1 / 32

ANTECEdent -focused emotion regulation as a source of cultural variation in emotion

ANTECEdent -focused emotion regulation as a source of cultural variation in emotion. Jozefien De Leersnyder & Batja Mesquita. Berlin, Dec 20 th , 2010. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK.

ann-house
Download Presentation

ANTECEdent -focused emotion regulation as a source of cultural variation in emotion

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ANTECEdent-focused emotion regulation as a source of cultural variation in emotion Jozefien De Leersnyder & Batja Mesquita Berlin, Dec 20th , 2010

  2. 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

  3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK • Emotion regulation as explanation for cultural differences in emotions: ANTECEDENT FOCUSED Antecedent event EMOTION Response appraisal BY CULTURAL VALUES AND GOALS BY CULTURAL DISPLAY RULES e.g., Gross, 1998

  4. 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

  5. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Specific aims of the research: • Emotion regulation is goal-driven • Independence and interdependence goals influence how people appraise situations • Salience of the independence and interdependence goals vary across cultures • Priming these goals affects emotional experiences Research on Values and Emotions

  6. Values and Emotion Studies STUDY 1a 188Belgian students STUDY 2a 267Belgian students Value Importance Questionnaire STUDY 1b 100Belgian adults 160 Turkish immigrants in Belgium STUDY 2b 415 Turkish students in Turkey

  7. 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 feltgood 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 = Good Bad Engagement = Disengaged Engaged

  8. FIRST RESULTS: method Study 1 Rate emotionalexperience on 20 emotion scales (e.g. shame) Describe situation according to 8 situated values (e.g. loyalty) Study 2 Rate emotionalexperience on 35 emotion scales (e.g. anger) Describe situation according to 18 situated values (e.g. leadership)

  9. FIRST RESULTS: method Growth Study 1 Study 2 Self-focused Other-focused Protection

  10. FIRST RESULTS: method Situated Values Questionnaire

  11. FIRST RESULTS: method In this situation it was impossible for me to set my own goals In this situation I could set my own goals OR NOT applicable A bit true totally A bit true totally true true true true x Value inconsistent Value consistent Value not applicable Value applicable in situation

  12. FIRST RESULTS: Study1a1. antecedent emotion-regulation is goal-driven Spearman rank order Correlation rs = .86 p = .006

  13. FIRST RESULTS: Study 2a1. antecedent emotion-regulation is goal-driven Correlation = .73

  14. 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*

  15. FIRST RESULTS: Study 1a 2. goal-types influence people’s emotional experience Independence and interdependence goals influence how people appraise situations

  16. FIRST RESULTS: Study 1a 2. goal-types influence people’s emotional experience Other-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?

  17. FIRST RESULTS: 3. value-types vary across cultures Most studies on culture and psychological tendencies show that different cultural contexts are characterized by different core cultural goals and values Turkish low educated Belgians • European Social Survey • and other surveys with the • Schwartz Value • Questionnaire yielded • different value hierarchies • across cultures Turkish high educated

  18. FIRST RESULTS: emotional similarity predicts Emotional similarity to the Belgian students emotional pattern

  19. A LITTLE SUMMARY: IN THE PAST YEAR WE GATHERED SOME FIRST RESULTS ON: • Emotion regulation is goal-driven • Independence and interdependence goals influence how people appraise situations • Salience of the independence and interdependence goals vary across cultures  More analyses needed! TO DO IN THE NEXT YEAR: • Priming these goals affects emotional experiences  Experiment needs to be developed

  20. 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) !

  21. PRIMING STUDY: general idea • Last year: economic games?  NO! • WHY not: • a longer/more real interaction is needed to elicit emotional experiences in participant • violation of the goals by a game is too abstract • motivation/engagement of participants needs to be high to get emotional experiences • … • …

  22. 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

  23. 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?

  24. PRIMING STUDY: a proposal 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…

  25. 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

  26. 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

  27. 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

  28. 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

  29. 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: • confederatesays 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...

  30. 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? • …

  31. 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

  32. PRIMING STUDIES: to be continued All your ideas, comments, other proposals, suggestions etc… are very welcome!!!

More Related