Behaviour Research and Therapy

Volume 41, Issue 7 , July 2003, Pages 777-793

Cross-cultural assessment and abnormal psychology

Copyright © 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Cultural differences in emotions: a context for interpreting emotional
experiences

B. Mesquita, and R. Walker

Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC 27109, USA

Received 26 February 2002; accepted 12 March 2002. ; Available online 6 March 2003.

Abstract
In this article, it is suggested that cross-cultural assessment of emotional disturbances would benefit
from the consideration of cultural differences in the modal, and normative emotions. A summary of the
research literature on cultural differences in emotions, in particular in antecedent events, subjective
feeling, appraisal, and behavior is provided. Cultural differences in emotions are understood
functionally, such that the most prevalent emotional phenomena in a culture are those that fit and
reinforce the distinct cultural models (i.e. goals and practices) of self and relationship. It is argued that
a culture-sensitive approach to emotional disturbances would entail the assessment of emotional
phenomena that are dysfunctional to the cultural models of self and relationship.

Author Keywords: Culture; Functionality; Emotional disturbance; Emotion; Appraisal; Behavior

Article Outline
1. Introduction
2. Conceptualization of cultural differences in emotions
3. Differences in emotion practices
3.1. Differences in antecedent events
3.1.1. Differences in the social production of antecedent events
3.1.2. Differences in the significance of events
3.1.3. Differences in focus
3.1.4. Implications for cross-cultural assessment
3.2. Differences in experience: valence
3.2.1. Implications for cross-cultural assessment
3.3. Differences in appraisal
3.3.1. Implications for cross-cultural assessment
3.4. Differences in expression and behavior
3.4.1. Implications for cross-cultural assessment
4. Discussion
Acknowledgements
References

1. Introduction
Emotions vary across cultures. That is, there are cultural differences in the prevalent, modal, and
normative emotional responses (Mesquita, in press and Mesquita, Frijda and Scherer, 1997). This has
important implications for the assessment of emotional disturbances. Emotional disturbances have been
defined as "`excesses' in emotions, `deficits' in emotions, or the lack of coherence in emotional
components" (Kring, 2001, p. 337). Implicit in the definitions of emotional disturbances is the standard
of comparison, the prevalent, modal, and normative practices of emotions. As these practices vary
across different cultural contexts, we propose that emotional disturbances are to some extent relative to
the cultural emotion norms and practices that form their context ( Jenkins, 1994 and Jenkins, 1996).

The main focus of this article will be to provide a general synthesis of the patterns of available research
findings on cross-cultural differences in emotions. From those differences in emotion practices, we will
infer some hypotheses on the potential consequences for emotional disturbances across cultures. To
date, very little empirical evidence exists that allows for evaluation of these hypotheses.

Importantly, our attempt to contextualize emotional disturbances is not to suggest that deviant
emotional phenomena are merely socially constructed as emotional disturbances. This point of view
would deny the real suffering involved in many emotional disturbances. It would also be inconsistent
with evidence cited by the World Health Organization that certain patterns of emotional disturbances,
as they occur in mental and behavioral disorders, are found across many different cultures (Murthy et
al., 2001). Yet, insight in the differences in culturally functional emotional lives will facilitate and
enhance the assessment of dysfunctional or disturbed emotions in ways described in this article.

2. Conceptualization of cultural differences in emotions

Emotions are biological as well as socio-cultural in nature. Much cross-cultural research on emotions
has focused on the universal, biological aspects of emotions (Kitayama and Markus, 1994 and
Mesquita and Frijda, 1992). The socio-cultural aspects of emotions have been largely ignored, at least
in psychology. More recently, several steps have been made towards conceptualization of emotions that
allows the finding of cross-cultural differences in the phenomena.

First, many current emotion theories (e.g. Ellsworth, 1994; Frijda, 1986; Lang, 1988 and Scherer,
1984) conceive of emotions as configurations of outcomes of multiple aspects, such as appraisal, action
readiness, autonomic nervous system activity, and behavioral goal setting. These different aspects of
emotions do not automatically follow from each other. Each has its own determinants in addition to the
eliciting event. Thus, the `emergent' emotion ( Feldman Barrett, 1998 and Feldman Barrett, 2001) is
constituted by the independent outcomes of the emotion components and may vary from one
occurrence to the next. This view is in stark contrast with the idea that emotions are basic, invariant
states of the body that can be turned on and off ( Mesquita, 2001).

Furthermore, building on these multi-aspect theories of emotions, Mesquita et al. have distinguished
between emotional practices––the actual emotions that people experience and express––and the
potential for emotions––the emotional responses that people are capable of having in principle
(Mesquita and Ellsworth, 2001 and Mesquita, Frijda and Scherer, 1997). As emotions unfold, people
select and activate outputs from the emotional potential. The combined outputs form the emotional
practice, or experience ( Mesquita, in press). Whereas many cross-cultural studies traditionally focused
on the potential for emotions (e.g. the potential to recognize facial expressions in similar way Ekman,
Friesen, O'Sullivan, Chan, Diacoyanni-Tarlatzis, Heider, Krause, LeCompte, Pitcairn, Ricci-Bitti,
Scherer, Tomita and Tzavaras, 1987 and Izard, 1994), cultural differences in emotions are primarily to
be expected at the level of emotional practices. In fact, work on emotional practices in other
disciplines, such as anthropology, does reveal cultural differences in the prevalence, patterns, and
specific contexts of emotional outputs in a given culture ( Abu-Lughod, 1986; Briggs, 1970; Levy,
1973 and Lutz, 1988).

Research on culture and emotion has also been furthered by adopting systematic approaches to culture
that have allowed for the understanding and prediction of cultural differences in emotions in a coherent
and effective way (e.g. Kitayama, Matsumoto, Markus and Norasakkunkit, 1997 and Mesquita, in
press). These systematic approaches start from the cultural models of what is good, particularly in the
domains of self and relationships. Cultural models involve beliefs as well as social practices that
underwrite and afford what is moral, imperative, and desirable (e.g., Bruner, 1986 and Hofstede, 2001)
For example, a prevalent middle class American cultural model emphasizes personal success due to
one's own contributions, whereas a prevalent middle class Japanese cultural model underlines the fit
with one's social environment. These cultural models are hypothesized to be important constituents of
the emotion practice.

Emotional practices differ across cultures when there are cultural differences in the likelihood that
certain outputs are selected (Mesquita, in press). For example, Americans tend to appraise positive as
well as negative events in terms of personal agency ( Mesquita & Ellsworth, 2001). Consistent with the
American cultural model that underlines the importance of one's own contributions to positive
outcomes, Americans have been found to claim agency for positive outcomes whereas agency was
much less prevalent in cultures that stress fate and multi-determination (see Section 3.8) ( Mesquita,
Karasawa, Haire, & Izumi, in preparation). Thus, the cultural likelihood of particular emotional
outputs––agency appraisals in this case––depends on the centrality of the emotional output to the
pertinent cultural models. Outputs are less likely to occur when they are at odds with the cultural
model, whereas outputs consistent with the cultural model are more likely to be activated.

The introduction of cultural models as a context for understanding and predicting emotional
phenomena does not build on the assumption that cultures are homogenous groups of people. As
individuals in a culture will engage the model in different ways, their individual experiences will differ
as well (Markus, Mullally, & Kitayama, 1997). What is critical, though, is that the world––the ways in
which things are done in the culture––still powerfully reflects the dominant cultural models. Those
models set the reality boundaries within which emotions are defined, formed, and promoted ( Bruner,
1986). Therefore, contextualizing emotions in these specific cultural models builds on the recognition
that emotional experiences and behaviors are better understood and predicted at every level if we have
knowledge of the cultural models in which they occur.

3. Differences in emotion practices

This section will address cultural differences in four aspects of emotions: antecedent events, subjective
feeling, appraisal, and expression/behavior. Differences in the emotion practices within each of those
components will be described as they seem to relate to the pertinent cultural models. The relevance of
cultural differences in emotion practices for cross-cultural assessment of emotional disturbances will be
discussed as well.

3.1. Differences in antecedent events

There are cultural differences in prevalent antecedent events. The differences in prevalent antecedent
events may underlie some of the differences in emotions. A particular type of emotion may be
prevalent due to a high rate of conditions that are conducive for those emotions, and similarly, other
types of emotions may be rare because of the rare occurrence of their elicitors.

3.1.1. Differences in the social production of antecedent events

Living conditions vary because different cultural models promote and afford different kinds of events
(Cohen, 2001). Cultures tend to promote and create events that elicit culturally desirable emotions,
whereas they fail to promote or even suppress events that lead to less desirable emotions. For example,
Americans promote happiness–– a highly desirable emotion in the American cultural context––by
creating and promoting many contexts in which happiness is likely to occur ( Mesquita & Markus, in
press). They praise, compliment and encourage each other, give awards and trophies for many varieties
and levels of accomplishment, avoid being critical or inattentive, and generally foster a positive and
optimistic view of themselves ( D'Andrade, 1987). In a similar vein, cultures that devalue anger, such
as the Utku Inuits, the Chewong of aboriginal Malaysia, the Tahitians, and the Japanese tend to reduce
the in-group contexts in which anger is likely to emerge ( Briggs, 1970; Heelas, 1984; Levy, 1973 and
Mesquita, Karasawa, Haire and Izumi, in preparation). In those cultures, the acts of thwarting and
frustrating in-group members are largely absent, thus avoiding the experience of `improper' emotions.

Event ecologies also vary across cultures as an effect of cultural differences in personal goals as
afforded by the culture. Individualist cultures, such as the US, put emphasis on standing out and
becoming distinguished from others through self-sufficiency and personal accomplishment. Collectivist
cultures such as Japan underline meeting social obligations and responsibilities in order to maintain
interpersonal relationships and group harmony (Elliott, Chirkov, Kim and Sheldon, 2001; Heine,
Lehman, Markus and Kitayama, 1999; Karasawa, 2001; Kitayama, Matsumoto, Markus and
Norasakkunkit, 1997 and Markus, Kitayama and Heiman, 1996). The events that are promoted and
created by a culture vary according to its prevalent cultural goals. Events that positively reflect on the
self are found to be more frequent in a US context, whereas events that keep the individual modest or
self-critical are found to be more frequent in a Japanese cultural context. For example, in one study
both American and Japanese respondents recognized situations that were generated by Americans as
more self-enhancing––i.e. inducing positive changes in self-esteem––and situations that were generated
by Japanese as more conducive to self-criticism––i.e. inducing negative changes in self-esteem
( Kitayama et al., 1997). Thus the types of situations that were most prevalent, as perceived by
respondents in both cultures, were different across cultures. This different ecology of events possibly
leads to different practices of emotions.

3.1.2. Differences in the significance of events

The ecology of antecedent events may also be culture-specific because certain events derive their
meaning from the specific cultural models, for example, those in which spiritual or religious beliefs are
central. Spiritual beliefs constitute the antecedents of emotion in the case of Surinamese who attribute
their misfortune and failure to black magic (Wooding, 1979), in the case of many African cultures who
attribute bad outcomes to evil spirits and discontented ancestors ( Anderson and Kanyana, 1996 and
Offiong, 1991), and in the case of Tahitians who interpret being alone as an opportunity for spirits to
bother a person, and thus as a situation of fear or uncanny feelings (described in Levy, 1973). Thus,
cultural models promote particular interpretations of events which in turn affect the emotion elicitation.

This point has also been made in the literature on honor cultures. Many events in these cultures derive
meaning from their relevance to honor, and are thus likely to induce emotions. Cultures of honor define
honor as respect of the sort that situates the individual socially and determines his (or her) right to
precedence. Honor in this sense is based on a person's (often a man's) strength and power to enforce his
will on others (Abu-Lughod, 1986; Cohen, 1996; Cohen and Nisbett, 1994; Cohen and Nisbett, 1997;
Cohen, Nisbett, Bowdle and Schwarz, 1996 and Peristiany, 1966). In cultures of honor, the perception
of honor violations or potential honor violations is abundant, inevitably eliciting emotions in the
categories of either shame or anger.

Similarly, values as endorsed at the cultural level predict the significance of certain events. Hofstede
(2001, p. 161) found, for example, that cultures differed in the value of uncertainty avoidance, "the
extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations".
Consequently, children in cultures that are high on uncertainty avoidance (e.g. Greece, Portugal, Japan)
tend to be more guided by a set of rules of what is right and wrong, or more specifically clean and
dirty, than children in cultures low on uncertainty avoidance (e.g. Hong Kong, Sweden, Jamaica).
Children in the high uncertainty avoidance cultures, therefore, conceive of more actions as (potential)
norm transgressions, and thus more readily feel anxious, guilty and sinful.

Importantly, an understanding of the relevance of emotion-eliciting events in terms of the cultural

models renders the emotion practices more transparent (Mesquita et al., 1997). It is the meaning of the
events as derived from the cultural models that makes the subsequent feelings and emotional acts
comprehensible. For example, the prevalence of anger and angry responses among the Surinamese in
response to misfortune ( Mesquita, 1993) becomes comprehensible when considering that many
Surinamese understand their misfortune as incurred by Black Magic ( Wooding, 1979). Also it is
important to understand that insults are conceived of as honor violations in the South of the US,
because this interpretation explains why, in response to insults, Southerners show more anger and
aggressive responses than Northerners, but also why they are likely to bear less resentment than
Northerners after they have expressed their anger (the bill is evened; strength is being exhibited)
( Cohen, 1999). In order to understand the practice of emotional responses, it is thus important to
consider the cultural models that lend meaning to the antecedent event.

3.1.3. Differences in focus

Cultural models may also affect which aspects of antecedent events are the focus of attention. There
are, for example, cultural differences in the relative focus on either negative or positive outcomes that
can be understood from different cultural models. Individualist cultural models emphasize the approach
of positive outcomes, whereas collectivist models focus on the avoidance of bad outcomes (e.g Elliott,
Chirkov, Kim and Sheldon, 2001 and Lee, Aaker and Gardner, 2000). These differences in emphasis
can be understood from different self goals. Individualist cultural models emphasize strengthening
good qualities and thus becoming autonomous and unique. Collectivist models, on the other hand,
emphasize the importance of living up to obligations and responsibilities, and the main focus is thus on
the prevention of bad outcomes (i.e. not living up to the standards).

These cultural differences in the salient aspects of events have implications for emotional practices.
Within a North American context, Higgins, Shah, and Friedman (1997) found evidence that a
prevention focus fosters relaxation or relief when the goals are achieved, and anxiety when the goals
are not reached. On the other hand, these authors found that a promotion focus affords feelings of
happiness when the goals are achieved, and feelings of sadness, when the goals are not met. In a cross-
cultural vignette study on success and failure, Lee et al. (2000) found that the individualist American
group, consistent with what should be hypothesized on the basis of their cultural focus on promotion,
reported a higher intensity of happiness/depressed emotions than relief/anxiety emotions. Conversely, a
collectivist Chinese group, consistent with their focus on prevention, reported a higher intensity of
relief/anxiety than happiness/depressed emotions. The different emphases on promotion/approach or
prevention/avoidance give rise to differences in the salience of certain events, and thus to differences in
the prevalent types of emotions.

3.1.4. Implications for cross-cultural assessment

Different cultural models may thus contribute to the ecology of antecedent events as it appears to
individuals in that culture. Events that afford the cultural models are promoted and created (e.g. awards
in the US), whereas events that interfere with them are suppressed and transformed (e.g. thwarting in
many cultures that focus on harmony). Cultural models also lend meaning to a large array of events by
relating them to central themes in the cultural models (for example, honor). Finally, cultural models
draw attention to particular aspects of events (for example, the potential negative outcomes). The
resulting differences in the ecology of events are likely to lead to differences in emotion practices.

Through their effect on the occurrence of antecedent events, cultural models may render certain
emotions prevalent and others rare. Cultural models that stress the importance of social rules produce
many situations in which social expectations play a role, foster the interpretation of many acts and
events as relevant to meeting or not meeting social rules, and focus attention on the possibility of
falling short of expectations (a focus on the negative outcomes). All these culture-specific practices of
emotion antecedents contribute to anxiety. There is some suggestion that cultural models stressing the
importance of social rules facilitate excessive anxiety (Hofstede, 2001). Cultural models, through the
way they shape the ecology of emotion antecedents, may thus be predictive of certain emotional
disturbances.

One may also formulate a hypothesis to the opposite, which would hold that cultural models that
emphasize social rules and obligations sanction high levels of anxiety. Thus, in cultures where the
models afford and value high modal levels of emotion, the threshold for judging anxiety levels as
disturbed, is higher. In fact, a higher level of anxiety may be functional by particular models, because it
keeps people in place, and makes them less likely to break rules or take personal risks (cf. Hofstede,
2001). Living in fear may be a value in cultural contexts that emphasize the need to fulfill social roles
and to meet social expectations (e.g Lutz, 1987). Recognition of emotional disturbance may, then, be
relative to the modal or desirable levels of emotions as specified by the cultural model, rather than
being an absolute concept.

3.2. Differences in experience: valence

An important dimension of subjective experience is that of valence: pleasure and displeasure (Feldman
Barrett and Russell, 1999 and Feldman Barrett and Russell, 1998). All languages appear to have words
to distinguish between pleasure and displeasure ( Wierzbicka, 1992), and valence is an organizing
dimension of many emotion lexicons ( Russell, 1983). However, cultures appear to differ with regard
to the preferred state on that dimension in ways that can be understood from the cultural models.

Independent cultural models, the American in particular, appear to foster a positive outlook on life;
being happy is one of the goals (Kitayama and Markus, 1999 and Markus and Kitayama, 1991). An
individual is accountable for his/ her happiness ( Hochschild, 1995) and is expected to pro-actively
maintain a positive view of the self ( Heine et al., 1999). In contrast, East Asian cultural models do not
seem to favor the positive. If anything, a self-critical, self-corrective approach is promoted as a way to
keep the individual aligned with the group ( Karasawa, 2001 and Lewis, 1995). Generally, however,
the East Asian cultural model emphasizes receptivity, which means to be receptive to both positive and
negative features of the context.

Consistent with these cultural models, several studies have suggested that Americans tend to appraise
emotional situations as more pleasant than East Asians. In a large experience-sampling study, we
sampled the emotions of American, Japanese and Taiwanese students for the duration of a week
(Mesquita and Karasawa, 2002 and Mesquita, Karasawa and Chu, in preparation) it was found that, on
average, American students appraised the emotional situations in their lives as positively different from
neutral, whereas Japanese and Taiwanese students evaluated their lives on average as neither positive
nor negative.
Other studies with different methodologies have established convergent results. Kitayama, Markus and
Kurokawa (2000) asked Japanese and American respondents to rate how often they experienced each
of a list of emotions. Americans reported a much higher frequency of positive than negative emotions,
whereas the frequencies of positive and negative emotions did not differ in the Japanese group. Thus,
consistent with the cultural models, Americans experienced more pleasure, whereas Japanese had
emotions that were balanced with respect to valence.

Furthermore, in the same study (Kitayama et al., 2000), pleasant and unpleasant experiences were
negatively correlated in the US sample. In contrast, they were positively correlated in the Japanese
group. One interpretation of this finding is that the negative correlation in the American group reflects
the American objective to maximize positive and minimize negative feelings. The positive correlation
in the Japanese group can be interpreted to reflect that the de-emphasizing of positive feelings in this
group coincided with de-emphasizing negative feelings ( Kitayama et al., 2000). The latter finding may
indicate that balance, rather than pleasantness, is sought after in the Japanese group, and that some
people––those who are able to regulate both positive and negative emotions––are better at it than others
( Kitayama & Markus, 1999).

There is other evidence indicating that pleasure is a more important source of motivation in
individualist than collectivist cultures. Suh, Diener, Oishi, and Triandis (1998) found that `Emotion'
(i.e. the positive affect minus the negative affect experienced in the last week) was the best predictor of
life satisfaction in countries with individualist cultural models. Emotion predicted significantly less
variance in life satisfaction for countries with collectivist cultural models. In these countries, the
normative amount of life satisfaction (i.e. `How satisfied would an ideal person be?') accounted as
much for life satisfaction as the emotions an individual experienced in the past week. In other words,
individualist cultural models set the criterion for `a good life' as the frequency of pleasure minus the
frequency of displeasure. Pleasure and displeasure seem to be less central to the quality of life in other,
more collectivist cultural contexts.

This finding was corroborated by recent experimental research comparing the task motivation between
North American and Japanese respondents (Heine, Kitayama, Lehman, Takata, Ide, Leung and
Matsumoto, 2001 and Oishi and Diener, 2001). In these experiments, respondents received either
failure or success feedback on a particular task (e.g., a word association test). After this false feedback,
all respondents were given the opportunity to spend more time on task for which they had received an
evaluation. Though Japanese and North American respondents both liked the success feedback better
than the failure feedback, Japanese were more motivated to work on a task after failure feedback,
whereas North Americans were more motivated for a task after success feedback. Thus, the general
conclusion from this research is that there are cultural differences in the extent to which pleasure is
desirable and sought after. In fact, when cultural models foster individuals to keep up with social
responsibilities and standards, individuals seem to choose these responsibilities over pleasure, and this
process may not be conscious at all.

3.2.1. Implications for cross-cultural assessment

It is clear that excesses and deficits in pleasure and displeasure have to be assessed in the context of the
desirable or modal levels of pleasure and displeasure. If the pursuit of pleasure is not unequivocally
positive in all cultures, then the lack of pleasure may not be equally problematic in all cultures.
Pleasure, for example, was shown to have limited value in predicting life satisfaction and motivation in
cultures with collectivist models. In that context, the concept of `anhedonia' may be problematic. Lack
of pleasure may not automatically imply lack of drive in cultures where activities are instigated by role
and obligation, rather than self-guided to begin with. That is, when pleasure is not the main motivating
force for activity, the lack of pleasure may not have the same degree of maladaptive effects. We know
of no literature addressing this issue cross-culturally.

Dissociations between pleasure and negative affect should also be assessed within the context of
cultural models. It appears from the scarce cross-cultural evidence so far that the modal or desirable
associations between pleasure and displeasure differ across cultures. For example, a positive
correlation between positive and negative emotions was found in Japan, whereas a negative correlation
was found in the US (Kitayama et al., 2000). Associations or disassociations between pleasure and
displeasure may be only problematic to the extent that they are deviant from the cultural models.
3.3. Differences in appraisal
A major aspect of current emotion theories is the notion that emotional experience is constituted by the
individual's appraisal of the eliciting events (Scherer, Schorr, & Johnston, 2001). Cultural differences
in the prevalence of certain appraisals can be understood from cultural models ( Mesquita & Ellsworth,
2001). Cultural models can be thought to facilitate and render desirable certain appraisals of events,
while making the occurrence of others less likely and less valued. Cultural models thus foster culture-
specific appraisal tendencies that are reflected in culturally distinct patterns of emotional experience.
There is ample evidence to support this point. The current discussion will focus on differences in
agency appraisals.

Agency is an attribution of responsibility for and control over the event. The attribution may be made
to the self, a particular other, fate, God, all circumstances together, or nobody in particular. Most of the
cross-cultural research on appraisal has investigated attribution to a specific agent: self or other (for an
exception see Oettingen, Little, Lindenberger, & Baltes, 1994).

Cultural models appear to differ with respect to the role of personal agency. A key aspect of Western
cultural models, American in particular, is success through independent, personal accomplishment
(Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Claiming responsibility and a personal sense of control are at the center
of what it is to be a person in Western culture. In many other cultures, agency is differently instantiated
(e.g. by magic spells, ancestors, spirits), or is not valued as much. An example of the latter is
constituted by East Asian cultural models that stress fate, the multi-determination of events and the
interdependence of an individual and his/her (social) environment ( Fiske, Kitayama, Markus and
Nisbett, 1998; Heine, Lehman, Markus and Kitayama, 1999 and Nisbett, Peng, Choi and Norenzayan,
2001). Personal agency has very limited applicability in these models. Consistently, the East Asian
cultural model emphasizes secondary control or adjustment to the situation, as situations are not
considered subject to personal influence ( Morling and Kitayama, 1999 and Weisz, Rothbaum and
Blackburn, 1984).

Cultural differences in agency appraisal––i.e. responsibility and control––have been established in a

number of questionnaire studies. Participants in most of these studies were asked to remember an
instance of a given emotion, describe the situation, and then rate the situation on a number of appraisal
scales that were provided by the researchers (Mesquita & Ellsworth, 2001).

In an early study, Matsumoto, Kudoh, Scherer, and Wallbott (1988) comparing Japanese and American
students found that Japanese students judged the dimension of responsibility more often to be not
applicable to emotional situations than American students, possibly because of the idea that situations
are constituted by the combination of many factors together. Mauro, Sato, and Tucker (1992), studying
emotional appraisal in students from the US, the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong and Japan,
consistently, found the dimensions of control and responsibility to be two of three dimensions for
which substantial cross-cultural differences were observed. In this study the differences in appraisal
meant that similar emotions loaded in cross culturally different ways on these dimensions. Similarly,
agency emerged as one of the three appraisal dimensions that differed across cultures in Scherer's study
among students from 37 different countries in six geopolitical regions: northern and central Europe,
Mediterranean countries, Anglo-American New World countries, Latin American, Asian, and African
countries ( Scherer, 1997a and Scherer, 1997b). The tendency to attribute agency thus appears to differ
persistently across cultures.

Finally, the results from a recent experience-sampling study, monitoring the daily emotions of 50
Japanese and 50 American students throughout a week, provided evidence that the impact of agency
appraisals to subjective experience might in fact be different cross culturally. For American students
personal responsibility and control were good predictors of pleasantness, whereas for Japanese students
agency appraisals were not the primary predictors of pleasantness (Mesquita & Karasawa, 2002).
Overall, Americans thus not only have a higher tendency to appraise emotional situations as under
control, but they also experience more positive emotions as a result than do Japanese.

3.3.1. Implications for cross-cultural assessment

There are cultural differences in the prevalent agency appraisals, with Westerners appraising emotional
events as more relevant to the dimensions of responsibility and control than, for example, East Asians.
As agency appraisals are central in some emotional experiences, such as anger, differences in the
prevalence of agency appraisals may be reflected in different patterns of emotions. As mentioned
before, anger is more prevalent in American than Japanese culture (Kitayama et al., 2000). Differences
in the tendency of personal agency attribution form another potential explanation for these differences
in anger prevalence, in addition to the explanation of different event ecologies. It is important to note
that the modal level of emotions in one culture (anger in the US for example) may seem to be
excessive, and therefore emotionally disturbed, from another culture's point of view.

There are also cultural differences in the weight attached to agency appraisals: personal control, or the
lack thereof, is a more important predictor of pleasure and displeasure in the West than it is in East
Asian groups. It is not clear, therefore, whether perceived lack of control, which in the West has been
found to contribute to excesses in sadness, fear, and worry (Berenbaum, Raghavan, Le, Vernon, &
Gomez 1999), is equally important in other cultures. In fact, there is some evidence that not feeling in
control may be the default state of mind in many cultures, where the world tends to be perceived as one
in which an individual has no control ( Peng & Nisbett, 1999). It is very possible that some of the
detrimental effects of uncontrollability are specific to those cultures whose models contain assumptions
of individuals having control, and where the uncontrollable is a violation of expectations and norms.
The more general rule may be that situations that violate cultural expectations are stressful, rather than
that the uncontrollable itself is necessarily stressful. A case could be made, therefore, that the nature of
stressors varies along with the cultural models of the right, the good, and the expected.

3.4. Differences in expression and behavior

Cultural differences in the frequencies of certain types of expressions and behaviors tend to reflect
differences in cultural models as well. Cultural models may be thought of as influencing the relative
salience of different behavioral options. Expressions and behaviors that are consistent with cultural
models tend to have a high rate of occurrence whereas responses that are contrary to cultural models
tend to be infrequent.

East Asian cultural models, for example, stress relational harmony and promote that individuals take
their proper place. These cultural models discourage individuals from occupying too much space in the
relationship, both figuratively and literally. Thus, expansive behavior, such as general somatic activity,
is a signal that the individual is taking more than his/her proper space. Consistently, in a questionnaire
study, Japanese respondents reported many fewer hand and arm gestures and whole body activity than
did Americans in situations of anger, sadness, fear, and happiness (Scherer, Matsumoto, Wallbott, &
Kudoh, 1988). Furthermore, Chinese American couples that discussed a conflict area in their
relationship displayed less general somatic activity than did European American couples ( Tsai &
Levenson, 1997).

There is some indication that the expression of happiness, another expansive behavior, is also rare in
cultures that place an emphasis on harmony in relationships. Happiness expressions are seen as
potentially disruptive because they may painfully contrast with the emotional state of others (M.
Karasawa, personal communication, August, 1999), or because they may be seen to indicate the
plausibility of an individual challenging social obligations and evading responsibilities (Lutz, 1987).

Cultural models of self and relationship thus imbue certain behaviors with valence. Aggressive and
happy expansiveness may universally emphasize individuality and self-other boundaries, but this is
consistent with some cultural models––and thus good––and inconsistent with other––and therefore bad.
The culture-specific valence of certain behaviors may affect their rate of occurrence. Again, this
suggests that the standards by which to judge surpluses and deficits in expressive behaviors will cross-
culturally differ according to the cultural models.

Evidence is accumulating that the most common types of emotional behaviors in a cultures are those
that promote the cultural models of relationships. In a large-scale interview study with European
American, Mexican, and Japanese respondents, the prevalent emotional responses to three types of
situations could be understood from the respective cultural models. Respondents, both men and
women, were selected both from community as well as college student samples (Mesquita et al., in
preparation). In the interviews, each respondent reported different emotional situations from their own
past, among which were situations of `offense' and `humiliation'. Respondents were asked to report on
their behavioral outputs, which included actual behavior as well as behavioral urges. The behavioral
outputs in each culture could be understood as instantiations of the cultural models.
The most prevalently reported behavioral outputs in the American group consisted of blame,
aggression, and distancing oneself from the relationship. Blaming another person realizes that self-
esteem maintenance by discounting the possibility that the offense or humiliation was deserved.
Aggression serves individual gain, as it is an attempt to influence the offender into conforming to the
wishes of the respondent. Distancing oneself from the relationship with the other person, and thus
discontinuing exposure to a person that is potentially humiliating and offensive, benefits the individual
at the expense of the relationship. Thus, the majority of American respondents reported behavioral
outputs that served the model of self-esteem and separateness.

The most prevalent Mexican behaviors were blame, moving away, and distancing oneself. Blame
realized the goal of maintaining dignity, which was empirically indistinguishable from realization of
the American goal of maintaining self-esteem. Moving away and distancing oneself were clearly
consistent with another emphasis of the Mexican cultural model on simpatía, which stands for friendly
and smooth behavior as well as avoidance of direct confrontation (Condon, 1985; Sanchez-Burks,
Nisbett and Ybarra, 2000 and Triandis, Marín, Lisansky and Betancourt, 1984).

The prevalent responses in both the American and the Mexican group thus focused on changing the
relationship with the other person who was held responsible for the offense or humiliation, but they did
so in partially different ways that promoted their respective cultural models: in the American context
by confronting the other person and trying to influence their behavior, in the Mexican model by
avoiding confrontation and escaping from the situation. The aggressive responses frequently reported
by the American group were infrequent in the Mexican context. This is consistent with the Mexican
cultural emphasis on avoidance of direct confrontation.

The Japanese cultural model emphasizes maintenance of relationships (Heine, Lehman, Markus and
Kitayama, 1999; Lebra, 1992 and Markus and Kitayama, 1991). The individual's focus should be on
restoring internal balance and contributing to the relationship (cf. Morling and Kitayama, 1999 and
Weisz, Rothbaum and Blackburn, 1984). The most prevalent Japanese behavior was blaming the self, a
behavior that can be seen as opposite to blaming the other, thus saving the relationship rather than the
self. Consistently, Japanese tried to justify the behavior of the other person, and tried to actively re-
mediate the situation. Japanese also sought to be closer to the person who offended or humiliated them.
Finally, in the situation of offense, the most prevalent response was to do nothing, and to de-emphasize
the importance of one's feelings. Internal balance is thus sought, rather than influence on the other
person or on the situation.

In sum, the interviews suggested that emotional behaviors in the contexts of these interpersonal
situations are instrumental in realizing the cultural models of self and relationship. However, one
problem with the interview was that the behavioral outputs yielded were in response to self-reported
antecedent events. To rule out that the different behavioral styles could be attributed to differences in
the reported events, a follow-up study was conducted that used standardized vignettes as starting points
of comparison. The study was conducted among comparable groups of European American and
Japanese college students. The study replicated the findings of the open interviews, in that, regardless
of the origin of the vignettes, American respondents reported more American behavioral outputs (e.g.
`Yelling at the other person') and Japanese more Japanese behavioral outputs (e.g. `Doing nothing').
There were no differences in the types of emotions reported (Idzelis, Mesquita, Karasawa, & Hayashi,
2002). This study, using a more standardized approach, thus confirmed the idea that cultural models
help to predict cultural differences with regard to the behavioral outputs in emotional situations.

Finally, even when the frequency of emotional behaviors does not seem to vary across cultures, the
meaning of––universal––emotional behaviors may be interdependent with the cultural models. For
example, the lack of initiative that can be found in sad people (depressed patients in particular) across
the world has different meaning in collectivist and individualist cultures (Tanaka-Matsumi & Draguns,
1997). In collectivist cultures, the social networks of individuals tend to make decisions for them
anyway, and passivity on the part of the individual does not interfere in decisive ways with their
functioning. In individualist cultures, on the other hand, personal agency is required to function well.
Depressed patients in individualist cultures are often unable to overcome the stress of personal
decisions, and the same emotional passivity is thus more likely to affect their the individual's social
status and their well-being as a person. Thus, cultural models––beliefs as well as practices––constitute
the meaning of universal behaviors in the particular social context.
3.4.1. Implications for cross-cultural assessment
The prevalence of certain expressions and behaviors appears to be affected by their meaning to the
cultural models. Culturally prevalent expressive and instrumental behaviors tend to fit the specific
cultural model, and the conspicuous absence of certain expressions and behaviors can be understood
from their conflict with the focal cultural models. Again, this suggests that the modal rates of
occurrence of certain expressive and instrumental behaviors will vary across cultures. Therefore, the
standards by which to judge surpluses and deficits in expressive and instrumental behaviors will cross-
culturally differ according to the cultural models. What seems a normal level of aggression in one
culture may be seen as either excessive or deficient in another. Assessments of emotional disorders in
expression across cultures should thus be made with extreme caution.

Expressions and behaviors ultimately serve the fit of an individual in his/her cultural environment.
Cultural models help to define what counts as `fit'. This means that the `healthy' emotional responses
may vary as a function of cultural models of self and relationship. Depending on the cultural models,
healthy (i.e. functional) expressive and instrumental behaviors may be those that promote separation
and autonomy, or alternatively, those that realize relatedness and belongingness. The cultural models
also constitute what counts as dysfunctional. The cultural (dys)functionality of expression and behavior
should thus be considered in the assessment of emotional disorders of expression and behavior.

4. Discussion
Emotional disturbances have been defined as excesses, deficits, and lacks of coherence in emotions. In
order to judge an excess or deficit in emotion, one needs to be aware of the `normal amount' of
emotion. Similarly, an observed lack of coherence among emotional components is likely to signify a
digression from the modal or normative coherence. Thus, cross-cultural assessment of emotional
disturbances requires the consideration of standard––i.e. modal and normative––emotion practices.

There is evidence that these modal and normative emotion practices vary across cultures in ways that
can be understood and predicted from cultural models of the good. Emotional outputs that are
functional to the cultural models appear to be promoted, whereas emotional phenomena that are
dysfunctional appear to be inhibited. The modal, and normative emotional phenomena are thus
consistent with the cultural models of what is good.

There is evidence for cultural differences in antecedent events, and in the interpretations of antecedent
events consistent with cultural models. For example, cultural models that emphasize social obligations
afford interpretations of events in terms of potential negative outcomes. These interpretations may be
determining of the prevalence of consequent emotions. We have suggested that the focus on social
obligations––and thus on potential negative outcomes––may increase the occurrence of anxiety.
Cultures that center on social obligations may thus have higher default levels of anxiety, and it is
important to consider those levels when assessing excesses in anxiety.

There is also evidence for cultural differences in subjective feelings. Cultural models seem to differ
with respect to the emphasis they put on pleasure, and these differences in emphasis are reflected in the
reported average levels of pleasure, the connection between reported pleasure and displeasure, and the
drive that pleasure provides. Thus, when cultural models focus on social obligations, rather than the
pursuit of pleasure, the level of reported pleasure is found to be lower, it is found to be uncorrelated
with the level of displeasure, and it is not found to be as important for the motivation of behavior.

Cultural differences in the relevance and level of agency appraisals can also be attributed to different
cultural models. Individuals more readily appraise antecedent events as relevant to agency as well as
find agency more pleasant when their cultural models place an emphasis on the personal agency of
individuals.

Finally, there is evidence that cultural differences in expressive and instrumental behaviors are a
function of the prevailing cultural models of the good. Behaviors that realize the cultural models are
most prevalent, whereas behaviors that obstruct the cultural models are rare. For example, doing
nothing in response to an offense is the functional and most prevalent behavior in Japan, because it
helps to realize the central cultural model of preserving harmony in relationships.

In sum, the modal and normative cultural practices of emotion antecedents, subjective feeling,
appraisal, and expressive and instrumental behaviors vary along with the cultural models. Thus, the
modal emotion practices appear to be the ones that are functional in light of the cultural models of what
is good, especially in the domain of self and relationships. Emotional disturbances can then be defined
as phenomena that deviate from the modal and normative cultural practices. In this line of reasoning,
cultural models help to understand and predict the modal emotional practices, by which emotional
disturbances are judged.

However, cultural models may also help to understand emotional disturbances in a more direct way.
Just as the `normal' emotional lives of people in a given culture can be understood and predicted from
cultural models of the good, so may emotional disturbances. Emotional disturbances, then, would be
those emotional outputs that interfere with the desirable cultural outcomes, and that are likely to be felt
as disturbances, if not by the individual him or herself, by his or her social environment. Thus, for
example, sadness would be particularly salient when the cultural model promotes happiness (as is the
case in the US). A cultural approach to emotions––emotional disturbances included––thus enables an
assessment of emotional functioning that is sensitive to the perspective of an individual's own culture.

Acknowledgements
We are thankful to Will Fleeson and Ashleigh Haire for their thoughtful comments on earlier versions
of this paper.

References
Abu-Lughod, L., 1986. Veiled sentiments. , University of California Press, Berkeley.

Anderson, M.N. and Kanyana, M., 1996. Derriere les "gris-gris", un univers africain...divin (Behind the
charm, an African universe of gods). Regards Africains 38, pp. 20–22.

Berenbaum, H., Raghavan, C., Le, H.-N., Vernon, L. and Gomez, J., 1999. Disturbances in emotion.
In: Kahneman, D., Diener, E. and Schwartz, N., Editors, 1999. Well-being: The foundations of hedonic
psychology, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, pp. 267–287. Abstract-PsycINFO

Briggs, J.L., 1970. Never in anger: Portrait of an Eskimo family. , Harved University Press,
Cambridge, MA.

Bruner, J., 1986. Actual minds, possible worlds. , Plenum Press, New York.

Cohen, D., 1996. Law, social policy, and violence: the impact of regional cultures. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 70 5, pp. 961–978. Abstract

Cohen, D., 1999. "When you call me that, smile!" How norms for politeness, interaction styles, and
aggression work together in Southern culture. Social Psychology Quarterly 62 3, pp. 257–275.
Abstract-PsycINFO

Cohen, D., 2001. Cultural variation: considerations and implications. Psychological Bulletin 127 4, pp.
451–471. Abstract

Cohen, D. and Nisbett, R.E., 1994. Self-protection and the culture of honor: explaining southern
violence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20 5, pp. 551–567. Abstract-PsycINFO

Cohen, D. and Nisbett, R.E., 1997. Field experiments examining the culture of honor: the role of
institutions in perpetuating norms about violence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23 11,
pp. 1188–1199. Abstract-PsycINFO

Cohen, D., Nisbett, R.E., Bowdle, B.F. and Schwarz, N., 1996. Insult, aggression, and the southern
culture of honor: an experimental ethnography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70 5, pp.
945–960. Abstract

Condon, J.C., 1985. Good neighbors: Communicating with the Mexicans. , Intercultural Press Inc.,
Yarmouth, ME.
D'Andrade, R.G., 1987. A folk model of the mind. In: Holland, D. and Quinn, N, Editors, 1987.
Cultural models in language and thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, London, pp. 112–
149.

Ekman, P., Friesen, W.V., O'Sullivan, M., Chan, A., Diacoyanni-Tarlatzis, I., Heider, K., Krause, R.,
LeCompte, W.A., Pitcairn, T., Ricci-Bitti, P.E., Scherer, K.R., Tomita, M. and Tzavaras, A., 1987.
Universals and cultural differences in the judgements of facial expressions of emotion. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 53 4, pp. 712–717. Abstract-MEDLINE | Abstract-PsycINFO

Elliott, A., Chirkov, V., Kim, Y. and Sheldon, K., 2001. A cross-cultural analysis of avoidance (relative
to approach) personal goals. Psychological Science 12, pp. 505–510.

Ellsworth, P.C., 1994. Sense,culture, and sensibility. In: Kitayama, S. and Markus, H.R., Editors, 1994.
Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence, American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC.

Feldman Barrett, L., 1998. The future of emotion research. Affect Scientist 12, pp. 6–8.

Feldman Barrett, L., 2001. The act of feeling: A theory of emotional experience. , Boston College,
Boston.

Feldman Barrett, L. and Russell, J.A., 1998. Independence and bipolarity in the structure of current
affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74, pp. 967–984. Abstract-PsycINFO

Feldman Barrett, L. and Russell, J.A., 1999. The structure of current affect: controversies and emerging
consensus. Current Directions in Psychological Science 8 1, pp. 10–14. Full Text via CrossRef

Fiske, A.P., Kitayama, S., Markus, H.R. and Nisbett, R.E., 1998. The cultural matrix of social
psychology. In: Gilbert, D.T. and Fiske, S.T., Editors, 1998. The handbook of social psychology Vol.
2, McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 915–981. Abstract-PsycINFO

Frijda, N.H., 1986. The emotions. , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Heelas, P., 1984. Emotions across cultures: objectivity and cultural divergence. In: Brown, S.C., Editor,
, 1984. Objectivity and cultural divergence, University Press, Cambridge, pp. 21–42.

Heine, S.J., Kitayama, S., Lehman, D.R., Takata, T., Ide, E., Leung, K. and Matsumoto, D., 2001.
Divergent consequences of success and failure in Japan and North America: an investigation of self-
improving motivations and malleable selves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81 4, pp.
599–615. Abstract | Full Text via CrossRef

Heine, S.J., Lehman, D.R., Markus, H.R. and Kitayama, S., 1999. Is there a universal need for positive
self-regard. Psychological Review 106 4, pp. 766–794. Abstract

Higgins, E., Shah, J. and Friedman, R.J., 1997. Emotional responses to goal attainment: strength of
regulatory focus as a moderator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72, pp. 515–525.
Abstract

Hochschild, J.L., 1995. What is the American dream. In: Hochschild, J.L., Editor, , 1995. Facing up to
the American dream: Race, class and the soul of the nation, Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp.
15–38.

Hofstede, G., 2001. Culture's consequences. Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and
organizations across nations. , Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Idzelis, M., Mesquita, B., Karasawa, M. and Hayashi, A., 2002. Cultural differences in emotional
coping: American and Japanese responses to offense. In: Paper presented at the third annual meeting of
the society for personality and social psychology, Savannah, Ga.
Izard, C.E., 1994. Innate and universal facial expressions: evidence from developmental and cross-
cultural research. Psychological Bulletin 115, pp. 288–299. Abstract

Jenkins, J.H., 1994. Culture, emotion, and psychopathology. In: Kitayama, S. and Markus, H.R.,
Editors, 1994. Emotion and culture, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

Jenkins, J.H., 1996. Culture, emotion, and PTSD. In: Marsella, A.J., Friedman, M.J., Gerrity, E.T. and
Scurfield, R.M., Editors, 1996. Ethnocultural aspects of posttraumatic stress disorder, American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 165–182. Abstract-PsycINFO

Karasawa, M., 2001. Nihonnjinnni okeru jitano ninnshiki: Jikohihan baiasuto tasyakouyou baiasu (A
Japanese mode of self-making: self criticism and other enhancement). Japanese Journal of Psychology
72 4, pp. 198–209.

Kitayama, S. and Markus, H.R., 1994. Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence. ,
American Pscyhological Association, Washington, DC.

Kitayama, S. and Markus, H.R., 1999. Yin and yang of the Japanese self: the cultural psychology of
personality coherence. In: Cervone, D. and Shoda, Y., Editors, 1999. The coherence of personality,
social cognitive basis of personality consistency, variability and organization, Guilford Press, New
York, pp. 242–302. Abstract-PsycINFO

Kitayama, S., Markus, H.R. and Kurokawa, M., 2000. Culture, emotion, and well-being: good feelings
in Japan and the United States. Cognition and Emotion 14 1, pp. 93–124. Abstract-Elsevier BIOBASE |
Abstract-EMBASE | Abstract-PsycINFO | Full Text via CrossRef

Kitayama, S., Matsumoto, D., Markus, H.R. and Norasakkunkit, V., 1997. Individual and collective
processes in the construction of the self: self-enhancement in the US and self-criticism in Japan.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72 6, pp. 1245–1267. Abstract

Kring, A.M., 2001. Emotion and psychopathology. In: Mayne, T.J. and Bonanno, G.A., Editors, 2001.
Emotions, Guilford Press, New York, pp. 337–360. Abstract-PsycINFO

Lang, A., 1988. What are the data of emotion?. In: Hamilton, V., Bower, G.H. and Frijda, N.H.,
Editors, 1988. (D ed.),Cognitive perspectives on emotion and motivation Vol. 44, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 173–191.

Lebra, T.S., 1992. Self in Japanese culture. In: Rosenberger, N.E., Editor, , 1992. Japanese sense of
self, Oxford University Press, New York.

Lee, A.Y., Aaker, J.L. and Gardner, W.L., 2000. The pleasures and pains of distinct self-construals: the
role of interdependence in regulatory focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78 6, pp.
1122–1134. Abstract

Levy, R.I., 1973. Tahitians: Mind and experience in the Society Islands. , University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.

Lewis, C.C., 1995. Educating hearts and minds. , Cambridge Press, New York.

Lutz, C., 1987. Goals, events, and understanding in Ifaluk emotion theory. In: Quinn, N. and Holland,
D., Editors, 1987. Cultural models in language and thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lutz, C., 1988. Ethnographic perspectives on the emotion lexicon. In: Hamilton, V.e.a., Editor, , 1988.
Cognitive perspectives on emotion and motivation, Kluwer Academic publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 399–
419. Abstract-PsycINFO

Markus, H.R. and Kitayama, S., 1991. Culture and self: implications for cognition, emotion, and
motivation. Psychological Review 98 2, pp. 224–253. Abstract
Markus, H.R., Kitayama, S. and Heiman, R., 1996. Culture and "basic" psychological principles. In:
Higgins, E. and Kruglanski, A.W., Editors, 1996. Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles,
Guilford Press, New York, pp. 857–913. Abstract-PsycINFO

Markus, H.R., Mullally, P.R. and Kitayama, S., 1997. Selfways: Diversity in modes of cultural
participation. In: Neisser, U. and Jopling, D.A., Editors, 1997. The conceptual self in context: Culture,
experience, self-understanding, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 13–61. Abstract-
PsycINFO

Matsumoto, D., Kudoh, T., Scherer, K.R. and Wallbott, H., 1988. Antecedents of and reactions to
emotions in the United States and Japan. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 19 3, pp. 267–286.
Abstract-PsycINFO

Mauro, R., Sato, K. and Tucker, J., 1992. The role of appraisal in human emotions: A cross-cultural
study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62 2, pp. 301–317. Abstract

Mesquita, B., 2001. Culture and emotion. Different approaches to the question. In: Mayne, T.J. and
Bonanno, G.A., Editors, 2001. Emotions. Current issues and future directions, Guilford Press, New
York, pp. 214–250. Abstract-PsycINFO

Mesquita, B. Emotions as dynamic cultural phenomena. In R. Davidson, H. Goldsmith, & P. Rozin

(Eds.), The handbook of the affective sciences. New York: Oxford University Press, in press.

Mesquita, B. and Ellsworth, P.C., 2001. The role of culture in appraisal. In: Scherer, K.R. and Schorr,
A., Editors, 2001. Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research, Oxford University Press,
New York, pp. 233–248. Abstract-PsycINFO

Mesquita, B. and Frijda, N.H., 1992. Cultural variations in emotions: a review. Psychological Bulletin
112 2, pp. 179–204. Abstract

Mesquita, B., Frijda, N.H. and Scherer, K.R., 1997. Culture and emotion. In: Dasen, P. and Saraswathi,
T.S., Editors, 1997. Handbook of cross-cultural psychology Vol. 2, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, pp. 255–
297. Abstract-PsycINFO

Mesquita, B. and Karasawa, M., 2002. Different emotional lives. Cognition and Emotion 16 1, pp.
127–141. Abstract-Elsevier BIOBASE | Abstract-EMBASE | Abstract-PsycINFO | Full Text via
CrossRef

Mesquita, B., Karasawa, M., & Chu, R. L. Predictors of pleasantness in three cultures: A comparison
between the United States, Japan, and Taiwan. Winston-Salem: Wake Forest University, in preparation.

Mesquita, B., Karasawa, M., Haire, A., Izumi, S. The emotion process as a function of cultural models:
A comparison between American, Mexican, and Japanese cultures, in preparation.

Mesquita, B., & Markus, H. R., Culture and emotion: models of agency as sources of cultural variation
in emotion. In: N. H. Frijda, A. S. R. Manstead, & A. H. Fischer (Eds.), Feelings and emotions: The
Amsterdam symposium, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, in press.

Mesquita, B. G. d. (1993). Cultural variations in emotions. A comparative study of Dutch,

Surainamese, and Turkish people in the Netherlands. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of
Amsterdam, Amsterdam.

Morling, B. and Kitayama, S., 1999. Cultural differences in influencing the environment and adjusting
to the environment: are there independent and collective styles of control. In: Paper presented at the
third conference of the Asian association of social pyschology, Taipei, Taiwan.

Murthy, R.S., Bertolote, J.M., Epping-Jordan, J., Funk, M., Prentice, T., Saraceno, B. and Saxena, S.,
2001. The World Health Report 2001: Mental health: new understanding, new hope. , World Health
Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Nisbett, R.E., Peng, K., Choi, I. and Norenzayan, A., 2001. Culture and systems of thought: holistic vs
analytic cognition. Psychological Review 108 2, pp. 291–310. Abstract

Oettingen, G., Little, T.D., Lindenberger, U. and Baltes, P.B., 1994. Causality, agency, control beliefs
in East versus West Berlin children: a natural experiment on the role of context. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 66 3, pp. 579–595. Abstract

Offiong, D.A., 1991. Witchcraft. , Fourth Dimension Publishers, Enugu, Nigeria.

Oishi, S., & Diener, E. (2001). Culture and well-being: the cycle of action, evaluation, and decision.
University of Minnesota, submitted for publication.

Peng, K. and Nisbett, R.E., 1999. Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American
Psychologist 54 9, pp. 741–754. Abstract

Peristiany, J.G., 1966. Honour and shame in a Cypriot highland. In: Peristiany, J.G., Editor, , 1966.
Honour and shame: The values of mediterranean society, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp.
171–190.

Russell, J.A., 1983. Pancultural aspects of the human conceptual organization of emotions. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 45 6, pp. 1281–1288. Abstract-PsycINFO

Sanchez-Burks, J., Nisbett, R.E. and Ybarra, O., 2000. Cultural styles, relational schemas, and
prejudice against out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79 2, pp. 174–189. Abstract

Scherer, K.R., 1984. Emotion as a multicomponent process: a model and some cross-cultural data. In:
Shaver, P.R., Editor, , 1984. Review of personality and social psychology Vol. 5, Sage, Beverly Hills,
CA, pp. 37–63. Abstract-PsycINFO

Scherer, K.R., 1997. Profiles of emotion-antecedent appraisal: testing theoretical predictions across
cultures. Cognition and Emotion 11, pp. 113–150. Abstract-PsycINFO | Full Text via CrossRef

Scherer, K.R., 1997. The role of culture in emotion-antecedent appraisal. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 73, pp. 902–922. Abstract

Scherer, K.R., Matsumoto, D., Wallbott, H.G. and Kudoh, T., 1988. Emotional experience in cultural
context: a comparison between Europe, Japan, and the US. In: Scherer, K.R., Editor, , 1988. Facets of
emotions, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 5–30. Abstract-PsycINFO

Scherer, K.R., Schorr, A. and Johnston, T., 2001. Appraisal processes in emotion. Theory, methods,
research. , Oxford University Press, New York.

Suh, E., Diener, E., Oishi, S. and Triandis, H.C., 1998. The shifting basis of life satisfaction judgments
across cultures: emotion versus norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74, pp. 482–493.
Abstract

Tanaka-Matsumi, J. and Draguns, J.G., 1997. Culture and psychopathology. In: Berry, J.W., Segall,
M.H. and Kagitçibasi, C., Editors, 1997. Handbook of cross-cultural psychologySocial behavior and
applications Vol 3, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, pp. 449–491.

Triandis, H.C., Marín, G., Lisansky, J. and Betancourt, H., 1984. Simpatia as a cultural script of
Hispanics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47, pp. 1363–1375. Abstract-PsycINFO

Tsai, J.L. and Levenson, R.W., 1997. Cultural influences on emotional responding: Chinese American
and European American dating couples during the interpersonal conflict. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology 28, pp. 600–625. Abstract-PsycINFO

Weisz, J.R., Rothbaum, F.M. and Blackburn, T.C., 1984. Standing out and standing in: the psychology
of control in America and Japan. American Psychologist 39 9, pp. 955–969. Abstract-PsycINFO
Wierzbicka, A., 1992. Defining emotion concepts. Cognitive Science 16, pp. 539–581. Abstract-
INSPEC | Abstract-PsycINFO

Wooding, C.J., 1979. Winti een Afroamerikaanse godsdienst in Suriname (Winti, an Afro-American
religion in Surinam). , Krips Repro, The Netherlands.