Professional Documents
Culture Documents
867
868
emotions, Bagozzi, Wong, and Yi (1999) found that among Americans, the intensity of positive and negative emotions were negatively correlated. In contrast, among Chinese and Koreans, these
emotions were positively correlated. That is, East Asians may feel
similar levels of positive and negative emotions at the same time,
whereas Americans tend to have one dominant emotion at a time.
Recent research revealed that cultural differences in mixed emotion depend on the context: North Americans and East Asians
experience similar degrees of mixed emotions in failure situations,
but East Asians were more likely than North Americans to experience mixed emotions in success situations (Leu et al., 2010;
Miyamoto, Uchida, & Ellsworth, 2010).
In addition, there are cultural variations in evaluations of emotions. For example, pride is generally related to feeling good about
oneself, whereas guilt is related to feeling bad about oneself.
Therefore, pride is a positively valenced emotion and guilt is a
negatively valenced emotion. Eid and Diener (2001) found that
people in individualistic cultures evaluated pride as positive and
evaluated guilt as negative. In contrast, individuals in collectivistic
cultures evaluated pride as negative and guilt as a positive or
neutral emotion. Pride signals positive information about oneself
but it may threaten relationship harmony in collectivistic cultures.
In contrast, guilt signals negative information about oneself, but it
also indicates that the individual is aware of his or her shortcomings and is motivated to improve in the future. In East Asian
cultures, most positively valenced emotions are perceived to have
negative aspects, and most negatively valenced emotions are perceived to have some positive aspects as well.
Furthermore, there are cultural differences in the interpretation
and regulation of the same emotion. Cross-cultural studies showed
that people from collectivistic cultures regulate shame differently
than people from individualist cultures (Bagozzi, Verbeke, &
Gavino, 2003). Salesmen from both the Netherlands (an individualistic culture) and the Philippines (a collectivistic culture) experienced shame but reacted to the shame-related situation differently: Dutch salesmen responded with self-protective actions,
resulting in declines in work performance. In contrast, Filipinos
responded with more adaptive actions than Dutch salesmen, such
as building relationships with customers, which led to increases in
work performance. Individuals from collectivistic cultures treat
shame situations as signals for self-improvement and for rebuild-
ing face and relationships with other people. Thus, emotions like
shame, which may be viewed as destructive in individualistic
cultures (see a summary, Leary, 2007), may have a positive impact
on self-regulation for individuals in collectivistic cultures.
In sum, cultural values and practices shape actual and ideal
emotions, along with the evaluation and interpretation of emotions.
The current research focuses on emotional experiences in success
and failure situations and their implications for future selfregulation. Given the cultural differences in evaluations of emotion
described above (Bagozzi, Wong, & Yi, 1999), we first hypothesized that East Asians are more likely than European Americans to
experience mixed emotions in both success and failure situations;
in contrast, European Americans are more likely than East Asians
to experience solely positive emotions in success and solely negative emotions in failure (Hypothesis 1a). Because high activation
emotions are not encouraged in East Asian cultures (Tsai, Knutson, & Fung, 2006), we also predicted that East Asians will report
lower emotional intensity than European Americans (Hypothesis
1b; see Table 1 for a summary of the predictions). Furthermore, we
applied a componential model of emotion to investigate cultural
variations in emotion evaluations and interpretation of success and
failure, as well as the function of emotion in self-regulation.
Table 1
Summary of Cultural Differences in Emotions, Related Hypotheses, and Results
Americans
Valence
Intensity
Concerns
Appraisal
Chinese
Hypotheses
Results
1a
Partially supported
1b
Supported
Supported
3a, b, c, d, e, f
Partially supported
4a, b
Partially supported
Concerns
Concerns refer to things that are important to people, including
personal or community goals, motives, values, and expectations
(Mesquita, 2001). Emotion emerges and develops when people
feel that their concerns are affected or when the situation is
important to them. The same events may relate to different concerns in different cultural contexts. From the perspective of cultural models of self, people with an interdependent self tend to
emphasize relationship harmony whereas people with an independent self tend to value autonomy (Markus & Kitayama, 1991;
Rothbaum, Pott, Azuma, Miyake, & Weisz, 2000). Therefore, as
also suggested by Mesquita (2001), we expected that East Asians
would be concerned about the social worth of events, whereas
Americans would focus on their personal concerns. More specifically, in both success and failure situations, Chinese were expected to be more likely than Americans to be sensitive to others
opinions about their situations and to rate their personal situation
as influencing their social network (including family, group, and
other close people; Hypothesis 2).
Appraisal
Appraisal refers to cognitive interpretations and evaluations of
events (Mesquita, 2001). It is through appraisal that people make
sense of situations and respond with emotions. Appraisal dimensions are diverse and are used to emphasize different characteristics of emotional events. Appraisals assessed in other studies have
included how pleasant the situation was, whether the situation was
beneficial or problematic for goals, whether the situation was fair
or tolerable and so forth (Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003; Frijda,
Kuipers, & Schure, 1989; Mesquita, 2001; Smith & Ellsworth,
1985). In the current study, we selected eight dimensions which fit
success and failure situations: The degree to which the situation
was pleasant, fair, tolerable,1 and controllable; the amount of effort
expended; its effects on self-esteem change; its influence on future
goals; and its importance to the individual.
How might these appraisals differ across these two cultures?
East Asians tend to be holistic thinkers and engage in dialectical
reasoning; in contrast, Westerners are more likely to be analytical
thinkers and are influenced by formal logic (Nisbett, Peng, Choi,
& Norenzayan, 2001; Peng & Nisbett, 1999). East Asians are more
likely to tolerate contradictions than European Americans and
even prefer arguments that are seemingly opposing but consistent
with holistic ways of thinking (Nisbett et al., 2001). Therefore, we
predicted that East Asians would be more likely than Americans to
interpret a situation as both negative and positive. Although previous studies assessed the appraisal dimension of pleasantness, we
added a separate unpleasantness appraisal item. East Asians were
hypothesized to treat pleasantness and unpleasantness as two different dimensions, whereas Americans were hypothesized to view
them as two extremes of one dimension. We predicted that these
two dimensions would be negatively correlated among Americans
but not among Chinese participants (Hypothesis 3a). Furthermore,
holistic thinking leads Chinese people to tolerate contradictions;
869
870
Overview
The current study investigated cultural differences in emotional
experiences in response to success and failure events and explored
how emotional experiences were associated with self-regulation
intentions in two cultural groups. American and Chinese participants were invited to the lab to recall past success and failure
experiences. Participants then reported their emotional responses
to these events and completed measures of concerns, appraisals,
and willingness to try the same task again in the future.
Method
Participants and Design
Participants were 146 American students at Iowa State University who received one credit in their psychology course for their
participation and 94 Chinese students at Iowa State University who
received a small monetary compensation for their participation.
Forty-eight percent of the American participants were male and
62.4% of the Chinese participants were male. The average age of
American students (M 19.88, SD 2.17) was significantly
lower than that of Chinese students (M 25.80, SD 3.78), F(1,
234) 237.57, p .01. Thus, age was controlled in all the
analyses as a covariate.
The design included one within-subject factor: The success or
failure event. All participants were asked to complete questionnaires for both success and failure events, but their order was
counterbalanced. Analyses showed that there was no order effect
on the results. Another between-subjects factor was culture: American or Chinese. Thus, this was a 2 (culture) 2 (event type)
factorial design.
Procedure
All the questionnaires were translated into simplified Chinese
for Chinese participants. Back translation was applied to make sure
that the Chinese version was equivalent to the English version.
Thus, all participants read and completed the questionnaires in
their first language.
Measures
Memory and emotion characteristics. For each success or
failure event, participants were asked to report their primary emotions in the event and the valence and the intensity of the emotions.
Participants chose the valence from four categories: Positive, negative, neutral, or mixed emotions. The intensity of the emotions
was rated on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 a little to 7
very much. In addition, participants were asked to rate how frequently they thought and talked about this emotion after each event
on a five-point scale ranging from 1 none to 5 very much to
indicate their emotion intensity indirectly.
Emotion components. Seven questions (rated on a sevenpoint scale ranging from 1 not at all to 7 very much) were
designed to examine cultural differences in concerns (see Appendix). The questions were framed to fit the success or failure
situations. For example, participants were asked to rate the extent
to which they thought the event made close others feel proud of
them for the success event, whereas they were asked to rate the
extent to which the event made close others feel disappointed in
them for the failure event.
The appraisal measure consisted of 11 items, rated on a sevenpoint scale ranging from 1 not at all to 7 very much. The
items were based on previous work on cultural differences in
emotions (Frijda, Kuipers, & ter Schure, 1989; Mesquita, 2001).
We revised and added some new items to further investigate
cultural differences and to fit the purpose of the present research.
There were seven dimensions for both success and failure events:
Pleasantness, self-esteem change, benefits and problems for future
871
in the success event and negative emotions in the failure event, but
Chinese were expected to experience more mixed emotions than
Americans in both success and failure situations. For the success
event, Chinese and Americans selected similar emotions from the
four options (positive, negative, neutral, or mixed), 2(3, n
237) 2.77, ns. Most Chinese and Americans reported that
positive emotions were their primary emotions in success situations (72.5%CH vs. 78.8%aAM). For the failure event, however, the
Chinese and Americans reported different valences, 2(3, n
235) 10.98, p .05. A greater proportion of Americans (81.4%)
than Chinese (63.3%) indicated that their primary emotion was
negative. Further tests showed that theres no cultural difference in
reporting mixed emotions (16.7%CH vs. 11.0%AM), 2(1, n
235) 1.54, ns. More Chinese participants reported mixed emotions (16.7%CH vs. 11.0%AM), neutral emotions (11.1%CH vs.
3.4%AM) and positive emotions (8.9%CH vs. 4.1%AM) than did
Americans (Hypothesis 1a).
For intensity level, as seen in Table 2, Americans reported
higher emotional intensity than Chinese for failure events but not
for success events, Fsuccess (1, 231) 1.71, ns., Ffailure (1, 229)
5.53, p .05. Additionally, Americans were more likely than
Chinese to think and talk about their emotions in the success event
(although it was marginally significant for talking about the emotions), Fthinking (1, 231) 4.39, p .05, Ftalking (1, 231) 3.41,
p .07. Americans were also more likely than Chinese to think
and talk about the emotions for the failure event, Fthinking (1,
229) 7.48, p .01, Ftalking (1, 229) 5.37, p .05. The results
for the primary emotions valence and intensity were consistent
with our hypotheses that Chinese reported a greater variety of
Results
Overview of Analyses
We first report cultural differences in characteristics of the
primary emotions experienced in the recalled memories. Chisquare tests were used to examine the hypothesis that Americans
and Chinese reported different valences for their primary emotions. Next, ANCOVAs were used to examine cultural differences
in measures of emotion intensity, concern, and appraisal for both
success and failure events. Next, we report the results of hierarchical regressions for culture, emotional components, and their
interactions in predicting willingness to try the same task again.
List-wise deletion was used to deal with missing data so that there
were small variations in the degrees of freedom in the results.
Again, age was controlled in all analyses as a covariate.
Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations for the Measures of Emotional Intensity and Appraisal Dimensions in Primary Emotions as a
Function of Event Type and Culture
Independent variables
Success
American
Dependent measures
Emotional intensity
Intensity
Think about
Talk about
Appraisal
Change in self-esteem
Effort
Tolerance
Actor-control
Other-control
Fairness
Personal importance
Willingness to try again
Failure
Chinese
American
Chinese
SE
SE
2p
SE
SE
2p
4.31a
3.72a
3.17a
.07
.09
.11
4.13a
3.36b
2.78a
.10
.12
.15
.01
.02
.02
4.27a
3.68a
2.78a
.09
.10
.11
3.85b
3.16b
2.28b
.13
.14
.15
.03
.03
.02
5.93a
5.63a
5.92a
5.14a
3.68a
5.99a
6.30a
5.07a
.15
.14
.13
.17
.19
.14
.10
.21
5.21b
5.64a
5.99a
5.11a
2.86b
5.83a
6.07a
4.02b
.21
.19
.18
.24
.27
.19
.14
.29
.03
.00
.00
.00
.02
.00
.01
.03
4.08a
5.35a
4.48a
3.46a
4.12a
3.80a
5.69a
3.16a
.19
.15
.16
.20
.20
.20
.14
.24
3.24b
5.46a
5.28b
4.79b
2.98b
4.49a
5.40a
4.10a
.26
.21
.22
.28
.29
.28
.20
.34
.02
.00
.03
.05
.03
.01
.00
.02
Note. Cultural comparisons are within success or failure event. Differing subscripts indicate a significant difference between American and Chinese at
p .05. NAM 143145, NCH 82 87. Change in self-esteem to what extent did you feel the situation enhanced (decreased) your self-esteem? Effort
how much effort (mental or physical) did you feel this situation required you to expend? Tolerance to what extent did you feel you could bear the
situation? Actor-control to what extent do you feel that you had the ability to influence what was happening in this situation? Other-control to what
extent do you feel that someone other than yourself was controlling what was happening in this situation? Fairness to what extent fair did you think this
event was? Personal Importance to what extent did you feel that the event was important to you? Try Again to what extent did you feel like trying
this task again?
872
emotions for failures and reported lower emotion intensity than did
Americans (Hypothesis 1b).
Measures of Concerns
Given their tendency to develop highly interdependent selfconstruals, Chinese were expected be more likely to pay attention
to others opinions, including close others and acquaintances,
about their successes and failures. Chinese were also expected to
believe that their personal events could influence their in-groups.
Thus, we hypothesized that Americans and Chinese would rate the
concern measures for success and failure events differently.
One 2 (success vs. failure) 2 (American vs. Chinese) 7
(concern measures) ANCOVA with concern measure and event
type as within-subject factors and with age as a covariate was
conducted. A three-way interaction between event type, culture,
and concern measures was found, F(6, 218) 2.11, p .05, 2p
.06. To disentangle the three-way interaction, two 2 (American vs.
Chinese) 7 (concern measures) ANCOVAs with concern measure as a within-subject factor were conducted for success and
failure events separately. There were interaction effects between
culture and concerns for both success and failure events, Fsuccess
(6, 224) 4.46, p .01; 2p .11, Ffailure (6, 227) 2.20, p
.05, 2p .06. As seen in Figure 1, the patterns of ratings were
different for American and Chinese participants. For the success
event, Chinese participants were more likely than Americans to
think that the event made close others feel proud of them, F(1,
231) 3.55, p .06, 2p .02, that their personal success made
others jealous or envious, F(1, 231) 18.96, p .01, 2p .08,
that the event made others think they were a success, F(1, 231)
Measures of Appraisal
We hypothesized that the main cultural differences lie in the
pattern of appraisals for success and failure situations. Thus, we
conducted ANCOVAs separately for each appraisal dimension to
investigate the patterns of relations between event type (success or
failure) and culture.
To determine whether these appraisal dimensions were distinct
from each other, we first examined the correlations between the
appraisal dimensions. The range of correlation coefficients were
from .44 to .46. Most of the correlation coefficients were between .30 to .30. For success events, five correlation coefficients
were greater than .40: fairness was moderately correlated with
self-esteem change, goal conduciveness, and a sense of control,
rs .41, .46, and .42, respectively (all ps .01); pleasantness
was negatively correlated with unpleasantness, r .42 (p
.01), and was positively correlated with self-esteem change, r
.40 (p .01). For failure events, two correlation coefficients were
Extent
jealous/
proud/
disappointed gloat over
Success-American
Success
e ca
success/
loser
Success-Chinese
Success
C ese
Failure-American
a ue
e ca
distance
Failure-Chinese
a u e C ese
Figure 1. Repeated measures of concern measures for American and Chinese for the success and failure event.
Proud/disappointed the event made close others (family members, your teacher or your close friends) feel
proud of [disappointed at] you; jealous/gloat over the event made others jealous or envious [gloat over you];
success/loser the event made others (acquaintances) think that you were a success [loser]; respect for group
the event enhanced [decreased] others respect for the group (the most salient group in that situation) to which
you belonged; respect for you the event raised [decreased] the respect that others had for you; respect for
family the event enhanced [decreased] others respect for your family; distance the event influenced your
distance from others (high score means closer). Terms in brackets were used for the failure event.
greater than .40: pleasantness was negatively correlated with unpleasantness, r .44 (p .01), and the benefits and problems
dimensions for goal conduciveness were negatively correlated, r
.44 (p .01). Correlations were also conducted for American
and Chinese groups separately. No correlation coefficients greater
than these were found except for those between pleasantness and
unpleasantness among Americans. Thus, the appraisal dimensions
used in the current study were distinct dimensions.
For the pleasantness and unpleasantness dimensions, we first
tested whether the relation between pleasantness and unpleasantness was the same among the two cultures. For the success event,
the correlations between the two dimensions for American and
Chinese participants were similar: rs .47AM (p .01) and
.37CH (p .01), z .86, ns. For the failure event, in contrast,
the correlations between the two dimensions for American and
Chinese participants were significantly different: rs .58AM
(p .01) and .18CH (ns), z 3.53, p .05. There was a strong
negative correlation between those two dimensions for Americans
but not for Chinese, for whom the two dimensions were only
weakly correlated. This suggests that pleasantness and unpleasantness can be two orthogonal dimensions rather than two ends of one
continuous dimension for Chinese. Chinese participants, who have
been described as dialectical thinkers, were more likely to have
both pleasant and unpleasant experiences in the failure event,
providing partial support for Hypothesis 3a.
For the appraisal of self-esteem change, we expected that Americans self-esteem would change more than that of Chinese in
response to both success and failure events (Hypothesis 3b). Participants were more likely to report self-esteem change for the
success event than the failure event (as seen in Table 2), F(1,
224) 10.35, p .05, 2p .02. Furthermore, Americans were
more likely to report self-esteem change than Chinese, F(1, 224)
10.56, p .01, 2p .05.
Chinese participants, who tend to be characterized as dialectical
thinkers, were expected to think more about the negative aspects of
success events and positive aspects of failure events than were
Americans. Thus, Chinese might be more likely than Americans to
report that the success event had negative effects on their future
goals and that the failure event had positive effects on their future
Failure
6.5
5.5
5.5
Extent
Extentt
Success
6.5
4.5
4
4.5
4
3.5
3.5
2.5
2.5
Benefit
American
Problem
Chinese
873
Benefit
American
Problem
Chinese
Figure 2. Three-way interaction of benefits and problems for goal conduciveness dimension for Americans
(n 144) and Chinese (n 85) for success and failure events.
874
events, F(1, 231) .01, ns, but Americans reported higher levels
of other-control than Chinese, F(1, 231) 4.45, p .05. In the
failure events, Americans reported lower levels of actor-control,
F(1, 228) 11.29, p .01, and higher levels of other-control than
Chinese, F(1, 229) 8.01, p .01. For the dimension of fairness,
there was a marginally significant interaction effect between culture and event type, F(1, 224) 3.65, p .06, 2p .02.
Americans and Chinese reported similar levels of fairness for the
success event, F(1, 230) .35, ns, but Americans reported lower
fairness than Chinese for the failure event, F(1, 228) 3.19, p
.08, 2p .02. Both American and Chinese participants perceived
successes as fairer than failures, F(1, 224) 5.04, p .05, 2p
.02.
We hypothesized that Americans would rate the success event
as more important than Chinese, whereas Chinese would rate the
failure event as more important than Americans (Hypothesis 3f).
No interaction between culture and event type was found in the
rating of personal importance, F(1, 226) .01, ns. The similarity
in importance ratings may be attributable to the instructions that
asked participants to pick their most important success/failure
experience.
Table 3
Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Valence and Intensity
Variables Predicting Willingness To Try Again for the Failure
Event (n 227)
Entire sample
Variables
Step 2
Negative emotion
Neutral emotion
Mixed emotion
Intensity
Step 3
Culture Negative
Culture Neutral
Culture Mixed
Culture Intensity
.10
.01
.02
.25
R2
.08
.04
.20
.21
.17
.02
American
Chinese
.22
.20
.19
.26
R2
.12
R2
.12
.02
.24
.16
.30
875
Table 4
Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Concern Variables Predicting Willingness To Try Again
for the Success Event (n 231)
Entire sample
Variables
Step 2
Close other proud
Others jealous
Success
Respect for group
Respect for you
Respect for family
Closer to others
Step 3
Culture Close other proud
Culture Others jealous
Culture Success
Culture Respect for group
Culture Respect for you
Culture Respect for family
Culture Closer to others
.18
.10
.23
.29
.02
.00
.00
American
R2
.11
.05
.22
.07
.26
.36
.03
.07
.10
Chinese
R2
.20
R2
.08
.17
.28
.07
.04
.03
.31
.13
.18
.13
.01
.37
.02
.00
.62
Note. American 1, Chinese 1. Close other proud the event made close others (family members, your
teacher or your close friends) feel proud of you; Others jealous the event made others jealous or envious;
Success the event made others (acquaintances) think that you were a success; Respect for group the event
enhance others respect for the group (the most salient group in that situation) to which you belonged; Respect
for you the event raise the respect that others had for you; Respect for family the event enhance others
respect for your family; Closer to others the event influence your distance from others (high score means
closer).
Discussion
According to Mesquita (2001), cultural comparisons should be
based on cultural theories and systematic hypotheses inferred from
these theories. In this study, predictions of cultural differences
were made on the basis of cultural theories of independent versus
interdependent self-construal, analytic versus holistic ways of
thinking, and ideal affect theory (see Table 1 for a summary;
Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Nisbett et al., 2001; Tsai, 2007). The
present investigation began with a question about the association
between emotions and self-regulation in specific cultural contexts.
In specific, we asked: (a) Do American and Chinese participants
experience emotions differently within self-relevant success and
failure situations? (b) Do emotion evaluations contribute to regulation intentions for the future behavior differently for Americans
and Chinese? The answers are yes and no. This study found both
cultural differences as well as cross-cultural similarities in emotional experiences and in how emotional components influence
self-regulation intentions.
876
Table 5
Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Appraisal Variables Predicting Willingness To Try Again for the Success Event (n 231)
Entire sample
Variables
Step 2
Pleasantness
Unpleasantness
Self-esteem change
Benefits to goals
Problems to goals
Effort
Tolerance
Actor-control
Other-control
Fairness
Personal importance
Step 3
Culture Pleasantness
Culture Unpleasantness
Culture Self-esteem change
Culture Benefits to goals
Culture Problems to goals
Culture Effort
Culture Tolerance
Culture Actor-control
Culture Other-control
Culture Fairness
Culture Personal importance
American
R
.11
.05
.01
.17
.09
.05
.07
.08
.09
.01
.16
.19
.07
Chinese
R
.19
.01
.01
.05
.13
.01
.17
.09
.17
.03
.29
.12
R2
.19
.04
.13
.44
.03
.09
.25
.03
.02
.10
.14
.29
.04
.11
.67
.29
.11
.83
.24
.28
.13
.35
.31
877
was tolerable. They were, however, less willing to try the failure task
again if they reported high emotion intensity.
The findings also show the different associations between emotion
and self-regulation for these cultural groups. Previous work on emotion and culture focused on how cultural practices influence emotion
experiences or ideal emotional feelings but not on how emotions
affect self-regulation (Kitayama, Mesquita, & Karasawa, 2006; Mesquita, 1997, 2001; Tsai, 2007). Furthermore, other work has focused
on motivational and cognitive explanations of culturally constructed
behavioral patterns such as persistence (Heine et al., 2001). In this
study, we added emotion into the framework of culture and selfregulation. We argue that cultural norms and practice shape the way
we feel, and emotion in turn influences behavioral tendencies and
self-regulation.
For example, there were cultural differences in the association
of the valence of emotion with self-regulation for the failure event.
American participants who reported negative emotion were less
willing to try the task again, whereas negative emotion was unrelated to willingness to try again for Chinese. Americans who
reported mixed emotions were less willing, whereas those who
reported neutral emotions were more willing to try the task again.
In contrast, Chinese participants who reported mixed emotions
were more willing whereas those who reported neutral emotions
were less willing to try the failed task again. It is likely that
American participants followed their feelings to indicate their
willingness to continue working on the failure task or not: It is not
fun, so I do not want to continue. Chinese participants who felt
that the failure task was both good and bad were willing to
continue, expecting that good results may happen afterward. This
is consistent with feedback system of emotion: retrospective emotions help people learn from past experiences (Baumeister, Vohs,
DeWall, & Zhang, 2007). The facilitation of learning by emotion,
however, is susceptible to interpretation and reappraisal within the
context of culture. Whereas negative and mixed emotions in American culture may indicate stop trying, they may suggest continue working so that things may turn better in Chinese culture.
One limitation of the current study is that we did not measure
each emotional experience directly. Although we asked participants to report their primary emotion and measured the components for the emotion, no ratings of each specific emotion (such as
happiness or surprise) were obtained. Future research should investigate how cultural differences in evaluations of emotional
components may lead to specific emotions, which in turn account
for cultural differences in self-regulation.
Methodological Issues
Sampling of participants. All the participants were sampled
from the same university in the United States. One potential issue
is that Americans and Chinese participants represent two different
groups in the two cultures: Undergraduate students in the United
States and graduate students from China. To our knowledge,
however, no other theoretical or empirical evidence suggests that
cultural differences can be explained by differences in years of
higher education. Furthermore, we expect that cultural differences
would be larger if we sampled undergraduate students in China.
Chinese graduate students who have been studying in the United
States for some time likely become more westernized because of
exposure to an individualist culture. Moreover, Chinese students
878
References
Bagozzi, R. P., Verbeke, W., & Gavino, J. C., Jr. (2003). Culture moderates
the self-regulation of shame and its effects on performance: The case of
salespersons in The Netherlands and the Philippines. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 219 233. doi:10.1037/00219010.88.2.219
Bagozzi, R. P., Wong, N., & Yi, Y. (1999). The role of culture and gender
in the relationship between positive and negative affect. Cognition and
Emotion, 13, 641 672. doi:10.1080/026999399379023
Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Esteem threat, self-regulatory breakdown, and
emotional distress as factors in self-defeating behavior. Review of General Psychology, 1, 145174. doi:10.1037/1089 2680.1.2.145
Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G.
Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology, vols. 1 and 2 (4th
ed.; pp. 680 740). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998).
Ego-depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 12521265. doi:10.1037/0022
3514.74.5.1252
Baumeister, R. F., & Heatherton, T. F. (1996). Self-regulation failure: An
overview. Psychological Inquiry, 7, 115. doi:10.1207/
s15327965pli0701_1
Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). Guilt: An
interpersonal approach. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 243267. doi:
10.1037/00332909.115.2.243
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., DeWall, C. N., & Zhang, L. (2007). How
emotion shapes behavior: Feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather
than direct causation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2),
167203. doi:10.1177/1088868307301033
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). The strength model
of self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 351
355. doi:10.1111/j.1467 8721.2007.00534.x
Carver, C. S. (2003). Pleasure as a sign you can attend to something else:
Placing positive feelings within a general model of affect. Cognition and
Emotion, 17, 241261. doi:10.1080/02699930302294
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive
and negative affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review, 97,
19 35. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.19
Chiu, C., Hong, Y., & Dweck, C. S. (1997). Lay dispositionism and
implicit theories of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 19 30. doi:10.1037/00223514.73.1.19
Cohen, D., & Gunz, A. (2002). As seen by the other: Perspectives on the
self in the memories and emotional perceptions of easterners and westerners. Psychological Science, 13, 5559. doi:10.1111/1467
9280.00409
Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2001). Norms for experiencing emotions in different
cultures: Inter- and intranational differences. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 81, 869 885. doi:10.1037/00223514.81.5.869
Ellsworth, P. C., & Scherer, K. R. (2003). Appraisal processes in emotion.
In Handbook of affective sciences. (pp. 572595). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Endo, Y., & Meijer, Z. (2004). Autobiographical memory of success and
failure experiences. In Y. Kashima, Y. Endo, E. S. Kashima, C. Leung,
& J. McClure (Eds.), Progress in Asian Social psychology (Vol. 4, pp.
67 84). Seoul, Korea: Kyoyook-Kwahak-Sa Publishing.
879
(Appendix follows)
880
Appendix
Measures for Emotion Components: Concern and Appraisal
Concern measure
To what extent did you think the event made close others (family members, your teacher or your close friends) feel
proud of [disappointed at] you?
To what extent did you think the event made others jealous or envious [gloat over you]?
To what extent did you think the event made others (acquaintances) think that you were a success [loser]?
To what extent did the event enhance [decrease] others respect for the group (the most salient group in that
situation) to which you belonged?
To what extent did the event raise [decrease] the respect that others had for you?
To what extent did the event enhance [decrease] others respect for your family?
To what extent did the event influence your distance from others? (higher score means closer)
Appraisal Measure
Pleasantness
How pleasant was the situation for you?
To what extent did you find the situation unpleasant as well?
Self-esteem change
To what extent did you feel the situation enhanced [decrease] your self-esteem
Goal conduciveness
To what extent did you feel the situation was conducive to your goals?
To what extent did you feel there were problems that had to be solved before you could get what you wanted?
Tolerance
To what extent did you feel you could bear the situation?
Control
To what extent did you feel that you had the ability to influence what was happening in this situation?
To what extent did you feel that someone other than yourself was controlling what was happening in this
situation?
Fairness
To what extent fair did you think this event was?
Effort
How much effort (mental or physical) did you feel this situation required you to expend?
Personal Importance
To what extent did you feel that the situation was important to you?
Note. Terms in brackets were used for the failure event.