A Cultural Study of Emotions

Affective science, or the study of emotions, is a popular area of interdisciplinary research with great social and individual relevance. Numerous fields including psychology, neuroscience, sociology, economics, and criminology pursue emotion research in order to better understand behavioral and cognitive phenomena. However, studying emotions is challenging due to the inherent subjectivity of feeling states and the complexities of quantification. Researchers creatively design ways to measure emotions through physiological changes, self-reported cognitions, facial expressions, action tendencies, social symbols, and language usage (Levenson et al., 2010). Cultural psychologists in particular engage in exploration of universal and culture-bound emotions, whereby emotions common to all individuals are contrasted with those attributed to cultural groups.

Origins of Cross-Cultural Emotion Research

In his seminal 1872 book The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, Charles Darwin noted the evolutionary origins of emotional communication through facial expressions. He argued that natural selection informed the development of distinct, universal emotional states including fear and anxiety for survival, and love and attachment for pair bonding and procreation (Heaven, 2020). Darwin’s work provided a starting point for ensuing research, including the work of psychologists Paul Ekman, Charles Osgood, and Robert Plutchik. In the 1960s Ekman conducted field studies testing theories on the existence of six core emotions of happiness, sadness, anger, fear, surprise and disgust. Through facial expression measurement these affects were identified across cultures and deemed universal.

In 1975 Osgood collected data from twenty-three disparate cultures and created a compendium of 620 common emotion terms called the Atlas of Affective Meanings (Osgood et al., 1975). This collection and its methodology became a reference point for later studies. Osgood presented participants with various emotion-laden concepts and utilized a semantic differential technique to measure their reactions as good or bad, strong or weak, and active or passive (Berry et al., 2011). This method of measurement enabled Osgood to gauge commonalities and differences in verbal expression of feelings across cultures. Borrowing from Darwin’s work, in 1980 psychologist Robert Plutchik developed a psycho-evolutionary theory of mammalian emotion that claimed the existence of eight primary emotions of anger, fear, disgust, trust, joy, sadness, anticipation, and surprise. These affects were positioned as instinctive evolutionary survival responses varying in degree of intensity and reflecting paired opposites (Plutchik, 2001).

Affective science became officially recognized through the creation of the International Society for Research on Emotion in 1984. To date, interdisciplinary research has not established a consensus on an exact number of primary emotions. In recent years researchers have proposed a streamlined theory of four basic emotions of fear, anger, joy, and sadness, with most studies utilizing measurement of dynamic facial movements (Jack et al., 2014). Whether through visual observation, self-report, language categorization or other methods, scientific investigations continue to reveal new insights.

Culture-bound Emotions

The existence of culture-specific emotional constructs continues to fascinate psychologists. Despite the preponderance of emotion research, few studies have utilized a two-culture approach to compare and contrast emotion perception and identification. Only six published experiments have adopted this approach, of which five were conducted almost 40 years ago. Researchers of culture-bound emotions posit that emotional concepts and their expression are guided by language, culture, and individual experience. Thus categories of basic emotions are flexible rather than discrete and are informed by cultural context. For example, a 2014 study utilizing facial expression categorization explored the emotion perceptions of a remote ethnic group in Southern Africa, and found that expression recognition differed from those of Western participants. First, emotion categories were created using actions instead of mental state descriptors. Secondly, labels such as angry, sad, and disgusted were frequently combined with the categories of happy and fearful. These findings indicated the presence of culturally distinct interpretations guiding categorization and response to facial cues (Gendron et al., 2014).

Diversity in Facial Expression

Additional research has used facial observation to determine that theories of universally recognizable facial expressions do not account for sociocultural differences. For example, a 2002 study exploring facial expressions of Hmong individuals asked to recount happy and proud experiences confirmed the influence of cultural values on emotion moderation (Tsai et al., 2002). Another study in 2005 with Chinese Americans and Mexican Americans found significant differences in degrees of negative emotional expression in response to unpleasant stimuli (Soto et al., 2005). The Asian participants’ reactions reflected broader cultural norms of minimizing negative emotional expression and maintaining positive feeling. Some might perceive this dynamic as inauthentic; however, modulating one’s affect can align with societal etiquette. In many Asian cultures social fulfillment is informed by adherence to Confucianist principles of social harmony and courtesy. In accordance with this philosophy an individual’s ability to preserve goodwill through emotional modulation can be greatly rewarding (Hwang, 2012).

A similar study in 2014 prompted East Asian and Western Caucasian participants to adopt facial expressions that corresponded with given emotion words. The East Asian individuals displayed less distinction across emotions of fear, disgust, and anger, and demonstrated more restrained expressions. These signs confirmed the presence of culturally mediating factors on the regulation and visual communication of feelings. Additionally, theories of basic emotions failed to account for culturally relevant concepts of shame, pride, and guilt (Jack et al, 2014). These findings suggests that overtime, innate evolutionary-based feeling states are adapted to suit the norms of disparate social climates.

Unique Emotional Constructs

Psychology research has also identified culture-bound emotional concepts that lack equivalence in other languages. An historical example is the Greek descriptor philotimo, which loosely translated describes a person who is virtuous, reliable, generous, respectful, and self-sacrificing (Berry et al., 2011). Named after the physician Philotimus who lived in the 3rd century BC, this concept is frequently used in modern times by Greek individuals to express appreciation for a person’s upstanding character. A philotimous individual possesses significant interpersonal intelligence and cultivates harmonious relationships. This culture-specific construct illustrates the influence of sociocultural context on language usage and corresponding feeling states.

Another culture-bound construct is the Japanese emotion amae. Considered a fundamental concept of interpersonal dynamics, amae describes a problematic pattern of relating and behaving originating from insecure mother-child attachment. The term has evolved in modern times to describe a the pleasurable yet socially inappropriate feeling of dependence on another person. Resultant behaviors can include bids for intimacy, childlike behavior, over-dependency, and presuming on another’s goodwill (Fontaine, 2011). Although considered by the initiator as an expression of love, these actions are deemed unseemly and generally regarded with ambivalence. The individual may possess fewer social advantages and be unconsciously attempting to correct a perceived power imbalance. The intricacy of this concept reflects the psychological features of Japanese people and their navigation of complex relationships.

Such examples of cultural-specific emotion concepts demonstrate how language often categorizes emotional experience and is a conduit to understanding internal psychological processes (LeVine, 2010). Common use of language can also inform new or distinct ways of feeling and add to the social lexicon. Conversely, social norms may determine what emotional words and construals are popularized at any given time. Thus language continuously evolves to reflect cultural ideas and feelings.

Culturally Distinct Emotional Appraisals

Emotional reactions to external stimuli are also informed by cultural norms, since socialization determines how situations are appraised. Acculturated individuals naturally align their regulatory responses with forms of expression that are deemed socially appropriate. A 2004 study involving young adults from America, Japan, and India measured emotional appraisals through use of mood questionnaires describing distressing social scenarios. Results showed that in more interdependent cultures, responses were mediated by consideration of others’ emotional reactions (Mesquita & Leu, 2007). This external focus significantly influenced behavioral predictions. Additional research has observed how individuals from independent Western cultures tend to view emotions such as happiness and pride with approval, and distance themselves from negative moods such as anger and sadness. In contrast, dominant social attitudes in more collectivist cultures often adopt a more moderate stance. For example, a 2001 study with Taiwanese participants determined that emotions such as pride are frequently viewed as neutral constructs (Eid & Diener, 2001). These appraisals can lead to marked differences in responding to difficult situations.

Differences in Physical Reactions

As a measurable feature of emotion, physiological arousal has become considered by some researchers to be essentially undifferentiated from emotions themselves (Levenson et al., 2010). Bodily reactions driven by our autonomic and sympathetic nervous systems can reveal the nature, quality, and intensity of emotional experiences. Our biology is influenced by cultural training, as social stereotypes and emotion metaphors can shape the way emotions are manifested in the body. Studies on bodily sensations have typically involved self-report of physical reactions to emotionally-charged scenarios. A 1996 study with students from Mexico, Russia, Poland, Germany, and the United States determined that emotions of anger, fear, envy, and jealousy elicited stress in different areas of the body. For example, American participants were unique in describing signs of envy in their face, eyes, and stomach (Hupka et al., 1996). Other studies have identified the influence of cultural styles and cues on physical states. Additional research from 1996 revealed how access to social support created differences between European Americans and African Americans in how hostility levels correlate with blood pressure (Brownley et al., 1996).

Socially Appropriate Behaviors

Research has demonstrated that emotional responses tendencies are evolutionarily designed to have the best probability of success in handling a given situation. Accordingly, action tendencies are informed by intuitive or conscious consideration of social consequences. Often times the influence of societal values such as interdependence can play a large role in these decisions. Concerning experiences of shame, studies across individualist and collectivist cultures have identified notable behavioral differences. A 2003 study with Dutch and Philippino participants observed how community-orientation influenced individual responses to feeling shame. A self-report questionnaire was used to source reactions to shame-inducing situations. The Dutch participants regarded the sensation as harmful to the self, generating concerns about social devaluation and triggering protective behaviors including withdrawal. In contrast, among the Philippino participants shame was viewed as a productive emotion and motivator to rebuild social harmony through adaptation. Associated values for relationship building, civic virtue, and courtesy informed the the absence of self-protective instincts (Bagozzi et al., 2003). These findings were replicated in later studies.

Conclusion

Emotions are psychological and physiological phenomena that powerfully shape our cognitions and behaviors. Over a century of emotion research has explored the nuanced functioning of these indicators of individual and interpersonal well-being. Despite disagreements on the number of universally identifiable feeling states, affective science has continued to glean valuable insight into this subjective feature of our internal worlds. Cross-cultural psychologists in particular have established that cultural differences influence the amount and type of emotion shown in response to given stimuli. Broad differences in language and socialization contribute to unique individual regulatory and expressive practices. Additionally, culture-bound ideas rooted in language have created unique emotion-laden concepts that cannot be easily translated. Combined with the influence of individual life stories, the rich cultural variances in emotional identification, categorization, regulation, and expression reflect the limitless opportunities within affective science to illuminate key aspects of the human experience.

Sources

Bagozzi, R.P., Verbeke, W., Gavino, J.C. (2003). Culture moderates the self-regulation of shame and its effects on performance: The case of salespersons in the Netherlands and the Philippines. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 219-233.

Berry, J.W., Poortinga, Y.H., Breugelmans, S.M., Chasiotis, A., & Sam, D. (2011). Cross‐cultural psychology: Research and applications (3rd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Brownley, K.A., Light, K.C., & Anderson, N.B. (1996). Social support and hostility interact it influence clinic, work, and home blood pressure in Black and White men and women. Psychophysiology, 33, 434-445.

Gendron, M., Roberson, D., Marietta van der Vyver, J., & Barrett, L. (2014). Perceptions of emotion from facial expressions are not culturally universal: Evidence from a remote culture. Emotion, 14(2), 251-262. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036052

Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2001). Norms for experiencing emotions in different cultures: Inter- and intranational differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(5), 869-885.

Fontaine, J. A. (2011). The fourfold conceptual framework for cultural and cross-cultural psychology: Relativism, construct universalism, repertoire universalism and absolutism. In Van de Vijver, F., Chasiotis, A., & Breugelmans, S.M. (Eds.), Fundamental questions in cross-cultural psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Heaven, D. (2020, February 26). “Why faces don’t always tell the truth about feelings”. Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00507-5

Hupka, R.B., Zbigniew, Z., Jurgen, O., & Reidl, L. (1996). Anger, envy, fear, and jealousy as felt in the body: A five-nation study. Cross-Cultural Research, 30, 243-264.

Hwang, K. (2012). Foundations of Chinese psychology. Springer.

Jack, R., Garrod, O., & Schyns, P. (2014). Dynamic facial expressions of emotion transmit an evolving hierarchy of signals over time. Current Biology, 24, 187–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.11.064

Levenson, R., Soto, J., & Pole, N. (2010). Emotion, biology and culture. In Kitayama S, Cohen D (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology, 780-796. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

LeVine, R.A. (2010). Anthropological foundations of cultural psychology. In Kitayama, S. & Cohen, D. (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology, 40-58. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Mesquita, B., Leu, J. (2007). The cultural psychology of emotion. In Kitayama, S., & Cohen, D. (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology, 734–759. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Osgood, C., May, W., & Miron, M. (1975). Cross-cultural universals of affective meaning. Transcultural Psychiatric Research Review, 13(2), 137-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/136346157601300204

Plutchik, R. (2001). The nature of emotions: Human emotions have deep evolutionary roots, a fact that may explain their complexity and provide tools for clinical practice. American Scientist, 89(4), 344-350. jstor.org/stable/27857503?seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents

Soto, J.A., Levenson, R.W., & Ebling, R. (2005). Cultures of moderation and expression: Emotional experience, behavior, and physiology in Chinese Americans and Mexican Americans. Emotion, 5(2), 154-165.

Tsai, J.L., Chentsova-Dutton, Y., Freire-Bebeau, L., & Przyus, D.E. (2002). Emotional expression and physiology in European Americans and Hmong Americans. Emotion, 2, 380-397.