Specifically, the most important
predictor of life satisfaction, happiness and negative affect is neuroticism; whilst
extraversion, agreeableness and openness dimensions have been found to predict
positive affectivity the most strongly (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998; Pelechano,
Gonzalez-Leandro, Garcia, & Moran, 2013). Studies conducted with Turkish
participants were consistent with these results. For example one study conducted
with Turkish participants, found that responsibility and neuroticism significantly
predicted subjective well-being of the participants among 19-45 age groups
(Eryılmaz & Ercan, 2011).
The Big Five model has been one of the most commonly used approaches,
though there are diverse models to classify personality characteristics (John,
Naumann, & Soto, 2008). The Big Five model differentiates personality traits in a
broad frame with five main dimensions; namely extraversion, agreeableness,
conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness. Extraversion is characterized as being
energetic, active and social. Another dimension of the personality is agreeableness –
which is related mostly with prosocial behaviours, such as trust and altruism
(Benet-Martinez & John, 1998). Conscientiousness dimension is defined as having
control over oneself, which is related to motivations and goal-directed behaviour.
One of the most commonly studied dimensions of the personality, especially in
clinical psychology, has been neuroticism. It has been associated with negative
emotions and distress symptoms (e.g. Feltman, Robinson, & Ode, 2009). The last
dimension, openness, is defined as being open to new experiences and new
situations.
The relationship between neuroticism and depressive symptoms has been
already widely shown. In addition, mindfulness plays a moderating role in the
relationship between neuroticism, anger, and depressive symptoms. Specifically,

14
when individuals are low in mindfulness, neuroticism leads to higher trait anger and
depression (Feltman, Robinson, & Ode, 2009). Similarly, Giluk (2009) has found an
association between mindfulness and all dimensions of the Big Five model of
personality, especially with neuroticism, negative affect, and conscientiousness. In
another study, the correlation of mindfulness with conscientiousness was found to
be higher than its correlations with neuroticism and agreeableness and except
extraversion, all other four personality dimensions significantly predicted
mindfulness (Latzman & Masuda, 2013).
Having an accepting stance toward oneself and showing care and
understanding toward both the self and others in case of failure was associated with
curiosity, which overlaps with openness to a considerable extent; and it has been
associated with lower levels of neuroticism and higher levels of agreeableness,
conscientiousness and extraversion (Neff, Rude, & Kirkpartick, 2007). Moreover,
personality characteristics may also be playing a role in individuals’ defensiveness.
For example, narcissists are less likely to forgive after transgression and they are
more likely to avoid or take a revenge, which is actually considered as ego-
defensive behaviours (Eaton, Struthers, & Santelli, 2006). In addition, quiet ego is
strongly associated with agreeableness, extraversion, and conscientiousness, but it is
unrelated with emotional stability in the US culture (Wayment, et al, 2014). Overall,
in the light of the aforementioned findings, it is concluded that personality variables
play an important role in how quite individuals’ egos are, as they are strong
determinants of how individuals perceive and interpret the world. Since personality
traits possess a strong relationship with all dimensions of the quiet ego, in the
current study, neuroticism is expected to have negative association with quiet ego
and its dimensions. Moreover, it is expected that all other personality traits will
have a moderate or strong correlation with the quiet ego.

1.6.4. Life Satisfaction

Life satisfaction is defined as a cognitive subdomain of the subjective well-

being, such that a person’s evaluation of their life follows to his or her own criteria

15
(Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). Its relation with happiness and
personal well-being has been well known among social psychology. As people
become satisfied with their lives, they showed higher levels of happiness and
positive affect and lower levels of negative affect (Diener et al., 1985). In addition,
life satisfaction correlates with satisfaction with other domains of life, such as
satisfaction from one‘s financial situations and having satisfying relationships with
significant others (Diener & Diener, 1995). Moreover, personality factors play an
important role in satisfaction with life, especially neuroticism, openness,
conscientiousness, and extraversion among adolescents (Suldo, Minch, & Hearon,
2014). Satisfaction with life depends on social relationships, such as relationships
with parents (Francis-Sharnowski, 2009), helping family members (Krause &
Hayward, 2014), and perceived social support from friends, families and significant
others (Durak, Senol-Durak, & Gencoz, 2010).
Wayment and her colleagues (2014) have documented a moderate
correlation between quiet ego and life satisfaction in two different samples. In
addition, Reich, Kessel, and Bernieri (2013) have found that the congruence of the
self that people have, and the self that people want to have is an important
determinant in life satisfaction. Since the quieter ego is defined as accepting oneself
as the way he/she is, ego quieting processes may increase individuals’ life
satisfaction by virtue of converging those two selves with each other. The study
conducted with adolescents revealed that spirituality, which is closely related with
the growth dimension of the quiet ego, was one of the main predictor of the life
satisfaction in a longer time frame (Marques, Lopez, & Mitchell, 2013). Similarly,
students who scored higher on self-compassion have been found to adapt to new
university life easier and were more satisfied with their decision (Terry, Leary, &
Mehta, 2013), and experienced higher life satisfaction over one year (Hope,
Koestner, & Milyavskaya, 2014). Kong, Wang, and Zhao (2013) have found that
mindfulness is related to life satisfaction through self-evaluation. Since quiet ego
proposed a less defensive means of interpretation of the situation, it may also lead
to less defensive self-evaluation, which in turn may help to increase individuals’
satisfaction with life. In addition, defensiveness may regulate the satisfaction with

16
life (see Christopher, Lasane, Troisi, & Park, 2007). As life-satisfaction changes in
the course of time (Fujita, & Diener, 2005), the pursuit of quieter ego may lead
individuals to possess higher life satisfaction. Thus, in the current study, a positive
association between life satisfaction and quiet ego is expected.

1.6.5. Happiness

Happiness is a subjective evaluation of one’s global situation with positive

emotions and feelings of joy (Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999). It is one of the most
influential feelings in life, as it is related to numerous positive psychological
outcomes. Happier people have been found to be highly satisfied with their lives
(Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999), feel healthier (Sabatini, 2014), and experience
higher positive affectivity (Furr, 2005), along with reaching successful outcomes
(Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005). One study conducted with Turkish
participants revealed similar associations between affectivity, life satisfaction and
happiness (Doğan & Totan, 2013).
Recent research has been indicating a positive relationship with happiness
and quiet ego. For one thing, mediation and mindfulness thinking, which share
same roots with quiet ego, had strong relationship with happiness. For example,
people new to practicing mediation, were judged as happier by objective observers
after 9 weeks; whereas experienced mediators were judged as happier generally
compared to a control group by objective observers (Choi, Karremans, &
Barendregt, 2012). In addition, awareness about current thoughts, feelings, and
emotions stemming from emotional state were associated with greater happiness
(Extremera, Salguero, & Fernandez-Berrocal, 2011; Hofmann, 2013). For another,
integrating others into the self can be classified as a necessary condition for
happiness, because social relationships are one of the compensatory factors of
happiness (Caunt, Franklin, & Brodaty, 2013). For instance, friendship (Demir &
Davidson, 2013), development of new relationship (Ballas & Dorling, 2007),
romantic relationship quality (Demir, 2008), and compassionate behaviors (Post,
2005) were strongly associated with happiness. Moreover, inclusion of nature into

17
the self was one of the main predictors of happiness (Zelenski & Nisbet, 2014).
Happiness is unrelated to stressful life events (Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999), yet
highly depends on the perception and interpretation of negative life events
(Lyubomirsky & Tucker, 1998). Non-judgmental evaluations of environment and
experience, and reconstruction of the self blending with the surrounding may bring
happiness to people’s lives. Therefore, in the current study, it is expected that the
quieter the individuals’ ego is, the happier they are.

1.6.6. Self-Esteem

For over 40 years, self-esteem has been one of the leading research topics in
the field of psychology. Searching for the character associations with self-esteem or
for the effect and causes of the self-esteem have become the necessary condition for
almost all research topics. In order to clarify the effect of self-esteem on personal
outcomes, many researchers differentiate the types of self-esteem, such as self-
esteem for specific life domains, trait and state self-esteem (Crocker & Park, 2004),
and optimal self-esteem (Kernis, 2003). In the current study, individuals’ global
levels of self-esteem was investigated to get rid of the confusion. Self-esteem is
defined by a person’s global evaluation about how one is to perceive oneself.
The relationship between self-esteem and many psychological outcomes,
including well-being (Rosenberg, Schooler, Schoenbach, & Rosenberg, 1995),
affectivity, coping strategies (Pyszczynski, Greenberg, Solomon, Arndt, & Schimel,
2004), happiness, and optimism (Neff, Vonk, 2009) are well documented. A broad
variety of psychology literature posits the idea that high self-esteem is the best
option for the psychological well-being; however, much research brings its potential
negative consequences to the light. For instance, a threatened ego, and narcissism,
which largely overlap with high self-esteem, seems to cause aggression and
violence toward the source of ego threat (Baumeister, Smart & Boden, 1996;
Bushman & Baumeister, 1998). Leary and Baumeister (2000) opine that self-esteem
is an indicator of a person’s position in the community. This existing and realized
hierarchy, compounded by selfish desires may point to the distinction between the

18
person and other people. This distinction may cause harm to interpersonal
relationships and a healthy social life.
According to the widely accepted view, individuals are likely to protect high
levels of self-esteem and try to bolster this level when faced with an outside threat
(Pyszczynski, et al., 2004). In order to protect the existing level of high self-esteem,
individuals develop some defensive mechanisms. Such desires for protection may,
in action, become the antithesis of personal well-being. For instance, they have a
biased perception; high self-esteem individuals prefer to make comparisons with
self-enhancing way (Wheeler & Miyake, 1992), while self-enhancing biases are
associated with making degenerated attributions (Robins & Beer, 2001). Similarly,
when people are faced with a personal threat, high self-esteem individuals need
feedback which supports their self-competence, whereas low self-esteem people
look for feedbacks which make them to feel a relationship toward others (Vohs &
Heatherton, 2001). For the purpose of maintaining high self-esteem, people pay a
heavy toll in terms of “learning, relationships, autonomy, self-regulation, and
mental and physical health” (Crocker & Knight, 2005). Moreover, self-evaluation
criterions vary between cultures (Pyszczynski, et al., 2004), for example talking
about one’s own achievements may increase one’s self-esteem in American culture,
but it may decrease ones’ estimations of oneself in Japan. In addition, a moderate
positive correlation between self-esteem and the quiet ego was reported (Wayment,
et al., 2014). Therefore, there is a need for more cross-cultural comparisons
including other cultures, such as Turkey. In the current study, a low but significant
correlation between quiet ego and self-esteem is expected.

1.6.7. Empathy

A key concept in interpersonal relationships is empathy, which is broadly

defined as individuals’ responses to others’ experiences (Davis, 1983a). Theories
about empathy have achieved a consensus in regard to its possessing a multi-
dimensional structure. Davis (1983a) proposes a four-dimensional measurement
model for empathy, which covers both emotional and cognitive aspects of empathy,

19
where all four dimensions are related with different psychological constructs. The
perspective-taking (PT) dimension is the cognitive aspect of empathy and represents
individuals’ ability to perceive experiences from another’s point of view. The other
three dimensions are considered as emotional components of empathy. The fantasy
scale (FS) shows individuals’ tendency to put themselves in fictitious characters’
shoes. Empathic concern (EC) represents “other-oriented feelings of sympathy and
concerns for unfortunate others” (Davis, 1983a, p.114). Personal distress (PD) is
defined as feeling anxious and uneasy in interpersonal relationships.
Empathy has been strongly related to prosocial behaviors, for instance
greater trait empathy is associated with higher tendency to forgive others
(Macaskill, Maltby, & Day, 2002), less prejudice toward stigmatized groups
(Batson, et al., 1997a), and greater tendency to help others (Batson, et al, 1997b).
This relation can be observed in early childhood, in the development of empathy as
well (Taylor, Eisenberg, Spinrad, Eggum, & Sulik, 2013). Furthermore, dimensions
of quiet ego might facilitate understanding others’ points of views. Birnie, Speca,
and Carlson (2010) found that after mindfulness-based stress reduction therapy,
participants showed greater perspective-taking skills and felt less personal distress.
Block-Lerner, Adair, Plumb, Rhatigan, and Orsillo (2007) also questioned the
increase of empathic concern and understanding by mindfulness-based therapies.
Thus, empathy is included in the current study in order to investigate its relationship
with quiet ego, and its dimensions in more detail.
Feeling empathy helps people feel greater connection to others, which in
turn, may help them include others into the self. On the one hand, the strong
relationship between empathy and helping behaviors is mediated by “feeling of
oneness” (Cialdini, Brown, Lewis, Luce, & Neuberg, 1997, p. 481). On the other
hand, being less selfish and being concerned for others as part of the self may also
lead to greater empathy toward others; because having problems in emotional
empathy is characteristic of narcissistic personality disorder patients (Ritter, et al.,
2011). Individual differences on the dimensions of empathic feeling may function
differently (Davis, 1983b). Although quiet ego includes both affective and cognitive
components, construction of the self may have a stronger association with cognitive

20
dimension than emotional ones. Besides PT is the cognitive dimension of the
empathy, it is positively associated with other-centered sensitivity but not self-
centered sensitivity, and social functioning; it facilitates social relationships by
making it easier to accept other’s views and behaviors (Davis, 1983a). In addition,
PD is positively correlated with selfish desires and it is also considered to be a
defensive attitude (Davis, 1983a; 1983b). Thus, in the current study, it is expected
that moderate correlations between quiet ego and all dimensions of empathy may
occur; however, higher correlations with perspective-taking and personal distress
dimensions of empathy may be found, compared to the other two dimensions.

1.6.8. Identification

Besides the three main construction of self (i.e., individual, relational and
collective; Gaertner, Sedikides, Luke, & Iuzzini, 2008), Leary, Tipsord and Tate
(2008) define a forth type of construction of the self: the Allo-inclusive identity
(p.137). Allo-inclusive identity involves construction of the self by creating
harmony through mixture with others, such as people, animals, objects or nature.
Identification to, and feeling connection with the natural world and people
(either significant others or strangers) is associated with many psychological
outcomes. Identification with people correlates with extraversion, agreeableness,
life satisfaction, self-compassion in positive direction, but with neuroticism, and
depression in a reverse direction (Leary, Tipsord, & Tate, 2008). A longitudinal
study conducted with adolescents for 3 years, found that participants who
established a bond connection with significant others depending on life domain at
one point in life, showed greater well-being (Jose, Ryan, & Pryor, 2012). Some
studies also extended the feeling of connection from human to the whole
surrounding world; and they found that nature connectedness predicts subjective
well-being (Mayer & Frantz, 2004). Not only face-to-face connectedness, online
connectedness also provides positive psychological outcomes, such as decreased
depression and anxiety, and increased satisfaction with life (Grieve, Indian,
Witteveen, Tolan, & Marrington, 2013).

21
 Besides, feeling connectedness with the human being is one of the main
characteristics of a quieter ego, it is also associated with nature connectedness
(Wayment, et al., 2014). In addition to being a part of quieter ego, feeling
connection with people and nature is strongly associated with having a detached
awareness about the environment, being less defensive and growing spiritually. For
example, as an individuals’ self-awareness was increased by manipulation, which
also increased the participants’ already existed environmentalist characteristics, it
was found that their connection with nature increased (Frantz, Mayer, Norton, &
Rock, 2005). Moreover, when people are bounded up with nature implicitly, they
show more non-egocentric concerns about the environmental issues (Schultz,
Shriver, Tabanico, & Khazian, 2004). Even a short touching experience, which
bridges over two people, buffers death-anxiety and led less ego-protected reactions
for low-self-esteem individuals (Koole, Sin, & Schneider, 2013). Another study
comparing Turkish and Euro-Canadian samples, reveals cultural differences for
construction of self in the sense of connectedness – namely, Turkish people showed
more interdependent self-construal than Euro-Canadians (Uskul, Hynie, & Lalonde,
2004). Hence, in the current study, is likely to show a strong correlation between
quiet ego and identification. Meanwhile, cultural differences on perceived
connectedness with people and nature are expected, in such a way that Turkish
participants will score higher than the US participants on both people and nature
connectedness.

1.6.9. Well-Being

Happiness studies and personal well-being have drawn much attention from
researchers in the last 40 years. Diener (1984) defines subjective well-being as
experiencing positive emotions and happiness from subjective judgment over one’s
life. Positive and negative emotions, together with life satisfaction classified as
affective and cognitive components of well-being. Ryff and Keyes (1995) expands
this definition and specify six dimensions of subjective well-being: self-acceptance
(being happy from oneself and one’s past), personal growth (feeling of personal

22
development through time), purpose in life (finding the one’s own life as
meaningful), positive relations with others (being happy with one’s own social
relationships), environmental mastery (successfully operation one’s live and one’s
environment), autonomy (“a sense of self-determination”, p. 720). In the current
study all components of the well-being except growth dimension were covered by
specific measures. For this reason, only the personal growth dimension included the
current study. More specifically, higher personal growth represents development
through time by realizing one’s own potential and improving this potential, being
open to new experiences, and knowing one’s own self (Ryff, 1989).
Subjective well-being has been a crucial feature for individuals, because it is
considered as necessary condition for quality living (Diener, Oishi, & Lucas, 2003).
Similarly, personal growth has been linked to happiness, life satisfaction and lower
depression (Ryff & Keyes, 1995), openness to experience and extraversion
dimensions of personality (Schmutte & Ryff, 1997), openness, social initiative and
adaptation (Ponterotto et. al., 2007), balancing between positive and negative affect,
happiness in late ages, and lower depression (Ryff, 1989).
Quiet ego is strongly associated with attitudes toward personal growth, such
as growth initiative, presence of meaning, holistic thinking, and authenticity
(Wayment, et al., 2014). The relation between quiet ego and well-being can be
supported through its dimensions as well. For example, an increased feeling of
connection with nature has been linked to higher psychological and social well-
being (Howell, Dopko, Passmore, & Buro, 2011). In other words, a relation
between identification with nature and well-being is plausible. Moreover, how
individuals respond to negative thoughts and emotions was associated with their
well-being (Sauer & Baer, 2009). In this vein, non-defensive way of coping with
negative experiences may facilitate one’s well-being as well. A study searching for
a third component of subjective well-being, has found a moderate correlation
between personal growth and other-centered religiosity (Compton, 2001).
Mindfulness and finding the balanced between other- and self- centeredness lies at
the core of the quieter ego. Because early experiences had a predictive power on
present and future well-being (Ryff & Heidrich, 1997), being purified from

23
judgments about past experiences may have a positive effect on well-being.
Accordingly, a strong association between quiet ego and its dimensions and
personal growth component of the well-being is expected.

1.6.10. Self-Compassion

In its broadest sense, self-compassion is defined as a positive and accepting

attitude toward oneself. Neff (2003a) proposed three components of self-
compassion: showing kindness and understanding toward oneself in case of failure,
seeing oneself as a part of common humanity, experiencing the situation as the way
it is.
Many studies conducted about self-compassion have shown that self-
compassion is related to many psychological outcomes and psychological health as
well as interpersonal relations. Individuals who have higher self-compassion
showed less neurotic perfectionism, anxiety and depression and greater well-being
(Johnson & O’Brien, 2013; Neff, 2003b; Terry, Leary, & Mehta, 2013), less
negative emotions (Hope, Koestner, & Milyavskaya, 2014), greater helping
intentions (Welp & Brown, 2013), and lower feelings of shame after compassion
induction intervention (Johnson, & O’Brien, 2013). They were happier, more
optimist and more open to new experiences, extravert and conscientious (Neff,
Rude, & Kirkpatrick, 2007), and more satisfied from their lives (Neff, 2003b). In
addition, higher self-compassionate individuals showed care and support to their
romantic partners (Neff & Beretvas, 2013).
Considering that self-compassion is a prerequisite for quieter ego and
“compassionate self-identity” (Wayment, et al., 2014) is indeed defines it, it is
expected that quite ego is strongly linked with self-compassion. Early studies have
documented that self-compassionate people show less defensive attitudes toward
negative events, and they accept their role in the existence of negative events more
easily (Leary, Tate, Adams, Allen, & Hancock, 2007). Moreover, highly self-
compassionate individuals are more resistant to be precluded (Hope, Koestner, &
Milyavskaya, 2014), and also they showed less defensive attitudes toward ego-

24
threat (Neff, Kirkpatrick, & Rude, 2007). Higher self-compassion individuals were
happy with their autonomy, competence and being related with others (Neff,
2003b). Unlike self-pity it develops a connection to others and a balance kindness
between self and other (Neff, 2003b), which in turn may lead people decreased
selfish desires. Thus, in the current study it is expected to find strong positive
relation between self-compassion and quiet ego and its dimensions, especially with
mindfulness.

1.6.11. Cultural Orientations

It is important to validate current psychological constructs in different

cultures (Fiske, 2002). Many theories have been developed and tested in Western
cultures however, studies conducted all around the world indicate that
conceptualization of the self and implications of this conceptualization could yield
different results between Western culture and the rest of the world (Kağıtçıbaşı,
2007), because self and the culture in which the self takes a shape were effect each
other (Markus & Kitayama, 2010). As Kağıtçıbaşı (2007) mentions, in certain
cultures the line between the self and the other is blurred while in others it is more
clear-cut.
The uni-dimension individualism-collectivism classification was commonly
used for the purpose of classifying cultural orientations and making cross-cultural
comparisons (Singelis et al., 1995). However, some sort of specific classification
for individualism-collectivism dimension was needed because individualism-
collectivism classification was too broad; it excludes individual differences which
existed both within and between cultures (Causse & Felonneau, 2014; Dalğar, 2012;
Kağıtçıbaşı, 2007; Markus & Kitayama, 2010; Singelis et al., 1995). Singelis and
his colleagues (1995) and Triandis (1995) differentiate individualism and
collectivism in horizontal and vertical dimensions. This distinction enable to
investigate individual differences; such that in the former people support and
believe that every person the community is equal, and in the latter people see the
individuals in the community as unequal (Singelis et al., 1995). Hence, in the

25
current study, horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism
were assessed in order to point out individual differences on cultural orientations.
There has been plenty of research conducted in various cultures in order to
understand the differences of self-enhancement needs among various cultures.
Kurman and Sriram (2002) compared Singaporean, Israeli kibbutz and urban Israeli
cultures among self-enhancement levels, and found that Singaporean culture which
is highly collectivist scored lowest on self-enhancement; however Israeli kibbutz
and urban culture did not differentiate on self-enhancement levels. Individualistic
cultures emphasize the importance of individuals’ independence; instead,
collectivist cultures emphasize the importance of unity, and being a member of the
community (see Triandis, 1996). Individualistic-oriented people generally
concerned about themselves, develop social relations according to personal goals;
however people from collectivist cultures tend to move their attention from
themselves to others, try to ensure harmony in the society, and believe a connection
between society and the individual (İmamoğlu, Günaydın, & Selçuk, 2011; Markus
& Kitayama, 2010). Western Europe and US culture generally value an
independent, self-sufficient, and self-enhanced person, whilst the majority of the
rest of world values interdependent, caring, and thoughtful people (Kağıtçıbaşı,
2005, 2007; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Schwartz, Zamboanga, & Weisskirch,
2008). Because cultural values and desired behaviors differentiate among cultures,
levels of expression of self-enhancing needs may change. Tassell, Flett and Gavala
(2010) hypothesize that it supposed to be more acceptable to express self-
enhancement needs in individualistic cultures than collectivist ones. They tested the
change of levels for expressing self-enhancement needs upon cultural orientations,
and found that individuals with horizontal collectivistic orientations expressed self-
enhancing needs less. Considering that the need for self-enhancement, and desire to
enhance self-value were more approved in individualistic cultures than collectivist
ones, cross-cultural comparison is needed on ability of ego quieting.
Cross cultural studies conducted in many countries and comparing Turkish
and other cultures reveal significant differences, as well as similarities. As a case in
point, North-American culture can be classified as highly individualistic, whereas

26
Turkish culture is classified as collectivist, or mixed, in many studies (İmamoğlu,
Günaydın, & Selçuk, 2011; Kağıtçıbaşı, 2007). The independent-self, which is
regarded as a characteristic of individualistic cultures, values the differences and
uniqueness of the person, as a suggestion of being more separate, and focuses more
on its own ideas and values; however, the interdependent self, which is
characterized by mainly in collectivist cultures, gives the importance to
relationships, values the fact that people see themselves as a part of culture and the
community (Markus & Kitayama, 2010). Not only the definition or construction of
self is different across Turkish and the US culture, but also the importance of
family, child bearing values and the family environment is different. Parent-child
interaction and family values regulate the relationship between culture and
development of self-construal (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2007). For example; when adolescents
think about their future achievements, only the Turkish participants comparing to
Belgians want to do something that their family will proud of them because of this
achievement (Phalet & Claeys,1993). Hence, in the current study, a typical
individualistic culture and a mixed culture is compared on the bases of ego quieting
and predictors of quiet ego, and it is expected to find cultural differences on
variables which bases interpersonal relationships, namely interdependent identity
dimension of quiet ego, perspective taking and emotional concern dimensions of
empathy.

1.7. The Current Study

The aim of the current study is two-fold. Firstly, it aims to examine

psychometric properties of The Quiet Ego Scale into Turkish. It is expected to
replicate its factor structure that was shown by Bauer and Wayment (2008) among
Turkish participants.
Another aim of the study is to compare the US and Turkish cultures on the
functioning of quiet ego. For that purpose, a cross-cultural comparison was
conducted using data collected in the US and in Turkey. Considering the previous
studies, it is expected that although the the factor structure of quiet ego is similar in

27
boths cultures the types or the power of its predictors may change depending on the
cultural differences between the US and Turkey. Regarding personality
characteristics, it is expected to find highest correlation with openness to experience
in both cultures. Among the cultural orientations, it is expected that horizontal
collectivism would predict quieter ego most strongly in Turkey, because horizontal
collectivism represents an egalitarian view and requires identification to a certain
extent.

28
 CHAPTER 2

METHOD

2.1. Participants

Initially a total of 339 Turkish university students participated in the study

with an online data collection program (www.surveymonkey.com). Although 339
students entered the online survey, 85 participants did not fill out all of the scales
and left at least one full measure uncompleted and six participants were detected as
outlier at least one of the study variables. Therefore, they were excluded from the
analyses, leaving 248 participants for the further analyses.
Among the Turkish participants, 129 were women (Mage = 21.56) and 119
were men (Mage = 22.58) with a mean age of 22.05 (SD =2.00; range =19-33). All
of the participants were university students; 40 (16%) participants were on their first
year, 45 (18%) participants were second year student, 80 (32%) were third year and
80 (32%) were forth year students. One (.4%) participant mentioned as other, and 2
(.8%) participants did not report the year of education. A total of 232 participants
received a bonus credit for participation of the study, all other participants were
voluntarily attended the study.
Comparing to Turkish sample, data from the USA was collected from 729
university students attending Northern Arizona University via an online survey.
Among them, 46 participants which were detected as outliers at least one of the
study variables were excluded from further analyses. The range of remaining 683
participants’ age were between 18 and 58 with a mean of 19.41 (SD = 2.84) and 4
participants did not report their age. Among the participants, 511 were women (Mage
= 19.16) and 172 were men (Mage = 20.16). Majority of the participants were
freshmen (n = 458, 66%), 110 (15%) were sophomore, 66 (9%) were junior, 51
(7%) were senior, and 4 (.6%) participants mentioned their year in school as other.
Only one (.1%) participant did not report his/her education level.

29
2.2. Procedure

Data were collected after receiving approval from Middle East Technical
University (METU) Human Subjects Ethics Committee (HSEC). Participants were
informed about survey as a study on “Their responses and attitudes toward daily
events”. Online survey was prepared on a web-based data collecting program
(www.surveymonkey.com), and with a short explanation of the aim of the study,
survey link was distributed through campus.
Before receiving the survey set, participants were given a brief description
of the study and asked to their consent about their voluntary participation the study
(see Appendix A). Only the participants who agreed to be a part of the study
received the survey packet. The data set composed of demographic questions and
various scales in the presented order below. After completing the entire survey, as a
last page of the survey set thanked to the participants for their participation and
contact information was given for further questions. Completing the whole survey
set took approximately 30 minutes.

2.3. Instruments

The questionnaire set was composed of a number of measures and questions

on demographic characteristics. Participants completed the following measures: The
Turkish version of the Quiet Ego Scale (QES), the Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule (PANAS), the Big Five Inventory (BFI), The Satisfaction with Life Scale
(SWLS), the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS), the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
(RSES), the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, The Allo-Inclusive Identity Scale, the
Mindful Attention Awareness Scale-trait version (MAAS), the Ryff Psychological
Well-Being Scale, the Self-Compassion Scale- short form, the INDCOL. The BFI,
the PANAS, the SHS, the SWLS, the INDCOL, and the RSES have been adapted
into Turkish in the previous studies. Therefore, these measures were used in the
current study without checking for their factor structure and other psychometric
qualities, except internal consistency coefficients. The other measures, namely the
QES, the Allo-Inclusive Identity Scale, the MAAS, the IRI, the Ryff Psychological

30
Well-Being Scale, and the Self-Compassion Scale were translated into Turkish by
the researcher and back translated by two graduate students who are fluent in
English.

2.3.1. Demographic Questionnaire

In the first part of the survey packet, participants’ age, gender, and education
level were asked (see Appendix B).

2.3.2. The Quiet Ego Scale (QES)

The Quiet Ego Scale was developed by Wayment and her colleagues (2014)
to assess how individuals quiet their ego and respond life events with a non-egoist
manner. The QES consists of 14 items. Participants rated items (e.g., “I feel
connection to all living things” , “I think it is important to have new experiences
that challenge how you think about yourself and the world”) using a five-point
Likert scale from “very infrequently” (1) to “almost always” (5). Higher scores
indicate having quieter ego. The QES was adapted into Turkish for the study
purpose and the psychometric properties of the scale will be given in the result
section (Appendix C).

2.3.3. The Big Five Inventory (BFI)

The BFI was developed by Benet-Martinez and John (1998), and adapted
into Turkish by Sümer and Sümer (2003). The BFI includes 44 items aiming to tap
the five basic personality traits; namely, extraversion (8 items), agreeableness (9
items), conscientiousness (9 items), emotional stability (or neuroticism, 8 items),
and openness to experience (10 items). Participants indicate how strongly they
agree or disagree using 5-point scales, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 =
strongly agree. Each item on the scale has the same sentence stem “I see myself as a
person who…” and each item finishes this phrase (e.g. “is talkative” for
extraversion, “is helpful and unselfish with others” for agreeableness, “can be

31
somewhat careless” for conscientiousness, “is depressed and blue” for emotional
stability, and “is original, comes up with original ideas” for openness to experience;
see Appendix D). All of the dimensions had satisfactory internal reliability
coefficients in the current study in Turkish (α extraversion =.81; α agreeableness =.67; α
conscientiousness =.77; α neurotic =.75; α openness to experience. =.78) and in American sample (α
extraversion =.82; α agreeableness =.83; α conscientiousness =.78; α neurotic =.80; α openness to experience.
=.74).

2.3.4. The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)

The PANAS was a 20-item measure of affectivity developed by Watson,

Clark, and Tellegen (1988) and adapted into Turkish by Gençöz (2000). The scale
aimed to measure individuals’ positive and negative affect with 10 items each.
Participants were asked to rate the extent to which they experienced given emotions
in the last two weeks, from “very slightly or not at all” (1) to “extremely” (5). The
scale had high internal consistency in both sample. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients
for positive affect was .87 in Turkish sample and .89 in American sample and for
negative affect it was .85 in Turkish sample and .90 in American sample (see
Appendix E).

2.3.5. The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS)

Diener and his colleagues (1985) developed the SWLS and Turkish version
was adopted by Durak, Senol-Durak and Gencoz (2010). The SWLS measures
participants’ overall life satisfaction with 5 items on a 7-point scale from 1=
“strongly disagree” to 7 = “strongly agree” (e.g., “In most ways my life is closed to
my ideal”; see Appendix F). Higher scores indicate higher levels of satisfaction
with life. Cronbach’s alpha value was .83 for Turkish sample and .92 for American
sample.

32
2.3.6. The Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS)

Participants’ happiness levels were measured with the Subjective Happiness

Scale developed by Lyubomirsky and Lepper (1990). For the current study, Turkish
version of the scale adapted by Doğan and Totan (2013) was used. Five items
formed the SHS; on which participant reported their agreement to the items using 7-
point scales. An example of the items was “Compared to most of my peers, I
consider myself less happy/more happy” (see Appendix G). Greater happiness was
indicated by higher scores. For the current research, SHS had high internal
consistency (αTurkish = .79, αAmerican = .86).

2.3.7. The Interpersonal Reactivity Index

The Interpersonal Reactivity Index consisted of 28-items and was developed

by Davis (1980) for measuring individual differences in empathy. Turkish version
used in the current study was adapted by the researcher. The scale included 4
subscales each of which as 7 items; namely perspective taking (e.g., “I sometimes
find it difficult to see things from the "other guy's" point of view”), fantasy scale
(e.g., “I really get involved with the feelings of the characters in a novel”), empathic
concern (e.g., “I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than
me”), and personal distress (e.g., “In emergency situations, I feel apprehensive and
ill-at-ease”). Participants rated the items on a 5-point scale from “does not describe
me well” (1) to “describes me very well” (5) according to how well the item
describes them. Higher scores on the scale represent greater empathy. The factor
structure for the Turkish version of the Interpersonal reactivity Index was tested,
and four-factor structure was found congruent with the original scale. Cronbach’s
alpha values were .82 for perspective taking subscale, .81 for fantasy subscale, .70
for empathic concern subscale and .62 for personal distress subscale for the Turkish
sample and they were .78 for perspective taking subscale, .82 for fantasy subscale,
.79 for empathic concern subscale, and .72 for personal distress subscale for the

33
American sample (see Appendix H for items of the scale and Appendix I for factor
structure of the scale in the Turkish sample).

2.3.8. The Allo-Inclusive Identity Scale

To measure how much participants feel connected or related with other

person and object, a 15 items Allo-inclusive Identity Scale (Leary, Tipsord, & Tate,
2008) was used. The AIS was adapted into Turkish by the researcher. In the scale
participants indicated one of the 7 diagrams; first diagram represents no connection
and seventh diagram represents complete connectedness between the individual and
the target object. “The connection between you and the person with whom you feel
closest” and “The connection between you and the moon” were sample items of two
subscales, namely people and natural world. The factor structure was tested and the
two factor structure was also found in the Turkish sample as well. Higher scores
indicate closer connection between the person and the target. The two subscales
received satisfactory Cronbach’s alpha values both in Turkish (αpeople = .74, αnature =
.88) and American (αpeople = .69, αnature = .90) sample (see Appendix J for the scale
items and Appendix K for factor structure of the scale).

2.3.9. The Mindful Attention Awareness Scale

The 15-item Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) was developed by

Brown and Ryan (2003) for measuring participants’ trait mindfulness. Since the
MAAS was adapted into Turkish by the researcher, the factor structure of the scale
was tested, and one factor structure was confirmed consistent with the original
factor structure. The MAAS presents participants different situations; on which
people react with mindful or mindless attention (e.g., “I could be experiencing some
emotions and not be conscious of it until some time later”). Participants used a 6-
point Likert type scale from “almost always” (1) to “almost never” (6) according to
frequency of experiencing these situations. Higher scores represent greater trait
mindfulness. Internal reliability analyses revealed the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient

34
as .84 for Turkish sample and .87 for American sample (see Appendix L for the
items of the scale and Appendix M for factor structure of the scale).

2.3.10. The Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-Being

In measuring well-being, The Ryff Scales of psychological well-being (Ryff

& Keyes, 1995) was adapted to Turkish. The scale originally consists of 6
dimensions of well-being (autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth,
positive relations with others, purpose in life, self-acceptance) and for the current
study only the personal growth dimension was used. As in the original scale, the
factor analysis confirmed one factor structure of the scale in the Turkish sample.
Participants rated 9 items (e.g., “I am not interested in activities that will expand my
horizons (reverse)”, and “I have a sense that I have developed a lot as a person over
time”) on 6-point Likert type scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to
“strongly agree” (6). Higher scores indicate greater personal growth. Personal
growth dimension had good internal reliability (αTurkish = .65, αAmerican = .71) in the
current study as well (see Appendix N for items of the scale and Appendix O for
factor structure of the scale).

2.3.11. The INDCOL Scale

Participants’ levels of individualism-collectivism were assessed using the

Turkish version of the INDCOL scale developed by Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk,
and Gelfand (1995) and adapted into Turkish by Wasti and Erdil (2007). The scale
classifies the basic cultural orientations into four dimensions; namely horizontal
individualism, vertical individualism, horizontal collectivism, and vertical
collectivism. “One should live one’s life independently of others” (horizontal
individualism), “Competition is the law of nature” (vertical individualism), “The
well-being of my coworkers is important to me” (horizontal collectivism), and “I
would sacrifice an activity that I enjoy very much if my family did not approve of
it” (vertical individualism) were sample items of the INDCOL. Collectivism level

35
means seeing oneself as a part of the culture, while individualism includes seeing
oneself as an autonomous individual. The difference between vertical and
horizontal level is about equality. Vertical collectivism or individualism include
inequality within culture or among all individuals; however horizontal collectivism
and individualism includes believing that all people are the same within the culture
or all people are equal on individual base. The scale consisted of 37 items; items
were rated on 5 point scale ranging from “totally disagree” (1) to “totally agree” (5).
All the factors had higher reliability coefficients (αhorizontal collectivism =.75, αhorizontal
individualism = .70, αvertical collectivism = .56, α.vertical individualism = .70). The scale assessed
only to the Turkish participants (see Appendix P).

2.3.12. The Self-Compassion Scale-Short Form

The Self Compassion Scale was used to assess individuals’ compassion

levels toward themselves in the case of failure. The scale developed by Neff (2003)
and short form of the scale was proposed by Raes and his colleagues (2011). It was
adapted in Turkish by the researcher for the current study, and its factor structure
was tested and two factor structures were found; one factor capturing the reverse
items and the other including the remaining items. Participants mentioned how
frequently they feel 12 behavioral items (e.g., “When I fail at something important
to me, I become consumed by feelings of inadequacy”) on 5-point Likert type scale
from “almost never” (1), “almost always” (5). Higher scores are indicative of
greater compassion toward oneself. The scale was considered as a reliable scale
both in the Turkish (α = .75) and American (α = .79) sample (see Appendix Q for
scale items and see Appendix R for factor structure of the scale).

2.3.13. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE)

Participants’ self-esteem levels were measured with Turkish version of the

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965), which was adapted into Turkish
by Çuhadaroğlu (1986) with 10 items on a 4 point scale from (1) “strongly agree” to

36
(4) “strongly disagree” (see Appendix S). A sample item of the scale was “On the
whole, I am satisfied with myself”. Higher scores on the scale indicate higher self-
esteem. The scale had high internal consistency (α = .87) in the current study. The
scale was used in the Turkish sample only.

37
 CHAPTER 3

RESULTS

Analyses were conducted using SPSS version 15.0. Prior to statistical

analysis, missing variables and outliers were screened. Psychometric properties of
Turkish version of the Quiet ego scale were investigated on Turkish participants and
other statistical analyses were conducted separately on Turkish and American
participants.
The mean scores of genders on the major variables were compared via t Test
(Table 1). Significant gender differences were identified on extraversion (Mmales =
3.14, Mfemales = 3.42) agreeableness (Mmales = 3.61, Mfemales = 3.75), neuroticism
(Mmales = 2.77, Mfemales = 3.01) dimensions of personality, happiness (Mmales = 4.28,
Mfemales = 4.63), interpersonal reactivity- empathic concern (Mmales = 3.65, Mfemales =
3.99) and personal distress (Mmales = 2.93, Mfemales = 3.24) subscales, and well-being
(Mmales = 4.06, Mfemales = 4.31) for Turkish participants. Similarly, significant gender
differences were detected on quiet ego (Mmales = 3.32, Mfemales = 3.48), quiet ego-
perspective taking (Mmales = 3.26, Mfemales = 3.46) and growth dimensions (Mmales =
3.58, Mfemales = 3.80), BFI-extraversion (Mmales = 3.21, Mfemales = 3.37),
agreeableness (Mmales = 3.55, Mfemales = 3.83), conscientiousness (Mmales = 3.50,
Mfemales = 3.61), neuroticism (Mmales = 2.73, Mfemales = 2.86), life satisfaction (Mmales
= 4.70, Mfemales = 5.13), happiness (Mmales = 4.91, Mfemales = 5.19), all subscales of
interpersonal reactivity (Mmales = 3.35, Mfemales = 3.49 for perspective taking; Mmales
= 3.28, Mfemales = 3.58 for fantasy scale; Mmales = 3.42, Mfemales = 3.82 for empathic
concern; and Mmales = 2.56, Mfemales = 2.71 for personal distress ), identification with
people (Mmales = 3.91, Mfemales = 4.06), and well-being (Mmales = 4.27, Mfemales =
4.42) for American participants.
To sum up, the major difference was detected on quiet ego, indicating that
although there is no gender difference on quiet ego in Turkey, females scored

38
significantly higher than the males in the US. Since gender differences exist almost
all of the variables, further analyses were conducted with caution and controlling
the effect of gender.

39
 Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Reliability Statistics and Results of t – Test among Study
Variables

TR US TR US TR US

Variables α- α- Male Female Total Male Female Total

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD t t
Quiet Ego .70 .76 3,49 0,49 3,5 0,48 3,49 0,49 3,32 0,46 3,48 0,44 3,44 0,45 -0,13 -4,02*
Perspective Taking .71 .68 3,61 0,71 3,46 0,71 3,53 0,72 3,26 0,66 3,46 0,68 3,41 0,68 1,64 -3,39*
Inderdependence .66 .58 2,73 0,95 2,7 0,93 2,71 0,94 3 0,77 3,07 0,75 3,05 0,75 0,23 -0,97
Growth .62 .80 3,58 0,62 3,7 0,54 3,64 0,58 3,58 0,67 3,8 0,62 3,75 0,64 -1,52 -3,87*

40
Mindfulness .49 .73 3,64 0,87 3,6 0,83 3,62 0,85 3,09 0,43 3,09 0,41 3,09 0,41 0,38 -0,18
BFI
Extraversion .81 .82 3,14 0,75 3,42 0,75 3,29 0,76 3,21 0,62 3,37 0,72 3,33 0,7 -3,01* -2,54**
Agreeableness .67 .83 3,61 0,53 3,75 0,55 3,68 0,54 3,55 0,6 3,83 0,65 3,76 0,65 -2,03** -4,81*
Conscientiousness .77 .78 3,35 0,65 3,46 0,68 3,4 0,66 3,5 0,57 3,61 0,59 3,58 0,58 -1,29 -2,15**
Neuroticism .75 .80 2,77 0,67 3,01 0,79 2,89 0,75 2,73 0,68 2,86 0,68 2,83 0,68 -2,51** -2,06**
Openness .78 .74 3,69 0,61 3,76 0,61 3,72 0,61 3,51 0,52 3,46 0,52 3,47 0,52 -0,96 1,04
PANAS
Positive Affect .87 .89 3,2 0,78 3,21 0,78 3,2 0,78 3,55 0,67 3,66 0,67 3,63 0,67 -0,05 -1,78
Negative Affect .85 .90 2,22 0,76 2,11 0,71 2,16 0,74 2,25 0,75 2,15 0,75 2,18 0,75 1,09 1,6
Life Satisfaction .83 .92 4,12 1,37 4,41 1,33 4,27 1,35 4,7 1,39 5,13 1,42 5,02 1,42 -1,65 -3,45*
Happiness .79 .86 4,28 1,35 4,63 1,23 4,46 1,3 4,91 1,25 5,19 1,31 5,12 1,3 -2,15** -2,41**
 Table 1 (cont’d)

TR US TR US TR US
Variables α- α- Male Female Total Male Female Total
M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD t t
IRI
Perspective Taking .82 .78 3,44 0,68 3,44 0,72 3,44 0,7 3,35 0,54 3,49 0,66 3,45 0,63 0,07 -2,43**
Fantasy Scale .81 .82 3,57 0,73 3,65 0,77 3,61 0,75 3,28 0,6 3,58 0,79 3,5 0,76 -0,77 -4,66*
Empathic Concern .70 .79 3,65 0,58 3,99 0,53 3,83 0,58 3,42 0,54 3,82 0,65 3,72 0,65 -4,84* -7,34*
Personal Distress .62 .72 2,93 0,57 3,24 0,67 3,09 0,64 2,56 0,64 2,71 0,63 2,67 0,63 -3,89* -2,64*
AIS
People .74 .69 3,94 0,95 3,95 0,88 3,94 0,91 3,91 0,85 4,06 0,77 4,02 0,8 -0,1 -2,18**

41
Nature .88 .90 3,28 1,35 3,39 1,33 3,34 1,34 3,13 1,46 2,92 1,23 2,97 1,3 -0,64 1,9
Mindfulness .84 .87 4,06 0,72 3,98 0,7 4,02 0,71 3,73 0,65 3,69 0,74 3,7 0,72 0,93 0,73
*
Well-Being .65 .71 4,06 0,59 4,31 0,62 4,19 0,62 4,27 0,64 4,42 0,67 4,39 0,66 -3,25 -2,61*
Self-Compassion .75 .79 3,02 0,51 2,98 0,58 3 0,55 3,08 0,48 3,07 0,58 3,07 0,55 0,49 0,18
INDCOL
Horizontal Collectivism .75 3,39 0,54 3,49 0,54 3,54 0,54 1,46
Horizontal Individualism .70 3,69 0,57 3,63 0,56 3,66 0,56 0,82
Vertical Collectivism .56 3,35 0,5 3,44 0,45 3,4 0,48 -1,48
Vertical Individualism .70 3,03 0,63 2,97 0,57 3 0,6 0,71
Self-esteem .87 3 0,83 3,13 0,94 3,06 0,89 -1,2

* p < .01; ** p < .05

Note: The INDCOL and self-esteem were measured only for Turkish sample.
3.1. Psychometric Properties of the Quiet Ego Scale

Factor structure of the Quiet Ego Scale was investigated by using data
collected from Turkish participants (N = 248). SPSS version 20.0 was utilized and
Principal Component Analyses (PCAs) were conducted. Cases including missing
values throughout the data were excluded listwise. Varimax rotational method was
preferred because the theoretical based of components are uncorrelated. In order to
determine factor structure of the QES, Kaiser’s criterion of eigenvalues over one,
each factor’s explained variance, Cattell’s scree plot test and factor loadings over
.30 were used as criterions.
After conducting PCA factor analysis with varimax rotation on 14-items
QES, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of sampling adequacy revealed acceptable level
as .73 and Bartlet’s Test of sphericity was significant (X2 (91) = 760.60, p = .000).
Results indicated that sample was adequate and correlations between items were
high enough to conduct factor analysis. However, one reverse item (“I find myself
doing things without paying much attention”) had negative correlations with the
other items. Some participants might have understood this item in the wrong
direction. For this reason, this item was excluded from analysis, and the QES was
used with 13 items for Turkish sample. After removing this item, factor analysis
was reran with varimax rotation on 13 items QES. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of
sampling adequacy revealed acceptable level as .72 and Bartlet’s Test of sphericity
was significant ( X2 (78) = 670.55, p = .000). Analysis stilled revealed a four-factor
structure explaining 58.60% of the total variance. This factor structure was also in
coherence with theoretical base of the Quiet Ego concept and it was similar as the
original scale. The whole scale with theoretic structure had satisfactory internal
reliability (α = .70). Communalities of the items ranged from .35 to .70. The factors
eigenvalues, unique variances and factor loadings of the items were given in Table
2.
The first factor represented perspective taking with the eigenvalue of 3.23
and it explained 24.87% of total variance. It contains 4 items and factor loading of
the items ranged from .75 to .63, and “Before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine

42
how I would feel if I were in their place” was the highest loaded item with .75
factor loading. The first factor had satisfactory internal reliability (Crα = .71). The
second factor was labelled as interdependent identity and accounted for 14.51% of
total variance. It includes 3 items. Factor loadings of the items were between .83
and .60. The highest loaded item was “I feel a connection to people of other races”.
The internal reliability of the factor was satisfactory (Crα = .66). The third factor
represented personal growth and explained 11.01 % of the total variance. Personal
growth factor was composed of 4 items and their factor loadings ranged from .79 to
.42. The item “I have the sense that I have developed a lot as a person over time”
had .79 factor loading as highest. One item (“I think it is important to have new
experiences that challenge how you think about yourself and the world”) was
loaded on the second factor with .37 factor loading as well. Due to theoretical base
of the factor, the item was kept in the personal growth factor. The third factor had
satisfactory Cronbach’s alpha value as .62. The fourth factor representing objective
awareness explained 8.20% of the total variance. In the original form, this factor
included three items, excluding one item from analysis revealed this factor with two
items only in Turkish sample. Factor loadings of the items were .81, and .75. The
highest loaded item was “I do jobs or tasks automatically, without being aware of
what I'm doing”. The Cronbach’s alpha value for the fourth factor was relatively
low (α = .49) since it reflects only the correlation between the two items.
Considering that factors include a few items, relatively low reliabilities are accepted
for such sub-dimensions.

43
Table 2. Factor Structure of the Quiet Ego Scale

Factor Loadings

Items 1 2 3 4

4. Before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if I

.75 .20 .15 .02
were in their place.

13. I try to look at everybody's side of a disagreement before I make a

.72 .19 .16 .07
decision.

8. When I'm upset at someone, I usually try to put myself in his or her
.70 .26 .05 .07
shoes for a while.

11. I sometimes find it difficult to see things from another person's

.63 .21 .07 .32
point of view.*

12. I feel a connection to people of other races. .10 .83 .01 .06

7. I feel a connection with strangers. .26 .66 .13 .19

3. I feel a connection to all living things. .20 .60 .22 .14

9. I have the sense that I have developed a lot as a person over time. .14 .06 .79 .13

14. When I think about it, I haven't really improved much as a person
.09 .21 .77 .10
over the years.*

5. For me, life has been a continuous process of learning, changing, and
.26 .22 .63 .06
growth.

1. I think it is important to have new experiences that challenge how

.08 .38 .42 .14
you think about yourself and the world.

6. I do jobs or tasks automatically, without being aware of what I'm

.00 .01 .02 .81
doing.*

10. I rush through activities without being really attentive to them.* .10 .11 .07 .75

Explained Variance 24.87 14.51 11.01 8.20

Eigenvalues 3.23 1.88 1.43 1.06

Note. Factor loadings were taken after varimax rotation and loadings over .30 were shown in bold. Factors
represented by 1 is perspective taking, 2 is interdependent identity, 3 is personal growth and 4 is objective
awareness (mindfulness).
* Items were reverse coded.

44
3.2. Descriptive Analyses and Correlations among Study Variables

3.2.1. Descriptive Statistics

Mean scores and standard deviations and other obtain descriptive

information were given in Table 1. Examination of means suggest that Quiet Ego
scores were moderate corresponding the mid-point of the scale for Turkish
participants (M = 3.49, SD = .49). This shows that participants evaluated their ego
neither too quiet nor too loud. Among the personality characteristics, they scored
relatively higher than mid-point on openness to experience dimension (M = 3.72,
SD = .61). As for the other study variables, Turkish participants scored close to the
average levels.
Regarding the US participants, they scored very close to the mid-point on
Quiet Ego Scale as well (M = 3.44, SD = .45), indicating that participants evaluate
themselves having neither too high nor too low on quiet ego. Moreover, the US
participants scored relatively higher than the mid-point on life satisfaction (M =
5.02, SD = 1.42) and happiness (M = 5.12, SD = 1.30) and relatively lower than the
mid-point on identification with nature (M = 2.97, SD = 1.29). For all other study
variables, mean scores for the sample from the US were close to the mid-point.
Results from cultural orientations and self-esteem did not mention for American
participants due to missing measurement.
In summary, both Turkish and American participants scored around to the
mid-point on Quiet Ego Scale. Turkish participants were scored higher than mid-
point only on openness to experience, and American participants were highly
satisfied from with lives and happy in general, but their nature connectedness levels
were lower than mid-point. Among other variables, both Turkish and American
participants’ scores were on average. Mean differences were tested below.

45
3.2.2. Cultural Differences among Study Variables

In order to investigate cultural differences on the study variables,

homogeneity of regression assumption was tested to see if controlling the gender
difference was the same for all variables. The homogeneity of regression was met
for the majority of the study variables, except for quiet ego, quiet ego-perspective
taking, and empathy-fantasy scale. Therefore, a 2 (Gender) X 2 (Culture) Factorial
ANOVA was conducted for these variables. One-way analysis of covariance
controlling for gender was conducted for the remaing ones to see if there are
cultural differences on the study variables. All of the major variables were used
separately as dependent variable and culture (i.e. Turkish and American) as the
independent variables (see Table 3). Although mean scores for quiet ego were close
to each other, results of analysis yielded significant cultural difference between
genders on participants’ quiet ego levels (F (1, 935) = 4.45, p < .05), indicating that
Turkish males have higher quiet ego than American counterparts (MTR = 3.49, MUS
= 3.32), although female participants’ quiet ego scores did not differ between
cultures (MTR = 3.50, MUS = 3.48). For perspective taking dimension of the quiet
ego, cultural differences were detected between genders (F (1, 935) = 10.95, p <
.01), specifically for males Turkish participants scored higher than the US
participants (MTR = 3.61, MUS = 3.26), and for females participants in both cultures
scored the same and closed to the mid-point (MTR = 3.46, MUS = 3.46). Moreover,
there were cultural differences on interdependence (F (1,935) = 28.62, p < .01; d =
.39) and mindfulness (F (1, 935) = 148.24, p < .01; d = .77) dimensions of quiet
ego. Turkish participants scored significantly higher than American participants on
mindfulness (MTR = 3.61, MUS = 3.09), however, American participants scored
higher than Turkish participants on interdependence (MTR = 2.72, MUS = 3.05)
dimensions of quiet ego.
Secondly, there were significant differences between the two cultures on
conscientiousness (F (1,935) = 11.36, p < .01; d = .25), neuroticism (F (1,935) =
3.88, p < .05; d = .13), and openness (F (1,935) = 35.77, p < .01; d = .44) among
personality characteristics. Specifically, American participants’ conscientiousness

46
level (MTR = 3.42, MUS = 3.58) was significantly higher than Turkish participants’,
but Turkish participants’ neuroticism (MTR = 2.92, MUS = 2.82) and openness (MTR
= 3.72, MUS = 3.47) level was higher than Americans. Comparing to Turkish
participants, Americans reported significantly higher positive affectivity (F (1,935)
= 58.79, p < .01; d = .56; MTR = 3.22, MUS = 3.63), whereas there was no difference
on negative affectivity. Additionally, for positive life outcomes, Americans were
more satisfied with their lives (F (1,935) = 39.09, p < .01; MTR = 4.33, MUS = 5.00;
d = .48) and happier (F (1,935) =35.64, p < .01; d = .45; MTR = 4.51, MUS = 5.10)
than Turks, and their well-being was also higher than Turks (F (1,935) =9.90, p <
.01; MTR = 4.22, MUS = 4.38; d = .24).
Regarding the interpersonal reactivity index, analyses yielded cultural
differences across genders (F (1,935) =3.98, p < .05), indicating that Turkish
participants were scored higher than the US participants, but this difference was
only for males (MTR = 3.57, MUS = 3.28), whereas female participants (MTR = 3.65,
MUS = 3.58) scored very close in two cultures and higher than the males. Moreover,
there were significant differences on the empathic concern (F (1,935) =17.87, p <
.01; d = .32), and personal distress (F (1,935) =90.77, p < .01; d = .72). Turkish
participants felt more empathic concern for others (MTR = 3.89, MUS = 3.69), but
also more personal distress in stressed situations than their American counterparts
(MTR = 3.12, MUS = 2.66).
There was also difference on nature connectedness between the two cultures
(F (1,935) =11.73, p < .01; d = .25), but not on identification with people,
indicating that Turkish participants (M = 3.32) scored higher than American
participants (M = 2.98) on nature connectedness. Finally, participants from Turkey
scored higher than those from the US on MAAS. Specifically, Turkish participants
were more aware of the present situation than American participants (F (1,935)
=31.22, p < .01; d = .43; MTR = 4.01, MUS = 3.70).
To sum up, cultural differences were detected on the majority of the main
study variables including the quiet ego. Although there was a significant difference
between the two cultures on quiet ego, this difference varies according to gender.
The highest difference between cultures appears on mindfulness dimension of quiet

47
ego and personal distress dimension of empathy. To conclude, the effect sizes of the
obtained cultural differences on the other study variables varied from low to the
moderate.

48
Table 3. Adjusted Means, Standard Deviations, and Cross-Cultural Comparisons of
the Study Variables for Turkish and American Sample

Turkey USA ANCOVA Cohen

Variables
M SD M SD F P d
Quiet Ego* 3.51 .49 3.43 .46 4.45 .02
Perspective Taking* 3.55 .72 3.41 .68 10.95 .00
Interdependence 2.72 .94 3.05 .75 28.62 .00 .39
Growth 3.67 .58 3.74 .64 1.72 .18
Mindfulness 3.61 .85 3.09 .70 148.24 .00 .77
BFI
Extraversion 3.32 .76 3.32 .70 .00 .96
Agreeableness 3.72 .54 3.74 .65 .26 .60
Conscientiousness 3.42 .66 3.58 .58 11.36 .00 .25
Neuroticism 2.92 .75 2.82 .68 3.88 .04 .13
Openness 3.72 .61 3.47 .52 35.77 .00 .44
PANAS
Positive affect 3.22 .78 3.63 .67 58.79 .00 .56
Negative affect 2.14 .74 2.18 .75 .43 .50
Life Satisfaction 4.33 1.35 5.00 1.42 39.09 .00 .48
Subjective Happiness 4.51 1.30 5.10 1.30 35.64 .00 .45
Empathy
Perspective Taking 3.45 .70 3.45 .63 .01 .90
Fantasy Scale* 3.65 .75 3.49 .76 3.98 .04
Empathic Concern 3.89 .58 3.69 .65 17.87 .00 .32
Personal Distress 3.12 .64 2.66 .63 90.77 .00 .72
AIS
People 3.96 .91 4.02 .80 .80 .37
Nature 3.32 1.34 2.98 1.29 11.73 .00 .25
MAAS 4.01 .71 3.70 .72 31.22 .00 .43
Well-being 4.22 .62 4.38 .66 9.90 .00 .24
Self-compassion 3.00 .55 3.07 .55 3.04 .08

Note. The range for the QES, the BFI, the PANAS, the IRI, the INDCOL, and the Self-Compassion scales was 1
to 5; that for Life Satisfaction, Subjective Happiness Scale, and Inclusive Identity was 1 to 7, and for MAAS,
Well-being, Self-Esteem was 1 to 6. The INDCOL and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale did not assess to
American sample. Means were adjusted controlling for gender.
*2(Gender) X 2(Culture) Factorial ANOVA was conducted.

49
3.2.3. Correlations among the Study Variables

Pearson’s two-tailed correlational analyses were conducted to examine the

bivariate associations between the Quiet Ego and other study variables. Results
were given in Table 4 for both Turkish and the US sample separately.
As seen in Table 4, quiet ego was significantly correlated with almost all of
the study variables for both Turkish and American sample. The correlations varied
between .62 (IRI-Perspective taking) and .19 (IRI-Personal distress) for Turkish
sample and between .60 (IRI-Perspective taking) and .12 (AIS-nature) for American
sample. The strength of correlations was also compared between the two cultures.
Results showed that the association of quiet ego with agreeableness, positive
affectivity, and empathic concern was higher in the US than Turkish culture,
whereas with identification with people and nature was lower in American sample
than in Turkish sample. This means, individuals who have quieter ego more likely
to be agreeableness, empathic, and feel positive affect, and they were less likely to
feel connection with other people and nature in American culture than in Turkish
culture. Contrary to expectations, self-esteem had low but negative correlation with
quiet ego and its dimensions. Although all the correlations were moderately
significant, they do not pose a risk for the validity of the scale. Instead, results
showed that quiet ego is a different concept than all other psychological constructs.

50
 Table 4. Pearson Correlation Coefficients between Study Variables and Quiet Ego

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1.Quiet Ego 1 ,82** ,63** ,84** ,27** ,26** ,52** ,36** -,25** ,46** ,48** -,26** ,32** ,34** ,60** ,35** ,57** -,27** ,22** ,12** ,28** ,55** ,32**
2.PT ,77** 1 ,42** ,52** ,10** ,13** ,45** ,27** -,22** ,33** ,32** -,17** ,23** ,25** ,74** ,24** ,47** -,21** ,22** ,12** ,22** ,34** ,32**
** **
3.I ,64 ,34 1 ,45** -0,06 ,18** ,18** 0,04 -,08* ,32** ,29** 0,02 ,17** ,23** ,31** ,21** ,28** -0,05 ,33** ,37** ,15** ,11** ,16**
4.G ,77** ,39** ,45** 1 0,07 ,33** ,45** ,37** -,22** ,42** ,49** -,30** ,34** ,33** ,38** ,35** ,52** -,26** ,13** -0,01 ,19** ,63** ,23**
** * *
5.M ,30 ,13 -,12 0 1 0 ,17** ,14** -,09* 0,06 0,05 -,11** 0 0,06 ,07* 0,06 ,12** -,11** -0,06 -0,04 ,21** ,20** 0,06
BFI
6.E ,27** ,15* ,28** ,26** -0,01 1 ,24** ,23** -,32** ,14** ,48** -,22** ,32** ,45** ,09* 0,06 ,22** -,15** ,21** -0,02 ,12** ,31** ,21**
** ** ** ** * **
7.A ,32 ,30 ,19 ,16 ,12 ,23 1 ,49** -,39** ,27** ,45** -,50** ,40** ,46** ,50** ,19** ,61** -,24** ,17** -,08* ,31** ,49** ,33**
** ** ** ** ** **
8.C ,30 ,26 0,01 ,19 ,31 ,18 ,33 1 -,35** ,20** ,49** -,44** ,35** ,35** ,24** ,11** ,35** -,36** 0,05 -,14** ,38** ,47** ,32**
9.N -,31** -,30** -0,09 -,16* -,27** -,18** -,37** -,34** 1 -,17** -,41** ,59** -,41** -,58** -,23** 0 -,11** ,42** -,16** 0,02 -,31** -,32** -,56**
** ** ** ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** ** **
10.O ,54 ,37 ,39 ,46 0,08 ,35 ,24 ,25 -,14 1 ,41 -,15 ,13 ,19 ,34 ,37 ,28** -,23** ,10** ,18** ,19** ,35** ,21**
PANAS

51
11.PA ,36** ,25** ,26** ,32** 0,03 ,42** ,22** ,44** -,36** ,42** 1 -,28** ,54** ,58** ,27** ,19** ,34** -,30** ,18** 0,02 ,28** ,46** ,40**
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
12.NA -,31 -,26 -0,01 -,20 -,27 -,23 -,35 -,37 ,56 -,19 -,40 1 -,37** -,50** -,23** -,08* -,30** ,41** -0,04 ,24** -,29** -,49** -,42**
13.Life Satisfaction ,28** ,18** 0,12 ,29** 0,09 ,32** 0,07 ,33** -,21** ,24** ,46** -,30** 1 ,68** ,20** ,12** ,33** -,17** ,24** 0 ,24** ,36** ,46**
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * ** ** **
14.Happiness ,31 ,24 ,22 ,25 0,06 ,50 ,29 ,20 -,46 ,20 ,48 -,43 ,49 1 ,24 ,09 ,35 -,23 ,26 0 ,28** ,38** ,53**
IRI-Empathy
15. PT ,62** ,74** ,33** ,32** ,13* ,19** ,37** ,23** -,29** ,39** ,18** -,26** ,17** ,23** 1 ,29** ,55** -,21** ,20** ,10** ,21** ,37** ,33**
** ** ** ** ** **
16. FS ,31 ,30 ,27 ,22 -0,04 0,1 0,06 -0,08 0,04 ,24 0,07 -0,02 -0,04 0,03 ,26 1 ,40** -0,07 ,07* 0,07 0 ,32** 0,01
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** ** **
17. EC ,35 ,31 ,23 ,26 0,04 ,23 ,49 ,17 -0,04 ,30 0,12 -,12 0,02 ,16 ,43 ,23 1 -,21 ,20 -0,06 ,20 ,56** ,19**
18. PD -,19** -,20** 0 -0,07 -,29** -0,09 -0,05 -,26** ,59** -0,11 -,26** ,37** -,20** -,29** -,16** ,13* ,17** 1 -0,05 ,07* -,30** -,43** -,33**
Identity inclusion
19.P ,36** ,26** ,36** ,25** 0,03 ,22** ,34** 0,12 -,17** ,20** ,29** -,12* ,28** ,31** ,33** ,12* ,25** -0,03 1 ,52** ,14** 0,07 ,20**
20.N ,34** ,19** ,45** ,26** -0,05 ,18** ,18** 0,07 -0,1 ,37** ,28** 0 ,16** ,25** ,23** ,15* ,19** 0 ,53** 1 0,01 -,16** 0,04
** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
21.Mindfulness ,30 ,22 0,01 ,16 ,43 0,03 ,16 ,43 -,43 ,16 ,27 -,36 ,21 ,24 ,23 0 0,07 -,41 0,09 0,09 1 ,28** ,33**
22.Well-Being ,55** ,30** ,26** ,64** 0,08 ,23** ,26** ,28** -,20** ,56** ,34** -,27** ,37** ,29** ,36** ,13* ,34** -,12* ,20** ,24** ,25** 1 ,30**
** ** ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
23.Self-Compassion ,22 ,23 0,1 0,1 0,14 ,21 ,31 ,29 -,48 ,13 ,36 -,41 ,28 ,44 ,19 -0,06 0,09 -,39 ,26 0,1 ,27 ,19 1
 Table 4 (cont’d)

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

INDCOL

24.HC 28** 29** 0,09 ,20** 0,07 ,17** ,32** ,16* -,19** ,13* ,13* -,19** ,17** ,27** ,27** 0,06 ,34** 0 ,22** .11 .13* .15* .16* 1
** ** ** ** ** *
25.HI .23 .11 .00 .40 .02 .09 -.04 .02 .02 .24 .10 .03 .12 .01 .07 .03 .05 .00 -.03 .03 .18 .31 -.13 .35** 1
* ** ** ** * * ** * * * **
26.VC .13 .20 -.02 .06 .09 .03 .18 .21 -.12 -.01 .13 -.10 .11 .12 .17 -.03 .15 -.02 .13 -.00 .15 .00 .03 .49 .27** 1
** ** * * * ** ** **
27.VI -.06 -.06 -.11 .08 -.07 -.05 -.24 -.01 .27 -.03 .02 .13 .10 -.12 -.13 .08 -.09 .30 -.12 -.17 -.10 -.03 -.34 .02 .29 .15* 1

28.Self-esteem -.15* -.12* -.06 -.11 -.09 -.09 -.15* -.22** .16* -.10 -.17** .11 -.20** -.19** -.11 .06 -.05 .13- -.09 -.01 -.14* -.14* -.34** -.21** -.21** -.14* .10 1

* Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

52
** Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Note. Correlations for Turkish sample were given in below the diagonal, and correlations for American sample were given in above the diagonal. The INDCOL and self-
esteem were measured only for Turkish sample. 2. PT = Perspective Taking, 3. I = Interdependence, 4. G = Growth, 5. M = Mindfulness, 6. E = Extraversion, 7. A =
Agreeableness, 8. C = Conscientiousness, 9. N = Neuroticism, 10. O = Openness, 11. PA = Positive affect, 12. NA = Negative Affect, 15. PT = Perspective Taking, 16. FS =
Fantasy Scale, 17. EC = Empathic Concern, 18. PD = Personal Distress, 19. P = Identitication with People, 20. N = Identification with Nature, 24. HC = Horizontal
Collectivism, 25. HI = Horizontal Individualism, 26. VC = Vertical Collectivism, 27. VI = Vertical Individualism
3.3. Predictive Power of Study Variables on the Quiet Ego in the US and
Turkish Culture

To investigate the predictive power of study variables on quiet ego, three

major groups of study variables, namely, the ones on cultural, personality, and
empathy, were regressed on quiet ego for American and Turkish participants,
separately using a series of regression analyses. Gender was entered in the first step
in all three analyses to control for its effect.
In the first regression analysis, dimensions of big five model were entered as
predictors and quiet ego was entered as dependent variable. As in Table 5 and Table
6, results revealed that personality characteristics significantly predicted the quiet
ego in both Turkish (F (6,247) = 24.12, p < .01) and American sample (F (6,680) =
79.06, p < .01). Among the personality characteristics, the strongest predictor for
quiet ego was openness to experience (β = .45, p < .01 for Turkish sample; β = .34,
p < .01 for American sample) for both samples. Extraversion (β = .09, p < .01),
conscientiousness (β = .09, p < .01), and agreeableness (β = .33, p < .01) were
significantly predicted quiet ego only for American sample, however neuroticism (β
= -.16, p < .01) significantly predict quiet ego only for Turkish sample.

53
Table 5. Regression of Personality Characteristics on Quiet Ego in Turkish Sample

β
Variables B t Sig. R2 R2Δ Fchange
Step 1 .00 .00 .01
Gender ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00
Step 2 .37 .37 28.93*
Gender -.02 -,02 -.44 ,65
BFI
Extraversion ,03 ,04 ,81 ,41
Agreeableness ,20 ,11 1,96 ,05
Conscientiousness ,07 ,08 1,49 ,13
Neuroticism -,10 -,16 -2,78 ,00
Openness ,36 ,45 8,15 ,00

* p < .01

Table 6. Regression of Personality Characteristics on Quiet Ego in American

Sample

β
Variables B t Sig. R2 R2Δ Fchange
Step 1 .02 .02 16.18*
Gender ,15 ,15 4,02 ,00
Step 2 .41 .38 89.54*
Gender ,09 ,08 2,85 ,00
BFI
Extraversion ,06 ,09 3,10 ,00
Agreeableness ,23 ,33 9,20 ,00
Conscientiousness ,07 ,09 2,79 ,00
Neuroticism -,00 -,00 -,20 ,83
Openness ,29 ,34 10,97 ,00

* p < .01

54
 Second regression analysis was conducted dimensions of Interpersonal
Reactivity Index as predictor variables. Table 7 and Table 8 showed the results of
the regression analyses, such that dimensions of empathy predicted quieter ego in
Turkish sample (F (5,247) = 38.81, p < .01), and in American sample (F (5,681) =
125.12, p < .01). The strongest predictor of quiet ego was perspective taking for
both Turkish sample (β = .50, p < .01), and American sample (β = .38, p < .01).
Moreover, quiet ego was predicted by fantasy scale (β = .16, p < .01 for Turkish
sample; β = .11, p < .01 for American sample), empathic concern (β = .12, p < .01
for Turkish sample; β = .28, p < .01 for American sample), and personal distress (β
= -.15, p < .01 for Turkish sample; β = -.13, p < .01 for American sample)
dimensions of empathy.

55
Table 7. Regression of Dimensions of Empathy on Quiet Ego in Turkish Sample

Variables B β t Sig. R2 R2Δ Fchange

Step 1 .00 .00 .01
Gender ,00 ,00 ,13 ,89
Step 2 .44 .44 48.50*
Gender .00 .00 .05 ,95
Empathy
Perspective Taking ,35 ,50 8.83 ,00
Fantasy Scale ,10 ,16 3.28 ,00
Empathic Concern ,10 ,12 2.22 ,02
Personal Distress -,11 -,15 -3.02 ,00

* p < .01

Table 8. Regression of Dimensions of Empathy on Quiet Ego in American Sample

Variables B β t Sig. R2 R2Δ Fchange

Step 1 .02 .02 .16.18*
Gender ,15 ,15 4.02 ,00
Step 2 .47 .45 148.85*
Gender .03 .03 1.16 ,24
Empathy
Perspective Taking ,27 ,38 11.50 ,00
Fantasy Scale ,06 ,11 3.66 ,00
Empathic Concern ,19 ,28 7.72 ,00
Personal Distress -,09 -,13 -4.54 ,00

* p < .01

56
 Cultural orientations of the participants were measured only in Turkish
sample, for this reason its predictive power was investigated only for Turkish
culture. Dimensions of the INDCOL scale were entered in the second step, and as it
is shown in the Table 9, results of analysis revealed significant effect of cultural
orientation (F (5,244) = 6.16, p < .01). Horizontal collectivism (β = .22, p < .01),
and horizontal individualism (β = 19, p < .01) were significantly predicted quiet
ego.

Table 9. Regression of Cultural Orientations on Quiet Ego in Turkish Sample

Variables B β t Sig. R2 R2Δ Fchange

Step 1 .00 .00 .00
Gender -.00 -.00 -.09 ,92
Step 2 .11 .11 7.70*
Gender .02 .02 .34 ,73
INDCOL
Horizontal Collectivism ,19 ,22 3.00 ,00
Horizontal Individualism ,17 ,19 2.87 ,00
Vertical Collectivism -.01 -.01 -.19 ,84
Vertical Individualism -.09 -,12 -1.89 ,06

* p < .01

57
 In summary, predictive power of personality, empathy, and cultural
variables on quiet ego was investigated. Among the personality characteristics,
openness to experience was the main personality characteristic strongly predicting
quiet ego in both Turkish and American culture. Besides, neuroticism significantly
predicted quieter ego in Turkish sample and extraversion, agreeableness, and
conscientiousness predicted quiet ego in American sample. In addition, all four type
of empathy were predictors of quiet ego, but perspective taking is the strongest
predictor. Predictive power of cultural orientations on quiet ego was investigated
only for Turkish participants and it was found that horizontalism, both collectivist
and individualist, is linked with quiet ego.

3.4. The Moderation Effect of Culture

Considering that regression analyses revealed differences on the predictive

power of personality characteristics in two cultures on quiet ego, the potential
moderation effect of culture on the relationship between personality characteristics
and quiet ego dimensions was examined. First of all, all predictors were centered by
extracting the mean of the variable from each participant’s scores. Then, five
interaction terms were calculated by multiplying centered personality variables and
culture.
Personality characteristics and interaction terms of personality and culture
were regressed on the quiet ego and its dimensions separately. That means five
moderated regression analyses were conducted with dependent variables Quiet ego,
mindfulness, interdependence, perspective taking and growth dimensions of quiet
ego. Gender was entered in the first step in all regression analyses to control for its
effect. For investigating main effects of personality and culture, centered
personality characteristics and culture were entered at the second step in the
analyses. At the third step of the analyses, five interaction terms were entered for
investigating moderation effect of culture on the relationship between personality
and quiet ego.

58
 The first regression analysis was conducted by taking global quiet ego as a
dependent variable, and results were shown in the Table 10. Moderated regression
analysis revealed significant effect on quiet ego (F(12,934) = 51.11, p < .01).
Specifically, gender (β = .05, p < .04), agreeableness (β = .27, p < .01),
conscientiousness (β = .09, p < .01), and openness to experience (β = .37, p < .01)
had main effects on quiet ego. However, culture did not have significant effect on
predicting quiet ego. At the third step, two of the interaction terms were reached
statistical significance, the interactions between culture and agreeableness (β = .08,
p < .01), and neuroticism (β = .08, p < .01) were significant. The pattern of
significant interactions was plotted in Figure 1 for agreeableness and, Figure 2 for
neuroticism.

59
Table 10. Regression of personality characteristics on quiet ego where culture is
moderator

Variables B β t Sig. R2 R2Δ Fchange

Step 1 .00 .00 8.36*
Gender ,09 ,09 2,89 ,004
Step 2 .38 .38 96.30*
Gender ,05 ,05 1,91 ,056
BFI
Extraversion ,05 ,07 2,85 ,004
Agreeableness ,20 ,28 9,03 ,000
Conscientiousness ,07 ,10 3,33 ,001
Neuroticism -,03 -,05 -1,82 ,068
Openness ,31 ,37 13,53 ,000
Culture -,02 -,02 -,73 ,465
Step 3 .39 .01 3.07*
Gender ,05 ,05 2,01 ,044
BFI
Extraversion -,05 ,08 2.99 ,003
Agreeableness -,20 ,27 8.60 ,000
Conscientiousness ,07 ,09 3.10 ,002
Neuroticism -,03 -,05 -1.68 ,093
Openness ,31 ,37 13.50 ,000
Culture -,01 -,01 -,35 ,725
Culture*Extraversion ,04 ,03 1,20 ,230
Culture*Agreeableness ,15 ,08 2,74 ,006
Culture*Conscientiousness ,01 ,01 ,40 ,687
Culture*Neuroticism ,12 ,08 2,95 ,003
Culture*Openness -,07 -,04 -1,55 ,119

* p <.01

60
 The procedures for simple slope test provided by Aiken and West (1991)
were followed for investigating the relationship between personality characteristics
and quiet ego across cultures. The results of simple slope test for moderation effect
of culture on the relationship between agreeableness and quiet ego revealed that
although participants in two cultures scored higher when agreeableness was get
high, the effect was higher in the US than Turkey. Specifically, the US participants
had higher quite ego when the agreeableness was high and the pattern was reversed
when the agreeableness was low.

3,8
3,7
3,6
3,5
Quiet Ego

3,4
3,3 TR
3,2 US
3,1
3
2,9
Low High
Agreeableness

Figure 1. Quiet ego was predicted by agreeableness in Turkish and American

culture

61
 The results of simple slope test for moderation effect of culture on the
relationship between neuroticism and quiet ego yielded that there was difference
between high and low neuroticism for the US participants’ level of quite ego.
However, Turkish participants showed significantly higher quiet ego than the US
participants when they had low level of neuroticism. This pattern was reversed at
the high level of neuroticism, suggesting that having high or low levels of
neuroticism makes a significant difference in quite ego for Turkish participants
only, but for the US ones.

3,55

3,5

3,45
Quiet Ego

3,4
TR
3,35 US

3,3

3,25
Low High
Neuroticism

Figure 2. Quiet ego was predicted by neuroticism in Turkish and American culture

62
 The second regression analysis revealed significant moderation effect of
culture on the relationship between personality characteristics and perspective
taking dimension of quiet ego as shown in Table 11 (F(12,934) = 26.52, p < .01). At
the last step, agreeableness (β = -.29, p < .01), neuroticism (β = -.08, p < .05), and
openness (β = .25, p < .01) were significant predictors of perspective taking
dimension of quiet ego. Meanwhile, the interactions between culture and
agreeableness (β = .07, p < .05), and neuroticism (β = .06, p < .05) had significant
effects on quiet ego-mindfulness.

63
Table 11. Regression of personality characteristics on perspective taking dimension
of quiet ego where culture is moderator

Variables B β t Sig. R2 R2Δ Fchange

Step 1 .00 .00 1.52

Gender .06 .04 1.23 .21

Step 2 .25 .24 51.20*

Gender .02 .01 .58 .55

BFI

Extraversion -.02 -.02 -.67 .49

Agreeableness .32 .29 8.56 .00

Conscientiousness .06 .05 1.71 .08

Neuroticism -.08 -.08 -2.55 .01

Openness .31 .25 8.33 .00

Culture -.08 -.05 -1.82 .06

Step 3 .25 .00 1.60

Gender .02 .01 .61 .53

BFI

Extraversion -.01 -.01 -.54 .58

Agreeableness .32 .29 8.30 .00

Conscientiousness .05 .04 1.43 .15

Neuroticism -.07 -.08 -2.43 .01

Openness .31 .25 8.23 .00

Culture -.08 -.05 -1.67 .09

Culture*Extraversion .02 .01 .41 .67

Culture*Agreeableness .19 .07 2.15 .03

Culture*Conscientiousness -.04 -.01 -.52 .59

Culture*Neuroticism .14 .06 2.13 .03

Culture*Openness -.06 -.02 -.78 .43

* p < .01

64
 The simple slope test following procedures provided by Aiken and West
(1991) revealed that participants’ ability to understand others’ point of views
increases with higher levels of agreeableness in both cultures. However, as seen in
Figure 3, for low levels of agreeableness, Turkish participants scored higher than
the US participants on perspective taking dimension of quiet ego, and for high
levels of agreeableness, the US participants scored higher than the Turkish
participants.

3,9

3,7
QE Perspective Taking

3,5

3,3

3,1 TR
US
2,9

2,7

2,5
Low High
Agreeableness

Figure 3. Perspective taking dimension of quiet ego was predicted by agreeableness

in Turkish and American culture

65
 The simple slope test showed that although both Turkish and the US
participants’ scores on perspective taking decrease to the extent that neuroticism
increases (see Figure 4), the effect was higher in Turkey than the US. More
specifically, for low levels of neuroticism, participants from Turkey scored higher
than participants from the US, as for high levels of neuroticism they scored lower
than the US participants.

3,65
3,6
QE Perspective Taking

3,55
3,5
3,45
3,4 TR
3,35 US
3,3
3,25
3,2
Low High
Neuroticism

Figure 4. Perspective taking dimension of quiet ego was predicted by neuroticism

in Turkish and American culture

66
 The third regression analysis was conducted to investigate the moderating
role of the culture on the relationship between growth dimension of quiet ego and
personality characteristics, and results of the analysis revealed significant
moderation effect of culture (F(12,934) = 39.68, p < .01). As shown in Table 12, at
the last step of analysis, except neuroticism, all variables had significant main effect
on growth dimension of quiet ego, specifically gender (β = .07, p < .01),
extraversion (β = .17, p < .01), agreeableness (β = .18, p < .01), conscientiousness
(β = .11, p < .01), openness (β = .33, p < .01), and culture (β = .10, p < .01)
significantly predicted personal growth. The interactions between culture and
agreeableness (β = .06, p < .05), and extraversion (β = .10, p < .00) had significantly
predicted growth dimension of quiet ego.

67
Table 12. Regression of personality characteristics on growth dimension of quiet
ego where culture is moderator

Variables B β t Sig. R2 R2Δ Fchange

Step 1 .02 .02 19.83*

Gender .19 .14 4.45

Step 2 .32 .29 68.05*

Gender .09 .07 2,43 .01

BFI

Extraversion .14 .16 5.61 .00

Agreeableness .21 .21 6.40 .00

Conscientiousness .12 .11 3.69 .00

Neuroticism .00 .00 .10 .91

Openness .36 .32 10.98 .00

Culture .13 .09 .16 .00

Step 3 .34 .02 5.69*

Gender .10 .07 2.68 .00

BFI

Extraversion .15 .17 5.86 .00

Agreeableness .18 .18 5.51 .00

Conscientiousness .12 .11 3.73 .00

Neuroticism .00 .00 .14 .88

Openness 37 .33 11.42 .00

Culture .14 .10 3.48 .00

Culture*Extraversion .12 .06 2.14 .03

Culture*Agreeableness .26 .10 3.43 .00

Culture*Conscientiousness .11 .05 1.71 .08

Culture*Neuroticism .10 .05 1.80 .07

Culture*Openness -.02 -.00 -.31 .75

* p < .01

68
 The results revealed that for the low levels of extraversion, Turkish and the
US participants scored close to each other on growth dimension of quiet ego.
However, for high levels of extraversion difference between cultures increases and
the US participants scored higher than Turkish participants. The structure of the
moderating role of the culture on the relationship between extraversion and growth
dimension of quiet ego was plotted in Figure 5.

3,9

3,8
QE Growth

3,7

3,6 TR
US
3,5

3,4

3,3
Low High
Extraversion

Figure 5. Growth dimension of quiet ego was predicted by extraversion in Turkish

and American culture

69
 The results of simple slope test for the moderating role of the culture on the
relationship between agreeableness and growth dimension of quiet ego revealed that
participants in both cultures scored higher on growth with higher levels of
agreeableness. Although Turkish participants scored higher than the US participants
on growth for low levels of agreeableness, for high levels of agreeableness the US
participants scored higher than Turkish participants on growth. The results of
moderation effect of culture were plotted in Figure 6.

4,1

3,9
QE Growth

3,8

3,7
TR
3,6 US
3,5

3,4

3,3
Low High
Agreeableness

Figure 6. Growth dimension of quiet ego was predicted by agreeableness in

Turkish and American culture

70
 The final regression analysis was conducted by taking mindfulness
dimension of quiet ego as a dependent variable, and results which revealed
significant effect (F(12,934)= 22.90, p <.01) shown in the Table 9.
Conscientiousness (β = .13, p < .01), neuroticism (β = -.08, p < .05) and culture (β =
-.41, p < .01) had significant main effects on mindfulness. In addition, two of the
interaction terms significantly predicted mindfulness; the interaction of culture and
conscientiousness (β = -.13, p < .01) and neuroticism (β = .11, p < .01).

71
Table 13. Regression of personality characteristics on mindfulness dimension of
quiet ego where culture is moderator

Variables B β t Sig. R2 R2Δ Fchange

Step 1 .00 .00 7.21*

Gender . -,115 . -,088 -2,686 .00

Step 2 .19 .18 36.35*

Gender -.00 -.00 -.19 .84

BFI

Extraversion -.06 -.07 -2.31 .02

Agreeableness .03 .03 1.01 .31

Conscientiousness .15 .16 4.66 .00

Neuroticism -.08 -.10 -2.9 .00

Openness .02 .01 .58 .56

Culture -.55 -.39 -12.84 .00

Step 3 .22 .03 7.88*

Gender -.00 -.00 -.18 .85

BFI

Extraversion -.05 -.06 -1.93 .05

Agreeableness .05 .05 1.60 .11

Conscientiousness .13 .13 3.89 .00

Neuroticism -.07 -.08 -2.53 .01

Openness .01 .01 .49 .61

Culture -.57 -.41 -13.10 .00

Culture*Extraversion .08 .04 1.48 .13

Culture*Agreeableness .11 .04 1.43 .15

Culture*Conscientiousness -.27 -.13 -3.91 .00

Culture*Neuroticism .22 .11 3.63 .00

Culture*Openness -.03 -.01 -.40 .68

* p < .01

72
 The simple slope test revealed that although there is no difference between
high and low levels of conscientiousness for the US participants’ level of
mindfulness, Turkish participants scored higher on mindfulness when
conscientiousness get high. For the low levels of conscientiousness Turkish and the
US participants scored close to each other, yet for high levels of conscientiousness
Turkish participants showed significantly higher mindfulness than the US
participants (see Figure 7).

3,5
QE Mindfulness

TR
2,5
US

1,5
Low High
Conscientiousness

Figure 7. Mindfulness dimension of quiet ego was predicted by conscientiousness

in Turkish and American culture

73
 The results of simple slope test revealed that although the US participants’
mindfulness scores remained almost the same between high and low levels of
neuroticism, Turkish participants scored lower when neuroticism get high. For low
levels of neuroticism participants in Turkey scored significantly higher than those in
the US, however for low levels of neuroticism participants in two cultures scored
close to each other (see Figure 8).

3,5
QE Mindfulness

2,5
TR
2 US

1,5

1
Low High
Neuroticism

Figure 8. Mindfulness dimension of quiet ego was predicted by neuroticism in

Turkish and American culture

74
 The interaction of culture and personality characteristics did not reveal
significant effect on interdependence dimension of quiet ego.
In sum, the moderating role of culture on the relationship between quiet ego,
its dimensions and personality characteristics was investigated. The effect of
personality characteristics on quiet ego varied between the two cultures.
Neuroticism in Turkey, agreeableness and extraversion in the US, and openness to
experience in both cultures seem to be the critical personality predictors of the quite
ego.

75
 CHAPTER 4

DISCUSSION

In the present study, the psychometric properties of the Quiet Ego Scale
were investigated in a Turkish cultural context. Furthermore, the US and Turkish
cultures were compared with regard to both cultural differences and power of other
variables in predicting quite ego. The hypotheses were partially supported and
findings from the original study in the USA were mostly replicated in Turkey.
Factor analyses on the items of the QES indicated that one item did not work
in the Turkish sample, probably because of translation difficulty. After removal of
this problematic the 13-item Quiet Ego Scale was obtained as a reliable and valid
scale for measuring individuals’ abilities on turning down the volume of the noisy
ego. The four-factor structure of the Turkish scale was congruent with the original
QES (Wayment et al., 2014), and theoretical base of the quiet ego concept. The four
factors were entitled as perspective taking (i.e. compassion), interdependence,
growth and detached awareness (i.e. mindfulness). The first factor, perspective
taking, was composed of four items and measures the individuals’ ability to
consider and perceive other people’s point of views. The second factor was
interdependent identity which includes three items and measures how much
individuals feel connected to other people and the natural world surrounding them.
Personal growth was the third factor with four items, and this factor represents
individuals’ attitudes toward personal development. The objective awareness factor
was the last factor, with only two items, which measure the degree to which
individuals’ experience awareness of their surrounding environment.
Descriptive analyses revealed that based on both Turkish and the US
participants’ ratings, their egos were neither too loud nor too quiet. For all other
study variables, the average scores in both cultures remained around the mid-point
of the relevant scale. However, there were significant gender differences on the

76
majority of the study variables both in Turkish and American sample. Specifically,
in the Turkish sample, women were more extravert, agreeable and neurotic, but –
interestingly – happier, and felt more empathic concern and personal distress along
with a generally higher sense of well-being than men. In the American sample,
women scored higher than men on quiet ego, perspective taking and growth
dimensions of quiet ego, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
neuroticism, all dimensions of empathy, identification with people, satisfaction with
life, and happiness measures. In short, in the presence of a gender difference,
women always scored significantly higher than men, on either positive or negative
psychological outcomes.

4.1. Cultural Differences

Although cultural differences were observed on the majority of the study

variables, the effect sizes for these differences were relatively low. Only two of
them reached a notable level of difference; the mindfulness dimension of the quiet
ego and personal distress dimension of empathy. The implications of these results
will be discussed below. In addition, cultural differences on the main variables of
the study, the difference on quiet ego seems to be more related to gender than
culture. The strongest cultural difference was seen on mindfulness dimension of
QES favoring Turkish culture. Specifically, Turkish participants were more
attentive to the present situation than the US sample. Brown and Ryan (2003)
propose mindfulness stemming from Buddhist philosophy as a cure for Western
cultures’ (i.e. individualistic cultures) problems. Therefore, higher levels of
mindfulness in non-individualistic cultures are predictable, and two studies support
this result. Ghorban, Watson, and Weathington (2009) have assessed mindfulness in
Iranian culture and have compared its validation in Iran and the US. In this study,
they did not make cross cultural comparisons, however Iranian participants scored
higher than the US participants. In another study, Christopher, Christopher and
Charoensuk (2009) have compared Thai Buddhist monks, Thai university students,
and American students. Mindfulness was assessed with MAAS, and Thai monks

77
scored significantly higher than both student samples, although there was no
difference between student samples. However, when participants’ mindfulness
scores were measured by Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (KIMS), the
difference between student samples reached at significant level, specifically Thai
students scored higher than the US students on awareness dimension of the KIMS.
Awareness dimension of the KIMS focuses on the detached awareness traits of the
participants, which has a similar meaning with mindfulness dimension of the QES.
More similarities rather than the differences between cultures were observed
on the other study variables. Cultural differences were strong only on personal
distress dimension of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI). Results showed that,
Turkish participants felt greater personal distress than the US participants towards
others’ stressful situations. Although there was no specific prediction on these
cultural differences, this finding was congruent with the literature. Adolescents, as
well as young adults who have collective backgrounds feel more personal distress
from others’ stressful situations than those have individualistic backgrounds
(Cassels, Chan, Chung, & Birch, 2010). Another study conducted with young adults
also showed higher feeling of empathy in collectivist cultures than individualistic
ones (Dehning, et al., 2013). This difference can be explained by cultural values,
and desired personal characteristics in two cultures. The priority of the “I” and the
importance of the self has been well-documented in American culture. Therefore,
the tendency toward the self-enhancement motivations may be a burden the US
participants to project other people’s views into the self and to feel empathy, which
in turn may block a person’s capacity for feeling uncomfortable and panic in
emergency situations.

4.2. Well-Being as the Correlate of QE

Correlational analyses basically replicated the findings of Wayment and her

colleagues (2014) study in Turkey. All of the positive psychological outcomes, such
as positive affectivity, happiness, life satisfaction and well-being, were positively
correlated with quiet ego in both cultures; supporting the idea that quiet ego enables

78
individuals to have more qualitative lives. However, significant cultural differences
were obtained on these variables. Compared to Turkish participants, Americans felt
more positive affectivity, were happier, more satisfied with their lives; and their
well-being was higher. These results match with the literature well, because Turkish
participants scored higher than the US participants on neuroticism (McCrae, et al.,
2005; Schmitt, Allik, McCrae, Benet-Martinez, 2007), which is closely related with
anxiety, depression and negative affectivity. People in individualistic cultures
focused on information which was congruent with their self-view, they found
positive emotions as “desirable and appropriate” (Lee, Aaker, & Gardner, 2000, p.
875), whereas negative emotions as unpleasant (Eid & Diener, 2001). In addition,
they prefer to express and to feel positive emotions which give them positive self-
appraisals and enable them to enhance their self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Thus,
the pursuit of happiness and self-appraisal may lead those people finding the
happiness.

4.3. Predictive Power of Study Variables

Among the personality characteristics, the strongest predictor of quiet ego

was openness to experience in both cultures, indicating that individuals, who
welcomed new experiences and had an open stance toward new situations and
sudden changes in circumstances, were more likely to have quieter ego. Despite a
lack of specific predictions on predictive power of personality characteristic on
quiet ego, this result is still plausible, because openness may decrease a person’s
defensiveness and self-protective desires, instincts, and motives. Thus, openness to
new experiences provides a pathway for a less defensive construction of the self.
Moreover, among the dimensions of empathy, the strongest predictor of quiet ego
was perspective-taking for both Turkish and American culture. Davis (1983) points
out that each component of empathy has different roles in personal functioning, and
perspective-taking is related to social functioning, less egocentric behaviors, and
less selfish desires. For this reason, the shift of the priority from self to others,
having an accepting attitude towards others’ behaviors should enable individuals to

79
quiet their ego. In the light of these findings, openness and the ability to perceive
others’ perspectives can be interpreted as the universal characteristics of the quiet
ego.
As for other personality characteristics, the power to predict quiet ego seems
to vary within cultures. Participants’ quiet ego levels are responsive to the degrees
of agreeableness in US culture and to those of neuroticism in Turkish culture. In
other words, in individualistic cultures, being social, promoting pro-social behaviors
such as altruism, and helping, is one of the main determinants of the quiet ego;
whereas in collectivist cultures being isolated from the environment and other
people determines the extent to which the ego quiets. Similarly, Wayment and her
colleagues (2014) did not find a significant relationship between quiet ego and
neuroticism in the USA, although quiet ego is positively correlated with
agreeableness, extraversion and conscientiousness and it is negatively correlated
with negative affectivity. Considering that neuroticism is critical in predicting QE in
Turkish context, future studies should explore more why and how neuroticism
blocks the way to developing QE.
The personality traits that were found to be related to the dimension of the
quiet ego should be evaluated considering socialization processes and construction
of the self in relation to others in specific cultural context. The US culture highly
values independent self, being isolated from others and the surrounding
environment, and living in one’s own shell (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Kağıtçıbaşı,
2007). Greater agreeableness and feeling other-focused emotions such as sympathy,
helping and altruism which is closely related with interdependent self-construal may
lead individualistic people to extend their self in means that include others into the
self, to have more interdependent self, consequently actions which “foster one’s
relatedness or connection to others” (Markus & Kitayama, 1991, p.231) having
critical implication for the development of QE. More specifically, traits which
promote socialization, such as agreeableness and extraversion help individuals quiet
their ego in US culture, yet traits which leads people isolation and to be egocentric
such as neuroticism buffer individuals to quiet their ego in Turkey.

80
 In addition, self-compassionate people need less self-enhancement
evaluations (Leary, et al, 2007), thus they might support prosocial behaviors more
easily. Considering the need of self-enhancement is less in Turkey than the US,
higher agreeableness might not affect compassionate ego as much as in the US.
However, in the US, higher agreeableness might lead compassionate ego by
decreasing the need of positive self-appraisal. Turkish culture, however, values
more interdependent or related self, in which boundaries between the self and others
are blurred (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2007; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Greater neuroticism
may lead those people to feel as isolated from the environment and the community,
and actions which glare one’s uniqueness. To conclude, agreeableness and
neuroticism personality traits may be the cultural determinants of the quiet ego.
As would be expected, only the horizontal dimensions of the cultural
orientations predicted quiet ego in the Turkey, suggesting that non-hierarchical
social structure creating a climate for closeness and feeling of belonginess to others
is important for QE. Horizontal collectivism (HC) is composition of collectivism
and benevolence values (i.e. desire to increase the well-being of the group and the
individuals in one’s inner circle), and horizontal individualism (HI) is inclusion of
the universalism (i.e. “understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the
welfare of all people and for nature”, Schwartz, 1994, p. 22) to the individualist
values (Triandis, 1996). Similarly, Soh and Leong (2002) have been found that self-
directedness is the main component of HI and benevolence is of HC both in
Singapore and the US. Considering that benevolence and universalism is self-
transcendence kinds of vales (Schwartz, 1994), greater consideration for the other
people and believing the universal aspects of the humanity may show individuals
inessentiality of the screaming ego, which in turn help them to quiet their ego.

4.4. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies

Although it contributed to the current literature significantly, this study has

also a number of limitations. The main limitation of the current study is the unequal
distribution of the sample size in two cultures. Unlike the US sample, the sample

81
size in Turkey was limited, which might have caused a restriction in comparing the
cultures. In addition, current study was run only with college students, this may
yield biased and non-representative results. Future studies should replicate the
findings using a more representative community sample. Another limitation is the
problematic item in the Turkish version of the Quiet Ego Scale. One item in the
QES did not work in Turkish sample, due to the translation problems. In addition,
comparing to other factors, the detached awareness (mindfulness) factor has lower
item loadings. Wayment and her colleagues (2014) constructed observed awareness
factors of the original QES by taking the highest loaded three items from the
MAAS. For future studies, researchers should reword the item or try to construct
the mindfulness factor with highest loaded three items from the MAAS and
investigate the psychometric properties of the scale with a new sample by revising
the QES.
In order to investigate factor structure of the QES, only the explanatory
factor analysis was conducted, because confirmatory factor analysis was conducted
in earlier studies in development of the QES in the US (Wayment et al., 2014,
Sylaska, 2011). In the future studies, CFA with Turkish sample should be
conducted in order to confirm the proposed factor structure of the QES in Turkish
sample.
Cultural differences in emotions should be interpreted cautiously. For
example, self-focused emotions such as pride which provides positive self-appraisal
and anger which blocks the presentation of the self are more acceptable in the
individualistic cultures; however other-focused emotions such as guilt, shame and
sympathy are likely to be welcomed in the collectivist cultures (Markus &
Kitayama, 1991). Similarly, the PANAS scale measures overly aroused positive
emotions. However, culture specifies the appreciation of the high- or low-arousal
positive affectivity (Tsai, Knutson, & Fung, 2006). In collectivist cultures
expressing high-arousal emotions, such as enthusiastic, excited, and fearful may not
be welcomed, it may be more appropriate to link the happiness or sadness with low
arousal emotions, such as calm, relaxedness, sleepiness. Thus, results measuring
only high-arousal emotions may be misinterpreted and be misleading in collectivist

82
cultures. Other measures such as the Affect Valuation Index (Tsai, Knutson, &
Fung, 2006) may be more suitable to measure participants’ real happiness in
collectivist cultures. In the future studies, instead of general positive and negative
affectivity, specific emotions should be investigated and elaborated considering
cultural values. In addition, other affect measurements which asses low arousal
positive affectivity should be used.
In the current study, the association between quiet ego and well-being was
confirmed. In the future studies, predictive power of the quiet ego on well-being
indicators should also be investigated. Similarly, some psychological outcomes
change with time and with age. For example, negative affectivity decreases through
time (Pethtel & Chen, 2010). As for wisdom and personal growth, studies revealed
mixed results (Ryff & Keyes, 1995; Staudinger, 1999). Personal development
through time is one of the main components of the quiet ego, and it is the last step
of the quieter ego. The change on the levels of quiet ego with age and time should
also be elaborated in future studies.
Lastly, in the current study, we investigated quiet ego as a global construct
and all components as if they were separate constructs, because the relationships
between sub-dimensions and other psychological outcomes have not been assessed
before. However, the quiet ego is a higher order construct which is synthesis and
combination of these four components, namely mindfulness, interdependence,
perspective taking and growth (Wayment et al., 2014). In addition, there may be a
reliability problem for scales with only a few items. Thus, it is suggested to use the
QES as one scale assessing the global quiet ego.

4.5. Contributions of the Study

With these caveats in mind, the current study has contributed to the current
literature, especially to positive psychology. First of all, the Quiet Ego Scale was
adapted into Turkish, so that future researches can use it. Given that quiet ego is a
newly proposed concept, it is important to test its validity in different cultures, this
study has provided data for that purpose. Second, the current study is the first which

83
gives the opportunity to make cross-cultural comparison on quiet ego. According to
initial findings, there seem to be both universal and culture specific characteristics
of the quiet ego, especially regarding its associations with the personality traits.

84
 REFERENCES

Abbate, C. S., Isgro, A., Wicklund, R. A., & Boca, S. (2006). A field experiment on
perspective-taking, helping, and self-awareness. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 28(3), 283-287.
Aiken, L. S. & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, C. A: Sage.
Arch, J. J. & Craske, M. G. (2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness: Emotion
regulation following a focused breathing induction. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 44, 1849–1858.
Ardelt, M. (2008). Self-development through selflessness: The paradoxical process
of growing wiser. In H. A. Wayment & J. J. Bauer (Eds.), Transcending
self-interest: Psychological explorations of the quiet ego (pp. 221-234).
Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Ballas, D. & Dorling, D. (2007). Measuring the impact of major life events upon
happiness. International Journal of Epidemiology, 36, 1244-1252.
Batson, C. D., Sager, K., Garst, E., Kang, M., Rubchinsky, K., & Dawson, K.
(1997a). Is empathy-induced helping due to self-other merging? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 495-509.
Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E:, Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener, E.
C., Bednar, L. L., Klein, T. R., & Highberger, L. (1997b). Empathy and
attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings
toward the group? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1),
105-118.
Bauer, J. J. (2008). How the ego quiets as it grows: Ego development, growth
stories, and eudaimonic personality development. In H. A. Wayment & J. J.
Bauer (Eds.), Transcending self-interest: Psychological explorations of the
quiet ego (pp. 199-210). Washington DC: American Psychological
Association.

85
Bauer, J. J., & Wayment, H. A. (2008). The psychology of the quiet ego. In H. A.
Wayment & J. J. Bauer (Eds.), Transcending self-interest: Psychological
explorations of the quiet ego (pp. 7-19). Washington DC: American
Psychological Association.
Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high
self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or
healthier lifestyle? Psychological Science in the Public Interest,4(1), 1-44.
Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism
to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological
Review, 103(1),5-33.
Benet-Martinez, V. & John, O. P. (1998). Los cinco grandes across cultures and
ethnic groups: Multitrait multimethod analyses of the big five in Spanish and
English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 729-750.
Bilgin, N. (2007). Kimlik inşası. İzmir: Aşina Kitaplar.
Birnie, K., Speca, M., & Carlson, L. E. (2010). Exploring self-compassion and
empathy in the context of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR).
Stress and Health, 26, 359-371.
Block-Lerner, J., Adair, C., Plumb, J. C., Rhatigan, D. L., & Orsillo, S. M. (2007).
The case for mindfulness-based approaches in the cultivation of empathy:
Does nonjudgmental, present-moment awareness increase capacity for
perspective-taking and empathic concern? Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, 33(4), 501-516.
Brown, K. W. & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness
and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84(4), 822-848.
Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical
foundations and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry,
18(4), 211-237.

86
Brown, K. W., Weinstein, N., & Creswell, J. D. (2012). Trait mindfulness
modulates neuroendocrine and affective responses to social evaluative
threat. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 37, 2037-2041.
Bushman, B. J. & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-
esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love of self-hate
lead to violence? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1),
219-229.
Campbell, J. D., Chew, B., & Scratchley, L. S. (1991). Cognitive and emotional
reactions to daily events: The effect of self-esteem and self-complexity.
Journal of Personality, 59(3), 473-505.
Carlson, E. N. (2013). Overcoming the barriers to self-knowledge: Mindfulness as a
path to seeing yourself as you really are. Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 8(2), 173-186.
Cassels, T. G., Chan, S., Chung, W., & Birch, S. A. J. (2010). The role of culture in
affectivity empathy: Cultural and bicultural differences. Journal of
Cognition and Culture, 10, 309-326.
Caunt, B. S., Franklin, J., & Brodaty, N. E. (2013). Exploring the causes of
subjective well-being: A content analysis of people’s recipes for long-term
happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 475-499.
Causse, E. & Felonneau, M. (2014). Within-culture variations of uniqueness:
Towards an integrative approach based on social status, gender, life
contexts, and interpersonal comparison. Journal of Social Psychology, 154,
115-125.
Choi, Y., Karremans, J. C., & Barendregt, H. (2012). The happy face of
mindfulness: Mindfulness mediation is associated with perceptions of
happiness as rated by outside observers. The Journal of Positive
Psychology, 7(1), 30-35.
Christopher, M. S., Christopher. V., & Charoensuk, S. (2009). Assessing “Western”
mindfulness among Thai Theravada Buddhist monks. Mental Health,
Religion and Culture, 12(3), 303-314.

87
Christopher, A. N., Lasane, T. P., Troisi, J. D., & Park, L. E. (2007). Materialism,
defensive and assertive self-presentational tactics, and life satisfaction.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26(10), 1145-1162.
Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., Neuberg, S. L. (1997).
Reinterpreting the empathy-altruism relationship: When one into one
equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 481-
494.
Clark, L. A. & Watson, D. (1988). Mood and mundane: Relations between daily life
events and self-reported mood. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54(2), 296-308.
Compton, W. (2001). Toward a tripartite factor structure of mental health:
Subjective well-being, personal growth, and religiosity. Journal of
Psychology, 135(5), 486-500.
Creswell, J. D., Pacilio, L. E., Lindsay, E. K., & Brown, K. W. (2014). Brief
mindfulness meditation training alters psychological and neuroendocrine
responses to social evaluative stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 44, 1-12.
Crocker, J. & Knight, K. M. (2005). Contingencies of self-worth. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 14(4), 200-203.
Crocker, J. & Park, L. E. (2004). The costly pursuit of self-esteem. Psychological
Bulletin, 130(3), 392-414.
Çuhadaroğlu, F. (1986). Adolesanlarda benlik saygısı. Yayınlanmamamış uzmanlık
tezi. Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
Dalğar, İ. (2012). Relational models theory and their associations with cultural
orientations and personal value priorities in the Turkish cultural context.
Unpublished Master Thesis. Ankara: Middle East Technical University.
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in
empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.
Davis, M. H. (1983a). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a
multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
44(1), 113-126.

88
Davis, M. H. (1983b). The effects of dispositional empathy on emotional reactions
and helping: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality, 51(2),
167-184.
Dehning, S., Gasperi, S., Tesfaye, M., Girma, E., Meyer, S., Krahl, W., Riedel,
M.,Möller, H., J., Müller, N., & Siebeck, M. (2013). Empathy without
borders? Cross-cultural heart and mind-reading in first-year medical
students. Ethiopian Journal of Health Studies, 23(2), 113-122.
Demir, M. (2008). Sweetheart, you really make me happy: Romantic relationship
quality and personality as predictors of happiness among emerging adults.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 257-277.
Demir, M. & Davidson, I. (2013). Toward a better understanding of the relationship
between friendship and happiness: Perceived responses to capitalization
attempts, feelings of mattering, and satisfaction of basic psychological needs
in same-sex best friendships as predictors of happiness. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 14, 525-550.
DeNeve, K. M. & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of
137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin,
124(2), 197-229.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542-575.
Diener, E. & Diener, M. (1995). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and
self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4), 653-663.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction
with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71– 75.
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective
well-being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of
Psychology, 54, 403-425.
Diener, E., & Seligman, E. P. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science,13
(1).
Doğan, T., & Totan, T. (2013). Psychometric properties of Turkish version of the
subjective happiness scale. The Journal of Happiness and Well-Being, 1(1),
21-28.

89
Durak, M., Senol-Durak, E., & Gencoz, T. (2010). Psychometric properties of the
Satisfaction with Life Scale among Turkish university students, correctional
officers, and elderly adults. Social Indicators Research, 99, 413-429.
Eaton, J., Struthers, C. W., & Santelli, A. G. (2006). Dispositional and state
forgiveness: The role of self-esteem, need for structure, and narcissism.
Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 371-380.
Egloff, B. (1998). The independence of positive and negative affect depends on the
affect measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 1101-1109.
Eid, M. & Diener, E. (2001). Norm for experiencing emotions in different cultures:
Inter- and intra-national differences. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 81(5), 869-885.
Eryılmaz, A. & Ercan, L. (2011). Öznel iyi oluşun cinsiyet, yaş grupları ve kişilik
özellikleri açısından incelenmesi. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik
Dergisi, 4 (36), 139-151.
Extremera, N., Salguero, J. M., & Fernandez-Berrocal, P. (2011). Trait meta-mood
and subjective happiness: A 7-week prospective study. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 12, 509-517.
Feltman, R., Robinson, M. D., & Ode, S. (2009). Mindfulness as a moderator of
neuroticism-outcome relations: A self-regulation perspective. Journal of
Research in Personality, 43, 953-961.
Fiske, A. P. (2002). Using individualism and collectivism to compare cultures: A
critique of the validity and measurement of the constructs: Comment on
Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 78-88.
Francis-Sharnowski, M. A. (2009). Relationships among parent attachment, ego
identity, life satisfaction, and relationship closeness for male and female
college students. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities
and Social Sciences, 70(3-A), pp. 796.
Frantz, C., Mayer, F. S., Norton, C., & Rock, M. (2005). There is no “I” in nature:
The influence of self-awareness on connectedness to nature. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 25, 427-436.

90
Fujita, F. & Diener, E. (2005). Life satisfaction set point: Stability and change.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(1), 158-164.
Furr, R. M. (2005). Differentiating happiness and self-esteem. Individual
Differences Research, 3(2), 105-127.
Gaertner, L., Sedikides, C., Luke, M., & Iuzzini, J. (2008). Hierarchy among selves:
An implication for relations with persons versus groups. . In H. A. Wayment
& J. J. Bauer (Eds.), Transcending self-interest: Psychological explorations
of the quiet ego (pp. 127-135). Washington DC: American Psychological
Association.
Gebauer, J. E., Wagner, J., Sedikides, C., & Neberich W. (2013). Agency-
communion and self-esteem relations are moderated by culture, religiosity,
age, and sex: Evidence for the “Self-centrality breeds self-enhancement”
principle. Journal of Personality, 81(3).
Gençöz, T. (2000). Pozitif ve Negatif Duygu Durum Ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik
çalışması [Positive and Negative Affect Schedule: A study of validity and
reliability]. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 15 (46), 19-28.
Ghorban, N., Watson, P. J., & Weathington, B. L. (2009). Mindfulness in Iran and
the United States: Cross-cultural structural complexity and parallel
relationships with psychological adjustment. Current Psychology, 28, 211-
224.
Giluk, T. L. (2009). Mindfulness, big five personality, and affect: A meta-analysis.
Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 805-811.
Gordon, A. M. & Chen, S. (2013). Does power help or hurt? The moderating role of
self-other focus on power and perspective-taking in romantic relationships.
Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 39.
Gottman, J. M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998), Predicting marital
happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 60(1), 5-22.

91
Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., & Pyszczynski, T. (1997). Terror management theory
of self-esteem and cultural worldviews: Empirical assessment and
conceptual refinements. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology (Vol.29, pp. 61-139). Orlando, FL: Academic, Press.
Grieve, R., Indian, M., Witteveen, K., Tolan, G. A., & Marrington, J. (2013). Face-
to-face of Facebook: Can social connectedness be derived online?
Computers in Human Behaviour, 29, 604-609.
Gushue, G. V. & Constantine, M. G. (2003). Examining individualism,
collectivism, and self-differentiation in African American college women.
Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 25(1), 1-15.
Hewitt, J. P. (1998). The myth of self-esteem: Finding happiness and solving
problems in America. New York: St Martin’s Press.
Hofmann, S. G. (2013). The pursuit of happiness and its relationship to the meta-
experience of emotions and culture. Australian Psychologist,48, 94-97.
Hope, N., Koestner, R., & Milyavskaya, M. (2014). The role of self-compassion in
goal pursuit and well-being among university freshmen. Self and Identity,
13(5), 579-593.
Howell, A. J., Dopko, R. L., Passmore, H., & Buro, K. (2011). Nature
connectedness: Associations with well-being and mindfulness. Personality
and Individual Differences, 51, 166-171.
İmamoğlu, E. O., Günaydın, G., & Selçuk, E. (2011). Individuation and relatedness
as predictors of the authentic self: Beyond gender and cultural orientations.
Turkish Journal of Psychology, 26(67), 44-48.
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative
Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O.
P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality:
Theory and research. New York, NY, USA: Guilford Press.
Johnson, E. A. & O’Brien, K. A. (2013). Self-compassion soothes the savage ego-
threat system: Effects on negative affect, shame, rumination, and depressive
symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 32, (9), 939-963.

92
Jose, P. E., Ryan, N., & Pryor, J. (2012). Does social connectedness promote a
greater sense of well-being in adolescence over time? Journal of Research
on Adolescence, 22(2), 235-251.
Kagitcibasi, C. (2005). Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context: Implications
for self and family. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,36.
Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (2007). Family, self, and human development across cultures:
Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem.
Psychological Inquiry, 14(1), 1-26.
Kong, F., Wang, X., & Zhao, J. (2014). Dispositional mindfulness and life
satisfaction: The role of core self-evaluations. Personality and Individual
Differences, 56, 165-169.
Koole, S. L., Sin, M. T. A., & Schneider, I. K. (2013). Embodied terror
management: Interpersonal touch alleviates existential concerns among
individuals with low self-esteem. Psychological Science, 25(1), 30-37.
Krause, A. & Hayward, R. D. (2014). Religious involvement, helping others, and
psychological well-being. Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 17 (6), 629-
640.
Kurman, J. & Sriram, N. (2002). Interrelationships among vertical and horizontal
collectivism, modesty, and self-enhancement. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology,33.
Lakey, C. E., Kernis, M. H., Heppner, W. L., & Lance, C. E. (2008) Individual
differences in authenticity and mindfulness as predictors of verbal
defensiveness. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 230–238.
Latzman, R. D. & Masuda, A. (2013). Examining mindfulness and psychological
inflexibility within framework of big five personality. Personality and
Individual Differences, 55, 129-134.
Lee, A. Y., Aaker, J. L., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). The pleasures and pains of
distinct self-construals: The role of interdependence in regulatory focus.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1122-1134.

93
Leary, M. R., Adams, C. E., & Tate, E. B. (2006). Hypo-egoic self-regulation:
Exercising the self-control by diminishing the influence of the self. Journal
of Personality,74(6), 1804-1831.
Leary, M. R. & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem:
Sociometer theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 1-62). New York: Academic Press.
Leary, M. R., Tate, E. B., Adams, C. E., Allen, A. B., & Hancock, J. (2007). Self-
compassion and reactions to unpleasant self-relevant events: The
implications of treating oneself kindly. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 92(5), 887-904.
Leary, M. R., Tipsord, J. M.,& Tate, E. B. (2008). Allo-inclusive identity:
Incorporating the social and natural worlds into one’s sense of self. In
Wayment, H. A. & Bauer, J. J. (Eds.), Transcending self-interest (137-147).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive
affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803-
855.
Lyubomirsky, S. & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness:
Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research,
46, 137–155.
Lyubomirsky, S. & Tucker, K. L. (1998). Implications of individual differences in
subjective happiness for perceiving, interpreting, and thinking about life
events. Motivation and Emotion, 22, 155-186.
Macaskill,A., Maltby, J., & Day, L. (2002). Forgiveness of self and others and
emotional empathy. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142(5), 663-665.
Markus, H. R. & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for
cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.
Markus, H. R. & Kitayama, S. (2003). Culture, self and the reality of the social.
Psychological Inquiry,14(3&4), 277-283.
Markus, H. R. & Kitayama, S. (2010). Culture and selves: A cycle of mutual
constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5.

94
Marques, S. C., Lopez, S. J., & Mitchell, J. (2013). The role of hope, spirituality
and religious practice in adolescents‘ life satisfaction: Longitudinal findings.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 251-261.
Mayer, F. S. & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure
of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 24, 503-515.
McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., and 79 members of the Personality Profiles of
Cultures Project. (2005). Personality profiles of cultures: Aggregate
personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 407-
425.
Miller, D. T. (1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54(12),
1053-1060.
Modinos, G., Ormel, J., & Aleman, A. (2010). Individual differences in
dispositional mindfulness and brain activity involved in reappraisal of
emotion. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5, 369-377.
Neff, K. D. (2003a). Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy
attitude toward oneself. Self and Identity, 2, 85-102.
Neff, K. D. (2003b). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-
compassion. Self and Identity, 2, 223-250.
Neff, K. D. (2008). Self-compassion: Moving beyond the pitfalls of a separate self-
concept. In H. A. Wayment & J. J. Bauer (Eds.), Transcending self-interest:
Psychological explorations of the quiet ego (pp. 95-105). Washington DC:
American Psychological Association.
Neff, K. D. & Beretvas, N. (2013). The role of self-compassion in romantic
relationships. Self and Identity, 12, 78-98.
Neff, K. D., Kirkpatrick, K. L., & Rude, S. S. (2007). Self-compassion and adaptive
psychological functioning. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 139-154.
Neff, K. D., Rude, S. S., & Kirkpatrick, K. L. (2007). An examination of self-
compassion in relation to positive psychological functioning and personality
traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 908-916.

95
Neff, K. D. & Vonk, R. (2009). Self-compassion versus global self-esteem: Two
different ways of relating to oneself. Journal of Personality, 77(1), 23-50.
Niemiec, C. P., Brown, K. W., Kashdan, T. B., Cozzolino, P. J., Breen, W. E.,
Levesque-Bristol, C., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Being present in the face of
existential threat: The role of trait mindfulness in reducing defensive
responses to mortality salience. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 99(2), 344-365.
Parkes, K. R. (1990). Coping, negative affectivity, and the work environment:
Additive and interactive predictors of mental health. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75(4), 399-409.
Pelechano, V., Gonzalez-Leandro, P., Garcia, L., & Moran, C. (2013). Is it possible
to be too happy? Happiness, personality, and psychopathology. International
Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 13, 18-24.
Pethtel, O. & Chen, Y. (2010). Cross-cultural aging in cognitive and affective
components of subjective well-being. Psychology and Aging, 25(3), 725-
729.
Phalet, K. & Claeys, W. (1993). A comparative study of Turkish and Belgian youth.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24, 319-343.
Ponterotto, J. G., Costa-Wofford, C. I., Brobst, K. E., Spelliscy, D., Kazanski, J.M.,
Scheinholtz, J., & Martines, D. (2007). Multicultural personality
dispositions and psychological well-being. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 147(2), 119-135.
Post, S. G. (2005). Altruism, happiness, and health: It’s good to be good.
International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 12(2), 66-77.
Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Arndt, J., & Schimel, J. (2004). Why
do people need self-esteem? A theoretical and empirical review.
Psychological Bulletin, 130(3), 435-468.
Raes, F., Pommier, E., Neff, K. D., & Van Gucht, D. (2011). Construction and
factorial validation of a short form of the Self-Compassion Scale. Clinical
Psychology and Psychotherapy, 18, 250-255.

96
Reich, W. A., Kessel, E. M., & Bernieri, F. J. ( 2013). Life Satisfaction and the self:
Structure, content, and function. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 293-308.
Ritter, K., Dziobek, I., Preissler, S., Rüter, A., Vater, A., Fydrich, T., Lammers, C.
H., Heekeren, H. R., & Roepke, S. (2011). Lack of empathy in patients with
narcissistic personality disorder. Psychiatry Research, 187, 241-247.
Roberts, J., Gunes, I. D., & Seward, R. R. (2011). The impact of self-esteem, family
rituals, religiosity, and participation in conforming activities upon
delinquency: A comparison of young adults in Turkey and the United States.
Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 42(1).
Robins, R. W. & Beer, J. S. (2001). Positive illusions about the self: Short-term
benefits and long-term costs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
80(2), 340-352.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C., Schoenbach, C., & Rosenberg, F. (1995). Global self-
esteem and specific self-esteem: Different concepts, different outcomes.
American Sociological Review, 60, 141-156.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning
of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
57(6), 1069-1081.
Ryff, C. D. & Heidrich, S. M. (1997). Experience and well-being: Explorations on
domains of life and how they matter. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 20(2), 193-206.
Ryff, C. D. & Keyes, L. M. (1995). Structure of psychological well-being revisited.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719-727.
Sabatini, F. (2014). The relationship between happiness and health: Evidence from
Italy. Social Science and Medicine, 114,178-187.
Sauer, S. E. & Baer, R. A. (2009). Responding to negative internal experience:
Relationships between acceptance and change-based approaches and
psychological adjustment. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral
Assessment, 31, 378-386.

97
Schmeichel, B. J., Gailliot, M., T., Filardo, E. A. McGregor, I., Gitter, S., &
Baumeister, R. F. (2009). Terror management theory and self-esteem
revisited: The roles of implicit and explicit self-esteem in mortality salience
effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1077-1087.
Schmitt, D. P., Allik, J., McMcrae, R. R., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2007). The
geographic distribution of big five personality traits: Patterns and profiles of
human self-description across 56 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 38, 173-212.
Schmutte, P. S. & Ryff, C. D. (1997). Personality and well-being: Reexamining
methods and meanings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
73(3), 549-559.
Schultz, P. W., Shriver, C., Tabanico, J. J., & Khazian, A. M. (2004). Implicit
connections with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 31-42.
Schutte, N. S. (2014). The broaden and build process: Positive affect, ratio of
positive to negative affect and general self-efficacy.Personality and
Individual Differences, 50,1116-1119.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of
human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19-45.
Schwartz, S. J., Zamboanga, B. L., & Weisskirch, R. S. (2008). Broadening the
study of the self: Integrating the study of personal identity and cultural
identity. Social and Personality Compass, 2(2), 635-651.
Singelis, T. M, Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal
and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and
measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29 (3), 240-275.
Soh, S. & Leong, F. T. (2002). Validity of vertical and horizontal individualism and
collectivism in Singapore: Relationships with values and interests. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 3-15.
Staudinger, U. M. (1999) Older and wiser? Integrating results on the relationship
between age and wisdom-related performance. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 23, 641-664.

98
Suh, E., Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Triandis, H. C. (1998). The shifting basis of life
satisfaction judgments across cultures: Emotions versus norms. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (2), 482-493.
Suldo, S. M., Minch, D. R., & Hearon, B. V. (2014). Adolescent life satisfaction
and personality characteristics: Investigating relationships using a five factor
model. Journal of Happiness Studies.
Sümer, N. & Sümer, H. C. (2003) Beş faktör kişilik özellikleri ölçeği.
(Yayımlanmamış çalışma).
Sylaska, K. M. (2011). Self-awareness, interdependence, compassion, and growth:
Development of a quiet ego scale. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Northern
Arizona University, Flagstaff.
Tassell, N. A., Flett, R. A., & Gavala, J. R. (2010). Individualism/collectivism and
academic self-enhancement in New Zealand Maori University Students.
Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 4(2), 138-151.
Taylor, Z. E., Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., Eggum, N. D., & Sulik, M. J. (2013).
The relations of ego-resiliency and emotion socialization to the development
of empathy and prosocial behavior across early childhood. Emotion, 13(5),
822-831.
Terry, M. L., Leary, M. R., & Mehta, S. (2013). Self-compassion as a buffer against
homesickness, depression, and dissatisfaction in the transition to college.
Self and Identity, 12(3), 278-290.
Tessler, R. & Mechanic, D. (1978). Psychological distress and perceived health
status. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19, 254-262.
Tice, D. M., Baumeister, R. F., Shmueli, D., & Muraven, M. (2007). Restoring the
self: Positive affect helps improve self-regulation following ego depletion.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 379-384.
Thomsen, D. K., Jogersen, M. M., Mehlsen, M. Y., & Zachariae, R. (2004). The
influence of rumination and defensiveness on negative affect in response to
experimental stress. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 45, 253-258.
Triandis, H. C. (1996). The psychological measurement of cultural syndromes.
American Psychologist, 51(4), 407-415.

99
Tsai, J. L., Knutson, B., & Fung, H. H. (2006). Cultural variation in affect
valuation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(2), 288-307.
Uskul, A. K., Hynie, M., & Lalonde, R. N. (2004). Interdependence as a mediator
between culture and interpersonal closeness for Euro-Canadians and Turks.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 174-191.
Vohs, K. D. & Heatherton, T. F. (2001). Self-esteem and threats to self:
Implications for self-construals and interpersonal perceptions. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1103-1118.
Wasti, A. & Erdil, S. E. (2007). Bireycilik ve toplulukçuluk değerlerinin ölçülmesi:
Benlik kurgusu ve INDCOL ölçeklerinin Türkçe geçerlemesi. Yönetim
Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(1-2), 39-66.
Watson, D. (1988). Intraindividual and interindividual analysis of positive and
negative affect: Their relation to health complaints, perceived stress, and
daily activities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (6), 1020-
1030.
Watson, D. & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to
experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96 (3), 465-
490.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., McIntyre, C. W., & Hamaker, S. (1992). Affect,
personality, and social activity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 63(6), 1011-1025.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of
brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1063–1070.
Watson, D. & Pennebaker, J. W. (1989). Health complaints, stress, and distress:
Exploring the central role of negative affectivity. Psychological Review,
96(2), 234-354.
Way, B. M., Creswell, J. D., Eisenberger, N. I., & Lieberman, M. D. (2010).
Dispositional mindfulness and depressive symptomatology: Correlations
with limbic and self-referential neural activity during rest. Emotion, 10(1),
12-24.

100
Wayment, H. A., Bauer, J. J. & Sylaska, K. (2014). The quiet ego scale: Measuring
the compassionate self-identity. Journal of Happiness Studies.
Wayment, H. A. & O’Mara, E. (2008). The collective and compassionate
consequences of downward social comparison. In H. A. Wayment & J. J.
Bauer (Eds.), Transcending self-interest: Psychological explorations of the
quiet ego (pp. 159-170). Washington DC: American Psychological
Association.
Wayment, H. A., Wiist, B., Sullivan, B. M., & Warren, M. A. (2011). Doing and
being: Mindfulness, health, and quiet ego characteristics among Buddhist
practitioners. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12, 575-589.
Welp, L. R. & Brown, C. M. (2013). Self-compassion, empathy, and helping
intentions. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(1), 54-65.
Wheeler, L. & Miyake, K. (1992). Social comparison in everyday life. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 62(5), 760-773.
Zelenski, J. M. & Nisbet, E. K. (2014). Happiness and feeling connected: The
distinct role of nature relatedness. Environment and Behavior, 46(1), 3-23.

101
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

GÖNÜLLÜ KATILIM FORMU

Bu çalışma Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, sosyal psikoloji yüksek lisans

öğrencisi Ece Akça tarafından yüksek lisans tez çalışması amacıyla
yürütülmektedir. Araştırmanın amacı, kişilerin kendilerine dair düşüncelerini,
günlük hayatta karşılaştıkları olaylara karşı verdikleri tepkileri belirlemektir.
Çalışmaya katılım gönüllülük esasına dayanmaktadır ve istediğiniz zaman
çalışmaya katılmaktan vazgeçebilirsiniz. Çalışma süresince sizden hiç bir şekilde
kimlik bilgileriniz istenmemektedir. Cevaplarınız kesinlikle gizli tutulacak, veriler
toplu olarak sadece araştırmacılar tarafından değerlendirilecek ve elde edilecek
bilgiler bilimsel yayımlarda kullanılacaktır.

Anketi bireysel görüşlerinize göre, sizi tam olarak yansıtacak şekilde cevap
vermeniz çalışmanın geçerliliği bakımından önem taşımaktadır. Çalışma ortalama
olarak 30 dakika sürmektedir. Anketi doldurduktan sonra, çalışma hakkında size
yazılı bilgi verilecek ve sorularınız cevaplandırılacaktır. Çalışmaya katıldığınız ve
yardımlarınız için çok teşekkür ederiz. Çalışma hakkında daha fazla bilgi almak için
Psikoloji Bölümü yüksek lisans öğrencilerinden Ece Akça (ece.akca@metu.edu.tr)
ya da Psikoloji Bölümü öğretim üyesi Prof. Dr. Nebi Sümer (nsumer@metu.edu.tr)
ile iletişime geçebilirsiniz.

Bu çalışmaya tamamen gönüllü olarak katılıyorum ve istediğim zaman

yarıda bırakabileceğimi biliyorum. Verdiğim bilgilerin bilimsel amaçlı yayımlarda
kullanılmasını kabul ediyorum. (Formu doldurup imzaladıktan sonra uygulayıcıya
geri veriniz).

İsim Soyad Tarih İmza

----/----/-----

102
 APPENDIX B

DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS

Yaşınız: …………

Cinsiyetiniz: Kadın Erkek

Eğitim seviyeniz:

İlköğretim

Lise

Üniversite Öğrencisi

Üniversite

Yüksek lisans/doktora

Diğer

103
 APPENDIX C

THE QUIET EGO SCALE

(WAYMENT, BAUER, SYLASKA, 2014)

SAKİN BENLİK ÖLÇEĞİ

Aşağıda sizin görüş ve değerlerinizi tanımlayan ya da tanımlamayan ifadeler

verilmiştir. Lütfen aşağıdaki her bir maddeyi ne sıklıkla hissettiğinizi sağdaki
ölçekten uygun rakamı işaretleyerek belirtiniz.

Neredeyse her
Çok Nadir

Ara sıra

Sık sık

zaman
Bazen
1. İnsanların kendileri ve dünya hakkındaki düşüncelerini
sorgulamasına yol açan yaşantıları olmasının önemli 1 2 3 4 5
olduğunu düşünüyorum.
2. Farkında olmadan kendimi bir şeyler yaparken bulurum. * 1 2 3 4 5
3. Yaşayan tüm canlılarla aramda bir bağ hissederim. 1 2 3 4 5
4. Birisini eleştirmeden önce, onun yerinde olsaydım nasıl 1 2 3 4 5
hissederdim diye düşünmeye çalışırım.
5. Benim için hayat, sürekli bir öğrenme, değişme ve gelişme 1 2 3 4 5
sürecidir.
6. İşleri ve üstlendiğim görevleri ne yaptığımın farkında 1 2 3 4 5
olmadan otomatik olarak yaparım. *
7. Tanımadığım insanlarla aramda bir bağ hissederim. 1 2 3 4 5
8. Birine kızgın olduğumda, genellikle kendimi onun yerine 1 2 3 4 5
koymaya çalışırım.
9. Zaman içerisinde bir birey olarak çok geliştiğimi 1 2 3 4 5
hissediyorum.
10. İşlerimi çok dikkatimi vermeden aceleyle yaparım. * 1 2 3 4 5
11. Bazen olayları başkalarının bakış açısından görmekte zorluk 1 2 3 4 5
çekiyorum. *
12. Diğer ırklardan insanlarla aramda bir bağ hissederim. 1 2 3 4 5
13. Anlaşmazlık durumunda bir karar vermeden önce herkesin 1 2 3 4 5
bakış açısından olaya bakmaya çalışırım.
14. Düşününce, yıllar içerisinde bir birey olarak çok da 1 2 3 4 5
gelişmediğimi hissediyorum. *

* Items were reverse coded.

104
 APPENDIX D

THE BIG FIVE INVENTORY

(BENET-MARTINEZ & JOHN, 1998)

BEŞ FAKTÖR KİŞİLİK ÖLÇEĞİ

(SÜMER & SÜMER, 2003)

Aşağıda sizi kısmen tanımlayan (ya da pek tanımlayamayan) bir takım özellikler
sunulmaktadır. Örneğin, başkaları ile zaman geçirmekten hoşlanan birisi
olduğunuzu düşünüyor musunuz? Lütfen aşağıda verilen özelliklerin sizi ne oranda
yansıttığını ya da yansıtmadığını belirtmek için sizi en iyi tanımlayan rakamı
işaretleyiniz.

Kendimi ........ biri olarak görüyorum.

ne de katılmıyorum
3 = Ne katılıyorum

5 = Tamamen
katılmıyorum

katılmıyorum

katılıyorum

katılıyorum
2 = Biraz

4 = Biraz
1 = Hiç

1. Konuşkan 1 2 3 4 5
2. Başkalarında hata arayan * 1 2 3 4 5
3. İşini tam yapan 1 2 3 4 5
4. Bunalımlı, melankolik 1 2 3 4 5
5. Orijinal, yeni görüşler ortaya koyan 1 2 3 4 5
6. Ketum/vakur* 1 2 3 4 5
7. Yardımsever ve çıkarcı olmayan 1 2 3 4 5
8. Biraz umursamaz* 1 2 3 4 5
9. Rahat, stresle kolay baş eden* 1 2 3 4 5
10. Çok değişik konuları merak eden 1 2 3 4 5
11. Enerji dolu 1 2 3 4 5
12. Başkalarıyla sürekli didişen* 1 2 3 4 5
13. Güvenilir bir çalışan 1 2 3 4 5
14. Gergin olabilen 1 2 3 4 5
15. Maharetli, derin düşünen 1 2 3 4 5
16. Heyecan yaratabilen 1 2 3 4 5
17. Affedici bir yapıya sahip 1 2 3 4 5
18. Dağınık olma eğiliminde* 1 2 3 4 5

105
19. Çok endişelenen 1 2 3 4 5
20. Hayal gücü yüksek 1 2 3 4 5
21. Sessiz bir yapıda* 1 2 3 4 5
22. Genellikle başkalarına güvenen 1 2 3 4 5
23. Tembel olma eğiliminde olan* 1 2 3 4 5
24. Duygusal olarak dengeli, kolayca keyfi kaçmayan* 1 2 3 4 5
25. Keşfeden, icat eden 1 2 3 4 5
26. Atılgan bir kişiliğe sahip 1 2 3 4 5
27. Soğuk ve mesafeli olabilen* 1 2 3 4 5
28. Görevi tamamlanıncaya kadar sebat edebilen 1 2 3 4 5
29. Dakikası dakikasına uymayan 1 2 3 4 5
30. Sanata ve estetik değerlere önem veren 1 2 3 4 5
31. Bazen utangaç, çekingen olan* 1 2 3 4 5
32. Hemen hemen herkese karşı saygılı ve nazik olan 1 2 3 4 5
33. İşleri verimli yapan 1 2 3 4 5
34. Gergin ortamlarda sakin kalabilen* 1 2 3 4 5
35. Rutin işleri yapmayı tercih eden* 1 2 3 4 5
36. Sosyal, girişken 1 2 3 4 5
37. Bazen başkalarına kaba davranabilen* 1 2 3 4 5
38. Planlar yapan ve bunları takip eden 1 2 3 4 5
39. Kolayca sinirlenen 1 2 3 4 5
40. Düşünmeyi seven, fikirler geliştirebilen 1 2 3 4 5
41. Sanata ilgisi çok az olan* 1 2 3 4 5
42. Başkalarıyla işbirliği yapmayı seven 1 2 3 4 5
43. Kolaylıkla dikkati dağılan* 1 2 3 4 5
44. Sanat, müzik ve edebiyatta çok bilgili 1 2 3 4 5

* Items were reverse coded.

106
 APPENDIX E

THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AFECT SCHEDULE

(WATSON, CLARK, & TELLEGEN, 1988)

POZİTİF VE NEGATİF DUYGU DURUM ÖLÇEĞİ

(GENÇÖZ, 2000)

Bu ölçek farklı duyguları tanımlayan bir takım sözcükler içermektedir. Son

iki hafta nasıl hissettiğinizi düşünüp her maddeyi okuyun. Uygun cevabı her
maddenin yanında ayrılan yere işaretleyin. Cevaplarınızı verirken aşağıdaki
puanları kullanın.

Çok
az Çok
Biraz Ortalama Oldukça
veya fazla
hiç

1. İlgili* 1 2 3 4 5
2. Sıkıntılı 1 2 3 4 5
3. Heyecanlı* 1 2 3 4 5
4. Mutsuz 1 2 3 4 5
5. Güçlü* 1 2 3 4 5
6. Suçlu 1 2 3 4 5
7. Ürkmüş 1 2 3 4 5
8. Düşmanca 1 2 3 4 5
9. Hevesli* 1 2 3 4 5
10. Gururlu* 1 2 3 4 5
11. Asabi 1 2 3 4 5
12. Uyanık 1 2 3 4 5
(Dikkati açık)*
13. Utanmış 1 2 3 4 5
14. İlhamlı 1 2 3 4 5
(yaratıcı
düşüncelerle
dolu)*
15. Sinirli 1 2 3 4 5
16. Kararlı* 1 2 3 4 5
17. Dikkatli* 1 2 3 4 5
18. Tedirgin 1 2 3 4 5
19. Aktif* 1 2 3 4 5
20. Korkmuş 1 2 3 4 5

*Positive affect items

107
 APPENDIX F

THE SATISFACTION WITH LIFE SCALE

(DIENER, EMMONS, LARSEN, & GRIFFIN, 1985)

YAŞAM DOYUM ÖLÇEĞİ

(DURAK, SENOL-DURAK, & GENCOZ, 2010)

Aşağıdaki ifadelere katılıp katılmadığınızı görüşünüzü yansıtan rakamı maddenin

başındaki boşluğa yazarak belirtiniz. Doğru ya da yanlış cevap yoktur. Sizin durumunuzu
yansıttığını düşündüğünüz rakam bizim için en doğru yanıttır. Lütfen, açık ve dürüst
şekilde yanıtlayınız.

Kesinlikle katılmıyorum

Kesinlikle katılıyorum
Biraz katılmıyorum

Çok az katılıyorum
Ne katılıyorum ne
de katılmıyorum
Katılmıyorum

Katılıyorum
1. Pek çok açıdan ideallerime yakın bir 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
yaşamım var
2. Yaşam koşullarım mükemmeldir 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Yaşamım beni tatmin ediyor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Şimdiye kadar, yaşamda istediğim 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
önemli şeyleri elde ettim
5. Hayatımı bir daha yaşama şansım 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
olsaydı, hemen hemen hiçbir şeyi
değiştirmezdim

108
 APPENDIX G

THE SUBJECTIVE HAPPINESS SCALE

(LYUBOMIRSKY & LEPPER, 1990)

ÖZNEL MUTLULUK ÖLÇEĞİ

(DOĞAN & TOTAN, 2013)

Sizi en iyi tanımlayan rakamı işaretleyiniz.

1. Genelde kendimi şu şekilde değerlendiririm:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Çok mutlu değilim Çok mutluyum

2. Emsallerimle (akran) karşılaştırdığımda çoğuna göre kendimi şöyle

değerlendiririm:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Daha az mutlu Daha çok mutlu

3. “Bazı insanlar genellikle çok mutludurlar, ne olup bittiğine aldırmaksızın her

şeyden keyif alırlar.” Böyle bir ifade size ne ölçüde tanımlamaktadır?

Hiç uygun değil 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tamamen Uygun

4. “Bazı insanlar genellikle çok mutlu değildirler ve olmaları gerektiği kadar mutlu
görünmezler.” Böyle bir ifade size ne ölçüde tanımlamaktadır? *

Hiç uygun değil 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tamamen uygun

*Reverse-coded item

109
 APPENDIX H

THE INTERPERSONAL REACTIVITY INDEX

(DAVIS, 1980)
KİŞİLERARASI TEPKİSELLİK ÖLÇEĞİ

Aşağıda çeşitli durumlarla ilgili sizin duygu ve düşüncelerinizi yansıtan

ifadeler (maddeler) verilmiştir. Her bir maddenin sizi ne kadar doğru ifade ettiğini
yandaki beş aralıklı ölçeği kullanarak değerlendiriniz. LÜTFEN CEVAP
VERMEDEN ÖNCE HER MADDEYİ DİKKATLİCE OKUYUNUZ. Sizi tam
olarak yansıtacak şekilde cevaplayınız. Teşekkürler.

Beni Hiç Tanımlamıyor

Beni çok iyi tanımlıyor

Beni çok az tanımlıyor

Beni çokça tanımlıyor

Beni biraz tanımlıyor

1. Başıma gelebilecek muhtemel şeyler hakkında sürekli 1 2 3 4 5

hayal kurar, kafamda canlandırırım.
2. Benden daha kötü durumda olan insanlara karşı 1 2 3 4 5
genellikle hassas ve düşünceliyimdir.
3. Bazen olayları başkalarının bakış açısından görmekte 1 2 3 4 5
zorlanırım.
4. Başkalarının problemleri için bazen pek üzülmem. 1 2 3 4 5

5. Bir roman içerisindeki karakterlerin duygularını 1 2 3 4 5

hisseder neredeyse onunla özdeşleşirim.
6. Acil durumlarda telaşlı ve endişeli olurum. 1 2 3 4 5

7. Bir oyun ya da film izlediğimde genellikle fazla 1 2 3 4 5

gerçekçi olurum, kendimi oyuna/filme pek kaptırmam.
8. Bir karar vermeden önce, farklı düşünen herkesin bakış 1 2 3 4 5
açısından olaya bakmaya çalışırım.

9. Birisinin istismar edildiğini ya da zayıflığından 1 2 3 4 5

yararlanıldığını gördüğümde ona karşı koruyucu olurum

110
10. Çok duygusal bir durumun ortasında kaldığımda bazen 1 2 3 4 5
kendimi çaresiz hissederim.
11. Bazen, onların gözünden olayların nasıl göründüğünü 1 2 3 4 5
hayal ederek, arkadaşlarımı daha iyi anlamaya çalışırım.
12. Güzel bir kitaba ya da filme kendini aşırı kaptırmak 1 2 3 4 5
benim için çok nadirdir.
13. Başkasına zarar verildiğini ya da canının yakıldığında 1 2 3 4 5
gördüğümde soğukkanlılığımı korurum.
14. Başkalarının talihsizliği beni genellikle çok rahatsız 1 2 3 4 5
etmez.
15. Eğer bir konuda haklı olduğuma eminsem başkalarının 1 2 3 4 5
görüşlerini dinleyerek vakit kaybetmem.
16. Bir oyun ya da film izlediğimde kendimi o 1 2 3 4 5
karakterlerden biriymişim gibi hissederim.
17. Hassas duygusal bir durumda kalmak beni korkutur. 1 2 3 4 5

18. Birisine haksızlık yapıldığına şahit olduğumda, bazen 1 2 3 4 5

içimden onlara acımak gelmez.
19. Acil durumlarla baş etmekte genellikle iyiyimdir. 1 2 3 4 5

20. Oluşuna şahit olduğum durumlardan duygusal olarak 1 2 3 4 5

çok etkilenirim.
21. Her sorunun iki yanıtı olduğunu düşünerek, 1 2 3 4 5
madalyonun iki yüzüne de bakmaya çalışırım.
22. Kendimi çok yufka yürekli birisi olarak 1 2 3 4 5
tanımlayabilirim.
23. Güzel bir film izlediğimde kendimi kolaylıkla 1 2 3 4 5
başroldeki karakterin yerine koyabilirim.
24. Acil durumlarda kontrolümü kaybedebilirim. 1 2 3 4 5

25. Birine kızgın olduğumda, kendimi bir süre onun yerine 1 2 3 4 5

koymaya çalışırım.
26. İlginç bir hikâye ya da roman okurken, okuduğum 1 2 3 4 5
olaylar benim başıma gelseydi nasıl hissederdim diye
düşünürüm.
27. Acil bir durumda ciddi şekilde yardıma ihtiyacı olan 1 2 3 4 5
birini gördüğümde adeta parçalanırım.
28. Birisini eleştirmeden önce, onun yerinde olsaydım nasıl 1 2 3 4 5
hissederdim diye düşünmeye çalışırım.

111
 APPENDIX I

FACTOR STRUCTURE OF THE INTERPERSONAL REACTIVITY INDEX

(DAVIS, 1980)
KİŞİLERARASI TEPKİSELLİK ÖLÇEĞİ FAKTÖR YAPISI

Factor Loadings
Items 1 2 3 4
28. Birisini eleştirmeden önce, onun yerinde olsaydım nasıl
.78 .07 .08 .10
hissederdim diye düşünmeye çalışırım.
21. Her sorunun iki yanıtı olduğunu düşünerek, madalyonun iki
.77 .14 .00 .05
yüzüne de bakmaya çalışırım.
11. Bazen, onların gözünden olayların nasıl göründüğünü hayal
.73 .14 .15 .01
ederek, arkadaşlarımı daha iyi anlamaya çalışırım.
8. Bir karar vermeden önce, farklı düşünen herkesin bakış açısından
.70 .07 .20 .05
olaya bakmaya çalışırım.
25. Birine kızgın olduğumda, kendimi bir süre onun yerine koymaya
.66 .09 .03 .07
çalışırım
3. Bazen olayları başkalarının bakış açısından görmekte zorlanırım.* .44 .06 .38 .34
15. Eğer bir konuda haklı olduğuma eminsem başkalarının
.28 .11 .38 .17
görüşlerini dinleyerek vakit kaybetmem.*
16. Bir oyun ya da film izlediğimde kendimi o karakterlerden
.10 .84 .06 .12
biriymişim gibi hissederim.
23. Güzel bir film izlediğimde kendimi kolaylıkla başroldeki
.15 .78 .10 .13
karakterin yerine koyabilirim.
12. Güzel bir kitaba ya da filme kendini aşırı kaptırmak benim için
.05 .74 .27 .05
çok nadirdir. *
26. İlginç bir hikâye ya da roman okurken, okuduğum olaylar benim
.27 .68 .11 .12
başıma gelseydi nasıl hissederdim diye düşünürüm
5. Bir roman içerisindeki karakterlerin duygularını hisseder
.18 .65 .01 .09
neredeyse onunla özdeşleşirim.
7. Bir oyun ya da film izlediğimde genellikle fazla gerçekçi olurum,
.13 .63 .26 .17
kendimi oyuna/filme pek kaptırmam.*
1. Başıma gelebilecek muhtemel şeyler hakkında sürekli hayal kurar,
.21 .24 .03 .20
kafamda canlandırırım.
4. Başkalarının problemleri için bazen pek üzülmem.* .10 .00 .72 .07
14. Başkalarının talihsizliği beni genellikle çok rahatsız etmez.* .14 .07 .71 .04
18. Birisine haksızlık yapıldığına şahit olduğumda, bazen içimden
.09 .11 .69 .23
onlara acımak gelmez.*
2. Benden daha kötü durumda olan insanlara karşı genellikle hassas
.42 .00 .42 .26
ve düşünceliyimdir.
22. Kendimi çok yufka yürekli birisi olarak tanımlayabilirim .26 .02 .34 .36
9. Birisinin istismar edildiğini ya da zayıflığından yararlanıldığını
.41 .03 .30 .37
gördüğümde ona karşı koruyucu olurum
20. Oluşuna şahit olduğum durumlardan duygusal olarak çok
.10 .05 .20 .50
etkilenirim
6. Acil durumlarda telaşlı ve endişeli olurum. .15 .13 .16 .70
24. Acil durumlarda kontrolümü kaybedebilirim. .12 .03 .26 .65
10. Çok duygusal bir durumun ortasında kaldığımda bazen kendimi
.09 .03 .04 .58
çaresiz hissederim
17. Hassas duygusal bir durumda kalmak beni korkutur .07 .05 .06 .54

112
27. Acil bir durumda ciddi şekilde yardıma ihtiyacı olan birini
.28 .07 .22 .50
gördüğümde adeta parçalanırım
19. Acil durumlarla baş etmekte genellikle iyiyimdir.* .42 .00 .16 .44
13. Başkasına zarar verildiğini ya da canının yakıldığında
.12 .06 .63 .26
gördüğümde soğukkanlılığımı korurum.*
Explained Variance 19.69 11.96 8.73 7.70
Eigenvalues 5.51 3.34 2.44 2.15
Cronbach’s alpha for the sub-scales .82 .81 .70 .62

Note. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of sampling adequacy = .80 and Bartlet’s Test of Sphericity ( X2 (378) =
2465.91, p = .000). Factor loadings were taken after varimax rotation and loadings over .30 were shown in bold.
Factors represented by 1 is perspective taking, 2 is fantasy scale, 3 is empathic concern and 4 is personal
distress.
* Items were reverse coded

113
 APPENDIX J

THE ALLO-INCLUSIVE IDENTITY SCALE

(LEARY, TIPSORD, & TATE, 2008)
KAPSAYICI BENLİK ÖLÇEĞİ

Aşağıda bir kişi ya da nesneye karşı bağlılık ifade eden farklı derecelerde
ilişkili 7 tane şekil verilmiştir. Verilen her bir durumda sizin ilgili kişi ya da nesne
ile olan ilişkinizi, bağınızı ya da bağlılığınızı en iyi şekilde yansıtan şekli
işaretleyiniz. Örneğin, 1. Şekil hiç bir ilişkinin ya da bağlılığın olmadığını, 4. Şekil
orta derecede bir bağlılığı ve 7. Şekilde tam bir bağlılığı temsil etmektedir.

4.
1.Şekil 2. Şekil 3. Şekil 5.Şekil 6. Şekil 7. Şekil
Şekil
1. Sen ve hemcinsinden 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
en yakın arkadaşın
arasındaki bağ
2. Sen ve vahşi bir 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
hayvan (mesela
sincap, kurt ya da
geyik) arasındaki
bağ
3. Sen ve ortalama bir 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Türk arasındaki bağ
4. Sen ve 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
gökyüzündeki ay
arasındaki bağ
5. Sen ve sokakta 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
yaşayan evsiz birisi
arasındaki bağ
6. Sen ve karşı cinsten 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
en iyi arkadaşın
arasındaki bağ
7. Sen ve bir köpek 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
arasındaki bağ
8. Sen ve bir ağaç 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
arasındaki bağ

114
9. Sen ve otobüsteki bir 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
yabancı arasındaki
bağ
10. Sen ve bütün 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
yaşayan canlılar
arasındaki bağ
11. Sen ve ailen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
arasındaki bağ
12. Sen ve Dünya 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
arasındaki bağ
13. Sen ve gökyüzünde 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
süzülen bir kartal
arasındaki bağ
14. Sen ve evren 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
arasındaki bağ
15. Sen ve farklı ırktan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
bir kişi arasındaki
bağ

115
 APPENDIX K

FACTOR STRUCTURE OF THE ALLO-INCLUSIVE IDENTITY SCALE

(LEARY, TIPSORD, & TATE, 2008)
KAPSAYICI BENLİK ÖLÇEĞİ FAKTÖR YAPISI

Factor Loadings
Items Nature People
13. Sen ve gökyüzünde süzülen bir kartal
.83 .02
arasındaki bağ
8. Sen ve bir ağaç arasındaki bağ .77 .09
10. Sen ve bütün yaşayan canlılar arasındaki bağ .74 .26
4. Sen ve gökyüzündeki ay arasındaki bağ .74 .05
2. Sen ve vahşi bir hayvan (mesela sincap, kurt ya
.68 .02
da geyik) arasındaki bağ
12. Sen ve Dünya arasındaki bağ .66 .36
7. Sen ve bir köpek arasındaki bağ .65 .06
14. Sen ve evren arasındaki bağ .64 .29
5. Sen ve sokakta yaşayan evsiz birisi arasındaki
.53 .37
bağ
15. Sen ve farklı ırktan bir kişi arasındaki bağ .51 .48
1. Sen ve hemcinsinden en yakın arkadaşın
.11 .75
arasındaki bağ
11. Sen ve ailen arasındaki bağ -.10 .70
6. Sen ve karşı cinsten en iyi arkadaşın arasındaki
.13 .57
bağ
3. Sen ve ortalama bir Türk arasındaki bağ .14 .53
9. Sen ve otobüsteki bir yabancı arasındaki bağ .44 .46
Explained Variance 38.72 11.58
Eigenvalues 5.80 1.72
Cronbach’s alpha .74 .88

Note. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of sampling adequacy = .86 and Bartlet’s Test of Sphericity (X2 (105) =
1668.75, p = .000). Factor loadings were taken after varimax rotation and loadings bigger than .30 were bolded.

116
 APPENDIX L

THE MINDFULNESS ATTENTION AWARENESS SCALE

(BROWN & RYAN, 2003)
BİLİNÇLİ FARKINDALIK ÖLÇEĞİ

Aşağıda günlük yaşantılarınıza ilişkin bazı ifadeler verilmiştir. Bu

yaşantıları ne sıklıkta hissettiğinizi 6 aralıklı cetvelleri kullanarak belirtin. Lütfen
olması gerektiğini düşündüğünüz şekilde değil, gerçekten ne yaşadığınıza ya da
hissettiğinize göre cevap veriniz. Aşağıda belirtilen her bir maddeyi diğerlerinden
bağımsız olarak cevaplayınız.

Neredeyse hiç bir zaman

Neredeyse Her zaman

Çok nadir
Ara sıra
Çok sık

Bazen
1. Bazı duyguları yaşamış olabilirim ve belli bir süre 1 2 3 4 5 6
geçene kadar bu duyguların bilincinde olmayabilirim.
2. Dalgınlık, dikkatsizlik ya da başka bir şeyi düşünüyor 1 2 3 4 5 6
olduğum için bir şeyleri kırdığım ya da döktüğüm
olur.
3. Şimdiki zamanda ne olup bittiğine odaklanmakta 1 2 3 4 5 6
zorlanırım.
4. Yol boyunca neler yaşadığıma ya da gördüğüme 1 2 3 4 5 6
dikkat etmeden, gideceğim yere hızlıca yürürüm.
5. Tam olarak dikkatimi çekene kadar, bedenimdeki 1 2 3 4 5 6
fiziksel gerilim ya da rahatsızlık hissini fark etmem.
6. Bir kişinin adını, neredeyse bana söylendiği anda 1 2 3 4 5 6
unuturum.
7. Ne yaptığımın çok farkına varmadan sanki 1 2 3 4 5 6
“otomatiğe bağlamış” gibi hareket ediyorum.
8. Çoğu işi dikkatimi tam vermeden aceleyle yaparım. 1 2 3 4 5 6
9. Başarmak istediğim hedeflere o kadar odaklanırım ki, 1 2 3 4 5 6
onlara ulaşmak için o anda ne yaptığımın farkında
olmam.
10. İşleri ya da üstlendiğim görevleri ne yaptığımın 1 2 3 4 5 6
farkında olmadan otomatik olarak yaparım.
11. Bazen bir iş yaparken, aynı zamanda bir kulağımla da 1 2 3 4 5 6
başkasını dinlediğimi fark ederim.

117
12. Arabayı ‘otomatik pilotta’ sürerim, sonra da neden 1 2 3 4 5 6
oraya gittiğimi düşünür dururum.
13. Kendimi, geleceğe ya da geçmişe takılmış halde 1 2 3 4 5 6
bulurum.
14. Kendimi dikkat etmeden bir şeyler yaparken bulurum. 1 2 3 4 5 6

15. Ne yediğimin farkında olmadan atıştırırım. 1 2 3 4 5 6

118
 APPENDIX M

FACTOR STRUCTURE OF THE MINDFULNESS ATTENTION SCALE

(BROWN & RYAN, 2003)
BİLİÇLİ FARKINDALIK ÖLÇEĞİ FAKTÖR YAPISI

Factor
Items
Loadings

7. Ne yaptığımın çok farkına varmadan sanki “otomatiğe bağlamış” gibi hareket .74
ediyorum.
8. Çoğu işi dikkatimi tam vermeden aceleyle yaparım. .74
3. Şimdiki zamanda ne olup bittiğine odaklanmakta zorlanırım. .72
14. Kendimi dikkat etmeden bir şeyler yaparken bulurum. .71
10. İşleri ya da üstlendiğim görevleri ne yaptığımın farkında olmadan otomatik .70
olarak yaparım.
15. Ne yediğimin farkında olmadan atıştırırım. .62
2. Dalgınlık, dikkatsizlik ya da başka bir şeyi düşünüyor olduğum için bir şeyleri .58
kırdığım ya da döktüğüm olur.
1. Bazı duyguları yaşamış olabilirim ve belli bir süre geçene kadar bu duyguların .54
bilincinde olmayabilirim.
4. Yol boyunca neler yaşadığıma ya da gördüğüme dikkat etmeden, gideceğim yere .51
hızlıca yürürüm.
5. Tam olarak dikkatimi çekene kadar, bedenimdeki fiziksel gerilim ya da .51
rahatsızlık hissini fark etmem.
13. Kendimi, geleceğe ya da geçmişe takılmış halde bulurum. .47
12. Arabayı ‘otomatik pilotta’ sürerim, sonra da neden oraya gittiğimi düşünür .47
dururum.
9. Başarmak istediğim hedeflere o kadar odaklanırım ki, onlara ulaşmak için o .46
anda ne yaptığımın farkında olmam.
11. Bazen bir iş yaparken, aynı zamanda bir kulağımla da başkasını dinlediğimi .29
fark ederim.
6. Bir kişinin adını, neredeyse bana söylendiği anda unuturum. .28
Explained Variance 33.56
Eigenvalues 5.03
Cronbach’s alpha .87

Note. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of sampling adequacy = .85 and Bartlet’s Test of Sphericity ( X2 (105) =
1087.59, p = .000). Factor loadings were taken after varimax rotation.

119
 APPENDIX N

THE RYFF SCALE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING

(RYFF & KEYES, 1995)
RYFF PSİKOLOJİK İYİLİK HALİ ÖLÇEĞİ

Lütfen aşağıdaki ifadelerin yanında verilen 6 aralıklı ölçeği kullanarak

aşağıdaki ifadelere ne kadar katıldığınızı belirtiniz.

Kesinlikle Katılmıyorum

Kesinlikle katılıyorum
Biraz katılmıyorum

Biraz katılıyorum
Katılmıyorum

Katılıyorum
1. Ufkumu genişletecek faaliyetlerle pek 1 2 3 4 5 6
ilgilenmiyorum.
2. Farklı şeyler denemek istemiyorum, hayatım 1 2 3 4 5 6
mevcut şekliyle gayet güzel.
3. Kendime ve dünyaya dair düşüncelerimi 1 2 3 4 5 6
sorgulamama yol açan yeni deneyimler
yaşamanın önemli olduğunu düşünüyorum.
4. Düşününce, yıllar içerisinde birey olarak çok da 1 2 3 4 5 6
gelişmediğimi görüyorum.
5. Zaman içerisinde birey olarak çok geliştiğimi 1 2 3 4 5 6
hissediyorum.
6. Alışkın olduğum şeyleri değiştirmemi 1 2 3 4 5 6
gerektirecek yeni durumlarda bulunmaktan
hoşlanmıyorum.
7. Benim için hayat, sürekli bir öğrenme, değişme 1 2 3 4 5 6
ve gelişme sürecidir.
8. Hayatımda büyük değişimler ve yenilikler 1 2 3 4 5 6
yapmayı denemekten uzun zaman önce
vazgeçtim.
9. “Huylu huyundan vazgeçmez” deyişinde bir 1 2 3 4 5 6
gerçeklik vardır.

Note: Only the growth dimension was assessed.

120
 APPENDIX O

FACTOR STRUCTURE OF THE RYFF SCALE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL

WELL-BEING
(RYFF & KEYES, 1995)

RYFF PSİKOLOJİK İYİLİK HALİ ÖLÇEĞİ FAKTÖR YAPISI

Factor
Items
Loadings

7. Benim için hayat, sürekli bir öğrenme, değişme ve gelişme sürecidir. .71
1. Ufkumu genişletecek faaliyetlerle pek ilgilenmiyorum.* .70
5. Zaman içerisinde birey olarak çok geliştiğimi hissediyorum. .70
8. Hayatımda büyük değişimler ve yenilikler yapmayı denemekten uzun zaman .69
önce vazgeçtim.*
4. Düşününce, yıllar içerisinde birey olarak çok da gelişmediğimi görüyorum.* .69
3. Kendime ve dünyaya dair düşüncelerimi sorgulamama yol açan yeni deneyimler .51
yaşamanın önemli olduğunu düşünüyorum.
2. Farklı şeyler denemek istemiyorum, hayatım mevcut şekliyle gayet güzel. .49
6. Alışkın olduğum şeyleri değiştirmemi gerektirecek yeni durumlarda .44
bulunmaktan hoşlanmıyorum.*
9. “Huylu huyundan vazgeçmez” deyişinde bir gerçeklik vardır.* .42
Explained Variance 37.30
Eigenvalues 3.35
Cronbach’s alpha .65

Note. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of sampling adequacy = .75 and Bartlet’s Test of Sphericity ( X2 (36) =
678.58, p = .000). Factor loadings were taken after varimax rotation.
*Items were reverse coded.

121
 APPENDIX P

THE INDCOL SCALE

(SINGELIS, TRIANDIS, BHAWUK, & GELFAND, 1995)

INDCOL ÖLÇEĞİ
(WASTİ & ERDİL, 2007)

Aşağıdaki cümlelere ne derece katılıp katılmadığınızı öğrenmek istiyoruz. Bu

sorulara doğru ya da yanlış cevap yoktur. Lütfen HER SORU İÇİN verilen ölçeği
kullanarak katılım derecenizi belirtiniz.

ne katılmıyorum
Ne katılıyorum
Katılmıyorum

Katılmıyorum

Katılıyorum

katılıyorum
Kesinlikle

Kesinlikle
1. Benim mutluluğum çevremdekilerin 1 2 3 4 5
mutluluğuna çok bağlıdır.
2. Kazanmak her şeydir 1 2 3 4 5

3. Yakın çevrem için kişisel çıkarlarımdan 1 2 3 4 5

fedakârlık ederim.
4. Başkaları benden daha başarılı olduğunda 1 2 3 4 5
rahatsız olurum.
5. Yakın çevremdekilerin birbiriyle uyumunu 1 2 3 4 5
muhafaza etmek benim için önemlidir.
6. İşimi başkalarından daha iyi yapmak benim 1 2 3 4 5
için önemlidir.
7. Komşularımla ufak tefek şeyleri paylaşmak 1 2 3 4 5
hoşuma gider.
8. İş arkadaşlarımın iyiliği benim için önemlidir. 1 2 3 4 5

9. Rekabet doğanın kanunudur. 1 2 3 4 5

10. İş arkadaşlarımdan biri ödül kazansa gurur 1 2 3 4 5

duyarım.
11. Özgün bir birey olmak benim için önemlidir. 1 2 3 4 5

122
12. Başkası benden daha başarılı olduğu zaman 1 2 3 4 5
kendimi gergin ve kamçılanmış hissederim.
13. Çoğu zaman kendi bildiğim gibi yaşarım. 1 2 3 4 5

14. Yakın çevremin kararlarına saygı göstermek 1 2 3 4 5

benim için önemlidir.
15. Başkalarına güvenmektense kendime 1 2 3 4 5
güvenirim.
16. Ne fedakârlık gerekirse gereksin aile bireyleri 1 2 3 4 5
birbirlerine kenetlenmelidirler.
17. Anne-baba ve çocuklar mümkün olduğu kadar 1 2 3 4 5
birlikte kalmalıdırlar.
18. Başkalarından bağımsız bireysel kimliğim 1 2 3 4 5
benim için çok önemlidir.
19. Kendi isteklerimden fedakârlık yapmak 1 2 3 4 5
gerekse de aileme bakmak benim görevimdir.
20. Bireysel kimliğim benim için çok önemlidir. 1 2 3 4 5

21. Ben başkalarından ayrı özgün bir bireyim. 1 2 3 4 5

22. Yakın çevremde çoğunluğun isteklerine saygı 1 2 3 4 5

gösteririm.
23. Kendine özgü ve başkalarından farklı olmaktan 1 2 3 4 5
hoşlanırım.
24. Bir karar vermeden önce yakın arkadaşlara 1 2 3 4 5
danışıp onların fikirlerini almak önemlidir.
25. Maddi güçlük içinde olan bir akrabama imkânlarım 1 2 3 4 5
ölçüsünde yardım ederim.
26. Rekabet olmadan iyi bir toplum düzeni kurulamaz. 1 2 3 4 5

27. İnsan hayatını başkalarından bağımsız olarak 1 2 3 4 5

yaşamalıdır.
28. Çok hoşuma giden bir şeyden ailem onaylamazsa 1 2 3 4 5
vazgeçerim.
29. Başkalarıyla işbirliği yaptığım zaman kendimi iyi 1 2 3 4 5
hissederim.
30. Başkalarıyla rekabet edebileceğim ortamlarda 1 2 3 4 5
çalışmak hoşuma gider.
31. İnsanlarla açık ve dosdoğru konuşmayı tercih 1 2 3 4 5
ederim.
32. Çocuklara vazifenin eğlenceden önce geldiği 1 2 3 4 5
öğretilmelidir.
33. Benim için zevk başkalarıyla vakit geçirmektir. 1 2 3 4 5

123
34. Başarı hayattaki en önemli şeydir. 1 2 3 4 5

35. Eğer başarılı oluyorsam bu benim yeteneklerim 1 2 3 4 5

sayesindedir.
36. Yakın çevremle fikir ayrılığına düşmekten hiç 1 2 3 4 5
hoşlanmam.
37. Ailemi memnun edecek şeyleri nefret etsem de 1 2 3 4 5
yaparım.

124
 APPENDIX Q

THE SELF-COMPASSION SCALE – SHORT FORM

(NEFF, 2003)

ÖZ-DUYARLILIK ÖLÇEĞİ – KISA FORM

Lütfen aşağıdaki durumları ne kadar sıklıkla yaşadığınızı belirtiniz.

Neredeyse Hiçbir zaman

Neredeyse Her zaman

Çok Nadir

Ara sıra

Çok sık
1. Benim için önemli bir şeyde başarısız olduğumda, 1 2 3 4 5
yetersizlik duygusu beni yer bitirir.
2. Sevmediğim yönlerime karşı anlayışlı ve sabırlı 1 2 3 4 5
olmaya çalışıyorum.
3. Bana acı veren bir durum olduğunda, buna 1 2 3 4 5
dengeli bir bakışla yaklaşmaya çalışırım.
4. Moralim bozuk olduğunda, başkalarının benden 1 2 3 4 5
daha mutlu olduğunu düşünürüm.
5. Hatalarımı/başarısızlıklarımı insan olmanın bir 1 2 3 4 5
koşulu olarak görmeye çalışırım.
6. Zor bir zamandan geçiyorsam, kendime ihtiyacım 1 2 3 4 5
olan ilgi ve şefkati gösteririm.
7. Üzüldüğümde duygularımı dengelemeye 1 2 3 4 5
çalışırım.
8. Benim için önemli olan bir şeyde başarısız 1 2 3 4 5
olduğumda başarısızlığımla yalnız kaldığımı
hissederim.
9. Moralim bozulduğunda yanlış giden her şeye 1 2 3 4 5
kafayı takarım.

125
10. Bir şekilde yetersiz olduğumu hissedersem, birçok 1 2 3 4 5
insanın da aynı duyguyu hissettiğini kendime
hatırlatırım.
11. Kendi kusurlarıma ve yetersizliklerime karşı çok 1 2 3 4 5
hoşnutsuz ve yargılayıcıyımdır.
12. Beğenmediğim yönlerime karşı hoşgörüsüz ve 1 2 3 4 5
sabırsızımdır.

126
 APPENDIX R

FACTOR STRUCTURE OF THE SELF-COMPASSION SCALE-SHORT

FORM
(NEFF, 2003)

ÖZ DUYARLILIK ÖLÇEĞİ-KISA FORMUNUN FAKTÖR YAPISI

Factor Loadings
Items
1 2

6. Zor bir zamandan geçiyorsam, kendime ihtiyacım olan ilgi ve .80 -.08
şefkati gösteririm.
5. Hatalarımı/başarısızlıklarımı insan olmanın bir koşulu olarak .78 -.10
görmeye çalışırım.
3. Bana acı veren bir durum olduğunda, buna dengeli bir bakışla .76 .02
yaklaşmaya çalışırım.
7. Üzüldüğümde duygularımı dengelemeye çalışırım. .75 .01
10. Bir şekilde yetersiz olduğumu hissedersem, birçok insanın da .71 .09
aynı duyguyu hissettiğini kendime hatırlatırım.
2. Sevmediğim yönlerime karşı anlayışlı ve sabırlı olmaya .51 .05
çalışıyorum.
8. Benim için önemli olan bir şeyde başarısız olduğumda .16 .80
başarısızlığımla yalnız kaldığımı hissederim. *
4. Moralim bozuk olduğunda, başkalarının benden daha mutlu .18 .75
olduğunu düşünürüm.*
1. Benim için önemli bir şeyde başarısız olduğumda, yetersizlik .12 .72
duygusu beni yer bitirir.*
9. Moralim bozulduğunda yanlış giden her şeye kafayı takarım.* -.00 .71
12. Beğenmediğim yönlerime karşı hoşgörüsüz ve sabırsızımdır.* -.21 .69
11. Kendi kusurlarıma ve yetersizliklerime karşı çok hoşnutsuz -.27 .65
ve yargılayıcıyımdır.*
Explained Variance 28.21 26.66
Eigenvalues 3.38 3.19
Cronbach’s alpha for the scale .75

Note. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of sampling adequacy = .82 and Bartlet’s Test of Sphericity ( X2 (66) =
1059.33, p = .000). Factor loadings were taken after varimax rotation and loadings over .30 were shown in bold.
* Items were reverse coded.

127
 APPENDIX S

THE ROSENBERG SELF-ESTEEM SCALE

(ROSENBERG, 1965)

BENLİK SAYGISI ÖLÇEĞİ

(ÇUHADAROĞLU, 1986)

Lütfen aşağıdaki 10 maddeyi size uygun olan seçeneği daire içine alarak
değerlendiriniz.

Hiç katılmıyorum
Katılmıyorum
Katılıyorum
katılıyorum
Tamamen

1. Kendimi en az diğer insanlar kadar değerli buluyorum. 1 2 3 4

2. Birçok olumlu özelliğimin olduğunu düşünüyorum. 1 2 3 4
3. Genelde kendimi başarısız bir kişi olarak görme 1 2 3 4
eğilimindeyim.
4. Ben de çoğu insan gibi işleri iyi yapabilirim. 1 2 3 4
5. Kendimde gurur duyacak fazla bir şey bulamıyorum. 1 2 3 4
6. Kendime karşı olumlu bir tutum içindeyim. 1 2 3 4
7. Genel olarak kendimden memnunum. 1 2 3 4
8. Kendime karşı daha fazla saygı duyabilmeyi isterdim. 1 2 3 4
9. Bazı zamanlar, kesinlikle bir işe yaramadığımı 1 2 3 4
düşünüyorum.
10. Bazı zamanlar, hiç de yeterli biri olmadığımı 1 2 3 4
düşünüyorum.

128
 APPENDIX T

TÜRKÇE ÖZET

Günümüzde yüksek benlik saygısı her derde deva bir ilaç olarak
görülmesine karşın, son yıllarda yapılan çalışmalar yüksek benlik saygısının olası
olumsuz etkilerini gözler önüne sermektedir. Baumeister, Smart ve Boden (1996)
yüksek benlik saygısının özellikle ego tehdidi ile birleştiğinde, bireylerde benlik
saygısının korunması ihtiyacını doğurduğunu ve bu ihtiyacın bireylerde şiddet ve
saldırganlıkla ortaya çıktığını göstermiştirler. Bu nedenle, benlik saygısına alternatif
olabilecek kavramların arayışına girişilmiştir.
Bireylerin kendilerini değerlendirmelerinde dengeli bir model bulmak adına,
Kernis (2003) “optimal benlik saygısı” kavramını ortaya atarak güvenli ve
hassas/dengesiz benlik saygısını birbirinden ayırt etmiştir. Güvenli benlik saygısına
sahip kişiler, “kendilerini sever, kendilerine değer verir, ve kendilerini bütün
hatalarıyla kabul ederler” şeklinde tanımlanmaktadır. Ancak bu tanımlamada bile
odak noktası hala “ben” üzerindedir. Kişinin kendini bir obje olarak görüp, kendine
dışarıdan bakabilmesi benliğin sağlıklı şekillendirilmesinde önemli bir unsurdur
(Bilgin, 2007).
Bu bağlamda; Leary, Adams ve Tate (2006), bireylerin yaşadığı “aşkın-
benlik”(hypo-egoic) durumunu ortaya atmıştırlar. Kişinin kendi davranışları
üzerindeki bilinçli kontrol davranışından uzaklaşıp, kendi davranışlarını bilinçli
şekilde kontrol etmemesi şeklinde tanımlamışlardır ve aşkın benliğe ulaşmak için
iki yol önermişlerdir. Bunlardan birincisi kendine aşırı odaklanılan zamanın
azaltılması, diğeri ise kişinin kendi benliğini bir süreliğine bastırarak aşkınlığa
ulaşmasıdır. Geçmiş ve gelecek beklenti ve kazançlardan uzaklaşmak, davranışları
düzenli tekrar etmek, meditasyon yapmak vb. faaliyetler bu iki yolu izlemek için
yapılabilecek uygulamalardır. Nitekim, daha dengeli ve olumlu bir psikolojik işleve
ulaşmak için kişinin bencil arzularından arınması gereklidir.

129
 Sakin Benlik
Sakin benlik kavramı, hassas yüksek benlik saygısının olası olumsuz
etkilerini hafifletebilecek makul bir alternatif olarak görülebilir. Sakin benlik, Bauer
ve Wayment (2008) tarafından geliştilen oldukça yeni bir benlik kavramıdır.
Temelde, bencil benliğin sesinin azaltılarak kişinin benmerkezci arzularından
arınmasını ve özşefkat ile tanımlanan bir benliği içerir (Wayment, Bauer, &
Sylaska, 2014). Sakin benlik diğerleri ile dengeli bir şekilde bütünleşme, kendine
karşı anlayışlı olma, kişisel gelişim ve büyüme ve aynı zamanda şimdiki zamanın
farkında olma gibi aşkın benlik durumlarını kapsar. Eğer benlik bir doğru üzerinden
tanımlanırsa; bu doğrunun bir ucu çığırtkan, gürültücü benlik, diğer ucu ise sessiz
benlik olarak görülebilir. Çığırtkan benliğin sesi o kadar yüksektir ki kendi sesinden
başka ses duyamaz ve diğerlerinin bakış açılarını göremez. Çığırtkan benlik aynı
zamanda savunmacıdır da, çünkü benliğin üstün pozisyonu her koşulda korunmalı
ve savunulmalıdır inancını taşır. Çığırtkan benliğe sahip bireyler durumları
yorumlarken, benliğin yüksek konumunu korumak için öz olumlamalarda
bulunurlar (Hewitt, 1998). Öte yandan, sessiz benliğe sahip bireyler diğerlerinin
fikir ve görüşlerine boyun eğerler ve kendi seslerini duyamazlar. Kendi varlıkları ve
mutlulukları için gerekli olan ihtiyaçlarını fark edemezler. Sessiz benlik, benliğin
kaybolması olarak da yorumlanabilir. Sakin benlik, sessiz benlikten farklıdır ve
sakin benliğin temel noktası bu iki uç arasında dengeyi bulmaya dayanır.
Sakin benlik, bir çok pozitif psikolojik değişkenle ilişkilidir, ancak Bauer ve
Wayment (2008; 2014) sakin benliğin dört temel özelliğini belirlemişlerdir.
Bunlardan ilki bağımsız fakındalıktır. Farkındalık anlık durumun geçmişten gelen
deneyimlere ve gelecekten umulan beklentilere gereğinden daha çok önem
vermeyerek savunmacı olmayan şekilde yorumlanması olarak tanımlanabilir
(Brown & Ryan, 2003). Çığırtkan benlik, benliği korumak amacıyla gelen bilgileri
yanlı bir şekilde yorumlar. Ancak sakin benlik, ileri bir farkındalıkla algılamadaki
yolu temizleyerek, durumun olduğu gibi görülmesini ve algılanmasını sağlar ve
daha az savunmacı olmanın yolunu açar. Sakin benliğin ikinci bir özelliği ise
yaşayan bütün canlılar ve içinde yaşanılan çevre ile bütünleşmedir (Bauer &
Wayment, 2008). Bütünleşmeci yaklaşım diğerlerine boyun eğmek demek değildir.

130
İnsanlar arasındaki farklara odaklanmak ve benliğin üstünlüğünü görmek yerine,
insanlar arasındaki temel benzerlikleri fark etmektir. Başkalarının bakış açısını
alma sakin benliğin üçüncü boyutudur (Bauer & Wayment, 2014). Sakin benliğe
sahip olmak, kişinin odak noktasının kendisinden uzaklaşmasını gerektirmektedir.
Aynı zamanda diğerlerinin bakış açısını alma, bireyleri daha az benmerkezci
davranışlara ve daha az bencil arzulara yönlendirmektedir (Cassell, 2002; Davis,
1983). Sakin benliğin son özelliği kişisel büyümedir ve egonun zaman içerisinde
“insancıl ve toplum yanlısı” (p.13) bir şekilde gelişmesi olarak tanımlanabilir
(Bauer & Wayment, 2008). Büyüme boyutu, sakin benliğin diğer üç boyutunu da
kapsayan, son basamağı olarak görülebilir. Belirli bir büyümeye seviyesine ulaşmış
kişiler, geleceği bir sonuç ya da ulaşılması gereken bir amaç olarak görmek yerine,
şimdiki zamanı bir süreç olarak görürler.
Çalışmanın Amacı
Sakin benlik dört alt boyut içermesine rağmen, daha üst düzey bir yapıyı
işaret etmektedir. Sakin Benlik Ölçeği (Wayment ve ark., 2014) kişilerin “geniş bir
anlamda duyarlı bir şekilde düşünme, hissetme ve davranmaya hazırlıklarını”
ölçmek amacıyla geliştirilmiştir. Bu tezin birincil amacı Sakin Benlik Ölçeği’ni
Türkçeye uyarlamak ve ölçeğin Türk örnekleminde psikometrik özelliklerini
sınamaktır. Tezin ikinci bir amacı ise, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri ve Türkiye
kültürlerini sakin benliğin yordayıcıları ve diğer değişkenlerle ilişkisi bağlamında
karşılaştırmaktır.
Yöntem
Çalışmaya, Türkiye’den 248, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nden (ABD) 683
üniversite öğrencisi katılmıştır. Türk katılımcıların 129’u kadın (Ort. yaş = 21.56) ve
119’u erkektir (Ort. yaş = 22.58). Amerikalı katılımcıların 511’i kadın (Ort. yaş =
19.16) ve 172’si erkektir (Ort. yaş = 20.16). Katılımcıların demografik bilgileri
alındıktan sonra, Sakin Benlik Ölçeği (Wayment et al., 2014), Pozitif ve Negatif
Duygu Ölçeği (Gençöz, 2000; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), Beş Faktör Kişilik
Özellikleri Ölçeği (Benet-Martinez & John, 1998; Sümer & Sümer, 2003), Yaşam
Doyumu Ölçeği (Diener et al., 1985; Durak, Senol-Durak & Gencoz, 2010), Öznel
Mutluluk Ölçeği (Doğan & Totan, 2013; Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1990), Rosenberg

131
Benlik Saygısı Ölçeği (Çuhadaroğlu, 1986; Rosenberg, 1965), Kişilerarası
Tepkisellik Ölçeği (Davis, 1980), Kapsayıcı Benlik Ölçeği(Leary, Tipsord & Tate,
2008), Bilinçli Farkındalık Ölçeği (Brown & Ryan, 2003), Ryff Psikolojik İyilik
Hali Ölçeği (Ryff & Keyes, 1995), Öz-duyarlılık Ölçeği-kısa form (Raes et al.,
2011), ve INDCOL (Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, & Gelfand, 1995; Wasti & Erdil,
2007) ölçeği uygulanmıştır.
Bulgular
Sakin Benlik Ölçeğinin geçerliğini test etmek ve faktör yapısını incelemek
amacıyla yapılan ilk analizlerde bir maddenin (“Farkında olmadan kendimi bir
şeyler yaparken bulurum”) diğer maddeler ile negatif yönlü ilişkili olduğu ve
kuramsal olarak beklenen faktör altında olmadığı saptanmıştır. Bu sorunlu madde
çıkarıldıktan sonra kalan 13 madde ile varimax rotasyonu kullanılarak temel
bileşenler (faktör) analizi yapılmıştır. Yapılan analizlerde kuramsal temele uygun
olarak dört faktör yapısı tespit edilmiş ve bu dört faktör toplam varyansın %
58.60’ını açıklamıştır. Birinci faktör, başkalarının bakış açısını alma, dört
maddeden oluşmakta ve toplam varyansın % 24.87’sini açıklamaktadır. İkinci
faktörün temsil ettiği özdeşleşme boyutu üç madde ile toplam varyansın % 14.51’ini
açıklamaktadır. Büyüme boyutu üçüncü faktör olarak ortaya çıkmıştır; dört
maddeden oluşmakta ve toplam varyansın % 11.01’ini açıklamaktadır. Dördüncü
faktör sadece iki maddeden oluşan farkındalık boyutdur ve toplam varyansın %
8.20’sini açıklamaktadır.
Sakin Benlik Ölçeği’nin .70 Cronbach’s alfa katsayısı ile yeterli düzeyde iç
tutarlılık katsayısına sahip olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Maddelerin faktör yükleri .42 ile
.83 arasında değişmektedir. “Diğer ırktan insanlarla aramda bir bağ hissederim”
maddesi en yüksek faktör yükü ile özdeşleşme faktörüne yüklenmiş; “İnsanların
kendileri ve dünya hakkındaki düşüncelerini sorgulamasına yol açan yaşantıları
olmasının önemli oldğunu düşünüyorum” maddesi en düşük faktör yükü ile büyüme
boyutunda yer almıştır.
Betimsel analiz sonuçları hem Türk hem de ABDli katılımcılar Sakin Benlik
Ölçeği’nde kendilerini ortalama puanlarla değerlendirmişlerdir. Türk katılımcılar,
yeni deneyimlere açıklık kişilik özelliğinde ortalamadan yüksek puan alırken,

132
ABDli katılımcılar yaşam doyumu ve mutluluk ölçeklerinden ortalamadan yüksek,
doğa ile bütünleşmek ölçeğinden ise ortalamadan düşük puanlarda kendilerini
değerlendirmişlerdir. Diğer değişkenlerde ise her iki kültürden katılımcılar
ortalamaya yakın puanlar göstermişlerdir. Aynı zamanda bir çok değişkende her iki
kültürde de cinsiyetler arasında farklar bulunduğu gözlenmiştir. Bu nedenle ileri
analizler cinsiyetin etkisi kontrol edilerek tamamlanmıştır.
Değişkenlerdeki kültürlerarası farkları tespit etmek amacıyla Varyans
Analizi (Factorial ANOVA) ve cinsiyet değişkeninin etkisi kontrol edilerek
Kovaryans Analizleri (ANCOVA) yapılmıştır. Sakin benlik değişkeninde gözlenen
kültürel farklar cinsiyete göre değişkenlik göstermektedir. Erkek katılımcılar
arasında, Türk katılımcılar ABDli katılımcılardan daha yüksek sakin benlik
puanlarına sahipken, kadın katılımcılar arasında kültürel fark bulunmamaktadır.
Bunun yanında, çalışmanın bir çok değişkeninde kültürel farklar bulunmasına
rağmen, bu etkilerin büyüklüğü çok düşüktür. Kültürlerarasında en büyük farklar
sakin benliğin farkındalık boyutu (Cohen d = .77) ile empati ölçeğinin endişe
(personal distress) boyutunda (Cohen d = .72) saptanmıştır.
Sakin benlik ile diğer değişkenler arasındaki ilişki korelasyon analizleri ile
incelendiğinde, her iki kültürde de sakin benliğin çalışmadaki neredeyse bütün
değişkenlerle beklenen yönde ilişkili olduğu görülmektedir. Başkalarının bakış
açısını alma (rTC = .62, rABD = .60) her iki kültürde de sakin benlikle en yüksek
ilişkili değişkendir. Bunun yanında, katılımcıların sakin benlik düzeyleri arttıkça
olumlu duygu durumunda (rTC = .36, rABD = .48), mutluluklarında (rTC = .31, rABD =
.34) yaşam doyumlarında (rTC = .28, rABD = .32) ve iyilik hallerinde (rTC = .55, rABD
= .55) artış gözlenmektedir. Beklenenin aksine sakin benlik, benlik algısı (rTC = -
.15) ile düşük ancak negatif yönlü ilişkilidir.
Çalışmanın değişkenlerinin sakin benliği yordama gücünü incelemek
amacıyla, üç grup değişken ile kültürel, kişilik ve empati grupları, ABD ve Türk
kültürlerinde ayrı ayrı regresyon analizleri yapılmıştır. Analiz sonuçlarına göre, her
iki kültürde de değişime açıklık (βTC = .45, p < .01; βABD = .34, p < .01) ve
başkalarının bakış açılarını alma (βTC = .50, p < .01; βABD = .38, p < .01) sakin
benliğin en güçlü yordayıcılarıdır. Kişilik özellikleri arasında; dışa dönüklük (β =

133
.09, p < .01), sorumluluk (β = .09, p < .01) ve uyumluluk (β = .33, p < .01) sakin
benliği sadece Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nde yordarken, duygusal dengesizlik (β
= -.16, p < .01) sakin benliği sadece Türkiye’de yordamaktadır. Empatinin her
boyutu sakin benliği her iki kültürde de yordamaktadır. Katılımcıların kültürel
yönelimleri sadece Türk örnekleminde ölçülmüştür. Regresyon analizi sonuçlarına
göre, sadece yatay bireycilik (β = .22, p < .01) ve toplulukçuluk (β = 19, p < .01)
yönelimleri sakin benliği olumlu yönde yordamaktadır.
Regresyon analizlerinde kişilik özelliklerinin kültürlerarasında farklı
yordama güçlerine sahip oldukları dikkate alınarak kişilik özellikleri ile sakin benlik
arasındaki ilişkide kültürün biçimlendirici (moderator) rolü incelenmiştir. İlk olarak
bütün yordayıcı değişkenler, her katılımcının puanından değişkenin ortalaması
çıkarılarak merkezlenmiştir. Daha sonra beş ortak etki değişkeni (interactions),
kişilik boyutları ve kültür değişkeni çarpılarak oluşturulmuştur. Sakin benlik
değişkeni bağımlı değişken olacak şekilde, cinsiyet değişkeni etkisini kontrol etmek
amacıyla, birinci basamakta girilmiştir. Kültürün ve kişilik boyutlarının ana
etkilerini ölçmek amacıyla bu değişkenler ikinci basamakta analize eklenmiş ve
üçüncü basamakta ortak etkiler girilmiştir. Yapılan regresyon analizinde kültürün
uyumluluk (β = .08, p < .01) ve nevrotiklik (β = .08, p < .01) ile ortak etkisi
anlamlıdır. Aiken ve West’in (1991) önerdiği yöntem kullanılarak anlamlı ortak
etkilerin örüntüleri çıkarılmıştır. Bulgular her iki kültürde de katılımcıların sakin
benlik puanları uyumluluk düzeyleriyle beraber artış göstermesine karşın, bu etki
ABDli katılımcılarda daha yüksektir. Daha spesifik olarak, düşük uyumluluk
düzeylerinde Türk katılımcılar, ABDlilere göre daha yüksek sakin benlik düzeyine
sahipken, yüksek uyumluluk düzeylerinde bu ilişki tersine dönmekte ve ABDli
katılımcılar Türklerden daha yüksek sakin benlik düzeyleri göstermektedirler.
Sakin benlik ile nevrotiklik ilişkisinde anlamlı bulunan kültürün aracı rolü
incelendiğinde ABDli katılımcılar için nevrotiklik düzeyi bakımından sakin
benliğin farklılaşmadığı, ancak Türkiye’de bunun tersine, nevrotiklik yüksek
olduğunda sakin benliğin anlamlı olarak düştüğü, düşük olduğunda ise yükseldiği
bulunmuştur. Bulgular, kültüre açıklığın evrensel bir kişilik özelliği olarak her iki
kültürde de sakin benlikle benzer şekilde ilişkili olduğunu, ancak nevrotikliğin

134
(duygusal denge) Türkiye’de, uyumluluk ve dışa dönüklüğün de ABD’de sakin
benlikle daha yakından ilişkili olduğunu göstermiştir. Son olarak, bulgular
bireycilik ve toplululçuluktan ziyade “yatay” kültürel örüntünün sakın benliği
anlamlı olarak yordadığını göstermiştir.
Tartışma
Bu tezde Sakin Benlik Ölçeği Türkçe’ye uyarlanmış, faktör yapısı ve yapı
geçerliği Türk kültüründe incelenmiştir. Buna ek olarak, sakin benlik ve alt
boyutlarıyla ilişkili değişkenler, kişilik, kültür ve empati değişkenlerinin sakin
benliği yordama gücü bakımından Amerika Birleşik Devletleri ve Türk kültürleri
karşılaştırılmıştır. Aynı zamanda kültürün kişilik ve sakin benlik ilişkisindeki aracı
değişken (moderation) rolü araştırılmıştır. Çalışmanın hipotezleri, bulgularla
kısmen desteklenmiş ve Wayment ve arkadaşlarının (2014) Sakin Benlik Ölçeği’ni
geliştirme çalışmasındaki bulguları genel olarak desteklenmiştir.
Ölçekteki bir madde muhtemelen kültüre uygun olmayan çeviri nedeniyle
anlaşılmamış ve Türk örnekleminde çalışmamıştır. Problemli madde çıkarıldıktan
sonra, 13 maddelik Sakin Benlik Ölçeği (SBÖ), kişilerin bencil benliklerinin
seslerini ne kadar bastırabildiklerini ölçmek amacıyla kullanılabilecek geçerli ve
güvenilir bir ölçek olarak araştırmacılara sunulmuştur. Dört faktörlü SBÖ, sakin
beliğin teorik yapısına ve orijinal ölçeğin faktör yapısına uyumlu şekildedir
(Wayment et al., 2014). Bu dört faktör başkalarının bakış açılarını alma,
özdeşleşme, farkındalık ve büyüme şeklinde isimlendirilmiştir.
Betimleyici analizler, kişilerin öz değerlendirmelerine göre Türk ve ABDli
katılımcıların benliklerinin ne çok sessiz ne de çok çığırtkan olduğunu göstermiştir.
Ancak çalışmanın bir çok değişkeninde her iki kültürde de cinsiyet farkları tespit
edilmiştir. Özellikle, Türkiye’de kadınlar erkeklerden daha dışa dönük, daha
uyumlu, daha nevrotik fakat daha mutlu, daha fazla empatik düşünce ve endişe
hissetmektedirler. ABD’de ise kadınlar erkeklere göre daha sakin bir benliğe
sahipler, daha dışa dönük, uyumlu, sorumlu ve nevrotikler, daha empatikler,
insanlarla kendilerini daha çok özdeşleştirmişler, hayat doyumları daha yüksek ve
daha mutludurlar.

135
 Kültürlerarası karşılaştırmalara bakıldığında benzerliklerin farklardan daha
çok olduğu görülmektedir. Kaydadeğer en yüksek fark, sakin benliğin farkındalık
boyutunda ve empatinin endişe boyutunda tespit edilmiştir. Buna göre; Türk
katılımcılar bulundukları âna odaklanmakta ABDli katılımcılara göre daha
başarılıdırlar. Farkındalık kavramı Budist felsefesinden yola çıkılarak, batılı
(bireyci) kültürlerin problemlerine bir çare olarak öne sürülmüştür (Brown & Ryan,
2003). Katılımcıların farkındalık düzeylerini ölçen diğer çalışmalarda da benzer
sonuçlar bulunmuştur. Ghorban, Watson ve Weathington (2009) İranlı ve ABDli
katılımcılarla yaptıkları çalışmada kültürler arası karşılaştırma yapmamışlardır;
ancak İranlı katılımcıların farkındalık düzeyleri ABDli katılımcılardan daha
yüksektir. Benzer şekilde Christopher, Christopher ve Charoensuk (2009) Taili ve
ABDli üniveriste öğrencileri arasında yaptıkları karşılaştırmada Taili öğrencilerin
daha yüksek farkındalığa sahip olduğunu bulmuşlardır. Bu bulgular ışığında,
toplulukçu kültürlerin daha yüksek farkındalık puanlarına sahip olması beklenen bir
sonuçtur.
Kültürlerarası farkın en yüksek olduğu bir diğer değişken ise empati
değişkeninin endişe boyutudur. Bulgulara göre, Türk katılımcılar ABDlilere oranla
stresli durumlarda daha gergin ve panik halinde olmaktadırlar. Katılımcıların empati
düzeylerine ilişkin herhangi bir öngörüde bulunulmamasına rağmen bu bulgular
literatürle uyumludur. Hem adolesanlarla hem de erken yetişkinlik dönemindeki
katılımcılarla yapılan çalışmalar toplulukçu kültürlerde empatinin bireyci
kültürlerden daha yüksek olduğunu göstermektedir (Cassels, Chan, Chung, & Birch,
2010; Dehning, et al., 2013). Bu farklılık, kültürel değerlerle ve kültürlerde
arzulanan psikolojik özelliklerin farklılığıyla açıklanabilir. ABD kültüründe “ben”in
önemi ve benliğe verilen önem literatürde sıkça yer almaktadır. Kendini yükseltme
motivasyonu ABDli katılımcıların diğerlerinin görüşlerini anlamalarını ve empati
hissetmelerini engelleyebilir. Böylece diğer bir kimsenin acil durumunda bu kişiler
stres hissetmeyebilirler.
Sakin benlik ile diğer değişkenler arasındaki ilişkiler Wayment ve
arkadaşlarının (2014) bulgularıyla tutarlıdır. Sakin benlik her iki kültürde de iyilik
hali göstergeleriyle olumlu yönle ilişkilidir. Katılımcılar benlikleri sakinleştikçe

136
daha olumlu duygu hissetmekte, daha mutlu olmakta ve hayatlarından daha çok
doyum almaktadırlar; ancak, ABDli katılımcıların mutlulukları, yaşam doyumları
ve iyilik halleri Türk katılımcılara göre daha yüksektir. Geçmiş çalışmalar,
Türklerin anksiyete, depresyon ve olumsuz duygu durumuyla yakından ilişkili olan
nevrotizm düzeylerinin ABDlilerden daha yüksek olduğunu göstermiştir (McCrae,
et al., 2005; Schmitt, Allik, McCrae, Benet-Martinez, 2007). Bireyci kültürlerde,
kişiler kendileriyle uyumlu olan bilgilere daha çok odaklanırlar, olumlu duyguları
daha “istenir ve uygun bulurlar” (p.875); ancak suçluluk gibi olumsuz duyguları
hoşnutsuzlukla değerlendiriler (Lee, Aaker, & Gardner, 2000). Aynı zamanda
kendilerine olumlu değerlendirmelerde bulunan ve kendini yüceltme imkanı
sağlayan olumlu duyguları daha çok tercih ederler (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).
Sonuç olarak, bu mutluluk ve olumlu kendini değerlendirme amacı bireyci kişilerin
mutluluğu bulmalarını kolaylaştırabilir.
Kişilik özellikleri arasında değişime açıklık her iki kültürde de sakin
benliğin en güçlü yordayıcısı olarak bulunmuştur. Yeni deneyimlere açık olmak ve
ani değişiklikleri hoş karşılamak bireylerin başkalarına ve olaylara karşı savunmacı
olmayan bir tavırla yaklaşmalarına olanak sağlamakta ve böylece benliklerini
sakinleştirmelerini kolaylaştırmaktadır. Empatinin farklı boyutları arasında
başkalarının bakış açısını alabilmek sakin benliği en güçlü yordayan diğer
değişkendir. Davis (1980)’e göre empatinin her boyutunun farklı bir psikolojik
işlevi vardır ve başkalarının bakış açılarını alma boyutu sosyal işlevsellikle, daha az
bencil davranışlarla ve daha az bencil arzularla ilişkilidir. Bu bulgular ışığında,
değişime açıklığın ve başkalarının bakış açısının almanın sakin benliğin evrensel
özellikleri olduğu söylenebilir.
Diğer kişilik değişkenlerinin sakin benliği yordama güçlerinin kültürlere
göre farklılıklar gösterdiği bulunmuştur. ABD kültüründe kişilerin sakin benlik
düzeyleri uyumluluk düzeylerine duyarlıyken, Türk kültüründe nevrotiklik
düzeylerine duyarlıdır. Diğer bir şekilde ifade etmek gerekirse, bireyci kültürlerde
yardım etme, diğergamlık gibi olumlu sosyal davranışlar sakin benlik üzerinde
belirleyici rol oynarken, toplulukçu kültürlerde çevreden ve toplumdan uzak
kalındığı oranda sakin benliği belirlemektedir. Bu kişilik özellikleri sakin benliğin,

137
diğer insanlarla ilişkilerle tanımlanan boyutlarıyla yakından ilişkilidir. ABD
kültürü, bireysel benliğe, diğerlerlerinden ve çevreden bağımsız ve izole şekilde
yaşamaya çok önem vermektedir (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2007; Markus & Kitayama, 1991).
Daha yüksek düzeyde uyumluluk göstermek, diğerlerinin duygularına önem vermek
ve yardım etmeye çalışmak bireyci kişilerin benliklerinin diğerlerini de içine alacak
şekilde genişlemesine, daha ilişkisel bir benliğe sahip olmalarına yönlendirebilir. Ek
olarak, öz-duyarlılığı yüksek bireyler kendilerini yüceltme ihtiyacını daha az
hissederler ve böylece sosyalliği destekleyici davranışları daha çok
destekleyebilirler.
Türkiye’de kendini yüceltme ihtiyacının daha az olduğu göz önüne alınırsa,
uyumlu bir kişiliğe sahip olmak Türkler için zaten beklenen bir özellik olarak
görülürken, ABDlileri daha duyarlı bir benliğe sahip olmaya itebilir. Buna karşılık,
Türk kültüründe ilişkisel benliğe daha çok önem verilir ve kişinin kendisi ile
diğerleri arasındaki sınır daha belirsizdir (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2007; Markus & Kitayama,
1991). Bu nedenle, yüksek nevrotiklik, bu kişileri çevreden ve diğer insanlardan
izole ederek, kendinin biricikliğini göz önüne çıkartıyor ve bu nedenle sakin benliğe
ulaşmasını engelliyor olabilir. Sonuç olarak, uyumluluk ve nevrotiklik kişilik
özelliklerinin sakin benliğin kültürel düzenleyicileri olduğu söylenebilir.
Kültürel yönelimler açısından, sadece yatay yönelimler Türkiye’de sakin
benliği yordamaktadır. Yatay toplulukçuluk (YT), toplulukçuluk ile iyilikçi
değerlerin birleşiminden, yatay bireycilik (YB) ise, evrenselci düşüncelerle bireyci
düşüncelerin birleşiminden oluşmaktadır (Triandis, 1996). Benzer şekilde, Singapur
ve ABD’de yapılan çalışmada kendine dönüklüğü YB’nin ve iyilikçi düşünceleri ise
YT’nin temel bileşenleri olarak bulunmuştur (Soh & Leong, 2002). Evrenselci ve
iyilikçi düşüncelerin öz-aşkınlık türünden değerler olduğu düşünülürse (Schwartz,
1994), diğer insanları daha çok düşünmek ve insanlığın evrensel değerlerine
inanmak bireylere çığartkan egonun faydasızlığını gösterebilir ve böylece
benliklerini sakinleştirmelerine yardımcı olabilir.
Sınırlılıklar ve Öneriler
Bu çalışmanın bulguları aşağıdaki sınırlılıklar dikkate alınarak
yorumlanmalıdır. Çalışmanın en önemli sınırlılığı ABD ve Türkiye örneklemlerinin

138
eşit olmayan şekilde dağılmasıdır. ABD örnekleminin aksine, Türk örneklemi sınırlı
sayıdaydı. Bu sınırlılık iki ülke karşılaştırmasında sınırlılıklar yaratabilir. Benzer
şekilde bu çalışmanın örneklemi sadece üniversite öğrencilerini içermektedir.
Gelecek çalışmalar, daha geniş bir örneklem ve toplum örneklemiyle
yenilenmelidir.
Çalışmanın bir diğer sınırlılığı, Sakin Benlik Ölçeği’nin Türk örnekleminde
çalışmayan bir maddesinin olmasıdır. Ölçeğin orijinali oluşturulurken farkındalık
boyutuna eklenen maddeler ABD örnekleminde en yüksek faktör yükü alan
maddelerdir (Wayment et al., 2014). Gelecek çalışmalarda SBE’nin farkındalık
boyutu Bilinçli Farkındalık Ölçeği’nde Türkiye’de en yüksek faktör yükü alan
maddelerle oluşturup yeniden psikometrik özellikleri test edilmelidir.
Yazında önceki çalışmalarda SBÖ’ye doğrulayıcı faktör analizi uygulandığı
için, bu tezde SBÖ’ye sadece açıklayıcı faktör analizi yapılmıştır. İleriki
çalışmalarda, Türk örneklemi ile SBÖ’ye doğrulayıcı faktör analizi yapılması
tavsiye edilmektedir.
Hangi duyguların daha kolay ifade edilebileceği ve hangilerinin daha kabul
edilebilir olduğu kültürlerarasında farklılıklar göstermektedir. Örneğin, gurur ve
kızgınlık gibi birey odaklı duygular bireyci kültürlerde daha çok kabul görürken;
suçluluk, utanç, sempati gibi diğerlerine odaklı duygular toplulukçu kültürlerde
daha çok kabul görmektedir (Markus& Kitayama, 1991). Benzer şekilde PANAS,
sadece yüksek uyarılmalı olumlu duyguları ölçerken, yüksek ya da düşük uyarılmalı
duygular kültürlere göre değişmektedir (Tsai, Knutson, & Fung, 2006). Bu nedenle,
katılımcıların duygu durumunu ölçmek için ileride düşük uyarılmalı duyguları da
ölçen ölçeklerin kullanılması önerilemektedir.
Olumsuz duygu durumu, kişisel büyüme ve bilgelik gibi özellikler zaman
içerisinde ve yaşa bağlı olarak değişim gösterebilmektedir (Pethtel & Chen, 2010;
Ryff & Keyes, 1995; Staudinger, 1999). Bu çalışmada, değişkenlerin sakin benliği
yordama güçleri test edilmişken, ileriki çalışmalarda sakin benliğin zaman ve yaşla
değişimi, aynı zamanda olumlu psikolojik özellikleri yordama gücü test edilebilir.

139
 Son olarak, sakin benlik alt boyutları olan bir kavram olmasına rağmen, alt
boyutlarını içeren daha üst seviyede bir kavramdır. Bu nedenle Sakin Benlik
Ölçeği’nin bir bütün olarak kullanılması tavsiye edilmektedir.
Sınırlılıkları olmasına karşın bu tez mevcut yazına değerli bir katkı
sağlamıştır. İlk olarak, Sakin Benlik Ölçeği’nin Türkçe versiyonu oluşturulmuş ve
geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek olarak araştırmacıların kullanımına sunulmuştur.
Sakin benliğin görece yeni bir kavram olduğu göz önünde bulundurulursa, farklı
kültürlerde çalışılarak yapı geçerliğinin sağlanması önem arz etmektedir. Bu
anlamda, bu çalışma sakin benliğin kültürlerarası karşılaştırmasını yapan ilk
çalışmadır. İlk bulgulara göre sakin benliğin evrensel boyutlarının olmasının
yanında kültürel belirleyicilerinin de olabileceği gösterilmiştir.

140
 APPENDIX U

TEZ FOTOKOPİSİ İZİN FORMU

ENSTİTÜ

Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü

Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü X

Uygulamalı Matematik Enstitüsü

Enformatik Enstitüsü

Deniz Bilimleri Enstitüsü

YAZARIN

Soyadı : AKÇA
Adı : ECE
Bölümü : PSİKOLOJİ

TEZİN ADI (İngilizce) : PERSONALITY AND CULTURAL

PREDICTORS OF THE QUIET EGO: COMPARING TURKEY AND
THE UNITED STATES

TEZİN TÜRÜ : Yüksek Lisans X Doktora

1. Tezimin tamamından kaynak gösterilmek şartıyla fotokopi alınabilir. X

2. Tezimin içindekiler sayfası, özet, indeks sayfalarından ve/veya bir

bölümünden kaynak gösterilmek şartıyla fotokopi alınabilir.

3. Tezimden bir (1) yıl süreyle fotokopi alınamaz.

TEZİN KÜTÜPHANEYE TESLİM TARİHİ:

141