antecedent-focused emotion regulation as a source of cultural variation in emotion jozefien de...
TRANSCRIPT
ANTECEDENT-FOCUSED EMOTION REGULATION AS A
SOURCE OF CULTURAL VARIATION IN EMOTION
Jozefien De Leersnyder & Batja Mesquita
Berlin, Dec 20th , 2010
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The prevalence and intensity of emotional experiences are systematically associated with the culture’s meanings and practices, values, self-concept:
Emotions that FIT the cultural goals are more likely to be frequent
Emotions that VIOLATE the cultural goals are more likely to be rare
Since this association is so omnipresent, some REGULATORY MECHANISM must be involved
e.g., Mesquita & Albert, 2007
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Emotion regulation as explanation for cultural differences in emotions: ANTECEDENT FOCUSED
Antecedent
event
EMOTION
Response
e.g., Gross, 1998
BY CULTUR
AL DISPLAY RULES
BY CULTUR
AL VALUES
AND GOALS
appraisal
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
As given values are more salient in a cultural context
these values will be more readily used to evaluate the situation experience of EMOTION or not (e.g., ambition)
these values will more readily provide meaning to the situation positive <-> negative
engaged <-> disengaged
Emotional experiences will thus systematically differ according to the most focal values in the cultural context antecedent focused regulatory mechanism
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Specific aims of the research:
1. Emotion regulation is goal-driven
2. Independence and interdependence goals influence how people appraise situations
3. Salience of the independence and interdependence goals vary across cultures
4. Priming these goals affects emotional experiences
Research on Values and Emotions
Values and Emotion Studies
STUDY 1a188 Belgian
students
STUDY 1b100 Belgian
adults160 Turkish
immigrants in Belgium
STUDY 2a267 Belgian
students
STUDY 2b415 Turkish
students in Turkey
ValueImportanc
eQuestionn
aire
FIRST RESULTS: method
Describe an emotional situation varying across 2 dimensions:
Valence (positive<->negative) Engagement (disengaged<->engaged)Please think about a recent occasion in which you felt good about yourself (for example, proud, strong, superior, top of the world…)
Please describe the situation briefly. Provide as much detail as needed for somebody to understand why you felt that way in this situation.________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Valence
= GoodBad
Engagement=
Disengaged
Engaged
FIRST RESULTS: method
Study 1 Rate emotional experience on 20 emotion scales
(e.g. shame)Describe situation according to 8 situated values
(e.g. loyalty)Study 2Rate emotional experience on 35 emotion scales
(e.g. anger)Describe situation according to 18 situated values
(e.g. leadership)
Study 1
Study 2
FIRST RESULTS: method
Self-focus
ed
Other-focus
ed
Growth
Protection
FIRST RESULTS: method
Situated Values QuestionnaireDomain Value1 Value2 Value3
Self-Direction
Own goals Independence
Achievement
Ambition Succeeding
Benevolence
Helping Loyalty
Tradition/conf
Tradition Religion
Power
Universalism
Domain Value1 Value2 Value3
Self-Direction
Own goals Independence
Freedom
Achievement
Ambition Succeeding Capacity
Benevolence
Helping Loyalty Promise
Tradition/conf
Tradition Religion Expectations
Power Leadership Richness Face loss
Universalism
Equality Openness Reconciliation
FIRST RESULTS: method
In this situation it was impossiblefor me to set my own goals
In this situation I could set my own goals OR
A bit true totally A bit true totally true true true true
NOT applicabl
e
xValue
inconsistentValue
consistent
Value applicable in situation
Value not
applicable
FIRST RESULTS: Study1a1. antecedent emotion-regulation is goal-driven
Value % relevant
in situation
Rank order
Independence 89.9% 1
Setting own
goals
80.9% 2
Loyalty 72.9% 3
Succeeding 67.6% 4
Ambition 64.9% 5
Helping others 53.7% 6
Tradition 47.9% 7
Religion 23.9% 8
Spearman rank orderCorrelation rs = .86p = .006
Rank order ESS
2
2
1
5
5
4
7
7
Correlation = .73
FIRST RESULTS: Study 2a1. antecedent emotion-regulation is goal-driven
FIRST RESULTS: Study 2a1. antecedent emotion-regulation is goal-driven
EMOTION PREDICTED BY: Applicability/Violation/Support of value in
situation Importance of value in general Interaction applicability X importance
E.g., Anger is predicted by: Violation of freedom in that situation* Violation of independence in that situation* Importance of showing your capacities in general*
E.g., Frustration is predicted by: Violation of ambition in that situation*** Violation of succeeding in that situation** Interaction between violation and importance of
capacities*
FIRST RESULTS: Study 1a 2. goal-types influence people’s emotional experience
Independence
Interdependence
Value-Types
Self-focused Other-focused
Value-Domain
Achievement Benevolence
Values Ambition + Succeeding
Helping + Loyalty
Emotion-Types
Disengaging Engaging
Emotions Pride, strong, irritation, bored
Close, relying, shame, indebted
Independence and interdependence goals influence
how people appraise situations
FIRST RESULTS: Study 1a 2. goal-types influence people’s emotional experienceOther-focused values Engaging emotions
highest
Self-focused values Disengaging emotions highest
What are the ODDS-RATIO’s that a value(e.g., helping) is relevant in an engaging and not relevant in a disengaging situation?
Value Odds-ratio (exp β)b Times more likely Sign.
Succeeding .330 3 x in dis p = .001
Ambition .411 2.3 x in dis p = .004
Helping others 1.98 2 x in eng p = .023
Loyalty 1.80 2 x in eng p = .087
FIRST RESULTS: 3. value-types vary across cultures
Most studies on culture and psychological tendencies show
that different cultural contexts are characterized bydifferent core cultural goals and values
European Social Survey
and other surveys with the
Schwartz ValueQuestionnaire
yieldeddifferent value
hierarchiesacross cultures
BelgiansTurkish low educated
Turkish higheducated
Emotional similarity to the Belgian students emotional pattern
FIRST RESULTS: emotional similarity predicts
A LITTLE SUMMARY:
PRIMING STUDY: general idea
Aim: violating autonomy <-> relatedness values/goals Look at REAL EMOTIONAL
EXPERIENCE/REACTION and appraisals of participants
In 3 different cultural contexts Mono-cultural Belgian Mono-cultural Turkish Bi-cultural Turkish-Belgian
In a real interaction in the laboratory with a confederate (no vignettes, strong manipulation) !
PRIMING STUDY: general idea
Last year: economic games? NO!
WHY not: a longer/more real interaction is needed to
elicit emotional experiences in participantviolation of the goals by a game is too
abstractmotivation/engagement of participants
needs to be high to get emotional experiences
……
PRIMING STUDY: general idea Confederate is a same culture-same gender
person Task can be done alone or together and is free
of culture-specific confounds Main manipulation occurs through confederate Interaction is video-taped Afterwards, participants watch their tape and
have to report appraisals and feelings at each violation
Video-tapes will be FACS or SPAFF coded by bi-cultural coders as additional information
One week later participant completes additional questionnaires and has a debriefing
PRIMING STUDY: general idea PILOT STUDY:
Scenario’s that might violate a certain type of value
Taken from real-life situation-descriptions in which people indicated that an autonomy or relatedness value was violated
With which emotions do people associate these violations?
Are the emotional patterns different across cultural contexts?
WHAT would YOU do with it?-we can set up some criteria they have to meet: e.g., for all ages, ecological….
You can use words, magazine-pictures, pencils, colorful paint…
PRIMING STUDY: a proposal
Cover story: in cooperation with neighbourhood centers People will be motivated because in own town No cognition, no ‘random’ game Everybody can do this, there is no ‘right’ or
‘wrong’ personal opinion/ideas You can work alone on it <-> work together Arbitrary in the sense of good <-> bad work Confederate can give (personal)
comments easily
PRIMING STUDY: a proposal
What we can manipulate (not all at once in 1 experiment) Nature of the task:
Participant and confederate have to work together on 1 proposal Participant and confederate have to come up with own original
proposal
Task outcome They will be judged on team-performance, because jury will select
best team-proposal, that wins 250 € Task outcome is interdependent
They will be judged on their individual performance, because jury will select person with best ideas, who will win 250 €
Task outcome is independent
PRIMING STUDY: a proposal
What we can manipulate (not all at once in 1 experiment) Contextual Priming:
Study is run in Turkish and focus on Turkish community Study is run in Dutch and focus on Belgian community
Way task is framed: Creativity and coming up with ideas are framed as an individual
capacity, as a characteristic of an individual, by which he/she expresses his/her uniqueness
Task as highlighting independent self Creativity and coming up with ideas is framed as a group or team-
capacity, as something that occurs between-people, by which they express the meanings and practices that are common in their group
Task as highlighting interdependent self
PRIMING STUDY: a proposal
Overview of the experiment: 0-2 min: introduction by experimenter 2-6 min: brainstorm about big themes violation 1 6-10 min: work on project I 10-12 min: first discussion-moment violation 2 12-16 min: work on project II 16-18 min: second discussion-moment violation 3 18-22 min: work on project III 22-25 min: final discussion violation 4
+ experimenter walks in 25-45 min: participant watches video of 4 violation-
moments + responds to emotion-questions
PRIMING STUDY: a proposal
Violation of the values/goals: Autonomy:
confederate says how participant must do it, does not like his/her ideas, starts drawing on his/her side without permission, gives instructions of how it should be Copies participants ideas (when they have to do it
separate) Relatedness:
confederate says that it is stupid to work together, that you’re more creative on your own,
that he/she has better things to do, starts calling a friend etc...
PRIMING STUDY: a proposal
Extensions to behavioral measures: How willing are you to…
Do a follow-up study with the same interaction-partner?
Share your email-address with interaction partner?
Take a picture next to your ‘proposal’ with or without the interaction-partner?
Take the picture home? Hang the picture next to your work at an
exhibition of all proposals? …
PRIMING STUDY: a proposal
PRIMING STUDIES: what they might tell us
If the different violations are indeed associated with different types of emotions…
If people from different cultural backgrounds are more or less sensitive to one kind of violation…
If bi-culturals can ‘switch’ their sensitivity depending upon the context…
Then, we might have some strong evidence for the idea that people’s emotions are regulated in accordance with the salient (cultural) goals in the context
PRIMING STUDIES: to be continued
All your ideas, comments,
other proposals, suggestions etc…
are very welcome!!!