Within- and between-group heterogeneity in cultural models of emotion among people of European, Asian, and Latino heritage in the United States.

Acknowledgement: Nicole Senft and Marina Doucerain contributed equally to first authorship. Michelle N. Shiota and Yulia E. Chentsova-Dutton contributed equally to senior authorship. Data are available at https://osf.io/9cbkx/?view_only=5ea817e39ada40cfbfccc5d737b83b0e.

Cultural models are mental representations of the world that are widely shared by members of a given group, guide people’s understanding of their own and others’ behaviors, and, at the intersubjective level, are perceived as widespread or normal (Bennardo, 2018; Casson, 1983; Chentsova-Dutton & Ryder, 2020; Chiu et al., 2010; D’Andrade, 1992; Quinn & Holland, 1987). These models may include values, ideals, beliefs, and norms. Emotion models are a subset of broader cultural models that vary across individuals as well as cultural contexts and are meaningfully nested within broader cultural worldviews (Bennardo, 2018; Campos & Kim, 2017).

Much of the literature on cultural variation in emotion values and beliefs has explained differences in terms of individualism and collectivism, typically comparing European American cultural contexts as individualist prototypes against East Asian contexts as collectivist prototypes. However, there is growing consensus that this East-West dichotomy insufficiently characterizes the full range of ways in which cultural models vary and facilitate daily social life (Campos & Kim, 2017; Kagitcibasi, 2005; San Martin et al., 2018; Vignoles et al., 2016). Furthermore, within-culture variation has received comparatively little attention in this literature, despite its importance (Schwartz, 2014). The current research aimed to broaden our understanding of emotion models by examining both between- and within-group variability in emotion models among people of European heritage, Asian heritage, and Latino heritage, the latter being a less frequently studied group characterized by an understudied form of collectivism, convivial collectivism (Campos & Kim, 2017).

Emotion models refer to mental representations of the emotional patterns people within a cultural context believe to be expected, valued, appropriate, and/or desirable. Although mental representations are, by definition, individual-level phenomena, cultural emotion models represent content that is shared and widely endorsed within a cultural world. Such models coordinate how people relate to each other within that world and inform their individual emotional experiences—which may or may not align with culturally prevalent emotion models (Chiu et al., 2010). Much of the work examining cultural variation in emotion models is informed by cultural psychology’s highly influential and generative individualism-collectivism framework. Individualism and collectivism reflect distinctions in how individuals relate to others and prioritize goals serving the individual versus the ingroup. This core emphasis shapes processes in many domains, such as cognitive styles (Choi et al., 2007) and self-construal (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).

Far from being inherently monolithic, there are many specific forms of individualism and collectivism (Kagitcibasi, 2005; Kashima & Hardie, 2000). In a recent study of individuals across the globe, Vignoles and colleagues (2016) found that individuals and cultures could be quite independent in some domains yet interdependent in others. For example, individuals could strongly value individualist self-reliance and collectivist interpersonal harmony, and Middle Eastern contexts emphasized both self-reliance and collectivist connection to others. Just as there are many ways for cultures to be individualistic or collectivistic, there are multiple ways for emotions to align with collectivist cultural goals (Campos & Kim, 2017; Ruby et al., 2012). For example, anger has conventionally been viewed as a means of reinforcing independent selves in individualistic cultural contexts (Shweder et al., 2008). However, recent research suggests socially disengaged emotions such as anger can also facilitate achievement of collectivist interpersonal goals, such as defending honor (Boiger et al., 2014) and protecting one’s ingroup (Mosquera et al., 2000; San Martin et al., 2018).

In European American individualistic contexts—those most represented in psychological research—it is normative to emphasize the self-as-individual: with individual goals prioritized over group goals and autonomy, uniqueness, creativity, and independence highly valued (Campos & Kim, 2017; Cross et al., 2011; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 2001). Emotion models in these cultural contexts are congruent with individualist goals and expectations. Happiness is viewed as a pleasant individual feeling state to be actively pursued and attained (Oishi et al., 2013). Positive emotions are perceived as not only enjoyable but also useful in situations requiring cognitive effort (Ma et al., 2018). A dominant goal in this context is to maximize positive emotions and minimize negative emotions (Ford et al., 2015; Heine et al., 1999; Koopmann-Holm & Tsai, 2014; Tamir & Ford, 2012). Within the broad individualist mandate for distinctiveness, achievement, and enjoyment, European Americans tend to value high-arousal positive emotions (e.g., excitement) and socially disengaging emotions (e.g., pride, anger) relative to other emotions (Kitayama et al., 2006; Tsai et al., 2006, 2007). These emotions are useful in asserting individuality and influencing others (e.g., Boiger et al., 2013; Kitayama et al., 2006; Tsai et al., 2007), and open displays of positive emotion have been linked to desirable psychological, social, and life outcomes (e.g., Harker & Keltner, 2001; Papa & Bonanno, 2008).

In East Asian collectivist contexts, it is normative to view the self predominately as part of a larger group: with in-group goals prioritized over individual goals and harmony, communal orientation, and adjustment to others’ needs highly valued (Cross et al., 2011; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 2001). In this cultural context, emotion models support behaviors aligned with these collectivist behavioral goals and expectations. In contrast to the European American mandate for positivity, balanced and moderate emotional experience is valued in East Asian contexts (Lu & Gilmour, 2004; Peng et al., 2006; Spencer-Rodgers et al., 2010; Uchida et al., 2004; Williams & Aaker, 2002). Positive emotions are believed to sometimes be disruptive to social relationships by, for example, eliciting others’ envy (Uchida & Kitayama, 2009). East Asians also tend to value low-arousal positive (e.g., calm) and socially engaging emotions (e.g., affection, guilt), feelings thought to facilitate adjustment to others’ needs (Kitayama et al., 2006; Tsai et al., 2006, 2007). For example, shame can be useful by encouraging critical self-reflection and perspective taking, thereby affirming one’s place in the social group—effects that are highly desirable in East Asian cultural contexts (Boiger et al., 2013; Heine et al., 1999; Wong & Tsai, 2007).

Emotion models in Latin American cultural contexts present an understudied contrast to both East Asian and European American contexts and offer a meaningful alternative aligned with broadly collectivist cultural priorities. Latino cultural contexts emphasize convivial collectivism (Campos & Kim, 2017) whereby interdependent relational goals are achieved through open expression of positive emotions, particularly interpersonal warmth and affection (Holloway et al., 2009; Triandis et al., 1984). This emotion model facilitates achievement of the cultural value Simpatía, which emphasizes positivity and deemphasizes negativity in the service of smooth social interactions, along with values focused on close, supportive family relationships (i.e., Familismo) and politeness (i.e., Respeto; Campos et al., 2014; Holloway et al., 2009; Sabogal et al., 1987). The form of collectivism captured by these cultural values contrasts with the East Asian version, which emphasizes moderation and multiple perspective taking as a route to harmony (Vignoles et al., 2016). Accordingly, positive emotions, especially those that facilitate social engagement, are viewed as highly desirable and appropriate in the Latin American contexts studied thus far (mostly Mexican), whereas negative emotions are viewed as relatively inappropriate and undesirable (Diaz-Loving & Draguns, 1999; Diener et al., 2000; Ramírez-Esparza et al., 2019; Rodríguez-Arauz et al., 2019; Senft et al., 2020).

Individual minds do not contain cookie-cutter copies of dominant cultural models. People within a culture vary in the extent to which and manner by which they endorse or reject cultural ideals and norms (Kitayama et al., 2009; Kitayama & Uskul, 2011; Markus & Kitayama, 2010). Such variations in fit between individuals and the dominant cultural consensus may yield many ways of thinking about emotions. Complicating matters further, it is not uncommon for cultural contexts to foster competing sets of cultural models, including models driven by cultural change (i.e., more traditional vs. modern versions) or models associated with different subcultures based on regions of a country, religion, social class, or racial background, to name a few (e.g., Chentsova-Dutton & Ryder, 2020; Harkness & Super, 2006; Kronenfeld, 2011).

Comparing mean levels of a given value across broad cultural contexts can mask these important sources of within-group variability or complexity. The focus on mean comparison across cultures has also contributed to a common criticism of cultural psychology: that the study of cultural differences can essentialize and perpetuate stereotypes. Competing models within cultural contexts remain underexplored in general, and, to our knowledge, competing emotion models are as yet unexamined among people of Latino heritage. Analytic strategies that better capture both within- and between-group variability are critical to enhancing understanding of the diverse ways individualism and collectivism can be enacted in the mind and behavior.

Latent class analysis is an analytic approach that allows for examination of both between- and within-culture variation by identifying population subgroups, or latent classes, based on individual-level responses. This approach has been applied to intercultural comparisons of emotion models in three previous studies. Eid and Diener (2001) characterized norms for experiencing eight emotions in two individualistic (United States, Australia) and two collectivistic (China, Taiwan) countries. The authors found intercultural variability was driven most strongly by the likelihood of viewing pride as desirable/appropriate and guilt as undesirable/inappropriate. Perhaps surprisingly, results also suggested more heterogeneity in emotion norms within the East Asian collectivistic contexts than in the individualistic contexts. An extension of this work to five countries in sub-Saharan Africa again demonstrated significant variability across and within groups (Kim-Prieto & Eid, 2004). The authors also found that respondents in the African cultural contexts they studied tended to view negative emotions, in general, as more undesirable/inappropriate than had been characteristic of East Asian respondents in Eid and Diener’s (2001) initial study.

A more recent study applied a latent class approach to Gallup world poll data on individuals’ experiences related to several feelings or indicators linked with feelings (e.g., smile, laugh, sadness, anger) in 116 countries (Tay et al., 2011). Data revealed complex patterns of experienced emotions (rather than emotion values, our focus here) and significant variation across countries in how frequently a given pattern of emotions was experienced. Of note, a pattern characterized by very high positivity, but also high negative affect, was common in several Latin American cultural contexts. Together, these studies highlight the opportunity for latent class approaches to describe variability in emotion models in rich and nuanced ways.

In the current research, we aimed to characterize and predict endorsement of emotion models among young adults of European, East Asian, and Latino heritage living in the United States. First, we used latent class analysis to identify statistically distinct models, in terms of profiles of desirable emotions and appropriate emotions, in the entire sample. We updated and extended the approach utilized by Eid and Diener (2001) and Kim-Prieto and Eid (2004) in two key ways. First, we distinguished beliefs about emotion ideals (the emotions one desires) from beliefs about injunctive norms for emotion (the emotions one believes are appropriate) based on literature differentiating these constructs (Suh et al., 1998; Tsai et al., 2006, 2007) and past work demonstrating the uniqueness of these constructs in these data (Senft et al., 2020). Exploring these models separately facilitates hypothesis generation and future work as emotion ideals and emotion norms may have different implications for motivation and behavior (Frese, 2015). We also consider a broader range of positive and negative emotions, reflecting evolving understanding of complex emotions in the cultural literature, with emotions such as gratitude and shame emerging as varying in importance across cultures characterized as collectivistic (Boiger et al., 2013, 2014; Corona et al., 2019).

We then examined the prevalence of different emotion models across the three cultural heritage groups. In these analyses, we controlled for endorsement of the dominant, mainstream European American cultural ethos within the United States. The endorsement of various emotion patterns in our U.S. sample likely reflects the degree of adhesion to the dominant cultural ethos of European Americans—hereafter, mainstream cultural orientation—as well as cultural heritage. Many studies conducted among U.S. ethnic minorities use nativity (i.e., born in the United States vs. not) as a proxy for mainstream cultural orientation. However, relying on this binary variable to assess an inherently continuous phenomenon involves assumptions about the sociocultural environments of U.S.-born versus immigrant individuals that are not always correct (Fox et al., 2017). Here, following best practices (Doucerain et al., 2017), we used a mainstream cultural orientation scale to capture individual differences in participants’ adherence to the American ethos dimensionally, even among U.S.-born individuals.

Finally, we also controlled for sex, socioeconomic status, and response style in our latent class analyses. Response styles are individual differences in one’s tendency to respond to questionnaire items in certain ways, regardless of the content (Van Vaerenbergh & Thomas, 2013); examples include tendencies to give higher versus lower, or more versus less extreme, answers on a Likert-type scale. Response styles differ systematically across cultural groups (Smith et al., 2016) and contribute to error in measuring the intended construct. Controlling for such tendencies reduces the likelihood that observed cultural differences in emotion models can be attributed simply to cultural differences in response styles. In summary, we examined the prevalence and diversity of emotion models both within and across cultural groups and explored cultural orientation correlates of individuals’ endorsement of particular emotion models while controlling for important potential confounds.

Undergraduate students from three universities in different regions of the United States took part in the study (initial N = 2,005). The study was approved by the Georgetown University, Arizona State University, and University of California Irvine institutional review boards. We excluded from analyses 384 people who reported mixed heritage, as well as three participants who did not provide data for any of the emotion variables, leaving 1,618 participants in the final sample (1,225 women, Mage = 20.31 years, SDage = 2.64). The sample included 490 people of European heritage (PEH), 463 people of Asian heritage (PAH; 332 Chinese, 115 Korean), and 665 people of Latino heritage (PLH; 578 Mexican). The majority of the sample (1,286 participants) was born in the United States. On average, first-generation immigrants had lived in the United States for 8.36 years (SD = 6.65). In terms of self-reported socioeconomic status, 11% of participants perceived their family to be lower working class (e.g., unskilled workers, employed off and on), 20% upper working class (e.g., skilled workers or small farmers, steady employment), 41% lower middle class (the modal category; e.g., skilled trade such as carpentry, small entrepreneurs, steady employment), 28% upper middle class (e.g., professionals such as physicians, lawyers, CEOs, high earned income), and 1% upper class (do not have to work for a living, family is able to live on inherited wealth).

Table 1 shows demographic information broken down by heritage group. Groups differed in terms of sex composition and self-reported socioeconomic status, supporting the decision to include these variables as covariates. Heritage group differences in nativity composition and immigrants’ time in the United States highlight the importance of including participants’ mainstream cultural orientation as a covariate in the analyses.

Participants completed an online survey on emotions in their daily lives. The survey took about 40 min, and participants received partial course credit as compensation for their time. Some questionnaires included in the survey are beyond the scope of the present research question but are available elsewhere (Senft et al., 2020).

Emotion Values

Two sets of items measured the desirability and appropriateness of experiencing 19 specific emotions in daily life. Participants rated “how desirable it is to experience” and “how appropriate it is to experience” each emotion on a 7-point Likert-type rating scale ranging from 1 = extremely undesirable/inappropriate to 7 = extremely desirable/appropriate. The emotions rated comprised 11 positive emotions (joy, amusement, pride, awe, contentment, interest, excitement, gratitude, compassion, affection, and love) and eight negative emotions (fear, anger, disgust, contempt, sadness, guilt, shame, and embarrassment).

Mainstream Cultural Orientation

A shortened version of the Anglo Orientation subscale of the shortened Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans (Cuéllar et al., 1995) measured participants’ orientation to mainstream U.S. culture. Participants rated eight items assessing their daily engagement with different domains of this culture, including language, social relationships, and entertainment (e.g., “My thinking is done in the English language”), using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = not at all to 5 = extremely often or almost always. Cronbach’s alphas were good among PAH (α = .85), acceptable among PLH (α = .69), and not very good among PEH (α = .60). The latter value may be explained by the fact that rating one’s orientation to the mainstream U.S. culture is less meaningful for members of the mainstream cultural group. A preliminary analysis of variance indicated that mainstream cultural orientation scores differed across heritage groups, F(2, 1615) = 180.0, p < .001, supporting the decision to include this variable in latent class analyses.

Response Style Indices

Best practices recommend including multiple heterogeneous measures that are uncorrelated to the construct studied, calculating response style indicators from these additional measures, and adding these indicators as covariates in analyses (Van Vaerenbergh & Thomas, 2013). To that end, we employed a widely used, multidimensional personality measure to compute two response style indicators (details below). The Big Five Inventory (John et al., 1991) consists of 44 personality trait items rated as descriptors of the self on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = disagree strongly to 5 = agree strongly. The Big Five Inventory is typically used to measure the largely orthogonal core personality traits of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience. In the present case, we used participants’ patterns of self-ratings on this instrument to help control for individual differences in questionnaire response styles.

Computing each participant’s mean across all Big Five items, regardless of subscale (average individual M = 3.43, SD = .31), yielded an index of that participant’s overall bias toward lower versus higher response options. Computing each participant’s within-person standard deviation across all items (average individual standard deviation M = 1.15, SD = .25) yielded an index of that participants’ tendency to use a wider versus more restricted range of response options. These response style indicators were included as covariates in latent class analyses. Additional descriptive statistics for these indicators in the entire sample and in each heritage group are available in the online supplemental materials. A preliminary analysis of variance indicated that both mean, F(2, 1615) = 51.1, p < .001, and standard deviation, F(2, 1615) = 16.6, p < .001, response styles differed across heritage groups, supporting the decision to include these indicators as covariates in latent class analyses.

Missing data were minimal (< 1% in each variable) and were imputed using expectation maximization prior to analyses. We conducted two separate analyses, one for emotion desirability and one for emotion appropriateness as the class-defining group of variables. In each, we applied latent class regression models to emotion ratings, with the simultaneous introduction of heritage group, mainstream cultural orientation, and covariates sex, socioeconomic status (treated as a numerical variable), and response styles as predictors of class membership. We used the R package poLCA (Linzer & Lewis, 2011) for these analyses.

We determined the optimal number of emotion classes in our data by comparing fit indices for three-, four-, and five-class solutions. Specifically, we looked for the solution with lowest Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) values, highest relative entropy (≥ .70), highest mean posterior class membership probabilities (≥ .70), class sizes including at least 10% of the sample, and statistically significant bootstrapped likelihood ratio tests (LRT) comparing k with k-1 classes (Nylund et al., 2007). For the optimal number of classes, we then computed proportions of participants across classes, also broken down by heritage group and by nativity (immigrant vs. U.S.-born) to provide additional nuances. Based on these counts, we assessed class heterogeneity within each heritage group, using Blau’s index of qualitative variation: , where k = number of classes and π = proportion of people in class i. This metric corresponds to Eid and Diener’s (2001) concentration index.

Finally, a chi-square test examined the correspondence between class membership for emotion desirability and emotion appropriateness across heritage groups. A priori power analyses for latent class analysis are difficult to conduct. Therefore, we based our sample size estimation on Eid and Diener’s (2001) past study of emotion models, conducted in four countries with an average N = 462 across countries. With a total sample size of N = 1,618 (and more than 462 participants in each heritage group), power was deemed sufficient for the current study. Data are available at https://osf.io/9cbkx/?view_only=5ea817e39ada40cfbfccc5d737b83b0e.

Number of Classes

The upper panel of Table 2 shows fit indices for three-, four-, and five-class solutions for emotion desirability. Entropy, mean posterior probabilities, and class sizes were good in all solutions. The AIC was best with five classes, but entropy and mean posterior probability values were lowest for this solution. The BIC was best for four classes, and bootstrapped LRT results indicated that four classes were necessary and sufficient, so we retained the four-class solution.

Description of Classes

Figure 1 shows emotion profiles in each latent class for emotion desirability. Across all classes, participants tended to rate positive emotions as desirable and negative emotions as undesirable. Class 1 hedonic polarization (37% of participants) viewed positive emotions as very (but not extremely) desirable, M = 5.66, and negative emotions as very undesirable, M = 1.94. Class 2 hyperpolarized (30% of the sample) showed a more extreme profile, with positive emotions as extremely desirable, M = 6.30, and negative emotions as extremely undesirable, M = 1.52. Class 3 positive focus (20% of the sample) was characterized by an extreme desirability of positive emotions, M = 6.28, with less extreme undesirability of negative emotions, M = 2.56. Class 4 moderate (13% of participants) was the most moderate of all classes, rating positive emotions as moderately desirable, M = 5.02, and negative emotions as moderately undesirable, M = 3.29. Contempt, pride, and awe did not follow the patterns seen for other negative and positive emotions, displaying more variability in desirability ratings regardless of class. Finally, in all classes including the most “extreme,” Class 2 hyperpolarized, there seemed to be more variability in desirability of negative emotions than positive emotions.

Prediction of Class Membership

The upper panel of Table 3 shows results of the latent class regression for emotion desirability. Except for socioeconomic status, all predictors were significantly associated with class membership, including participants’ response styles. Regression coefficients for dependent variables with more than two categories are notoriously difficult to interpret, so the top panel of Figure 2 aims to aid interpretation by showing the overall probability of being in each class at different levels of our two main predictors, heritage group and mainstream cultural orientation. A more detailed description of results involving covariates is provided in the online supplemental materials.

Class Membership by Heritage Group

Controlling for sex, socioeconomic status, mainstream cultural orientation, and response style, PAH were significantly less likely to be in Class 1 hedonic polarization than PLH, for whom this was the most common class. Class 1 hedonic polarization was also the most common class for PEH, though the proportion of PEH in this class was slightly lower than that of PLH. PEH were more likely to belong to Class 2 hyperpolarized than PAH, with PLH falling between these groups. Class 3 positive focus claimed the largest proportion of PAH participants, substantially more so than for PLH, with PEH in between. PAH were also more likely to be in Class 4 moderate than PEH, with PLH falling in between.

Considering immigrant status as well as heritage group added nuance to this pattern (see Table 4). PAH in Class 3 positive focus were much more likely to be U.S.-born than to be immigrants, whereas the reverse was true for Class 4 moderate. This effect of immigration status was not as pronounced among PLH. Like PAH, PLH in Class 3 positive focus were somewhat more likely to be U.S.-born, but U.S.-born PLH overwhelmingly tended to fall in Class 1 hedonic polarization or Class 2 hyperpolarized. This suggests that the positive-focus (yet negative-tolerant) emotion desirability profile might be distinctly prevalent among second- and later-generation PAH.

Heterogeneity values are shown in the upper panel of Table 4, with higher values indicating more even distribution of heritage group members across classes (i.e., greater heterogeneity). The greatest heterogeneity was observed among PAH, with at least 20% and no more than 32% of PAH in each class. In contrast, the range of emotion profiles was more restricted among PEH, with only 4% in Class 4 moderate. People of Latino heritage were similarly homogeneous: Over 40% of PLH were in Class 1 hedonic polarization, but PLH were underrepresented in Class 3 positive focus and Class 4 moderate.

Class Membership by Mainstream Cultural Orientation

Controlling for other predictors, stronger mainstream orientation was associated with a steep decline in probability of belonging to Class 4 moderate and with higher probabilities of belonging to Class 3 positive bias and Class 2 hyperpolarized. Mainstream orientation was not as strongly related to probability of belonging to Class 1 hedonic polarization.

Number of Classes

The lower panel of Table 2 shows fit indices for three-, four-, and five-class solutions for emotion appropriateness. Entropy, mean posterior probabilities, and class sizes were good in all solutions. AIC and BIC values were best for five classes, but the mean posterior probability was lowest for this solution. In addition, bootstrapped LRT results indicated that four classes were necessary and sufficient, so we retained the four-class solution.

Description of Classes

The right panel of Figure 2 shows emotion profiles in each latent class for emotion appropriateness. Across classes, there was more variation in how appropriate it is to feel negative emotions than in how desirable it is. Whereas participants in all classes perceived negative emotions as undesirable, some classes perceived them as relatively appropriate. Even more than was the case for emotion desirability, variability in appropriateness scores was greater for negative than positive emotions. Whereas people in all classes rated positive emotions as moderately to extremely appropriate, negative emotion ratings ranged from inappropriate to appropriate.

Participants in Class 1 negative neutral, representing 32% of the sample, rated positive emotions as very appropriate, M = 5.95, and most negative emotions as neither appropriate nor inappropriate, M = 4.36. Class 2 negative intolerant, comprising 30% of participants, rated positive emotions as very appropriate, M = 6.01, and negative emotions as very inappropriate, M = 2.37. Class 3 balanced, comprising 22% of the sample, was the most moderate of all four classes, with positive emotions rated as moderately appropriate, M = 4.94, and negative emotions as moderately inappropriate, M = 3.35. Class 4 negative tolerant (16% of participants) showed the highest overall ratings of emotion appropriateness, with positive emotions rated as extremely appropriate, M = 6.65, and negative emotions as moderately to highly appropriate, M = 5.05. As was the case for emotion desirability, contempt, pride, and awe displayed more variability in scores than other emotions, except for Class 3 balanced.

Prediction of Class Membership

The lower panel of Table 3 shows results of the latent class regression for emotion appropriateness. Heritage group, mainstream cultural orientation, and response style variables were all significantly associated with class membership, whereas sex and socioeconomic status were not. The bottom panel of Figure 2 shows the probability of being in each class at different levels of our two main predictors, heritage group and mainstream cultural orientation. A more detailed description of results involving covariates is provided in the online supplemental materials.

Class Membership by Heritage Group

After controlling for other predictors, Class 1 negative neutral differentiated PEH from the other two groups, with PEH far more likely to belong to this class. Class 2 negative intolerant most clearly differentiated PLH as they were more likely to be in this class than PAH or PEH; PEH were least likely to belong to Class 2 negative intolerant. PAH were more likely to be in Class 3 balanced as compared to PLH and PEH. There were no marked heritage group differences in membership in Class 4 negative tolerant.

Heterogeneities in appropriateness class membership within heritage groups are shown in the lower panel of Table 4. All three heritage groups were comparable in the evenness of their distribution across classes. Relative to within-group heterogeneities for emotion desirability, heterogeneity values for appropriateness were very similar for PAH but higher among PLH and PEH. This indicates that these latter two heritage groups were more distributed across emotion appropriateness profiles but more restricted in terms of emotion desirability profiles.

Class Membership by Mainstream Cultural Orientation

Stronger mainstream orientation was associated with a steep decline in probability of belonging to Class 3 balanced. The opposite was true for the other three classes, although the relationship was weaker for Class 1 negative neutral and Class 2 negative intolerant than for Class 4 negative tolerant.

Chi-square tests showed that emotion desirability class membership was statistically significantly associated with class membership for emotion appropriateness, both for the entire sample, χ2(9) = 550.70, p < .001, and within each heritage group (all ps < .001). Table 5 shows the cross-tabulation of participants’ counts in emotion desirability classes by emotion appropriateness classes. Uneven values across cells (very low counts in some, very high in others) indicate a strong correspondence between desirability and appropriateness classes. Overall, controlling for the influence of other predictors, participants in appropriateness Class 1 negative neutral were overrepresented in desirability Class 1 hedonic polarization. This pattern existed across heritage groups but was especially strong for PLH.

Membership in appropriateness Class 2 negative intolerant was associated predominantly with membership in desirability Class 2 hyperpolarized, in the entire sample and among PEH and PLH. PAH in appropriateness Class 2 were fairly evenly split between desirability Class 1 hedonic polarization and Class 2 hyperpolarized. In the entire sample, the majority of participants in appropriateness Class 3 balanced were evenly split between desirability Class 1 hedonic polarization and Class 4 moderate. However, whereas PAH in appropriateness Class 3 balanced tended to land in desirability Class 4 moderate, PLH were more likely to fall in desirability Class 1 hedonic polarization. Finally, participants in appropriateness Class 4 negative tolerant were overrepresented in desirability Class 2 hyperpolarized, both in the entire sample and among PEH and PLH. PAH in appropriateness Class 4 negative tolerant were fairly evenly split between desirability Class 2 hyperpolarized and Class 3 positive focus.

Among over 1,600 young adults of European, Latino, and Asian heritage living in the United States, we found evidence of significant between- and within-group variability in emotion models, as well as some aspects of emotion models that are shared across these cultural contexts. Four distinct classes, or models, of emotion desirability and four classes/models of emotion appropriateness emerged through latent class analyses. Latent class regression further demonstrated that endorsement of emotion models was systematically related to heritage group membership and mainstream cultural orientation. Most distinctively, our findings advance knowledge of PLH and how the emotion models of this group compare to those of their more frequently studied PEH and PAH counterparts. Results suggest that dominant emotion models among PLH are in some ways similar to PEH yet in others are clearly distinct from both PEH and PAH. This finding adds to growing evidence of heterogeneity among collectivist cultures and the multitude of ways that emotion values may align with collectivist ideals and norms. This research contributes to the literature on culture and emotion by including PLH to move beyond the East-West dichotomy, with an aim of developing a more nuanced understanding of between- and within-group variation in emotion models.

People generally tended to view positive emotions as desirable and negative emotions as undesirable, yet differences in the extremity of these views distinguished members of the three heritage groups we studied. Dominant models of emotion desirability among PEH were similar to those of PLH. Most PEH and PLH endorsed either hedonic polarization (Class 1) or hyperpolarized (Class 2) models of emotion desirability (73% PEH, 75% PLH), wherein positive emotions are viewed as very or extremely desirable and negative emotions as very or extremely undesirable. This suggests broad consensus and limited heterogeneity in emotion models endorsed by these groups. PAH were more evenly distributed across the four models of emotion desirability, suggesting greater heterogeneity of emotion models. Though Class 1 hedonic polarization was the most common model endorsed by PAH, PAH were more strongly represented in Class 3 positive focus and Class 4 moderate than PEH or PLH, relatively few of whom endorsed these models.

The overrepresentation of PAH in Class 4 moderate is consistent with past research demonstrating more moderate emotion values among East Asian individuals (Campos & Kim, 2017; Lu & Gilmour, 2004; Peng et al., 2006; Spencer-Rodgers et al., 2010; Uchida & Kitayama, 2009; Williams & Aaker, 2002). The finding of overrepresentation of PAH in Class 3 positive focus, wherein positive emotions are viewed as extremely desirable and negative emotions as very undesirable, is more novel, and follow-up analyses revealed that membership in this class is largely constrained to PAH born in the United States. This suggests a possible distinct Asian American emotion model that places greater emphasis on positive emotion desirability, while maintaining the relatively tolerant view of negative emotions characteristic of the traditional East Asian model. Further research is needed to assess whether this heightened desire for emotional positivity is comparable to that of mainstream U.S. culture or has a distinct “flavor” of its own.

All models showed that positive emotions were considered appropriate, but models ranged more widely in the appropriateness of negative emotions. Some people in each heritage group viewed negative emotions as inappropriate, others as appropriate, and still others as neither appropriate nor inappropriate. All three heritage groups were heterogenous in their endorsement of appropriateness models, with PEH and PLH models of appropriate emotions being more heterogeneous than their models of desirable emotions. This finding suggests less consensus within cultural groups regarding emotion norms as compared to emotion ideals. Emotion appropriateness models are likely tied to injunctive social norms, which may vary across individuals’ local social contexts. It is possible that individuals in our sample had a range of social contexts in mind when completing these ratings (e.g., with family, with friends, at their schools across the United States), contributing to within-group heterogeneity. Despite greater heterogeneity overall, heritage group was still associated statistically with endorsement of appropriateness models. In this case, the most commonly endorsed emotion model differed in each group, providing additional support for a distinct pattern of emotion values among PLH. People of European heritage were overrepresented in Class 1 negative neutral, which viewed positive emotions as very appropriate and negative emotions more neutrally. This pattern may reflect the importance of emotional authenticity in this group, where value is placed on emotions as authentic reflections of one’s internal state and a healthy means of self-expression (English & Chen, 2011; English & John, 2013; Kim & Sherman, 2007). People of Latino heritage were overrepresented in Class 2 negative intolerant, which was the least tolerant of negative emotions. This is consistent with past work describing convivial collectivism in Mexican and Mexican American contexts, wherein emphasis on positive emotions and discouragement of negative emotions and behaviors supports smooth social interactions and achievement of relational goals (Campos & Kim, 2017; Holloway et al., 2009; Senft et al., 2020; Triandis et al., 1984). People of Asian heritage were overrepresented in Class 3 balanced, with more balanced views of positive and negative emotions’ appropriateness. As with desirability, this is consistent with an emphasis on balance and moderation in this context (Campos & Kim, 2017; Lu & Gilmour, 2004; Peng et al., 2006; Spencer-Rodgers et al., 2010; Uchida et al., 2004; Uchida & Kitayama, 2009; Williams & Aaker, 2002). Also in line with the patterns observed for desirability, greater orientation to mainstream U.S. culture was associated with lower likelihood of PAH being in Class 3 balanced and greater likelihood of their being in other classes. Finally, a small but significant (≥ 14%) proportion of each cultural group viewed all emotions, but especially positive emotions, as appropriate.

As expected, models of emotion desirability and emotion appropriateness differed meaningfully. In particular, whereas negative emotions were generally viewed as undesirable, many respondents viewed negative emotions as appropriate or neutral. Findings also suggest that values for emotion desirability may be less variable within a given cultural context than are appropriateness models or perhaps that they are “stickier” such that early learned emotion desirability values are retained regardless of changes in context. Future work assessing emotion desirability and appropriateness patterns over time and across varied social contexts could clarify these findings. Last, there was some concordance between the desirability and appropriateness models that individuals endorsed, though the strength of these associations also varied across cultural heritage contexts, suggesting additional complexity and nuance to cultural emotion models when multiple facets of emotion values are considered together.

The sample used in the current research is a significant strength. By using large groups of PEH, PLH, and PAH, we were able to control for several aspects of group membership and identity in exploring the role of heritage culture for emotion models. Furthermore, there is practical benefit to better understanding emotion models in this sample as this may inform clinical care for underserved populations, including young adults of Latino and Asian heritage (Lipson et al., 2018). Beliefs about emotions are known to have relevance for metaemotions, motivation to regulate emotions, and strategies people use to do so (De Castella et al., 2014; Sydenham et al., 2017). However, focusing on college students, rather than a sociologically more diverse community sample, restricts the generalizability of our results. In addition, because all data were collected among people living in the United States, the emotion models uncovered by our analyses may not fully reflect those of people living in East Asian or Latin American countries. Different models, or different proportional endorsement of models, may have emerged had we included participants living outside the United States. Relatedly, PLH in our sample were predominantly of Mexican heritage, leaving the question of emotion models in other Latin American contexts in need of further study. At the same time, it is a considerable strength of this study that we took acculturation into account in our analyses by including mainstream cultural orientation as a predictor of class membership.

Our methods place some constraints on interpretations that can be drawn from our findings as well. We conducted the study in English only, which may have primed U.S. cultural norms. Measuring emotion desirability and appropriateness in participants’ preferred language may have yielded different patterns (Garrido & Prada, 2021; Matsumoto et al., 2008; Rodríguez-Arauz et al., 2017). Also, we assessed emotion desirability and appropriateness generally, without providing contextual information. Beliefs about the degree to which an emotion is desirable or appropriate may shift substantially depending on the context (e.g., feeling sadness at a wedding vs. a funeral). Better characterizing the interplay among emotion models, context, and personal characteristics is an important direction for future research.

Another topic for future research lies in understanding cultural models of pride, awe, and contempt, which, in these data, seem to be conceptualized differently from other positive and negative emotions. While past research demonstrates that pride has distinct meanings that may explain this variability (Tracy & Robins, 2007), an explanation is less apparent for awe and contempt. The data used for the current study also include measures of the desirability and appropriateness of emotional expression (see Senft et al., 2020). Though analyzing these emotion models was beyond the scope of the current analysis, future work may examine these as important and complementary aspects of cultural models of emotion. Finally, future work should examine implications of endorsing particular emotion models for behaviors and psychosocial outcomes such as well-being, feelings of belonging, and mental health.

Examining the full scope and prevalence of varied emotion models available to group members in the cultural marketplace of ideas can generate a new set of questions for cultural psychology researchers. For example, researchers can ask questions about factors associated with model homogeneity or heterogeneity across cultural contexts. We can examine demographic or psychological characteristics of individuals and groups (e.g., political orientation, social class, neuroticism) that drive endorsement and proliferation of some models over others, as well as characteristics of models that show growing or dwindling popularity (e.g., memorability, communicability, fit with other common models). Researchers can also apply theory and methods from the emerging discipline of cultural dynamics (also known as cultural evolution; Kashima et al., 2019) to track changes in available models and their endorsement over time, examine how these models propagate through social sharing (Rimé, 2020), and explore the consequences of interactions among people or groups that hold differing models (Eriksson & Strimling, 2020).

Finally, assessing individuals' familiarity with and endorsement of particular models may allow researchers to examine psychological implications of holding particular models and of cultural fit, or the extent to which emotions of an individual or groups of individuals match emotions that characterize their social context (De Leersnyder, 2017). Cultural fit has been shown to predict adjustment in diverse samples (De Leersnyder, 2017), suggesting that holding models that are dominant in one's cultural context may offer psychological and social benefits above and beyond effects of the models themselves. This issue is of particular interest for cultural-clinical psychology (Chentsova-Dutton & Ryder, 2020). This research contributes a first step in advancing these efforts by documenting within- and between-culture distributions of different models.

This research advances both cultural psychology and affective science and moves their integration forward. It also generates new questions for cultural psychology researchers. Future work may explore other factors, such as personality, age, political orientation, or other attitudes and experiences, associated with endorsement of particular emotion models, as well as implications of these models for well-being and behavior. This study’s findings related to the role of orientation to mainstream U.S. culture suggest the importance of examining change in emotion models over time, within both cultures and individuals. As cultural psychology advances as a discipline, it is critical that research methods approach cultures as complex, dynamic, and contested rather than stable and homogenous (Hong & Mallorie, 2004; Kirmayer, 2006). Part of this effort must also include increasing focus on cultural groups outside of the most commonly studied East Asian and European American contexts (Vignoles et al., 2016) and more thorough characterizations of sources of within-culture variability (Cohen, 2009). This study documents within-group heterogeneity in emotion values while also highlighting ways in which emotion models endorsed by people of Latin American heritage are similar to, yet distinct from, those endorsed by people of European and Asian heritage. In this way, the present findings add to the evidence that collectivism is not monolithic but rather exists in multiple forms and highlight the Latin American form as especially deserving of further study.

1  This term was chosen because it is widely used, recognized, and endorsed by people of Latin American heritage in the United States (Noe-Bustamante et al., 2020). Per the Spanish language, the term “Latino” inclusively refers to everyone in a group unless the group consists exclusively of women.

2  The heritage self-identification category for these participants was labelled “White, Caucasian, European.” We use the more concise label “European” throughout to designate this broader category.

3  We conducted latent class analyses with and without foreign-born people of European heritage. The pattern of results did not change, with 99.5% of participants classified identically for appropriateness and 99% for desirability. Therefore, we kept immigrants of European heritage in the analyses reported here to maximize power. Tables with results from additional analyses conducted without immigrants of European heritage are provided in the online supplemental materials.

Bennardo, G. (2018). Cultural models theory. Anthropology News, 59(4), e139–e142. 10.1111/AN.919

Boiger, M., Güngör, D., Karasawa, M., & Mesquita, B. (2014). Defending honour, keeping face: Interpersonal affordances of anger and shame in Turkey and Japan. Cognition and Emotion, 28(7), 1255–1269. 10.1080/02699931.2014.881324

Boiger, M., Mesquita, B., Uchida, Y., & Feldman Barrett, L. (2013). Condoned or condemned: The situational affordance of anger and shame in the United States and Japan. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(4), 540–553. 10.1177/0146167213478201

Campos, B., & Kim, H. S. (2017). Incorporating the cultural diversity of family and close relationships into the study of health. American Psychologist, 72(6), 543–554. 10.1037/amp0000122

Campos, B., Ullman, J. B., Aguilera, A., & Dunkel Schetter, C. (2014). Familism and psychological health: The intervening role of closeness and social support. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(2), 191–201. 10.1037/a0034094

Casson, R. W. (1983). Schemata in cognitive anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 12(1), 429–462. 10.1146/annurev.an.12.100183.002241

Chentsova-Dutton, Y. E., & Ryder, A. G. (2020). Cultural models of normalcy and deviancy. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 23(2), 187–204. 10.1111/ajsp.12413

Chiu, C.-Y., Gelfand, M. J., Yamagishi, T., Shteynberg, G., & Wan, C. (2010). Intersubjective culture: The role of intersubjective perceptions in cross-cultural research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 482–493. 10.1177/1745691610375562

Choi, I., Koo, M., & Choi, J. A. (2007). Individual differences in analytic versus holistic thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(5), 691–705. 10.1177/0146167206298568

Cohen, A. B. (2009). Many forms of culture. American Psychologist, 64(3), 194–204. 10.1037/a0015308

Corona, K., Senft, N., Campos, B., Chen, C., Shiota, M., & Chentsova-Dutton, Y. E. (2019). Ethnic variation in gratitude and well-being. Emotion, 20, 518–524. 10.1037/emo0000582

Cross, S. E., Hardin, E. E., & Gercek-Swing, B. (2011). The what, how, why, and where of self-construal. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(2), 142–179. 10.1177/1088868310373752

Cuéllar, I., Arnold, B., & Maldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation rating scale for Mexican Americans-II: A revision of the original ARSMA scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17(3), 275–304. 10.1177/07399863950173001

D’Andrade, R. G. (1992). Schemas and motivation. In C.Strauss & R. G.D’Andrade (Eds.), Human motives and cultural models (pp. 23–44). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166515.003

De Castella, K., Goldin, P., Jazaieri, H., Ziv, M., Heimberg, R. G., & Gross, J. J. (2014). Emotion beliefs in social anxiety disorder: Associations with stress, anxiety, and well-being. Australian Journal of Psychology, 66(2), 139–148. 10.1111/ajpy.12053

De Leersnyder, J. (2017). Emotional acculturation: A first review. Current Opinion in Psychology, 17, 67–73. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.06.007

Diaz-Loving, R., & Draguns, J. G. (1999). Culture, meaning, and personality in Mexico and in the United States. In Y.-T.Lee, C. R.McCauley, & J. G.Draguns (Eds.), Personality and person perception across cultures (pp. 103–126). Erlbaum Publishers.

Diener, E., Napa-Scollon, C. K., Oishi, S., Dzokoto, V., & Suh, E. M. (2000). Positivity and the construction of life satisfaction judgments: Global happiness is not the sum of its parts. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1(2), 159–176. 10.1023/A:1010031813405

Doucerain, M. M., Segalowitz, N., & Ryder, A. G. (2017). Acculturation measurement: From simple proxies to sophisticated toolkit. In S. J.Schwartz & J.Unger (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of acculturation and health (pp. 97–118). Oxford University Press.

Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2001). Norms for experiencing emotions in different cultures: Inter- and intranational differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(5), 869–885. 10.1037/0022-3514.81.5.869

English, T., & Chen, S. (2011). Self-concept consistency and culture: The differential impact of two forms of consistency. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(6), 838–849. 10.1177/0146167211400621

English, T., & John, O. P. (2013). Understanding the social effects of emotion regulation: The mediating role of authenticity for individual differences in suppression. Emotion, 13(2), 314–329. 10.1037/a0029847

Eriksson, K., & Strimling, P. (2020). Using models to predict cultural evolution from emotional selection mechanisms. Emotion Review, 12(2), 79–92. 10.1177/1754073919890914

Ford, B. Q., Dmitrieva, J. O., Heller, D., Chentsova-Dutton, Y., Grossmann, I., Tamir, M., Uchida, Y., Koopmann-Holm, B., Floerke, V. A., Uhrig, M., Bokhan, T., & Mauss, I. B. (2015). Culture shapes whether the pursuit of happiness predicts higher or lower well-being. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(6), 1053–1062. 10.1037/xge0000108

Fox, M., Thayer, Z., & Wadhwa, P. D. (2017). Assessment of acculturation in minority health research. Social Science & Medicine, 176, 123–132. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.01.029

Frese, M. (2015). Cultural practices, norms, and values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(10), 1327–1330. 10.1177/0022022115600267

Garrido, M. V., & Prada, M. (2021). Comparing the valence, emotionality and subjective familiarity of words in a first and a second language. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24(2), 275–291. 10.1080/13670050.2018.1456514

Harker, L., & Keltner, D. (2001). Expressions of positive emotion in women’s college yearbook pictures and their relationship to personality and life outcomes across adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 112–124. 10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.112

Harkness, S., & Super, C. M. (2006). Themes and variations: Parental ethnotheories in Western cultures. In K. H.Rubin & O. B.Chung (Eds.), Parenting beliefs, behaviors, and parent-child relations: A cross-cultural perspective (pp. 61–79). Psychology Press.

Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-regard?Psychological Review, 106(4), 766–794. 10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.766

Holloway, R. A., Waldrip, A. M., & Ickes, W. (2009). Evidence that a simpático self-schema accounts for differences in the self-concepts and social behavior of Latinos versus Whites (and Blacks). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1012–1028. 10.1037/a0013883

Hong, Y., & Mallorie, L. M. (2004). A dynamic constructivist approach to culture: Lessons learned from personality psychology. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(1), 59–67. 10.1016/j.jrp.2003.09.003

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). Big Five Inventory. 10.1037/t07550-000

Kagitcibasi, C. (2005). Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context: Implications for self and family. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(4), 403–422. 10.1177/0022022105275959

Kashima, E. S., & Hardie, E. A. (2000). The development and validation of the Relational, Individual, and Collective Self-Aspects (RIC) Scale. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3(1), 19–48. 10.1111/1467-839X.00053

Kashima, Y., Bain, P. G., & Perfors, A. (2019). The psychology of cultural dynamics: What is it, what do we know, and what is yet to be known?Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 499–529. 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103112

Kim, H. S., & Sherman, D. K. (2007). “Express yourself”: Culture and the effect of self-expression on choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 1–11. 10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.1

Kim-Prieto, C., & Eid, M. (2004). Norms for experiencing emotions. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5(3), 241–268. 10.1007/s10531-004-8787-2

Kirmayer, L. J. (2006). Beyond the ‘new cross-cultural psychiatry’: Cultural biology, discursive psychology and the ironies of globalization. Transcultural Psychiatry, 43(1), 126–144. 10.1177/1363461506061761

Kitayama, S., Mesquita, B., & Karasawa, M. (2006). Cultural affordances and emotional experience: Socially engaging and disengaging emotions in Japan and the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 890–903. 10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.890

Kitayama, S., Park, H., Sevincer, A. T., Karasawa, M., & Uskul, A. K. (2009). A cultural task analysis of implicit independence: Comparing North America, Western Europe, and East Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(2), 236–255. 10.1037/a0015999

Kitayama, S., & Uskul, A. K. (2011). Culture, mind, and the brain: Current evidence and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 419–449. 10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145357

Koopmann-Holm, B., & Tsai, J. L. (2014). Focusing on the negative: Cultural differences in expressions of sympathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(6), 1092–1115. 10.1037/a0037684

Kronenfeld, D. B. (2011). Afterword: One cognitive view of culture. In D. B.Kronenfeld, G.Bennardo, V. C.de Munck, & M. D.Fischer (Eds.), A companion to cognitive anthropology (pp. 569–583). Wiley, Ltd.10.1002/9781444394931.after

Linzer, D. A., & Lewis, J. B. (2011). poLCA: An R package for polytomous variable latent class analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 42(10), 1–29. 10.18637/jss.v042.i10

Lipson, S. K., Kern, A., Eisenberg, D., & Breland-Noble, A. M. (2018). Mental health disparities among college students of color. Journal of Adolescent Health, 63(3), 348–356. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.04.014

Lu, L., & Gilmour, R. (2004). Culture and conceptions of happiness: Individual oriented and social oriented swb. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5(3), 269–291. 10.1007/s10902-004-8789-5

Ma, X., Tamir, M., & Miyamoto, Y. (2018). A socio-cultural instrumental approach to emotion regulation: Culture and the regulation of positive emotions. Emotion, 18(1), 138–152. 10.1037/emo0000315

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. 10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 420–430. 10.1177/1745691610375557

Matsumoto, D., Anguas-Wong, A. M., & Martinez, E. (2008). Priming effects of language on emotion judgments in Spanish-English bilinguals. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(3), 335–342. 10.1177/0022022108315489

Mosquera, P. M. R., Manstead, A. S. R., & Fischer, A. H. (2000). The role of honor-related values in the elicitation, experience, and communication of pride, shame, and anger: Spain and The Netherlands compared. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(7), 833–844. 10.1177/0146167200269008

Noe-Bustamante, L., Mora, L., & Lopez, M. H. (2020, August11). About one-in-four U.S. Hispanics have heard of Latinx, but just 3% use itPew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2020/08/11/about-one-in-four-u-s-hispanics-have-heard-of-latinx-but-just-3-use-it/

Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural equation modeling: A multidisciplinary Journal, 14(4), 535–569.

Oishi, S., Graham, J., Kesebir, S., & Galinha, I. C. (2013). Concepts of happiness across time and cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(5), 559–577. 10.1177/0146167213480042

Papa, A., & Bonanno, G. A. (2008). Smiling in the face of adversity: The interpersonal and intrapersonal functions of smiling. Emotion, 8(1), 1–12. 10.1037/1528-3542.8.1.1

Peng, K., Spencer-Rodgers, J., & Nian, Z. (2006). Naïve dialecticism and the Tao of Chinese thought. In U.Kim, K.-S.Yang, & K.-K.Hwang (Eds.), Indigenous and cultural psychology: Understanding people in context (pp. 247–262). Springer US. 10.1007/0-387-28662-4_11

Quinn, N., & Holland, D. (1987). Culture and cognition. In D.Holland & N.Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 3–40). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511607660.002

Ramírez-Esparza, N., García-Sierra, A., Rodríguez-Arauz, G., Ikizer, E. G., & Fernández-Gómez, M. J. (2019). No laughing matter: Latinas’ high quality of conversations relate to behavioral laughter. PLoS ONE, 14(4), Article e0214117. 10.1371/journal.pone.0214117

Rimé, B. (2020). Emotions at the service of cultural construction. Emotion Review, 12(2), 65–78. 10.1177/1754073919876036

Rodríguez-Arauz, G., Ramírez-Esparza, N., García-Sierra, A., Ikizer, E. G., & Fernández-Gómez, M. J. (2019). You go before me, please: Behavioral politeness and interdependent self as markers of Simpatía in Latinas. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 25(3), 379–387. 10.1037/cdp0000232

Rodríguez-Arauz, G., Ramírez-Esparza, N., Pérez-Brena, N., & Boyd, R. L. (2017). Hablo Inglés y Español: Cultural self-schemas as a function of language. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 885. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00885

Ruby, M. B., Falk, C. F., Heine, S. J., Villa, C., & Silberstein, O. (2012). Not all collectivisms are equal: Opposing preferences for ideal affect between East Asians and Mexicans. Emotion, 12(6), 1206–1209. 10.1037/a0029118

Sabogal, F., Marín, G., Otero-Sabogal, R., Marín, B. V., & Perez-Stable, E. J. (1987). Hispanic familism and acculturation: What changes and what doesn’t?Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9(4), 397–412. 10.1177/07399863870094003

San Martin, A., Sinaceur, M., Madi, A., Tompson, S., Maddux, W. W., & Kitayama, S. (2018). Self-assertive interdependence in Arab culture. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(11), 830–837. 10.1038/s41562-018-0435-z

Schwartz, S. H. (2014). Rethinking the concept and measurement of societal culture in light of empirical findings. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(1), 5–13. 10.1177/0022022113490830

Senft, N., Campos, B., Shiota, M. N., & Chentsova-Dutton, Y. E. (2020). Who emphasizes positivity? An exploration of emotion values in people of Latino, Asian, and European heritage living in the United States. Emotion, 21, 707–719. 10.1037/emo0000737

Shweder, R. A., Haidt, J., Horton, R., & Joseph, C. (2008). The cultural psychology of the emotions: Ancient and renewed. In M.Lewis, J. M.Haviland-Jones, & L. F.Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 409–427). Guilford Press.

Smith, P. B., Vignoles, V. L., Becker, M., Owe, E., Easterbrook, M. J., Brown, R., Bourguignon, D., Garðarsdóttir, R. B., Kreuzbauer, R., Cendales Ayala, B., Yuki, M., Zhang, J., Lv, S., Chobthamkit, P., Jaafar, J. L., Fischer, R., Milfont, T. L., Gavreliuc, A., Baguma, P., . . .Harb, C. (2016). Individual and culture-level components of survey response styles: A multi-level analysis using cultural models of selfhood. International Journal of Psychology, 51(6), 453–463. 10.1002/ijop.12293

Spencer-Rodgers, J., Peng, K., & Wang, L. (2010). Dialecticism and the co-occurrence of positive and negative emotions across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41(1), 109–115. 10.1177/0022022109349508

Suh, E., Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Triandis, H. C. (1998). The shifting basis of life satisfaction judgments across cultures: Emotions versus norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 482–493. 10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.482

Sydenham, M., Beardwood, J., & Rimes, K. A. (2017). Beliefs about emotions, depression, anxiety and fatigue: A mediational analysis. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 45(1), 73–78. 10.1017/S1352465816000199

Tamir, M., & Ford, B. Q. (2012). When feeling bad is expected to be good: Emotion regulation and outcome expectancies in social conflicts. Emotion, 12(4), 807–816. 10.1037/a0024443

Tay, L., Diener, E., Drasgow, F., & Vermunt, J. K. (2011). Multilevel mixed-measurement IRT analysis: An explication and application to self-reported emotions across the world. Organizational Research Methods, 14(1), 177–207. 10.1177/1094428110372674

Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007). Emerging insights into the nature and function of pride. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(3), 147–150. 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00493.x

Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism-collectivism and personality. Journal of Personality, 69(6), 907–924. 10.1111/1467-6494.696169

Triandis, H. C., Marin, G., Lisansky, J., & Betancourt, H. (1984). Simpatia as a cultural script of Hispanics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1363–1375. 10.1037/0022-3514.47.6.1363

Tsai, J. L., Knutson, B., & Fung, H. H. (2006). Cultural variation in affect valuation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(2), 288–307. 10.1037/0022-3514.90.2.288

Tsai, J. L., Louie, J. Y., Chen, E. E., & Uchida, Y. (2007). Learning what feelings to desire: Socialization of ideal affect through children’s storybooks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(1), 17–30. 10.1177/0146167206292749

Uchida, Y., & Kitayama, S. (2009). Happiness and unhappiness in East and West: Themes and variations. Emotion, 9(4), 441–456. 10.1037/a0015634

Uchida, Y., Norasakkunkit, V., & Kitayama, S. (2004). Cultural constructions of happiness: Theory and empirical evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5(3), 223–239. 10.1007/s10902-004-8785-9

Van Vaerenbergh, Y., & Thomas, T. D. (2013). Response styles in survey research: A literature review of antecedents, consequences, and remedies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25(2), 195–217. 10.1093/ijpor/eds021

Vignoles, V. L., Owe, E., Becker, M., Smith, P. B., Easterbrook, M. J., Brown, R., González, R., Didier, N., Carrasco, D., Cadena, M. P., Lay, S., Schwartz, S. J., Des Rosiers, S. E., Villamar, J. A., Gavreliuc, A., Zinkeng, M., Kreuzbauer, R., Baguma, P., Martin, M., . . .Bond, M. H. (2016). Beyond the ‘East-West’ dichotomy: Global variation in cultural models of selfhood. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(8), 966–1000. 10.1037/xge0000175

Williams, P., & Aaker, J. L. (2002). Can mixed emotions peacefully coexist?Journal of Consumer Research, 28(4), 636–649. 10.1086/338206

Wong, Y., & Tsai, J. L. (2007). Cultural models of shame and guilt. In J. L.Tracy, R. W.Robins, & J. P.Tangney (Eds.), The self-conscious emotions: Theory and research (pp. 209–223). Guilford Press.

Submitted: May 4, 2021 Revised: September 10, 2021 Accepted: September 21, 2021