Response for February 14th

This week’s readings stems from the idea of innateness vs. culturally-learned aspects of the processes and functions of language. All four articles focus on the relationship between language, and its culture and emotional context. All of the research stem from Ekman’s study of the universality of recognition of facial expressions. We now know that automatic nervous system activity and vocal expression are cross-cultural and “the recognition, expression, and experience of certain emotions are general across cultures,” (Niiya, 1). The authors this week are emphasizing that while the propensity for emotions may be equal, the display rules and what is deemed appropriate/inappropriate is culturally-acquired. Thus, emphasis varies, but capacity doesn’t.
In Lanquist and Bartlett’s study, they bring up previous studies of the universality of focal colors and relate it to the universality of ‘primary’ emotions. However, more detailed recent studies indicate that language plays a large role in distinguishment between color spectrums. Furthermore, language has a huge role in visual-spatial representations and display rules.
Language involves memory, processing, retrieval and production. Landquist and Bartlett use Semantic Satation to determine how large of a role language has on emotional perception. By manipulating and encumbering the neural pathways with satiation, involved in
Words were satiated by repeating them aloud 30 times. The “control” was word priming, which involved repetition of the word 3 times. The studies showed that when the word had been satiated, it was more difficult to access the meaning of the word. The latency period that took place in recognizing the facial expressions in those who had been satiated indicated that the participants had to compensate for the difficulty in accessing the word significance by taking more time to answer correctly. However, when the facial categorizations in study 1 were irrelevant to the word, the people did not take more time. Since much of research is difficult because it involves emotional accounts and verbal production (which may alter the very process or aspects of the emotional life itself—much like the Heisenberg effect), the researchers decided to ask the people to categorize and recognize an emotion without verbal cues. Relevant categories were compromised when the word was satiated, supporting the LRH. In study 3, time became a factor. All three of their studies were consistent and tried to show that “making any emotion word less accessible interfered with the perceptual matching of faces depicting emotion,” and that “language can be satiated, and doing so interferes with the perception of emotion in others.” Language plays a large role in emotional perception, even when the task does not involve explicit language.
These researchers later bring back the discussion to evolution’s role in language overload and satiation.
I have several problems with this study, mainly that there was no actual control group. Plus, the data is not that strong and oftentimes, it seemed that they were just trying to support their hypothesis instead of having enough hard data. Future studies should get a larger, more randomized sample and should involve non-emotional words prior to the task of labeling emotions in faces.
These studies are particularly important because they all determine how much language can be manipulated based on context and how much of it is hardwired. Furthermore, they assess the degree of and relationship between universal versus cultural-specific aspects of emotional life. Much ground work in psychology of emotions has not been cross cultural, and lacks empirical data or sufficient technology/research. I think that while the studies we read were interesting, we do not have sophisticated-enough tools to measure IC and brain activity. A basic human need is the need to belong and to communicate or mask emotions. While much of communication is non-verbal, language is the only means that we can concretely explain ourselves. Recent studies measure and highlight the differences (and similarities) between independent and interdependent cultures, emphasizing what is important for each culture. Emotions are usually either emotionally-bonding or emotionally-distancing (Kemper). What is stressed by both writers is that much of cross-cultural emotional research is too categorical/dichotamizing, “Universality and cultural relativity are not mutually exclusive,” (Mastumoto, 17), cultural differences do not indicate non-universality. For example, while the conditions for Amae (such as degree of inappropriateness and control) differ, Matsumoto’s study shows that Amae can exist in cultures that do not have a word for it. Context and cultures undoubtedly play a large roll, but I think the similarties far outweigh the differences.
Again, in Ochsner’s article on gender differences (using the Symposium paradigm) show that though there are differences in expression and emphasis, there are “remarkable similarities between men and women in neural, experimental, behavioral and physiological correlates of emotion.”(86). It is shown that people tend to react in like with their gender stereotypes, perhaps as a result of expectations. So, how much of are actions are subconsciously to re-affirm already delineated gender/cultural stereotypes? This is evident in little kids when they seem to naturally and voluntarily partake in gender-specific activities.
What is important and highlighted in all of these studies is that what we see in other’s faces isn’t the only way we discern emotion. In fact, language and culture plays a much larger role.
What I find interesting is Niiyi’s point on the way bilingualists’ brains work. When bilingualists speak, they refer to two different frames of mind and look at their situation differently, based on which language they are thinking/expressing in. This gives them more understanding of intercultural differences. Furthermore, “Bilinguals have reported different personalities, judge emotions differently, appraise events and the environment around them differently, and attribute the causes of events differently depending on the language used when performing these tasks. Not only do multiple cultural frameworks exist in their minds, but bilinguals also have the added ability to monitor which cultural frameworks they should engage in depending on the social context,” (11). Americans are mostly monolingual, whereas the majority of the world is multi-lingual. Since most psychological research is done in American English, this presents a problem and an inaccuracy in language processing, highlighting the shortcomings of previous research.
All of the articles point out that brain science knows that there are specific brain areas involved in facial recognition and processing, but don’t know what becomes activated when certain emotions are judged. Plus, many physiological responses for emotions are similar. It is also difficult to single out an emotion, as many feelings are a mixture of two or more. As backed by Matsumoto, the goal in future studies is to develop more sophisticated machinery and to merge the discipline of psychology with that of medicine, sociology, neuroscience, and anthropology, as to gain a better understanding of emotional life.