Matsumoto Chapter 12 Pages From Manusov II Proff-14

◆ 219

♦♦ Defining Culture

Over the history of time, people have had to solve a host of distinctsocial problems in order to adapt and thus achieve reproductive success,including negotiating complex status hierarchies, forming successfulwork and social groups, attracting mates, fighting off potential rivals offood and sexual partners, giving birth and raising children, and battlingnature (Buss, 1991, 2001). Universal biological imperatives are associ-ated with a universal set of psychological problems that people need tosolve in order to survive; thus, all individuals and groups of individualsmust create ways to deal with these universal problems. The ways thateach group develops then become their culture.

In my view, culture is the product of the interaction between univer-sal biological needs and functions, universal social problems created to

12CULTURE ANDNONVERBAL BEHAVIOR

� David MatsumotoSan Francisco State University

Author’s Note: I thank Marija Drezgic, Devon McCabe, and Joanna Schugfor their aid in conducting the literature review; Seung Hee Yoo for her com-ments on a previous version of this chapter; and Sanae Nakagawa, AndresOlide, and Akiko Terao for their aid in the functioning of my laboratory.

12-Manusov.qxd 6/19/2006 5:57 PM Page 219

220–––◆–––Factors of Influence

address those needs, and the contexts inwhich people live. Culture is created aspeople adapt to their environments in orderto survive, and it results from the processof individuals’ attempts to adapt to theircontexts in addressing the universal socialproblems and biological needs. Althoughmany different definitions of culture exist(e.g., Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen,1992; Jahoda, 1984; Kroeber & Kluckholn,1963; Linton, 1936; Rohner, 1984;Triandis, 1972), I define culture as a sharedsystem of socially transmitted behavior thatdescribes, defines, and guides people’s waysof life, communicated from one generationto the next.

Because people must deal with the sameset of biological needs and functions anduniversal social problems, it is very possibleand in many cases very likely that the waysin which they are addressed are the same.That is, universal biological needs and socialproblems can lead to similar solutionsacross cultures, especially over time in ourevolutionary history. Thus, many aspects ofour mental processes and behaviors can beconsidered universal. For example, allhumans appear to have some degree of spe-cific fears, such as to snakes, spiders,heights, and darkness, because these types offears have led in our evolutionary history togreater probability of survival (Seligman &Hager, 1972). As well, people have a ten-dency to perceive their own ingroup as het-erogeneous, fully recognizing the individualdifferences that exist in that group, whereasthey perceive other groups as more homoge-neous, assuming less diversity within thegroup (Linville & Jones, 1980; Triandis,McCusker, & Hui, 1990). People also seemto have a natural proclivity to fears ofstrangers and outgroup members, whichmay be a universal basis for ethnocentrism,prejudice, aggression, and even war (Buss,2001; see also Dovidio & colleagues, thisvolume). Other universal processes, such asincest avoidance, facial expressions of

emotion, division of labor by sex, revengeand retaliation, mate selection and sexualjealousy, self-enhancement, and personalitycan be traced to the core aspect of a univer-sal human nature based on biological imper-atives and universal social problems ofadaptation and living.

But many mental and behavioralprocesses are also culture-specific. Differentcultures develop different ways of dealingwith the biological imperatives and univer-sal social problems based on their contexts.Language is an example of a very culture-specific behavior. Each culture has itsown language, with its own vocabulary,syntax, grammar, phonology, and pragmat-ics (Barnlund & Araki, 1985; Barnlund &Yoshioka, 1990; Chen, 1995; Gudykunst& Mody, 2001; Kim et al., 1996; Minami& McCabe, 1995; Nomura & Barnlund,1983). The need to have language may be apancultural universal problem; and having alanguage may be a universal solution to thisproblem. But the specific way in which eachculture solves this problem—that is, devel-ops its own language—is different in everyculture.

♦♦ The Role of Culturein the NonverbalCommunication Process

As with verbal communication, cultureinfluences nonverbal behaviors in profoundways. By far the largest research literatureon this topic is related to facial expressionsof emotion, which I review later in thischapter. In this section, I highlight brieflythe role of culture on other types ofnonverbal behaviors before turning to thelarger discussion of culture and emotionalexpressions.

Culture and Gestures. The study of cultureand gestures has its roots in the study by


Culture and Nonverbal Behavior–––◆–––221

David Efron (Boas & Efron, 1936; Efron,1941), who examined the gestures of Sicilianand Lithuanian Jewish immigrants in NewYork City. Efron found that there were dis-tinct gestures among traditional Jews andItalians but that the traditional gesturesdisappeared as people were more assimilatedinto the larger American culture. This workwas followed initially by that of Ekman andhis colleagues (Ekman, 1976; Friesen, Ekman,& Wallbott, 1979), who documented culturaldifferences in emblematic gestures betweenJapanese, Americans, and New Guineans.Morris and his colleagues (Morris, Collett,Marsh, & O’Shaughnessy, 1980) have alsowell documented many cultural differences ingestures. The American A-OK sign, forexample, is an obscene gesture in many cul-tures of Europe, having sexual implications.Placing both hands at the side of one’s headand pointing upward with the forefingers sig-nals one is angry in some cultures; in others,however, it means that one wants sex.

Culture and Gaze. Research on humansand nonhuman primates has shown thatgaze is associated with dominance, power,or aggression (Fehr & Exline, 1987) andaffiliation and nurturance (Argyle & Cook,1976). Fehr and Exline suggested that theaffiliative aspects of gazing begin in infancy,as infants attend to adults as their sourceof care and protection. Cultures create rulesconcerning gazing and visual attention,however, because both aggression and affil-iation are behavioral tendencies that areimportant for group stability and mainte-nance. Cross-cultural research has docu-mented differences in these rules. Arabs, forexample, have been found to gaze muchlonger and more directly at their partnersthan do Americans (Hall, 1963; Watson &Graves, 1966). Watson (1970), who classi-fied 30 countries as either a “contact” cul-ture (those that facilitated physical touch orcontact during interaction) or a “noncon-tact” culture, found that contact cultures

engaged in more gazing and had moredirect orientations when interacting withothers, less interpersonal distance, andmore touching. Within the United States,there are also differences in gaze and visualbehavior between different ethnic groups(Exline, Jones, & Maciorowski, 1977;LaFrance & Mayo, 1976).

Culture and Interpersonal Space. Hall(1966, 1973) specified four different levels ofinterpersonal space use depending on socialrelationship type: intimate, personal, social,and public. Whereas people of all culturesseem to make these distinctions, they differin the spaces they attribute to them. Arabmales, for example, tend to sit closer to eachother than American males, with moredirect, confrontational types of body orien-tations (Watson & Graves, 1966). They alsowere found to use greater eye contact and tospeak in louder voices. Arabs, at least in thepast, learned to interact with others at dis-tances close enough to feel the other person’sbreath (Hall, 1963). Furthermore, LatinAmericans tend to interact more closely thando students of European backgrounds(Forston & Larson, 1968), and Indonesianstend to sit closer than Australians(Noesjirwan, 1977, 1978). Italians interactmore closely than either Germans orAmericans (Shuter, 1977), and Colombianswere found to interact at closer distancesthan did Costa Ricans (Shuter, 1976).

Culture and Other Nonverbal Behaviors.Other studies have documented culturaldifferences in other nonverbal behaviorsas well, such as in the semantic meaningsattributed to body postures (Kudoh &Matsumoto, 1985; Matsumoto & Kudoh,1987) and vocal characteristics and handand arm movements (Vrij & Winkel, 1991,1992). Collectively, the evidence providesmore than ample support for the contentionthat culture plays a large role in moldingour nonverbal behaviors, which comprise



an important part of the communicationprocess. The largest research literaturein the area of culture and nonverbal behav-ior, however, concerns facial expressionsof emotion. In the next section, I review themost relevant research in this area of study,illustrating the universal and culture-specificaspects of both the encoding and decodingof facial expressions of emotion.

♦♦ Culture and FacialExpressions of Emotion

THE UNIVERSALITYOF FACIAL EXPRESSIONS

Questions concerning the universality offacial expression find their roots in CharlesDarwin’s work. Darwin’s thesis, summa-rized in The Expression of Emotion in Manand Animals, suggested that emotions andtheir expressions had evolved across species,were evolutionarily adaptive, biologicallyinnate, and universal across all human andeven nonhuman primates. According toDarwin (1872/1998), humans, regardlessof race or culture, possess the ability toexpress emotions in exactly the same ways,primarily through their faces. Between thetime of Darwin’s original writing andthe 1960s, however, only seven studiesattempted to test the universality of facialexpression. These studies were flawedmethodologically in a number of ways, sothat unequivocal data speaking to the issueof the possible universality of emotionalexpression did not emerge at that time(Ekman, Friesen, & Ellsworth, 1972).

It was not until the mid-1960s whenpsychologist Sylvan Tomkins, a pioneer inmodern studies of human emotion, joinedforces independently with Paul Ekman andCarroll Izard to conduct the first of whathave become known today as the “univer-sality studies.” These researchers obtained

judgments of faces thought to expressemotions panculturally and demonstratedthat all cultures agreed on the emotionsportrayed in the expressions, providing thefirst evidence for their universality (Ekman,1972, 1973; Ekman & Friesen, 1971;Ekman, Sorenson, & Friesen, 1969; Izard,1971). Collectively, these findings demon-strated the existence of six universal expres-sions—anger, disgust, fear, happiness,sadness, and surprise—as judges fromaround the world agreed on what emotionwas portrayed in the faces.

Yet the judgment studies were not theonly evidence that came to bear on thequestion of emotion universality. Some ofthe most important findings related touniversality were from Ekman’s (1972)cross-cultural study of expressions thatoccurred spontaneously in reaction toemotion-eliciting films. In that study,American and Japanese participants vieweda neutral and highly stressful film (com-prised of four separate clips), while theirfacial behaviors were recorded throughoutthe entire experiment. Ekman coded the last3 minutes of facial behavior videotapedduring the neutral films and the entire 3minutes of the last stress film clip. The cod-ing identified facial muscle configurationsassociated with the six emotions mentionedpreviously; all corresponded to the facialexpressions portrayed in the stimuli used intheir judgment studies (Ekman, 1972;Ekman et al., 1969, 1972). Research fol-lowing Ekman’s original study describedabove and using American, Japanese,German, Canadian, and French partici-pants has continued to mount convincingevidence for the universality of facialexpressions of emotion (see Table 12.1).

Considerable evidence documenting andconverging in their support of the univer-sality of facial expressions of emotion hascome from studies with different basesthan those following Ekman (1972). For



Table 12.1 Studies Examining Spontaneous Facial Expressions of Emotion

Citation

Rosenberg &Ekman, 1994

Ruch, 1995

Ruch, 1993

Frank, Ekman,& Friesen,1993, Study 1

Gosselin,Kirouac, &Dore,1995,Study 1

Ekman,Matsumoto, &Friesen, 1997

Berenbaum &Oltmanns,1992

Ellgring, 1986

Heller &Haynal, 1994

Keltner, Moffitt,& Stouthamer-Loeber, 1995

Participants

Americanuniversitystudents

Germanuniversitystudents

Germanuniversitystudents

Americanuniversitystudents

Actors from theConservatory ofDramatic Arts inQuebec

Depressedinpatients

Germanschizophrenicandpsychosomaticpatients, andhealthy controls

Germandepressedpatients

Frenchdepressedpatients

Americanadolescentswith behaviorproblems

Eliciting Stimuli

Videos selectedfor their ability toelicit primarilydisgust andsecondarily fear

Slides of jokesand cartoons

Slides of jokesand cartoons

Films designed toelicit variousemotions

Actors wereasked to interpret2 of 24 scenariosdesigned to elicithappiness, fear,anger, surprise,sadness, anddisgust

Intake anddischargeinterviews

Engaging in apoliticalconversation witha partner theyhad never metbefore

Interviews

Interviews withthe patient’spsychiatrists

Administrationof the WISC-R

MeasurementSystem

FACS

FACS

FACS

FACS

FACS

FACS andEMFACS

EMFACS

FACS

FACS andEMFACS

EMFACS

Emotionsa

Disgust, sadness,fear, happiness,contempt, andanger

Happiness

Happiness

Happiness

Happiness, fear,anger, surprise,sadness, anddisgust

Happiness,contempt, anger,disgust, fear, andsadness

Contempt, disgust,anger, sadness,fear, surprise, andhappiness

Happiness

Contempt

Anger, fear, andsadness

(Continued)



instance, studies have shown that the uni-versal facial expressions of emotion occur incongenitally blind individuals (Charlesworth& Kreutzer, 1973). Research on nonhumanprimates has also demonstrated that theexpressions that are universal to humansalso occur in animals, and that animalshave many different yet stable signals ofemotion (Chevalier-Skolnikoff, 1973; Geen,1992; Hauser, 1993; Snowdon, 2003).Likewise, the emotions portrayed in the uni-versal facial expressions correspond to emo-tion taxonomies in different languagesaround the world (Romney, Boyd, Moore,Batchelder, & Brazill, 1996; Romney,Moore, & Rusch, 1997; Shaver, Murdaya,& Fraley, 2001; Shaver, Wu, & Schwartz,1992).

There is also cross-cultural similarity inthe physiological responses to emotion whenthese facial expressions are used as markers,in both the autonomic nervous system andbrain activity (Davidson, 2003; Ekman,Levenson, & Friesen, 1983; Levenson,Ekman, & Friesen, 1990; Levenson, Ekman,Heider, & Friesen, 1992; Tsai & Levenson,

1997). This similarity exists in people ofas widely divergent cultures as the UnitedStates and the Minangkabau of WestSumatra, Indonesia. In addition, there is uni-versality in the antecedents that bring aboutemotion (Scherer, 1997a, 1997b).

CULTURAL DIFFERENCESIN EXPRESSING EMOTION:CULTURAL DISPLAY RULES

Despite the existence of universal facialexpressions of emotion, people around theworld do express emotions differently. Thefirst evidence for cultural differences inexpression was Friesen’s (1972) study, inwhich the spontaneous expressions ofAmericans and Japanese were examined asthey viewed highly stressful films in twoconditions, first alone and then a secondtime in the presence of an older, maleexperimenter. In the first condition, theAmerican and Japanese participantswere similar in their expressions of dis-gust, sadness, fear, and anger; in the second

Table 12.1 (Continued)

Citation

Chesney et al.,1990

Camras, Oster,Campos,Miyake, &Bradshaw, 1992

Participants

Americansalariedemployees inmanagerialpositions at anaerospace firm

American andJapanese infants

Eliciting Stimuli

Structuredinterviewdesigned toassess Type Abehavior

Arm restraint thatproduces distress

MeasurementSystem

FACS

FACS

Emotionsa

Disgust, fear,sadness,happiness, anger,contempt, andsurprise

Anger, sadness,fear, andhappiness

NOTE: FACS, Facial action coding system; EMFACS, emotion facial action coding system; JACFEE, Japaneseand Caucasian facial expressions of emotions; WISC-R, Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children—Revised.

a. Corresponding to facial muscle configurations coded in the face that match those in JACFEE.



condition, however, cultural differencesemerged. Whereas the Americans continuedto express their negative emotions, theJapanese were more likely to smile.

Other researchers have also examinedcultural differences in emotional expression(Argyle, Henderson, Bond, Iizuka, &Contarello, 1986; Edelmann et al., 1987;Gudykunst & Nishida, 1984; Gudykunst &Ting-Toomey, 1988; Noesjirwan, 1978;Waxer, 1985). A recent study from mylaboratory extended Ekman and Friesen’s(Ekman, 1972; Friesen, 1972) originalfindings. In this study (Matsumoto &Kupperbusch, 2001), European Americanfemales were classified as either individual-istic or collectivistic based on their respon-ses to an individual difference measure(Matsumoto, Weissman, Preston, Brown, &Kupperbusch, 1997) and were then video-taped unobtrusively as they watched filmsdesigned to elicit positive and negative emo-tion, first alone and then in the presenceof an experimenter. They self-rated theiremotional responses to both films in bothconditions, and samples of their emotionalexpressions were judged by a separate groupof decoders.

Both individualists and collectivists expe-rienced the films as intended, and there wasno difference in their expressions when theywere alone. With the experimenter, how-ever, the collectivists attenuated their nega-tive expressions and more often maskedthem with smiles. This finding is the samethat Ekman and Friesen (Ekman, 1972;Friesen, 1972) reported previously, and theremarkable thing about this study is that theentire sample was of European Americanfemales who were classified based solely ontheir responses to a questionnaire assessingindividualism and collectivism. The collec-tivists also attenuated their expressions ofpositive emotion when in the presence of theexperimenter (Ekman and Friesen’s studiesdid not test positive emotions); thus, the

effects of culture on expression were notlimited to negative emotions.

Ekman and Friesen (1969) coined theterm cultural display rules to account forcultural differences in facial expressions ofemotion. These are rules learned early inchildhood that help individuals manage andmodify their emotional expressions depend-ing on social circumstances. Ekman andFriesen used the concept to explain theAmerican–Japanese cultural differences inexpression they observed, suggesting that inthe first condition of their experiment therewas no reason for display rules to modifyexpressions because the participants werealone and their display rules were inopera-tive; in the second condition display rulesdictated that the Japanese mask their nega-tive emotions in the presence of the experi-menter (Ekman, 1972; Friesen, 1972).

After the original inception and docu-mentation of display rules, published cross-cultural research was dormant untilMatsumoto’s (1990) study examining dis-play rules in Americans and Japanese.Participants saw faces portraying sevenemotions and rated the appropriatenessof each in eight social situations involv-ing people of varying intimacy and status.Americans rated negative emotions moreappropriately than did the Japanese iningroups, whereas the Japanese rated nega-tive emotions more appropriately thanAmericans in outgroups; the Japanese alsorated negative emotions more appropriatelythan Americans toward lower status indi-viduals. Matsumoto (1993) used the samemethodology to document differences indisplay rules among four ethnic groupswithin the United States.

When the concept of display ruleswas proposed originally as a mechanism ofexpression management, Ekman and Friesen(1969, 1975) noted six ways in which expres-sions may be managed when emotion isaroused. Of course, individuals can express



emotions as they feel them with no modifi-cation. But individuals can also amplify(exaggerate) or deamplify (minimize) theirexpressions; for instance, feelings of sadnessmay be intensified (amplification) at funeralsor minimized (deamplification) at weddings.People can mask or conceal their emotionsby expressing something other than whatthey feel, as when nurses or physicians hidetheir emotions when speaking with patientswith terminal illness, or when employees inservice industries (e.g., flight attendants)interact with customers. Individuals mayalso learn to neutralize their expressions,expressing nothing, such as when playingpoker (poker face) and to qualify their feel-ings by expressing emotions in combination,such as when feelings of sadness are mixedwith a smile, with the smile commenting onthe sadness, saying “I’ll be OK.” All thesebehavioral responses have been found tooccur when spontaneous expressive behav-iors have been studied (Cole, 1986; Ekman& Rosenberg, 1998).

Recently, my colleagues and I createdthe Display Rule Assessment Inventory(DRAI), in which participants choose abehavioral response when they experi-ence different emotions in different socialsituations (Matsumoto, Takeuchi, Andayani,Kouznetsova, & Krupp, 1998; Matsumoto,Choi, Hirayama, Domae, & Yamaguchi,2005). The emotions were those that previ-ous research has shown to be universallyexpressed and recognized: anger, contempt,disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and sur-prise; these were selected because universal-ity served as a basis by which to examinedisplay rules initially and by which compar-isons across cultures would be meaningful.To build internal consistency, a synonym foreach emotion label was also included in theinitial DRAI—hostility, defiance, aversion,worry, joy, gloom, and shock, respectively—resulting in a total of 14 emotions terms.Participants are asked to consider what they

would do if they felt each emotion in foursocial situations: with family members, closefriends, colleagues, and strangers. Thesecategories were chosen because they repre-sent a broad range of social categories withinwhich people interact, and because previousresearch has demonstrated considerable vari-ability in cultural values and attitudes acrossthese social situations (Brewer & Kramer,1985; Tajfel, 1982).

In our first study using the DRAI(Matsumoto, Takeuchi, Andayani, Kouznet-sova, & Krupp, 1998), participants from theUnited States, Japan, South Korea, andRussia completed the DRAI along with anindividual-level measure of individualism-collectivism. Our results showed thatRussians exerted the highest control overtheir expressions, followed by South Koreansand Japanese; Americans had the lowestscores. Significant sex differences were alsofound, with females exerting more control onanger, contempt, disgust, and across all emo-tions when with family members, and malesexerting more control on fear and surprise.

Our most recent study involving theDRAI (Matsumoto, Yoo, Hirayama, &Petrova, 2005) provided evidence for itsinternal and temporal reliability and forits content, convergent (with measures ofemotion regulation), discriminant (correla-tions with personality controlling for emo-tion regulation), external, and concurrentpredictive validity (with personality). Thefindings also indicated that expression reg-ulation occurs in the various ways discussedearlier, and not on a simple expression-suppression dimension. Additionally, therewere consistent and predictable culturaldifferences among American, Russian,and Japanese participants. For instance,Americans and Russians both expressedanger and contempt more than Japanese.Americans expressed fear and disgust morethan Russians, and Americans expressedhappiness more than did Russians and



Japanese. The Japanese participants de-amplified more than both the Americans andthe Russians. Americans amplified morethan Russians on sadness and disgust,whereas Japanese amplified surprise andfear more than Russians. Japanese qualifiedsadness more than Russians, but theRussians qualified their happiness morethan both Japanese and Americans.

CULTURAL INFLUENCES ONJUDGMENTS OF EMOTION

As discussed earlier, studies examiningjudgments of facial expressions were instru-mental in the original universality studiesand have been replicated by many authors,and Elfenbein and Ambady’s (2002) meta-analysis of judgment studies of emotion(not limited to facial expressions) demon-strated convincingly that people around theworld recognize emotions at levels wellabove chance accuracy. Research of the lastdecade and a half has demonstrated thatpeople of different cultures are similar inother aspects of emotion judgment as well.For example, there is pancultural similarityin judgments of relative intensity amongfaces; that is, when comparing expressions,people of different countries agree on whichis more strongly expressed (Ekman et al.,1987; Matsumoto & Ekman, 1989). Thereis also evidence of pancultural agreement inthe association between perceived expres-sion intensity and inferences about subjec-tive experiences (Matsumoto, Kasri, &Kooken, 1999). People of different cultureshave also been found to agree on the sec-ondary emotions portrayed in an expres-sion (Biehl et al., 1997; Ekman et al., 1987;Matsumoto & Ekman, 1989), suggestingpancultural agreement in the multiplemeanings derived from universal faces. Thisagreement may exist because of overlapin the semantics of the emotion categories,

antecedents and elicitors of emotion, or inthe facial configurations themselves.

There are many cultural differences inemotion judgments as well. Although peopleof all cultures recognize the universal facesat levels well beyond chance, they differon the absolute level of recognition (Biehlet al., 1997; Elfenbein & Ambady, 2002;Matsumoto, 1989, 1992; Matsumoto et al.,2002). In an attempt to explain why cul-tures differ in emotion recognition rates,Matsumoto (1989) compiled recognitionaccuracy data from 15 cultures reportedin four studies, and correlated them withHofstede’s (1980) four cultural dimensions.Individualism was positively correlated withrecognition rates of negative emotions. Anindependent meta-analysis by Schimmack(1996) also indicated that individualismpredicted emotion recognition levels. Thesefindings may be related to the fact thatindividualism is also correlated positivelywith emotional expression (Matsumoto &Koopmann, 2004). Individualistic culturesmay foster the free and open expression ofemotion, thereby promoting the more accu-rate judgment of emotion as well. Just ascultures have display rules that govern themanagement of emotional expression, theymay have “cultural decoding rules” that helpmanage the judgments of emotions in others.

There are cultural differences in judg-ments of the intensity of expressions aswell. Ekman et al.’s (1987) study of 10countries was the first to document suchdifferences, with Asians rating emotions atlower intensity than non-Asians. Althoughthis finding has been replicated a number oftimes (Biehl et al., 1997; Matsumoto, 1990,1993), more recent research indicated thatthe cultural differences differ depending onwhether observers rate the external displayor the presumed internal experience.Matsumoto et al. (1999) tested this ideaby comparing American and Japanesejudgments on both types of ratings and



found that Americans rated external dis-play more intensely than the Japanese,but that the Japanese rated internal experi-ence more intensely than Americans.Within-country analyses indicated no sig-nificant differences between the two ratingsfor the Japanese; the Americans, however,rated external displays more intensely thanthey rated subjective experience.

These findings were extended byMatsumoto and colleagues (2002) by hav-ing American and Japanese observers rateexpressions expressed at 0%, 50%, 100%,and 125% intensities. The data for the100% and 125% expressions replicated theprevious findings: Americans rated externaldisplay significantly higher than internalexperience, whereas there were no differ-ences for the Japanese. Also, there were nodifferences between external and internalratings for either Americans or Japanese on0% expressions, which were expected. On50% expressions, however, the findingswere intriguing. Whereas there was nodifference between external and internalratings for the Americans, the Japaneserated internal experience higher than exter-nal display. We interpreted these findings assuggesting that for weaker expressions,Japanese may assume that a display rule isoperating, and may thus infer more emo-tion being felt than is actually displayed.When Americans see a weak expression,however, there need not be any suchassumption; thus, they interpret the sameamount of emotion felt as expressed. Forstrong expressions, Japanese may assumethat the context was such that the expres-sion was justified; thus, they infer a levelof emotion felt that is commensurate withwhat is shown. When Americans see a strongexpression, however, they know that thereis a display rule to exaggerate one’s feelings;thus, they compensate for this display ruleby inferring less emotion felt.

One limitation of all the studies cited inthis section was that, although the findings

were interpreted as occurring as a functionof cultural display rules, none actually mea-sured display rules and linked them to thejudgments. A recent study from our labora-tory, however, has closed this loop. In thisstudy, American and Japanese participantscompleted the DRAI and viewed a series offacial expressions of emotion portrayed athigh and low intensities (Matsumoto, Choi,et al., 2005). They made three judgments foreach face: a categorical judgment of whichemotion was portrayed, and intensity rat-ings of the strength of the external displayand the presumed subjective experience ofthe expressor. American and Japanesejudges thought that the expressors of highintensity expressions displayed the emotionsmore strongly than they felt them. Whenjudging the low intensity expressions,Americans and Japanese also rated theexpressor’s internal experience higher thanthey did the external display, but the effectwas significantly larger for the Japanese. Allthese differences were mediated by displayrules as assessed by the DRAI, suggestingthat one’s own rules for expression manage-ment influences one’s judgments of expres-sion management in others.

A POSSIBLE INGROUP ADVANTAGEIN RECOGNIZING EMOTIONS?

One type of cultural difference in judg-ment that has recently received attentionconcerns the possibility of an ingroup advan-tage in emotion recognition (Elfenbein &Ambady, 2002). This is defined as the ten-dency for members of a cultural group to bemore accurate in recognizing the emotionsof members of their own cultural groupthan of other, relatively more disparategroups. Although previous research testingthis hypothesis (Boucher & Carlson, 1980;Kilbride & Yarczower, 1983; Markham &Wang, 1996) provided mixed results,Elfenbein and her colleagues have recently



reported a number of studies in support ofit (Elfenbein & Ambady, 2002, 2003a,2003b; Elfenbein, Mandal, Ambady, &Harizuka, 2002).

Elsewhere, I have suggested that studiesmust meet two methodological require-ments to test the ingroup hypothesis ade-quately (Matsumoto, 2002). First, studiesshould employ balanced designs in whichall judge cultures view expressions por-trayed by members of all the other cul-tures in the study. Second, because balancedstudies include stimuli expressed by peopleof multiple cultures, it is necessary toensure that the stimuli are equivalentacross the cultural groups in terms of theirphysical signaling properties related toemotion. Given both of these concerns,Matsumoto (2002) concluded that Elfenbeinand Ambady’s (2002) original meta-analysiscould not support the ingroup hypothesisbecause they did not review the studiesas to whether or not they met these tworequirements.

When balanced studies are examined asto whether or not they employed stimulithat were equivalent in their physical sig-naling properties or not, the data are clear:All the studies reported by Elfenbein andcolleagues to date supporting the ingrouphypothesis have used stimuli that werenot equivalent across the cultural groups(Elfenbein & Ambady, 2003a, 2003b;Elfenbein et al., 2002; Elfenbein, Mandal,Ambady, Harizuka, & Kumar, 2004).Furthermore, a close examination of thebalanced studies they reviewed in Table 4of their original meta-analysis (Elfenbein& Ambady, 2002) shows that only fivestudies provide evidence that the physicalsignaling properties of the expressions usedas stimuli were equivalent across theexpressor ethnicities (Albas, McCluskey,& Albas, 1976; Kilbride & Yarczower,1983; McCluskey, Albas, Niemi, Cuevas,& Ferrer, 1975; McCluskey & Albas,1981; Mehta, Ward, & Strongman, 1992).

Four of these were associated with non-significant interaction Fs that test theingroup effect. Two involved studies offacial expressions (Kilbride & Yarczower,1983; Mehta et al., 1992), and both theseinvolved facial action coding system(FACS) coding of the facial muscles in theexpressions. The FACS codes were equiva-lent but not exactly the same across theexpressor ethnicities as they are in theJapanese and Caucasian facial expressionsof emotion (JACFEE), thus allowing forminor cultural differences in the expres-sions to exist (perhaps, corresponding toElfenbein and Ambady’s, 2002, 2003a;Elfenbein et al., 2002, “emotion dialects”).

When balanced studies employ expres-sions that are equivalent in their physicalsignaling properties (the JACFEE), thereis no support for the ingroup hypothesis(Matsumoto, 2002; Matsumoto & Choi,2004). This is the case whether the expres-sions being judged are full-face, highintensity expressions, or low intensityexpressions where signal clarity is weaker(Matsumoto & Choi, 2004). Future studieswill need to isolate differences in expres-sions across encoder cultures while holdingconstant nonmorphological features of theface that may contribute to emotion signal-ing. There are many aspects of the face thatmay contribute to emotion signaling,including facial physiognomy, cosmetics,and hairstyle, in addition to the actualexpressions themselves (Ekman, 1979;Matsumoto & Choi, 2004). Research is yetto test the possible contributory roles ofthese aspects of the face to emotion signal-ing, which is a possible rich source of infor-mation in the future.

♦♦ Conclusion

In considering cultural influences onnonverbal behavior, it is first important to



recognize the universal bases of thosebehaviors, and to realize that culture’s influ-ence on nonverbal behaviors occurs aboveand beyond the universal bases of thosebehaviors that we are all born with. Withregard to emotion communication, we allstart with the same base of universal, pan-cultural expressions. We learn rules abouthow to modify and manage these expres-sions based on social circumstance (culturaldisplay rules), and we learn rules abouthow to manage our judgments of them (cul-tural decoding rules). Whereas we all rec-ognize universal emotions at levels wellbeyond chance, there are cultural influenceson the absolute levels of recognition accu-racy and on judgments of external intensityand internal subjective experience.

Most of our knowledge concerning cul-ture and nonverbal behaviors comes fromstudies of facial expressions of emotion. Thefew cross-cultural studies on other nonver-bal behaviors that do exist suggest consider-able cultural differences in these. Yet theremay be universal aspects to these other non-verbal behaviors that research has just notyet uncovered. Examples include the raisingof one or both arms in achievement or clap-ping as a sign of approval. Future researchwill not only continue to unravel the influ-ence of culture on facial expressions but willalso need to delve into these other possibili-ties for other nonverbal behaviors.

♦♦ References

Albas, D. C., McCluskey, K. W., & Albas, C. A.(1976). Perception of the emotionalcontent of speech: A comparison of twoCanadian groups. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 7, 481–490.

Argyle, M., & Cook, M. (1976). Gazeand mutual gaze. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Argyle, M., Henderson, M., Bond, M., Iizuka, Y.,& Contarello, A. (1986). Cross-cultural

variations in relationship rules. InternationalJournal of Psychology, 21, 287–315.

Barnlund, D., & Araki, S. (1985). Interculturalencounters: The management of compli-ments by Japanese and Americans. Journalof Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16, 9–26.

Barnlund, D., & Yoshioka, M. (1990).Apologies: Japanese and American styles.International Journal of InterculturalRelations, 14, 193–206.

Berenbaum, H., & Oltmanns, T. (1992).Emotional experience and expression inschizophrenia and depression. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 101, 37–44.

Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., &Dasen, P. R. (1992). Cross-cultural psy-chology: Research and applications. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Biehl, M., Matsumoto, D., Ekman, P., Hearn,V., Heider, K., Kudoh, T., et al. (1997).Matsumoto and Ekman’s Japanese andCaucasian facial expressions of emotion(JACFEE): Reliability data and cross-national differences. Journal of NonverbalBehavior, 21, 3–21.

Boas, F., & Efron, D. F. (1936). A comparativeinvestigation of gestural behavior patternsin “racial” groups living under different aswell as similar environmental conditions.Psychological Bulletin, 33, 760.

Boucher, J. D., & Carlson, G. E. (1980).Recognition of facial expression in three cul-tures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,11, 263–280.

Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. M. (1985). Thepsychology of intergroup attitudes andbehavior. Annual Review of Psychology,36, 219–243.

Buss, D. M. (1991). Evolutionary personalitypsychology. Annual Review of Psychology,42, 459–491.

Buss, D. M. (2001). Human nature and culture:An evolutionary psychological perspective.Journal of Personality, 69, 955–978.

Camras, L. A., Oster, H., Campos, J., Miyake, K.,& Bradshaw, D. (1992). Japanese andAmerican infants’ responses to arm restraint.Developmental Psychology, 28, 578–583.

Charlesworth, W. R., & Kreutzer, M. A. (1973).Facial expressions of infants and children.In P. Ekman (Ed.), Darwin and facial



expression (pp. 91–168). New York:Academic Press.

Chen, G. M. (1995). Differences in self-disclosure patterns among Americans ver-sus Chinese: A comparative study. Journalof Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 84–91.

Chesney, M. A., Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V.,Black, G. W., et al. (1990). Type a behaviorpattern: Facial behavior and speech com-ponents. Psychosomatic Medicine, 52,307–319.

Chevalier-Skolnikoff, S. (1973). Facial expres-sion of emotion in nonhuman primates.In P. Ekman (Ed.), Darwin and facialexpression (pp. 11–89). New York:Academic Press.

Cole, P. M. (1986). Children’s spontaneous con-trol of facial expression. Child Development,57, 1309–1321.

Darwin, C. (1998). The expression of emotionin man and animals. New York: OxfordUniversity Press. (Original work published1872)

Davidson, R. J. (2003). Parsing the subcompo-nents of emotion and disorders of emotion:Perspectives from affective neuroscience. InR. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H.Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affectivesciences (pp. 8–24). New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Edelmann, R. J., Asendorpf, J., Contarello, A.,Georgas, J., Villanueva, C., & Zammuner,V. (1987). Self-reported verbal and non-verbal strategies for coping with embarrass-ment in five European cultures. SocialScience Information, 26, 869–883.

Efron, D. (1941). Gesture and environment.Oxford, England: King’s Crown Press.

Ekman, P. (1972). Universal and cultural differ-ences in facial expression of emotion. In J.R. Cole (Ed.), Nebraska symposium onmotivation, 1971 (pp. 207–283). Lincoln:Nebraska University Press.

Ekman, P. (1973). Darwin and facial expres-sion; A century of research in review. NewYork: Academic Press.

Ekman, P. (1976). Movements with precise mean-ings. Journal of Communication, 26(3),14–26.

Ekman, P. (1979). Facial signs: Facts, fantasies,and possibilities. In T. Sebeok (Ed.),

Sight, sound, and sense (pp. 124–156).Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. (1969). The repertoireof nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins,usage, and coding. Semiotica, 1, 49–98.

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. (1971). Constants acrossculture in the face and emotion. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 17,124–129.

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1975). Unmaskingthe face; a guide to recognizing emotionsfrom facial clues. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & Ellsworth, P.(1972). Emotion in the human face: Guide-lines for research and an integration of find-ings. New York: Pergamon Press.

Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., O’Sullivan, M.,Chan, A., Diacoyanni-Tarlatzis, I., Heider,K., et al. (1987). Universals and cultural dif-ferences in the judgments of facial expres-sions of emotion. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 53, 712–717.

Ekman, P., Levenson, R. W., & Friesen, W. V.(1983). Autonomic nervous system activitydistinguishes among emotions. Science,221, 1208–1210.

Ekman, P., Matsumoto, D., & Friesen, W. (1997).Facial expression in affective disorders. In P.Ekman & E. L. Rosenberg (Eds.), What theface reveals: Basic and applied studies ofspontaneous expression using the facialaction coding system (FACs) (pp. 331–341).New York: Oxford University Press.

Ekman, P., & Rosenberg, E. L. (Eds.). (1998).What the face reveals: Basic and appliedstudies of spontaneous expression using thefacial action coding system (FACs). NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Ekman, P., Sorenson, E. R., & Friesen, W. V.(1969). Pancultural elements in facial dis-plays of emotion. Science, 164, 86–88.

Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. (2002). On theuniversality and cultural specificity ofemotion recognition: A meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 128, 205–235.

Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. (2003a).Cultural similarity’s consequences: A dis-tance perspective on cross-cultural differen-ces in emotion recognition. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 92–110.



Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. (2003b). Whenfamiliarity breeds accuracy: Cultural expo-sure and facial emotion recognition. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology,85, 276–290.

Elfenbein, H. A., Mandal, M. K., Ambady, N.,& Harizuka, S. (2002). Cross-culturalpatterns in emotion recognition: Highlightingdesign and analytic techniques. Emotion, 2,75–84.

Elfenbein, H. A., Mandal, M. K., Ambady, N.,Harizuka, S., & Kumar, S. (2004).Hemifacial differences in the in-groupadvantage in emotion recognition. Cognitionand Emotion, 18, 613–629.

Ellgring, H. (1986). Nonverbal expression ofpsychological states in psychiatric patients.European Archives of Psychiatry andNeurological Sciences, 236, 31–34.

Exline, R. V., Jones, P., & Maciorowski, K.(1977, August). Race, affiliative-conflicttheory and mutual visual attention duringconversation. Paper presented at theAmerican Psychological Association AnnualConvention, San Francisco.

Fehr, B. J., & Exline, R. V. (1987). Social visualinteractions: A conceptual and literaturereview. In A. W. Siegman & S. Feldstein(Eds.), Nonverbal behavior and communi-cation (Vol. 2, pp. 225–326). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Forston, R. F., & Larson, C. U. (1968). Thedynamics of space: An experimental study inproxemic behavior among Latin Americansand North Americans. Journal of Commu-nication, 18, 109–116.

Frank, M. G., Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V.(1993). Behavioral markers and recogniz-ability of the smile of enjoyment. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology,64, 83–93.

Friesen, W. V. (1972). Cultural differences infacial expressions in a social situation: Anexperimental test of the concept of displayrules. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of California, San Francisco.

Friesen, W. V., Ekman, P., & Wallbott, H.(1979). Measuring hand movements. Journalof Nonverbal Behavior, 4, 97–112.

Geen, T. (1992). Facial expressions in socially iso-lated nonhuman primates: Open and closed

programs for expressive behavior. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 26, 273–280.

Gosselin, P., Kirouac, G., & Dore, F. (1995).Components and recognition of facialexpression in the communication of emo-tion by actors. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 68, 83–96.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Mody, B. (Eds.). (2001).Handbook of international and intercul-tural communication. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T. (1984).Individual and cultural influences on uncer-tainty reduction. Communication Mono-graphs, 51, 23–36.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988).Culture and affective communication.American Behavioral Scientist, 31, 384–400.

Hall, E. T. (1963). A system for the nota-tion of proxemic behaviors. AmericanAnthropologist, 65, 1003–1026.

Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. NewYork: Doubleday.

Hall, E. T. (1973). The silent language. NewYork: Anchor.

Hauser, M. (1993). Right hemisphere domi-nance for the production of facial expres-sion in monkeys. Science, 261, 475–477.

Heller, M., & Haynal, V. (1994). Depressionand suicide faces. Cahiers PsychiatriquesGenevois, 16, 107–117.

Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture’s consequences:International differences in work-relatedvalues. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Izard, C. E. (1971). The face of emotion. EastNorwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Jahoda, G. (1984). Do we need a concept of cul-ture? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,15, 139–151.

Keltner, D., Moffitt, T., & Stouthamer-Loeber,M. (1995). Facial expressions of emotionand psychopathology in adolescent boys.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104,644–652.

Kilbride, J. E., & Yarczower, M. (1983). Ethnicbias in the recognition of facial expressions.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 8, 27–41.

Kim, M. S., Hunter, J. E., Miyahara, A., Horvath,A. M., Bresnahan, M., & Yoon, H. J. (1996).Individual vs. culture-level dimensions ofindividualism and collectivism: Effects on



preferred conversation styles. Communica-tion Monographs, 63, 29–49.

Kroeber, A. L., & Kluckholn, C. (1963).Culture: A critical review of conceptsand definitions. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity.

Kudoh, T., & Matsumoto, D. (1985). Cross-cultural examination of the semantic dimen-sions of body postures. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 48, 1440–1446.

LaFrance, M., & Mayo, C. (1976). Racialdifferences in gaze behavior during conver-sations: Two systematic observational stud-ies. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 33, 547–552.

Levenson, R. W., Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V.(1990). Voluntary facial action gener-ates emotion-specific autonomic nervoussystem activity. Psychophysiology, 27,363–384.

Levenson, R. W., Ekman, P., Heider, K., &Friesen, W. V. (1992). Emotion and auto-nomic nervous system activity in theMinangkabau of West Sumatra. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology,62, 972–988.

Linton, R. (1936). The study of man: An intro-duction. New York: Appleton.

Linville, P. W., & Jones, E. E. (1980). Polarizedappraisals of out-group members. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 38,689–703.

Markham, R., & Wang, L. (1996). Recognitionof emotion by Chinese and Australianchildren. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy-chology, 27, 616–643.

Matsumoto, D. (1989). Cultural influences onthe perception of emotion. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 92–105.

Matsumoto, D. (1990). Cultural similarities anddifferences in display rules. Motivation andEmotion, 14, 195–214.

Matsumoto, D. (1992). American-Japanesecultural differences in the recognition ofuniversal facial expressions. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 23, 72–84.

Matsumoto, D. (1993). Ethnic differencesin affect intensity, emotion judgments, dis-play rule attitudes, and self-reported emo-tional expression in an American sample.Motivation and Emotion, 17, 107–123.

Matsumoto, D. (2002). Methodological require-ments to test a possible ingroup advantagein judging emotions across cultures:Comments on Elfenbein and Ambadyand evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 128,236–242.

Matsumoto, D., & Choi, J. W. (2004).Exploring decoder sources of the ingroupadvantage effect in recognizing facialexpressions of emotions. Unpublished man-uscript.

Matsumoto, D., Choi, J. W., Hirayama, S.,Domae, A., & Yamaguchi, S. (2005).Culture, display rules, emotion regulation,and emotion judgments. Manuscript sub-mitted for publication.

Matsumoto, D., Consolacion, T., Yamada, H.,Suzuki, R., Franklin, B., Paul, S., et al.(2002). American-Japanese cultural differ-ences in judgments of emotional expres-sions of different intensities. Cognition andEmotion, 16, 721–747.

Matsumoto, D., & Ekman, P. (1989).American-Japanese cultural differences inintensity ratings of facial expressions ofemotion. Motivation and Emotion, 13,143–157.

Matsumoto, D., Kasri, F., & Kooken, K. (1999).American-Japanese cultural differences injudgments of expression intensity and sub-jective experience. Cognition and Emotion,13, 201–218.

Matsumoto, D., & Koopmann, B. (2004).Ecology, culture, personality, and emo-tional expression. Unpublished manuscript.

Matsumoto, D., & Kudoh, T. (1987). Culturalsimilarities and differences in the semanticdimensions of body postures. Journal ofNonverbal Behavior, 11, 166–179.

Matsumoto, D., & Kupperbusch, C. (2001).Idiocentric and allocentric differences inemotional expression and experience. AsianJournal of Social Psychology, 4, 113–131.

Matsumoto, D., Takeuchi, S., Andayani, S.,Kouznetsova, N., & Krupp, D. (1998). Thecontribution of individualism-collectivismto cross-national differences in displayrules. Asian Journal of Social Psychology,1, 147–165.

Matsumoto, D., Weissman, M., Preston, K.,Brown, B., & Kupperbusch, C. (1997).



Context-specific measurement of individu-alism-collectivism on the individual level:The IC interpersonal assessment inven-tory (ICIAI). Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 28, 743–767.

Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., Hirayama, S., &Petrova, G. (2005). Validation of an indi-vidual-level measure of display rules: Thedisplay rule assessment inventory (DRAI).Emotion, 5, 23–40.

McCluskey, K., Albas, D., Niemi, R., Cuevas,C., & Ferrer, C. (1975). Cultural differ-ences in the perception of the emotionalcontent of speech: A study of the develop-ment of sensitivity in Canadian andMexican children. Developmental Psychol-ogy, 11, 551–555.

McCluskey, K. W., & Albas, D. C. (1981).Perception of the emotional content ofspeech by Canadian and Mexican children,adolescents and adults. InternationalJournal of Psychology, 16, 119–132.

Mehta, S. D., Ward, C., & Strongman, K.(1992). Cross-cultural recognition of posedfacial expressions of emotion. New ZealandJournal of Psychology, 21, 74–77.

Minami, M., & McCabe, A. (1995). Rice ballsand bear hunts: Japanese and NorthAmerican family narrative patterns. Journalof Child Language, 22, 423–445.

Morris, D., Collett, P., Marsh, P., &O’Shaughnessy, M. (1980). Gestures: Theirorigins and distribution. New York:Scarborough.

Noesjirwan, J. (1977). Contrasting cultural pat-terns on interpersonal closeness in doctors:Waiting rooms in Sydney and Jakarta.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 8,357–368.

Noesjirwan, J. (1978). A rule-based analysisof cultural differences in social behavior:Indonesia and Australia. InternationalJournal of Psychology, 13, 305–316.

Nomura, N., & Barnlund, D. (1983). Patterns ofinterpersonal criticism in Japan and theUnited States. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 7, 1–18.

Rohner, R. P. (1984). Toward a conceptionof culture for cross-cultural psychology.

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15,111–138.

Romney, A. K., Boyd, J. P., Moore, C. C.,Batchelder, W. H., & Brazill, T. J. (1996).Culture as shared cognitive representations.Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences of the United States of America,93, 4699–4705.

Romney, A. K., Moore, C. C., & Rusch, C. D.(1997). Cultural universals: Measuring thesemantic structure of emotion terms inEnglish and Japanese. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences of theUnited States of America, 94, 5489–5494.

Rosenberg, E. L., & Ekman, P. (1994).Coherence between expressive and experi-ential systems in emotion. Cognition andEmotion, 8, 201–229.

Ruch, W. (1993). Extraversion, alcohol, andenjoyment. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 16, 89–102.

Ruch, W. (1995). Will the real relationshipbetween facial expression and affectiveexperience stand up: The case of exhilara-tion. Cognition and Emotion, 9, 33–58.

Scherer, K. R. (1997a). Profiles of emotion-antecedent appraisal: Testing theoreticalpredictions across cultures. Cognition andEmotion, 11, 113–150.

Scherer, K. R. (1997b). The role of culture inemotion-antecedent appraisal. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 73,902–922.

Schimmack, U. (1996). Cultural influences onthe recognition of emotion by facial expres-sions: Individualist or Caucasian cultures?Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27,37–50.

Seligman, M. E., & Hager, J. (1972). Bio-logical boundaries of learning. New York:Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Shaver, P., Murdaya, U., & Fraley, R. C. (2001).The structure of the Indonesian emotion lex-icon. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 4,201–224.

Shaver, P. R., Wu, S., & Schwartz, J. C. (1992).Cross-cultural similarities and differencesin emotion and its representation. InM. S. Clark (Ed.), Emotion: Review of



personality and social psychology (Vol. 13,pp. 175–212). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shuter, R. (1976). Proxemics and tactility inLatin America. Journal of Communication,26, 46–52.

Shuter, R. (1977). A field study of nonverbal com-munication in Germany, Italy, and the UnitedStates. Communication Monographs, 44,298–305.

Snowdon, C. T. (2003). Expression of emotionin nonhuman animals. In R. J. Davidson,K. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.),Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 457–480). New York: Oxford University Press.

Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of inter-group relations. Annual Review of Psychol-ogy, 33, 1–39.

Triandis, H. C. (1972). The analysis of subjec-tive culture. New York: Wiley.

Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H.(1990). Multimethod probes of individual-ism and collectivism. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 59, 1006–1020.

Tsai, J. L., & Levenson, R. W. (1997). Culturalinfluences of emotional responding: Chinese

American and European American datingcouples during interpersonal conflict.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28,600–625.

Vrij, A., & Winkel, F. W. (1991). Culturalpatterns in Dutch and Surinam nonverbalbehavior: An analysis of simulated police/citizen encounters. Journal of NonverbalBehavior, 15, 169–184.

Vrij, A., & Winkel, F. W. (1992). Cross-culturalpolice-citizen interactions: The influence ofrace, beliefs, and nonverbal communicationon impression formation. Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology, 22, 1546–1559.

Watson, O. M. (1970). Proxemic behavior:A cross-cultural study. The Hague, TheNetherlands: Mouton.

Watson, O. M., & Graves, T. D. (1966).Quantitative research in proxemic behavior.American Anthropologist, 68, 971–985.

Waxer, P. H. (1985). Video ethology: Televisionas a data base for cross-cultural studies innonverbal displays. Journal of NonverbalBehavior, 9, 111–120.



Documents

Matsumoto Chapter 12 Pages From Manusov II Proff-14