Culture Differences in Emotion

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

Cropped_Faces_Email

Whether or not emotions are experienced consistently across different cultures has been researched for decades. On one side, psychologists who believe emotion is a universal construct view emotional experience as being biologically based. For example, Dr. Paul Ekman, an emotion psychologist, claims that emotions are genetically determined, meaning that facial expressions of emotions are interpreted the same way across most cultures. Dr. Nangyeon Lim, on the other hand, argues in the 2016 article Cultural differences in emotion: Differences in emotional arousal level between the East and the West that we should not dismiss the cultural component that influences emotions in a variety of ways. Studies show that emotions are not only biologically determined but also influenced by environmental, social, and/or cultural situations.

According to Lim, Eastern culture refers to that of East Asian countries like Korea, Japan, and China. Being connected to and interdependent on others is considered a valuable part of what makes up the cultures of these countries and is identified as collectivism. Those in collectivist cultures work to fit into the groups they are in by adjusting themselves as to not influence others. This explains why in Eastern culture it is more desirable to experience emotions that produce low arousal allowing them to conform to those within their group. The ideology is that causing conflict works against the harmony of the group. The emotions Lim lists as being low arousal include contented, at ease, relaxed, peaceful, depressed, sleepy, sad, miserable, etc.

Western culture, on the other hand, Lim explains, refers to the cultures of North American and Western European countries. These countries value the uniqueness of the individual, encouraging its members to express their feelings and influence those around them. Western culture, also known as individualist culture, hold emotions that incite high arousal as ideal for this reason. Lim lists high arousal emotions as enthusiastic, joyful, happy, excited, afraid, angry, irritated, hostile, etc.

There is a belief in Korean or Chinese medicine that humans experience seven emotions: joy, anger, sadness, pleasure, love, greed, and hatred. Those that believe this consider excessive emotional experiences to be harmful and to even go as far as causing diseases, even if they are experiencing positive emotions. Hwabyung, or “anger syndrome” is a disease frequently reported in Korean culture and is said to be the result of suppressing anger which is a high arousal emotion.

Cultures influence our ideal affect, or the way that ideally, we want to feel. This causes us to behave in certain ways so that we feel the emotion we believe we should be experiencing. Americans emphasize happiness as being an upbeat emotion, while the Chinese idea of happiness focuses on being solemn and reserved. Happiness, in this context, is a universal emotion experienced culturally.


Lim, N. (2016). Cultural differences in emotion: Differences in emotional arousal level between the East and the West. Integrative Medicine Research, 5, 105-109. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.imr.2016.03.004


 

IMG_8949

By Haley Falcon

Haley Falcon is a senior majoring in Psychology with minors in Human Development and History. After graduating from the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, she plans on using her degree to pursue new opportunities.

Facial Expressions and Personality Traits

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

crabby_womanHaving a happy expression will make you appear more confident in your interactions. This is according to a 2018 study by Ueda and Yoshikawa that found a couple of key findings: First, people with angry facial expressions are seen as having a more dominant and aggressive personality. They are therefore seen as being able to dominate others by physical strength and behaviors. Meanwhile, those with happy expressions are seen as being more dominant than those expressing other emotions due to having a relatively higher social standing than others they are interacting with.

The study involved showing participants pictures of individuals expressing different emotions and participants were asked to rate those pictures based on perceived dominance  In the one person pictures, people with the angrier expressions were seen as more dominant.  Contrary to expectations, the results were different when participants were shown a picture of a two-person interaction. In the two-person interaction, the person who appeared happy was seen as being more dominant than the angry person.

The difference in how people evaluate dominance for individuals versus pairs shows that being more dominant in a social setting is not the result of appearing more ready to dominate others by physical strength and behaviors. Whether a person appears dominant through expressing angry or happy emotions may give insight into their potential behavior. People who appear angry may try to use physical strength and behaviors to obtain their goals. People who appear happy in an interaction, particularly during an argument, may be better able to hide their anger, which allows them to remain calm and appear confident. Their happiness could also imply that they are winning the argument. It is important for people to be able to distinguish between these two types of dominance so that they can understand how they appear in their interactions and so they can evaluate the personality and social standing of others, modifying their own behaviors accordingly.


Ueda, Y., & Yoshikawa, S. (2018). Beyond personality traits: Which facial expressions imply dominance in two-person interaction scenes? Emotion, 18(6), 872-885. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0000286


Unknown-225x300by Torrey Lucido

Torrey is a junior majoring in Psychology at The University of Wisconsin-Green Bay with and emphasis in Brain, Behavior, and Health. After graduating she plans to earn a graduate degree in occupational therapy and work with patients with brain injury and developmental disabilities.

 

Five Facts About… Curiosity?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

Doing something a little different today as I prepare for a talk on a very different emotion than I usually write about.  I’m about to speak to a group of high school teachers about the value of curiosity in the classroom, so I thought I would post some interesting curiosity facts to get started.

Here they are:

How Does Anger Change as We Age?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

crabby_womanDo people really get crabbier as they get older?  Not according to a recent study in the Journal of Aging and Mental Health.  The authors of the study, Drs. Sarah Robertson and Rhonda Swickert, asked a group of 80 young adults (ages 18-34) and a group of 80 older adults (ages 60-91) to recall a negative emotional story about their lives.  They were encouraged to try to imagined the event in their mind and talk about the thoughts and feelings they had related to the event.

They then analyzed the content of those descriptions, looking for negative emotion words like sad, mad, scared, annoyed, etc.  They created a general category for “negative emotions” and three subcategories: anxiety (e.g., worried, fearful), sadness (e.g., crying, grief), and anger (e.g., hate, kill).


PodcastCheck out the All the Rage Podcast to learn more about anger and violence


The purpose of the study was to explore socioemotional selectivity.  This is the theory, originally described in a 1999 American Psychologist article By Dr. Laura Carstensen and her colleagues, that as we get older we put a premium on positive emotions and try to maximize those feelings while minimizing negative feelings.  Basically, it is a little mini-emotional midlife crisis where you realize that life is short and you should not waste it feeling sad, scared, or angry.

So what did Robertson and Swickert find?  Well, in some ways, their results did not look the way they expected.  They hypothesized that age would be negatively associated with negative emotion word use.  That did not happen.  But, while there were no differences on negative emotion words across the board, there were with anger words.  Older adults expressed fewer anger words in their writing than younger adults did.

They also found something interesting related to forgiveness. They had given everyone a questionnaire designed to measure their tendency to forgive across different situations.  Related to anger, they found that younger adults who scored low on this forgiveness scale (i.e., those who were less forgiving) scored higher on anger words than younger adults who scored high on the forgiveness scale.  As they described it, “forgiveness essentially allows for the abandonment of feelings of hurt and resentment in response to a transgression” and that tendency to forgive led to fewer anger words in their writing.


ryanBy Dr. Ryan C. Martin
Ryan is the chair of the Psychology Department at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay and a nationally known anger researcher.  His work focuses on healthy and unhealthy expressions of anger, including how we express anger online.

Find Ryan on Twitter, Facebook, or Snapchat (rycmart)

Media’s Influence on One’s Perception of Violence and Mental Illness

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

1682602_1280x720Both news and entertainment media show people with mental illness as dangerous, violent, or unpredictable. Many of the individuals who commit these crimes are presumed to have a mental illness and this in turn perpetuates the social stigma that all people with a mental illness are violent or dangerous. Before some of the most recent and deadly mass shootings including the 2016 Pulse Nightclub shooting in Orlando, the 2017 Las Vegas shooting at am outdoor concert, and the 2017 First Baptist Church shooting in Texas, The Virginia Tech shootings was one of the deadliest shootings to date. Taking place in 2007 and ending with 32 dead and 15 wounded, the shooter was perceived to have had a mental illness that caused him to commit this crime.

Hoffner and colleagues conducted a study that examined the perceived influence of news coverage of the Virginia Tech shootings on one’s own and others’ attitudes about mental illness, and behavioral outcomes as a function of personal experience with mental illness. They utilized an online survey of 198 adults within about one month of the shootings. Individuals without a mental illness, the perceived news influence on their own attitudes toward mental illness was associated with more engagement in support/comfort activities and greater likelihood of online opinion expression. In contrast, individuals with a mental illness, perceiving that others attitudes had become more negative was associated with less engagement in support/comfort activities. Respondents with no experience of mental illness reported greater stereotypes about mental illness and less willingness to seek treatment and they expressed more fear and less anger than those who had experience with mental illness.

Me (2)Mackenzie is a senior majoring in Psychology and minoring in Human Development and Sociology. After graduating from the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay in May 2018, she plans on going to graduate school for Social Work.

 

 

Hoffner, C. A., Fujioka, Y., Cohen, E. L., & Atwell Seate, A. (2017). Perceived media influence, mental illness, and responses to news coverage of a mass shooting. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 6(2), 159-173. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000093

Does Commitment Promote Forgiveness?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

landscape-1454349521-marriage-fightStrong commitment in one’s relationships promotes positive mental events and forgiveness.  This is according to a 2002 study by Finkel and colleagues from Carnegie Mellon University.  They defined commitment as the intent to persist or the decision to remain dependent on the partner. Betrayal, meanwhile, is arguably one of the hardest things to forgive in any relationship. When people are betrayed, they often find it difficult to withdraw from the negative emotions that accompany the act.

Finkel and colleagues conducted three separate studies to explore the relationship between commitment and forgiveness: (1) a priming experiment, (2) a cross-sectional survey study, and (3) an interaction record study. . The authors believed that there would be a positive association between commitment and forgiveness and Study 1 found that individuals, who are highly committed to their partners, are more likely to forgive acts of betrayal. Study 2 and 3 looked at if mental events would bring about the association between commitment and behavior. Study 2 found that highly committed individuals had more positive immediate and delayed behaviors, immediate and delayed cognitive interpretations, and delayed emotional reactions however they had more negative emotional reactions. Study 3 demonstrated that when individuals are highly committed, even in acts of betrayal, they are more likely to look at the act with more positive emotion, cognition, and behavior. They also found that, the association of commitment with forgiveness was significantly affected by both cognitive interpretations and emotional reactions to the betrayal.

Me (2)Mackenzie is a senior majoring in Psychology and minoring in Human Development and Sociology. After graduating from the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay in May 2018, she plans on going to graduate school for Social Work.

 

 

Finkel, E. J., Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., & Hannon, P. A. (2002). Dealing with betrayal in close relationships: Does commitment promote forgiveness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 956-974. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.956

#AngerFacts from my AlumniLink Talk

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

I gave a talk tonight on anger for the UW-System Alumni Link event here in Green Bay.  During the talk, I provided six anger-related facts and promised they could find more information on Twitter or via Facebook.

I also promised I would tweet out a survey where they could learn more about the types of angry thoughts they may have.  Here is that survey.  

Here are the six facts with links to additional information:

  1. Anger is one of the four most basic emotions along with sadness, fear, and joy. Learn more.
  2. Witnessing aggressive expressions of anger at work leads to a decrease in creativity and productivity. Learn more.
  3. A fair workplace, where employees understand decisions and feel they are treated with respect, is associated with less employee anger and greater productivity. Learn more.
  4. Research shows that women who express anger at work lose influence over their peers, whereas men tend to gain credibility when they express anger.  Learn more.
  5. Anger is the most viral emotion online, spreading faster than sadness, fear, or joy. Learn more.
  6. Letting it out (aka catharsis) doesn’t work; it likely makes things worse. Learn more.

Pet Peeves: The Role of Happiness and Mindfulness

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

relationship difficulties: young couple having a conflictFeeling frustrated by slow walkers, people who fail to use their turn signal, or people who forget to cover their mouths when they cough? These relatively petty concerns are called pet peeves. Pet peeves like these and others represent particular occasions, actions, or individuals that cause a person to complain, feel frustrated or get angry.

How are relationships affected by pet peeves? What role does mindfulness play in reducing negative feelings? Kowalski and colleagues sought to answer these questions in their study Pet Peeves and Happiness: How Do Happy People Complain? They examined participants’ pet peeves via a survey that included listing biggest personal irritations, assessments of positive and negative emotions, mindfulness, depression, and happiness.

Results from this study suggest that the most reported pet peeves included chewing gum loudly, mumbling, being unclean, not listening, whining, and being late. In addition, pet peeves made people less satisfied with their relationships with others. This was due to people constantly expressing their annoyances to their significant other. As a result, individuals were irritated and felt that their partner was intentionally trying to make them upset. Furthermore, people reported feeling unhappy due to others engaging in their pet peeves. Mindfulness appeared to make a difference in how people felt when they saw others partaking in their pet peeves. Kowalski and colleagues found two ways that people can deal effectively with their pet peeves.  First, people can express their grievances when they think that it will make a difference. Individuals realize that by expressing their grievances to their significant other, it will only make things worse. Second, individuals can engage in mindfulness to better deal with their pet peeves and increase happiness. Happy people tend to avoid engaging in negative thoughts. By thinking of their pet peeves and expressing their annoyances to others, this decreases feelings of happiness and increases negativity.

AlexandraBy Alexandra Graff
Alexandra is a senior, majoring in Psychology and minoring in Human Development. After graduating from the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, she plans on working in the education or healthcare field as a psychometrist.


Kowalski, R., Allison, B., Giumetti, G., Turner, J., Whittaker, E., Frazee, L., & Stephens, J. (2014). Pet peeves and happiness: How do happy people complain? The Journal of Social Psychology, 154, 278-282.

Why do Trolls Troll?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

InternTrollfaceet trolls, or those who intentionally bait people online by starting arguments, posting dishonest, or offensive comments, have received a lot of attention in the media as of late. Despite that attention, there’s a lack of understanding on why trolls do what they do. How does one become a troll? Is it because of his or her personality, social motivation, or that he or she is just bored? Drs. Naomi Craker and Evita March explored these very questions with a study of the personality characteristics and social incentives on trolling behaviors in their study The Dark Side of Facebook: The Dark Tetrad, Negative Social Potency, and Trolling Behaviors.

Craker and March assessed participants’ thoughts and actions regarding online trolling via an online survey that included the Global Assessment of Facebook Trolling, Social Rewards Questionnaire, The Dirty Dozen and the Short Sadistic Impulse Scale.

Results from this study suggest that some personality traits do not influence online trolling behaviors, such as narcissism and Machiavellianism. On the other hand, individuals displaying psychopathic and sadistic behaviors were more likely to engage in internet trolling. Psychopathic individuals did not feel compassion towards other internet users and as a result, they were more likely to harass and embarrass others. Sadistic individuals enjoyed inflicting pain and humiliation on victims by posting inappropriate statements, lying, or cursing on the victim’s Facebook page. Online trolls also participated in these behaviors due to social motivations, such as having control and authority over other internet users.

Alexandra

By Alexandra Graff
Alexandra is a senior, majoring in Psychology and minoring in Human Development. After graduating from the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, she plans on working in the education or healthcare field as a psychometrist.


Craker, N. & March, E. (2016). The dark side of Facebook: The dark tetrad, negative social potency, and trolling behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 79-84.

Precarious Manhood Theory: What Happens When Masculinity is Threatened?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

downloadExtreme beliefs in maintaining traditional gender roles may come down to something called the “Precarious Manhood Theory” (Vandello & Bosson, 2013). That is, when men do not feel masculine, they are more likely to engage in gender stereotypical behaviors, such as aggression, taking risks with money, and avoiding things like housework and childcare. One question that remains, though, is does the precarious manhood theory hold up in cultures where there are few, if any, differences between male and female roles? Kosakowska-Berezecka and colleagues (2016) sought to answer this with a study in Poland where there are fewer differences in male and female gender roles.

Kosakowska-Berezecka and colleagues’ work consisted of three studies, in which participants were told they had either high testosterone levels or low testosterone levels (regardless of their actual testosterone levels), were asked to rate themselves on masculine and feminine traits or to justify whether they believed in traditional gender roles.

Results from this study suggest that male individuals who are informed of having low testosterone felt that they were not “manly” enough, and were more likely to engage in gender stereotypical behaviors, such as getting involved in physical fights. On the other hand, males who were told they had high testosterone levels were more likely to agree with equality between females and males and were more likely to partake in perceived “feminine” responsibilities such as caretaking or doing housework. Last, males who identified with an egalitarian culture were less likely to report masculinity threats and did not feel the need to display certain masculine behaviors in order to prove their “manliness” to others.

AlexandraBy Alexandra Graff
Alexandra is a senior, majoring in Psychology and minoring in Human Development. After graduating from the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, she plans on working in the education or healthcare field as a psychometrist.


Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., Besta, T., Adamska, K., Jaśkiewicz, M., Jurek, P., & Vandello, J. (2016). If my masculinity is threatened I won’t support gender equality? The role of agentic self-stereotyping in restoration of manhood and perception of gender relations. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 17, 274-284.

Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(2), 101-113.