In the present article we argue that emotional interactions are not appropriately captured in present emotion research and theorizing. Emotional stimuli or antecedents are dynamic and change over time because they often interact and have a specific relationship with the subject. Earlier emotional interactions may, for example, intensify later emotional reactions to a specific person, or our anger reactions towards powerful or powerless others may differ considerably. Thus, we suggest that such social factors not only affect the intensity, but also (...) the nature of emotional experiences and expressions, and specifically the nature of the social movement (e.g., moving towards, away, or against). We discuss different processes that are implicated in the relation between the social environment and our emotions, describe how emotional expressions shape social behavior, and provide suggestions for incorporating the social dimension of emotion in future research. (shrink)

We tested the hypothesis that “good feelings”—the central element of subjective well-being—are associated with interdependence and interpersonal engagement of the self in Japan, but with independence and interpersonal disengagement of the self in the United States. Japanese and American college students (total N = 913) reported how frequently they experienced various emotional states in daily life. In support of the hypothesis, the reported frequency of general positive emotions (e.g. calm, elated) was most closely associated with the reported frequency of interpersonally (...) engaged positive emotions (e.g. friendly feelings) in Japan, but with the reported frequency of interpersonally disengaged positive emotions (e.g. pride) in the United States. Further, for Americans the reported frequency of experience was considerably higher for positive emotions than for negative emotions, but for Japanese it was higher for engaged emotions than for disengaged emotions. Implications for cultural constructions of emotion in general and subjective well-being in particular are discussed. (shrink)

A meta-analysis of 190 cross-cultural emotion studies, published between 1967 and 2000, was performed to examine (1) to what extent reported cross-cultural differences in emotion variables could be regarded as valid (substantive factors) or as method-related (statistical artefacts, cultural bias), and (2) which country characteristics could explain valid cross-cultural differences in emotion. The relative contribution of substantive and method-related factors at sample, study, and country level was investigated and country-level explanations for differences in emotions were tested. Results indicate that a (...) correction for statistical artefacts and method-related factors reduced the observed cross-cultural effect sizes considerably. After controlling for valence (positive vs. negative emotions) and kind of study (self-report vs. recognition studies), the remaining cross-cultural variance was associated with subsistence mode, political system, values, and religiosity. Values explained more variance than did ecological or sociopolitical variables. It was concluded that both method-related factors (13.8% of variance explained) and culture-level factors (27.9% of variance explained) underlie observed cross-cultural differences. (shrink)