Resonse~Feb. 14th

A theme that I observed in the articles for this week was the influence of culture on many aspects of emotional research. There was no doubt in my mind, prior to reading the assigned articles, that the way in which individuals, and cultures as collectives, express, perceive, understand and manifest their emotions was extremely culturally/socially influenced. In fact, before taking this class I was more of the mind that the study of emotions was fundamentally a psychological endeavor. And although I have been enlightened to the fact that perhaps the biological aspect of emotions may be fundamental, and the psychology perhaps more secondary, there is no question that the study of emotions would not be a comprehensive one without both domains working in concert.
Having established that, I believe the consideration of context within the study of emotion is vital, which is a view I share with, among copious others, David Matsumoto, author of Cross Cultural Psychology in the 21st Century. Although his article is mostly optimism about the future of cross-cultural psychological research, Matsumoto expounds upon the (short) history of the cross-cultural study of emotion, and its emphasis on the universality of emotions, specifically the six basic (or primary) emotions: fear, anger, disgust, sadness, happiness, and surprise. What he is passionate about is the differences in the expression of emotions between cultures, and the influences within the cultures that are behind those differences. He subscribes to the notion of universality, (he did, after all, study under Ekman), but Matsumoto places an emphasis on cultural differences in expression of emotions because of their essential role in cross-cultural communication. In stressing the role of facial expression of emotion, he asserts that “nonverbal aspects of communication far outweigh the verbal in communication, and much of the nonverbal communication is emotional” (Matsumoto 2001). With this he means to imply that if the proverbial “we” had a better understanding of the differences in emotional expression across cultures, perhaps communication between the former and the latter would go more smoothly. “[E]motion plays a key role in intercultural communication…especially anxiety attendant to the uncertainty in intercultural communication, and the fear, anger, and distress that often occurs in intercultural misunderstandings” (Matsumoto, 2001).
The main examples Matsumoto used in this article are the differences found between Japanese and American participants. He lays special emphasis on “display rules” that people learn early in life. These display rules manage and modify the universal emotions based on the social circumstance and what the individual’s culture has prescribed. One of the key distinctions he found between Japanese and American culture is that the Japanese tend to be “collectivist” people, and the Americans “individualist” people. This means that in Japan, value is placed on group harmony and interdependence, with less emphasis on the individual. In American culture, individuality is embraced, and emotional expression, both positive and negative, is encouraged. This dichotomy, between individuality and conformity, forms the basis for the studies that Matsumoto gives further details about. Because of the aforementioned differentiation, with the inclusion of other variables and culturally specific information, for instance, Americans tend to associate facial expressions as being more intense than the subjective experience. On the other hand, the Japanese rated the subjective experience of the same expressive faces to be at a higher degree of intensity. An interesting conclusion surfaced from that specific study, highlighting the importance of further research into cross-cultural psychology: "Previously, we suggested that American-Japanese differences occurred because the Japanese suppressed their intensity ratings, as they do their expressions. However, it was the Americans who exaggerated their external display ratings relative to subjective experience, not the Japanese who suppressed" (Matsumoto, 2001).
I feel as though the article about the emotion “amae” is a more specific example of the cross-cultural, or culture-modified, nature of emotions, so I won’t discuss it here. Another aspect of Matsumoto’s article I found noteworthy was the idea of “folk” psychology (or “naïve” or “common sense” psychology). Folk psychology is defined as a set of background assumptions and socially conditioned opinions that work their way into a culture’s way of life, and influence their judgment of others behavior. It’s specifically interesting in terms of display rules and its rather large role in the way in which people verbally communicate their emotions. Sometimes there’s no telling how far back a certain cultural belief goes in terms of origin, yet it is these engrained values, ideas, and attitudes that defines a community, and gives them a model for their behavior, including the way in which they express their emotions, and judge others emotions. Matsumoto, through numerous examples, drives home the point that including all these variables in cross-cultural studies is very difficult, but necessary to arrive at any semblance of accurate, usable, information.