believe that the differences in their dependent variables were caused by the manipulations of their independent variables. Once Becker and Wright altered the experimental procedures, they found that smiling, happy faces were easier to spot. This was true even if they used closed-mouth smiles in which teeth were hidden. These researchers hypothesize that people are better at detecting happy faces because they are far more prevalent than are angry expressions and that happy faces have evolved to be more easily recognizable.
Emotion Blends and Dialects
Given that facial expressions and other nonverbal behavior play a key role in the development and maintenance of social relations (Ambady & Weisbuch, 2010; Keltner & Kring, 1998), we would expect to find both cross-cultural and cross-species similarities in emotional expressions. As noted above, for at least six primary expressions, humans are consistently able to accurately identify the underlying emotion. However, there are several situations in which people are less consistent in correctly reading facial expressions. One is the case of blended emotions, wherein an expression reflects more than one emotion (Ekman et al., 1987; Ekman et al., 1969), such as fear and surprise or disgust and contempt. Although researchers have discovered cross-cultural agreement in the identification of secondary emotions, these rates are somewhat lower than for primary emotions (Ekman et al., 1987). Second, the presence of emotion dialects—slight variations in specific displays of emotion between cultures—can reduce accuracy in emotion recognition across cultures (Elfenbein & Ambady, 2002). For instance, a tongue-bite is indicative of embarrassment in India but not in the United States (Haidt & Keltner, 1999).
A third limitation of human facial perception is in the difficulty people have in unmasking feelings and thoughts that the target seeks to hide. As Ekman and Friesen’s (1971) study of disgust expressions among Japanese and American men demonstrated, cultures vary in their display rules, thereby interfering with the decoding or interpretation of facial expressions and other nonverbal behavior (Kafetsios, Andriopoulos, & Papachiou, 2014). Differences in the display of negative emotions have been also found between Costa Ricans and Americans (Stephan, Stephan, & de Vargas, 1996) and in the expression of contempt, disgust, fear, and sadness among whites, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latinos in the United States (Matsumoto, 1993).
Blended Emotions: Wherein an expression reflects more than one emotion
Decoding: Interpretation of facial expressions and other nonverbal behaviour
Think Again!
1 What are the six universal emotional expressions?
2 What are cultural display rules?
3 How does the series of studies by Ekman illustrate the self-correcting nature of science?
Doing Research: The Challenges Of Cross-Cultural Studies
Social psychologists’ primary aim in studying human social behavior can be boiled down to our wish to understand human nature. The evolutionary approach is particularly pertinent because it can help identify aspects of human social behavior that are universal. Yet, as we have said, social behavior is inherently cultural (Leung & Cohen, 2011). It has been argued that one of the universal aspects of human nature is that it is molded by culture and that humans are “beasts for culture” (Baumeister, 2005; Heine, 2010b). Given the potential for variability in social behavior across the globe, then, it is critical that we examine humans from a wide variety of cultures and in a large sample of contexts. Until recently, most psychological research has focused on individuals from WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) cultures (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010). You are no doubt aware that WEIRD cultures represent only a small percentage of the world’s population, and therefore our ability to draw broad inferences from such research findings is severely limited. Unfortunately, cross-cultural research is not simply a matter of transplanting an experiment or a survey originally completed in, say, London, to Tokyo or Istanbul. Rather, cross-cultural studies present several significant challenges that must be met in order to create valid and reliable studies, including those pertaining to language, situational equivalence, response styles, and sampling (Cohen, 2007; Heine, 2010a).
Language.
One of the most obvious yet profound differences between cultures is language (Chiu, Leung, & Kwan, 2007). As anyone who has learned a second or third language knows, finding close or even reasonably accurate translations can sometimes be difficult. If you know a second language, then try translating “when it is your turn, please turn to the left and then turn over the green sheet.” My guess is that the use of the word “turn” to signify three different activities complicates your task! Imagine trying to translate entire paragraphs, surveys, or complex, detailed experimental instructions in other languages. To illustrate, take a look at the problems with the translations and back translations of several phrases in Table 5.1. Humans could of course do a much better translation job than computer algorithms, but you get the idea.
In addition to the need to produce adequate translations of everyday words and phrases, psychologists sometimes wish to examine more abstract or nuanced ones, many of which have no direct translation in other languages. For instance, the English term “self-esteem” has no direct equivalent in Chinese, and therefore an investigator can’t simply ask a Chinese respondent whether or not she has low self-esteem (Miller, Wang, Sandel, & Cho, 2002). Another concern with cross-cultural translations is related to the Sapir-Whorf linguistic relativity hypothesis (Whorf, 1956), which, in its strong form, states that people who speak different languages think about the world in fundamentally divergent ways, with the implication that accurate translation is extremely difficult, if not impossible (Tohidian, 2009). However, most psychologists subscribe to a weaker version of the hypothesis, believing that, although language does impact thinking, cross-cultural communication and reasonably good translations are possible, even if not always perfect (Chiu et al., 2007; Matsumoto & Juang, 2004; Pinker, 2007).
One of the challenges of cross-cultural research is accurately translating questions, instructions, and responses from one language to another.
REUTERS/Albert Gea.
The most common method for overcoming this problem in psychological research is via back translation (Heine, Lehman, Peng, & Greenholtz, 2002). Back translation involves at least two translators, both of whom are fluent in the two languages (Brislin, 1970). Ideally, there is at least one native speaker of each of the languages. One person translates from, say, English to Spanish, and the other translates the Spanish version back into English. The two English versions are then compared by the translators and discrepancies are resolved (Heine, 2010a).
Experimental equivalence.
Most citizens of the world have not been exposed to many of the conditions and situations and formats that Western psychologists incorporate into our experiments (Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 2002; Heine, 2010a). For instance, Americans are very familiar with surveys, being asked personal and occasionally intimate questions, people in lab coats (as may be seen in an experiment), and with computers and other forms of technology that may be used to conduct a study. However, much of the rest of the world has had little or no exposure to these and other features of psychological studies, and their lack of familiarity may have significant consequences for how participants interpret the wishes of the researcher and the demands of the experiment (J. G. Miller, 2004). Consequently, key elements of psychological
