Cultural Differences in the Perception of Facial Emotion
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
tapraid5/z2g-perpsy/z2g-perpsy/z2g00308/z2g3231d08g banen Sϭ18 2/26/15 14:38 Art: 2005-0064 ATTITUDES AND SOCIAL COGNITION Placing the Face in Context: Cultural Differences in the Perception of Facial Emotion Takahiko Masuda Phoebe C. Ellsworth University of Alberta University of Michigan Batja Mesquita Janxin Leu Wake Forest University University of Washington Shigehito Tanida Ellen Van de Veerdonk Hokkaido University University of Amsterdam Two studies tested the hypothesis that in judging people’s emotions from their facial expressions, Japanese, more than Westerners, incorporate information from the social context. In Study 1, participants viewed cartoons depicting a happy, sad, angry, or neutral person surrounded by other people expressing the same emotion as the central person or a different one. The surrounding people’s emotions influenced Japanese but not Westerners’ perceptions of the central person. These differences reflect differences in attention, as indicated by eye-tracking data (Study 2): Japanese looked at the surrounding people more than did Westerners. Previous findings on East–West differences in contextual sensitivity generalize to social contexts, suggesting that Westerners see emotions as individual feelings, whereas Japanese see them as inseparable from the feelings of the group. Keywords: culture, emotion, attention For centuries, artists and scientists in the West have been fas- Man and Animals, Darwin (1872/1965) cites predecessors dating cinated by facial expression and have written treatises document- back to 1667. Darwin himself considered the face to be the ing the correspondence of particular expressions to particular emo- preeminent medium of emotional expression in humans, capable of tions. In the opening chapter of The Expression of the Emotions in representing all the major emotions as well as subtle variations within each one. Following the rise of behaviorism, the signifi- cance of the face was disputed for decades, but it was never Takahiki Masuda, Department of Psychology, University of Alberta, entirely ignored: Research on facial expression continued, some- Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Phoebe C. Ellsworth, Department of Psychol- times in attempts to show that it was definitely diagnostic of ogy, University of Michigan; Batja Mesquita, Department of Psychology, emotion, sometimes in attempts to show that it was not (cf. Ekman, Wake Forest University; Janxin Leu, Department of Psychology, Univer- Friesen, & Ellsworth, 1972, for a review). The strong folk intuition sity of Washington; Shigehito Tanida, Department of Behavioral Science, that people’s emotions are revealed by their faces persisted, un- Hokkaido University; Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan; Ellen Van de Veerdonk; Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the moved by the scientific controversy. Netherlands. In the early 1970s, Darwin’s ideas about the importance of facial The present research was originally written for Takahiko Masuda’s expression came to be widely accepted, and research on facial dissertation and was supported by the Culture and Cognition Program and expression proliferated. Sylvan Tomkins (1962, 1963) argued that Rackham Graduate Program at the University of Michigan and by the facial expressions are biologically based, universal manifestations Center of Cultural and Ecological Foundation of the Mind at Hokkaido of emotions. Strong confirmation was provided by the research of University (The 21st Century Center of Excellence Program). We thank Paul Ekman (1971) and Carroll Izard (1971), who showed that Richard E. Nisbett for his comments at an early stage of the project. We expressions of emotions were recognized as communicating the also thank April Benson, Julia S. Carlson, and Erik DeBoer for their same feelings by people from many different cultures in Europe, support. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Takahiko North and South America, Asia, and Africa. The conclusion was Masuda, Department of Psychology, University of Alberta, P-355, Biolog- that facial expressions were innate, universal, and phylogenetically ical Sciences Building, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E9, Canada. E-mail: derived, as Darwin had argued, and some theorists went so far as [email protected] to argue that “Emotion . is neuromuscular activity of the face” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2008, Vol. 94, No. 3, 365–381 © 2008 American Psychological Association 0022-3514/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.365 365 tapraid5/z2g-perpsy/z2g-perpsy/z2g00308/z2g3231d08g banen Sϭ18 2/26/15 14:38 Art: 2005-0064 366 MASUDA ET AL. (Izard, 1971, p. 188). Although most researchers now believe that vary from culture to culture. People can only attend to a small no single element is a sufficient condition for an emotion, the face sample of the possible events in their complex and ever-changing still enjoys a special status in psychological theories of emotion environments, and there is increasing evidence that people of (Carroll & Russell, 1996; Matsumoto, 1996). different cultural backgrounds allocate their limited attention quite Ekman (1972) and Izard (1994) used similar methods in their differently. A substantial body of research, for example, suggests cross-cultural research. They each created a set of photographs of that North Americans and East Asians are differentially sensitive emotional expressions that elicited high levels of agreement to contextual factors (e.g., Kitayama, Duffy, Kawamura, & Larsen, among Americans and then showed them to people in other coun- 2003; Nisbett, 2003; Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, & 2001). tries and asked them to choose the emotion label that best de- scribed the face. Ekman and Friesen (1971) replicated the basic findings using a simpler story-selection task and a group of New Attention to Context Guinea aborigines who had minimal exposure to Westerners or Western media. The methods used in these landmark studies were According to Nisbett (2003), Western Europeans are character- criticized (Fridlund, 1991; Russell, 1994), but subsequent research ized by “analytic” patterns of attention, dividing reality into dis- using a variety of more sophisticated techniques and controls has crete categories with defining attributes (“cutting nature at the consistently supported the hypothesis that the general interpreta- joints”, as Plato recommended). East Asians have a more “holis- tion of certain emotional facial expressions is culturally universal tic” pattern of attention, perceiving people, objects, and events in (Haidt & Keltner, 1999; and see Keltner, Ekman, Gonzaga, & terms of their relationships to other people, objects, and events, Beer, 2003, for a review). rather than in terms of their distinctive properties. A dog is not a Most of the researchers in this tradition were looking for evi- mammal of the canine genus, but a friend of people and an enemy dence of cultural universals in line with the theories of Darwin of cats. People raised in the Western European tradition find it easy (1872/1965) and Tomkins (1962, 1963). Along the way, they also to isolate an object from its context; East Asians do not. For East found some cultural differences—some emotions and some cul- Asians, the object is perceived in relation to other objects, in tures showed less agreement than others, but these differences relation to its context. The fact that it is part of a larger whole is received scant attention, in part because the researchers were an important aspect of its essence. Nisbett and his colleagues looking for evidence of universality, in part because of the lack of believe that the Eastern philosophical traditions of Confucianism, any theoretical framework for explaining differences (Mesquita & Ellsworth, 2001; Mesquita & Leu, in press). More recent research, Buddhism, and Taoism reflect this holistic perspective, whereas although not challenging the central findings of Ekman and Izard, the Western traditions of Platonism, Aristotelianism, and mono- suggests that there is also considerable cultural variation in inter- theism emphasize the distinctive characteristics of entities and pretations of the meaning of facial expressions. There is a gradient individuals. in the cross-cultural recognition of facial expressions, such that the Several studies have found that North Americans attend more to labeling of some expressions shows more cross-cultural conver- focal objects and less to objects-in-context than East Asians do. gence than of others (Haidt & Keltner, 1999). Furthermore, studies For example, North Americans are better at tasks that require the have found systematic cross-cultural differences in intensity rat- separation of an object from its context; in the rod and frame task, ings (Yrizarry, Matsumoto, & Wilson-Cohn, 1998) and complexity they are more field independent. In adjusting the rod to a vertical (Biehl et al., 1997). Moreover, the degree to which perceivers have position, North Americans are less influenced than East Asians by been exposed to the culture of the posers improves the accuracy of the orientation of the frame (Ji, Peng, & Nisbett, 2000), and in recognition (e.g., Elfenbein & Ambady, 2002; Russell & judging the absolute size of the rod, they are less influenced by the Fernandez-Dols, 1997). This effect should not be exaggerated, size of the frame (Kitayama et al., 2003). However, East Asians however, because the culture of the poser trumps the ingroup are more alert than North Americans to relationships and context. advantage