Negotiating Emotions Across Cultures Kellogg Culture & Negotiation Conference

Batja Mesquita Center for Social and Cultural Psychology, University of Leuven Negotiating Emotions All everyday attempts at influencing and/or changing other people’s emotions.

(Fung, H. , 1999, p. 202-3)

MOTHER OF DIDI (3 YRS OLD, TAIWAN)

Didi walks towards the researcher’s camcorder, and is about to touch it

“Hey, Didi! what did mommy just tell you? You do not listen…does mommy have to spank you? You really don’t listen……” “We do not want you here. Stand back there.” Didi cries

“Look how ugly your face is, you don’t want to be in the film that ugly” Didi’s sister: “Ugly monster…you should feel ashamed” NEGOTIATING EMOTIONS

1 2 3

We negotiate with Emotions Across cultures, others to are social different types of achieve culturally engagements social engagements valued social are valued engagements CHAPTER ONE: EMOTIONS WE VALUE (Markus & Kitayama, 2001; Kitayama et al., 1997)

EMOTIONS WE VALUE

Autonomy Relatedness Self-Focused Perspective-taking Self-Enhancement Independence Self-criticism Interdependence Disengaged Angry Proud Irritated Strong ill Feelings Euphoric

Negative Positive

Ashamed Close Guilty Respectful Indebted Helpful Engaged

(De Leersnyder, Koval, Kuppens, & Mesquita, 2014) (Kitayama, Markus, & Kurokawa, 2000) (Kitayama, Mesquita, & Karasawa, JPSP, 2006)

CULTURALLY VALUED EMOTIONS ARE PREVALENT

Positive emotions Negative emotions

4.0 4.0

3.6 3.6

3.2 3.2

2.8 2.8

2.4 2.4

2.0 2.0

Engaging Disengaging Engaging Disengaging (Kitayama, Mesquita, & Karasawa, JPSP, 2006)

CULTURALLY VALUED EMOTIONS PREDICT WELL-BEING

Disengaged Emotions 0.68 0.26

Engaged Emotions 0.50 0.60 (Schwartz, 2006)

EMOTIONS WE VALUE

SELF-DIRECTION O T D H E STIMULATIONIndependence Helping UNIVERSALISM E S Own Goals Loyalty R

U

BENEVOLENCE -

C

F

O CONFORMITY O

F HEDONISM C

-

Capacity Tradition U

F TRADITION

Success ReligionSECURITY S L

E

E

D S ACHIEVEMENT POWER (De Leersnyder, Koval, Kuppens & Mesquita , 2017).

VALUES IN SITUATION

In this situation it was In this situation impossible for me to I was able to set set my own goals. my own goals.

A Bit True A Bit True N/A True True Totally True Totally True

Value Relevant Value Irrelevant (Leersnyder & Mesquita, in prep)

EMOTIONS WE VALUE

Study 1 1 Self-Direction Study 2

2 Loyalty Spearman Rank Order correlation 3 Succeeding r = .93

4 Capacity

Tradition 5 RANK ORDER ESS 6 Helping

7 Religion 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

RANK ORDER EMOTIONAL SITUATIONS (De Leersnyder, Koval, Kuppens & Mesquita, 2017).

EMOTIONS WE VALUE

Study 1 Study 2 HELPING LOYALTY OTHERS TRADITION RELIGION 3

2 ENGAGING 1 SELF-FOCUSED VALUES 0 *** ** -1 *** *** *

-2 OTHER-FOCUSED VALUES

TIMES MORE LIKELY TIMES -3

-4

-5 DISENGAGING SUCCEEDING CAPACITY INDEPENDENCE OWN GOALS CHAPTER TWO: PROMOTION OF EMOTIONS WE VALUE

(Boiger, Mesquita, Uchida, & Barrett, 2013)

PROMOTION OF EMOTIONS WE VALUE

Anger

Shame (Boiger, Mesquita, Uchida, & Barrett, PSPB, 2013)

PROMOTION OF EMOTION NORMS: STUDY ONE

SITUATION QUESTIONNAIRE INTERVIEWS “Remember a situation in which you felt angry Q or ashamed.”

DAILY EXPERIENCE “What did you just 20 anger & 20 shame experience?” situations from each culture

Q: How frequent? Q: How much anger/shame? (Boiger, Mesquita, Uchida, & Barrett, 2013)

SAMPLE SITUATION FOR ANGER

“Ryan went to college away from home and came to see his family over the holidays. Whenever Ryan started talking about something of which he felt proud, his father changed the topic to his younger brother’s football career.” (Boiger, Mesquita, Uchida, & Barrett, 2013)

PROMOTION OF EMOTION NORMS: US AND JAPAN

Anger Shame U.S. Students Japanese Students 0.25 0.25

0.2 0.2

0.15 0.15

0.1 0.1

0.5 0.5

0 0

BETA WEIGHTS BETA -0.5 -0.5

-0.1 -0.1

-0.15 -0.15

Interaction: b = .17, t = 6.92*** b = -.04, t1 = 1.95* (Boiger, Kirchner, Uchida, & Mesquita, under review)

STUDY TWO 116 58 160 80 Belgians Couples Japanese Couples

58 15.6 42.5 42.2 15.0 43.5

Median Years Median Median Years Median Female Age Male Age Female Age Male Age (Boiger, Kirchner, Uchida, & Mesquita, under review)

STUDY TWO

ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE INTERACTION (LAB)

Q

Conflict topics in the relationship Neutral > Conflict topic > Positive ending (adapted from CPI) “Conversation like at home” Relationship satisfaction (CSI-16): �JP=.95, �JB=.96; autonomy/relatedness 10 min (recorded partners frontally / overview) (Boiger, Kirchner, Uchida, & Mesquita, in prep)

VIDEO-MEDIATED RECALL

Played video of partner / participant (PiP)

Video stopped every 30 sec

Rated intensity of 12 emotions (Boiger, Kirchner, Uchida, & Mesquita, in prep)

PERSON-CENTERED DATA – PARTICIPANT 20072

3.5

1.88

0.25

-1.88

-3 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 390 420 450 480 510 540 570 600

Empathy for my partner Afraid hurt partner Resigned Hurt Guilty Annoyed

Strong Calm Worried Embarrassed Amae Aloof (Boiger, Kirchner, Schouten, Uchida, & Mesquita, in prep)

INTERACTIONS GRAVITATE TOWARDS VALUED EMOTIONS

BELGIUM JAPAN

Aloof Annoyed Hurt Resigned Embarrassed Worried Guilty Afraid-hurt Note. Green cells show attractor Amae states inductively derived by

FEMALE PARTNER winnowing for an H-proportion drop Strong ≥ .30 (Hollenstein, 2012). Red Calm boxes show emotional states that were significantly more common in Empathy the respective culture. Hurt Hurt Calm Calm Aloof Aloof Guilty Guilty Amae Amae Strong Strong Worried Worried Empathy Empathy Annoyed Annoyed Resigned Resigned Afraid-hurt Afraid-hurt Embarrassed Embarrassed

MALE PARTNER (Boiger, Kirchner, Schouten, Uchida, & Mesquita, in prep)

CULTURAL FIT PREDICTING RELATIONAL OUTCOMES/IDEALS

COUPLE JAPANESE AVERAGE

Aloof Annoyed Hurt Resigned Embarrassed Worried Guilty Afraid-hurt Amae FEMALE PARTNER Strong Calm Calculated correlation of individual SSG with culture-average Empathy (proportion of events per cell) Hurt Hurt Calm Calm Aloof Aloof Guilty Guilty Amae Amae Strong Strong Worried Worried Empathy Empathy Annoyed Annoyed Resigned Resigned Afraid-hurt Afraid-hurt Embarrassed Embarrassed

MALE PARTNER (Boiger, Kirchner, Uchida, & Mesquita, in prep)

INTERACTIONS GRAVITATE TOWARDS VALUED EMOTIONS

COUPLE r (Fisher-Z) = .34

Aloof Annoyed Hurt Resigned Embarrassed Worried Guilty Afraid-hurt Amae FEMALE PARTNER Strong Calm Calculated correlation of individual SSG with culture-average Empathy (proportion of events per cell)

-2.0 .00 .20 .40 .60 Hurt Calm Aloof Guilty Amae Strong Worried Empathy Annoyed Resigned Afraid-hurt Embarrassed

MALE PARTNER (Boiger, Kirchner, Schouten, Uchida, & Mesquita, in prep)

EXPERIENCING CULTURALLY FITTING EMOTIONS IS BENEFICIAL

BELGIUM JAPAN

Couple Satisfaction Index .39** .06

Emotional Support .32* .09

Sympathy for Partner .11 -.06

Autonomy .34* .16

Relatedness .01 .08

Note. Correlations with fit index (Fisher-z transformed correlations between individual and cultural average SSG). CONCLUSION

Across cultures, social interactions produce systematically different affect/emotions CONCLUSION

The most prevalent states — the states to which our interactions return — are culturally valued COLLABORATORS

MICHAEL BOIGER ALEX KIRCHNER JOZEFIEN DE LEERSNYDER YUKIKO UCHIDA University of Leuven University of Leuven University of Leuven/ Kyoto University University of Amsterdam

SHINOBU KITAYAMA MAYUMI KARASAWA ALEXANDRA FREUND University of Michigan Tokyo Woman’s Christian University of Zurich University THANK YOU