Who emphasizes positivity? An exploration of emotion values in people of Latino, Asian, and European heritage living in the United States

Acknowledgement:

One of the key functions of emotion lies in helping humans to build and maintain social relationships (Fredrickson, 2004; Keltner & Haidt, 2001; Paez & Vergara, 1995). At the same time, there is great variability in the cultural models used to manage relationships. These models can be reasonably expected to influence emotion values—the extent to which various kinds of emotions are considered desirable and appropriate to experience and express. One cultural model that is not yet well documented in the emotion literature is simpatía, the term given to a relational style characteristic of Latin American contexts and peoples of Latino heritage in the United States. Simpatía emphasizes experiencing and expressing positive emotions, with particular focus on interpersonal warmth and affection, and discourages the experience and expression of negativity in the service of building and maintaining relationships (Holloway, Waldrip, & Ickes, 2009; Triandis, Marín, Lisansky, & Betancourt, 1984). Simpatía may encourage a distinct pattern of emotion values among people of Latino heritage. The goal of this research was to (a) examine whether emotion values among people of Latino heritage are consistent with simpatía and (b) identify similarities and differences between the observed patterns of emotion values among people of Latino heritage and those of Asian and European heritage, two groups whose emotion-value patterns are better studied.

Cultures vary in their norms for how relationships are structured and conceptualized. To date, much of the research in this area has focused on two primary ways of defining the self in relation to others: interdependence and independence (e.g., Cross, Hardin, & Gercek-Swing, 2011; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). This distinction in self-concept is closely related to cultural individualism and collectivism (Triandis, 2001). In collectivist contexts, it is normative to view the self as part of a larger group, with social roles and relationships being integral to an individual sense of self. In-group goals are prioritized over the personal desires of the self, and harmony, communal orientation, and adjustment to others’ needs are highly valued. In independent contexts, it is normative to emphasize the self as individual and focus on personal attributes. Individual goals are prioritized over group goals, and autonomy, uniqueness, creativity, and independence are highly valued (Triandis, 2001).

People preferentially value emotions that align with culturally shared values and facilitate culturally appropriate relationships (Bastian et al., 2012; Miyamoto, Uchida, & Ellsworth, 2010; Tamir et al., 2016; Uchida & Kitayama, 2009; Uchida, Norasakkunkit, & Kitayama, 2004). For example, the Japanese emotion amae, the sweet feelings accompanying one’s ability to depend upon and be cared for by another, facilitates the interdependence that characterizes Japanese relational styles (Doi, 1992). The German schadenfreude (happiness at another’s suffering) and the Bedouin hasham (pleasurable submission or self-effacement) are both thought to help regulate status and dominance in cultures where observance of the social hierarchy is highly valued (Abu-Lughod, 1986; Keltner & Haidt, 1999; Lange & Boecker, 2019). Existing literature suggests that the broad construct of “emotion values” includes both emotion ideals (the emotions one wants to have; Tsai, Knutson, & Fung, 2006; Tsai, Miao, Seppala, Fung, & Yeung, 2007) and emotion norms (the emotions one ought to have; Eid & Diener, 2001; Kim-Prieto & Eid, 2004; Suh, Diener, Oishi, & Triandis, 1998) for emotional experience and behavior (Matsumoto, 1990; Matsumoto, Yoo, & Fontaine, 2008). For example, one may believe the experience of schadenfreude is desirable yet inappropriate and that its expression is both undesirable and inappropriate.

Past research on cultural variation in emotion has most frequently focused on East Asian cultures as exemplars of contexts where interdependent selves and collectivist cultural norms predominate and on European American cultures as exemplars of contexts where independent selves and individualist norms predominate. In East Asian cultural contexts, balanced and moderate emotional experience is valued (Peng, Spencer-Rodgers, & Nian, 2006; Spencer-Rodgers, Williams, & Peng, 2010; Williams & Aaker, 2002). East Asians tend to have mixed views of both positive and negative emotions—believing that happiness can, at times, be undesirable and unhappiness desirable (Campos & Kim, 2017; Lu & Gilmour, 2004; Uchida & Kitayama, 2009; Uchida et al., 2004). For example, consistent with a relational emphasis on harmony, lay Japanese theories of happiness include its potential to cause envy in others or make one inattentive to the demands of social situations (Uchida & Kitayama, 2009; Uchida et al., 2004). Additionally, concerns about the potentially dangerous and disruptive social consequences of emotional experience and expression—positive or negative—tend to be salient in East Asian contexts (Eid & Diener, 2001; Kim, Sherman, & Taylor, 2008; Lu & Gilmour, 2004; Potter, 1988). Correspondingly, East Asians are more likely to value emotional control and suppress the outward expression of emotions (Kim, Atkinson, & Yang, 1999; Matsumoto, 1990; Matsumoto et al., 2008; Mauss, Butler, Roberts, & Chu, 2010; Safdar et al., 2009) and to do so without negative consequences (Butler, Lee, & Gross, 2007; Soto, Perez, Kim, Lee, & Minnick, 2011). In summary, East Asians tend to have mixed feelings about the desirability and appropriateness of both positive and negative emotions, which are indicated by generally moderate responses on measures of these values. Further, East Asians tend to value more controlled emotional expression.

In more individualist European American contexts, a dominant goal is to maximize positive emotions and minimize negative emotions (Ford et al., 2015; Heine, Lehman, Markus, & Kitayama, 1999; Koopmann-Holm & Tsai, 2014; Tamir & Ford, 2012). Consistent with an independent self-concept, this emphasis on the desirability of positive emotions coexists with an emphasis on authenticity—that a person’s emotions be experienced and expressed as outward manifestations of one’s true internal state (English & Chen, 2011; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). From this perspective, emotions are viewed as a healthy way to express one’s authentic self (English & John, 2013; Kim & Sherman, 2007). Accordingly, European Americans tend to value open positive and negative emotional expression and associate suppression of emotions with feelings of inauthenticity (English & John, 2013; Mauss et al., 2010). Behavior that is misaligned with these values can be problematic; suppressing the outward expression of emotion can have adverse social and psychological consequences among European Americans (Butler et al., 2007; Soto et al., 2011). In summary, European Americans tend to view positive emotions as desirable and negative emotions as undesirable, although both positive and negative emotions are viewed as relatively appropriate, and the open expression of emotions is valued.

Increasingly, research suggests there may be many ways for emotion values to align with collectivist cultural norms and an interdependent self-concept (Campos & Kim, 2017; Ruby, Falk, Heine, Villa, & Silberstein, 2012). Moderating both positive and negative emotions based on relational demands, as commonly seen in East Asian cultural contexts, is one viable means of achieving collectivist relational goals, but different patterns of emotion norms can also serve these goals. For example, a recent study found that assertive emotions, which serve goals of authentic self-expression in individualist cultural contexts, can also support relational goals and in-group cohesion among interdependent Arabs (San Martin et al., 2018). The simpatía model prevalent among Latinos provides another alternative, recently termed convivial collectivism (Campos & Kim, 2017), in which relational goals may be achieved by strongly emphasizing positive emotions and de-emphasizing negative emotions.

Like East Asian cultures, Latin American cultures tend to be more collectivist than European American culture, and people in the former cultures more strongly endorse an interdependent view of the self (Cohen, 2007; Sanchez-Burks, 2002; Triandis et al., 1984). Yet whereas East Asian models of emotion promote moderation and balance in pursuit of social harmony, Latin America’s simpatía model promotes heightened warmth and positivity in pursuit of this same goal (e.g., Campos & Kim, 2017). A person who manages emotion according to simpatía ideals strives for high-quality social relations by being polite, warm, and easy-going—expressing good feelings openly and de-emphasizing behaviors relevant to negative feelings (Triandis et al., 1984). Relationships in contexts where simpatía is the norm are characterized by general sociability, high levels of expressed affection, and ready availability of social support (Campos et al., 2008; Campos, Ullman, Aguilera, & Dunkel Schetter, 2014; Ramírez-Esparza, García-Sierra, Rodríguez-Arauz, Ikizer, & Fernández-Gómez, 2019; Ramírez-Esparza, Mehl, Álvarez-Bermúdez, & Pennebaker, 2009; Rodríguez-Arauz, Ramírez-Esparza, García-Sierra, Ikizer, & Fernández-Gómez, 2019; Sabogal, Marín, Otero-Sabogal, Marín, & Perez-Stable, 1987).

Consistent with this relational style, positive emotions are viewed as highly desirable in Latin American contexts (Diener, Napa-Scollon, Oishi, Dzokoto, & Suh, 2000) and are believed to support bonding and group cohesion (Diaz-Loving & Draguns, 1999). Consistent with a widely shared prioritization of social connection, individuals in these contexts are likely to especially prefer emotions that facilitate social engagement, such as love and affection (Tamir et al., 2016). In daily interactions, for example, Latina women were more likely than European American women to prioritize others in conversation, to laugh, and to show kindness (Ramírez-Esparza et al., 2019; Rodríguez-Arauz et al., 2019). At the same time, conflict is prevented and avoided by de-emphasizing negative behaviors; for example, one is expected to refrain from direct criticisms of others and avoid open disagreement (Rodríguez-Arauz et al., 2019; Triandis et al., 1984). Some past work suggests that the open expression of emotions, in general, is valued relatively highly in Latin American cultures (Matsumoto et al., 2008), whereas other work suggests this value of open expression may be specific to positive emotions (Deffenbacher & Swaim, 1999; Holloway et al., 2009; Su et al., 2015). In a laboratory interaction, Holloway et al. (2009) found that Latinos displayed higher levels of positive affect than European Americans in interactions with strangers, whereas Deffenbacher and Swaim (1999) found that Mexican American youth were less likely than European Americans to express their anger. Consistent with Latino values of open positive, but not negative, emotional expressivity and with East Asian values of controlled emotional expressivity, Su et al. (2015) found that reported suppression of positive emotions was associated with lower well-being among Mexican Americans but not Chinese Americans, whereas suppression of negative emotions had no adverse consequences for either group. Together, these studies suggest Latinos view positive emotions, especially socially engaging emotions such as love and affection, as both desirable and appropriate and negative emotions as both undesirable and inappropriate. Further, Latinos are likely to value the open expression of positive emotions but more controlled expression of negative emotions. However, prior research has not systematically examined emotion values among people of Latino heritage and compared these with the value profiles of people of Asian and European heritage. As a result, it remains unclear whether the cultural model of simpatía promotes an approach to emotion values that is consistent with its norms of interpersonal warmth, affection, and closeness, supporting convivial collectivist relational goals and differing from the approach to emotion values seen in East Asian contexts.

In the current study, we measured emotion values among people of Latino, Asian, and European heritage currently living in the United States. Throughout the article, we refer to these groups as people of Latino heritage (PLH), people of Asian heritage (PAH), and people of European heritage (PEH).

Our primary goal was to test whether the overall pattern of emotion values among PLH significantly differed from the better-studied patterns of emotion norms found among PAH and PEH. Specifically, we tested whether values endorsed by PLH were consistent with simpatía and differed from those of other groups as hypothesized based on expected patterns for each group. Primary study hypotheses focused on cultural differences in positive and negative emotion values. Within valence categories, we assessed emotion values across the domains of desirability and appropriateness because, as described previously, an emotional response may be situationally appropriate but undesirable or desirable but inappropriate. We also assessed both emotional experience and expression values because it is possible to value the experience but not the expression of an emotion, or vice versa.

Hypotheses for positive emotion values

People in Latin and European American contexts are thought to view the experience and expression of positive emotions (e.g., excitement, affection, interest; see “Measures” section) as highly desirable and socially normative (i.e., appropriate), whereas the experience and expression of positive emotions are regarded more ambivalently in East Asian cultures. Therefore, hypothesized differences in positive emotion values were as follows:

Desirability of experience and expression:

1. PLH > PAH
2. PLH = PEH

Appropriateness of experience and expression:

1. PLH > PAH
2. PLH = PEH

Due to the relevance of positive, socially engaging emotions (e.g., compassion, affection) in defining simpatía, it was possible that PLH would rate this subset of emotions as especially desirable and appropriate, a possibility we explored in a supplementary analysis.

Hypotheses for negative emotion values

We expected values related to negative emotions (e.g., anger, sadness, shame; see “Measures” section) to more strongly diverge across desirability and appropriateness. People in Latin and European American contexts are thought to view negative emotional experience and expression as highly undesirable, whereas people in East Asian contexts tend to see negative emotions as somewhat less undesirable. However, negative emotional experience and expression are viewed as less socially normative (i.e., appropriate) among people in Latin American and East Asian cultural contexts, whereas authenticity is more highly valued among European Americans. Therefore, hypothesized differences in negative emotion values were as follows:

Desirability of experience and expression:

1. PLH < PAH
2. PLH = PEH

Appropriateness of experience and expression:

1. PLH = PAH
2. PLH < PEH

Our second goal was to test whether group differences in patterns of emotion values could be reasonably attributed to culture. To do so, we leveraged respondents’ varying levels of acculturation to U.S. culture. We reexamined emotion values among PLH and PAH respondents who reported high versus low orientations toward U.S. culture and, in supplemental analyses, among PLH and PAH born in versus outside the United States and reporting high versus low orientation toward their heritage culture. We hypothesized that group differences would be attenuated among PLH and PAH who were highly oriented to U.S. culture, born in the United States, and less highly oriented to their heritage culture.

Our third goal was to test whether cultural groups differed in the extent to which they reported differential values for emotional experience versus emotional expression. As discussed earlier, prior evidence suggests these three cultures emphasize emotional control to differing degrees, with PLH tending to value open expression of positive but not negative emotions, whereas PEH tend to value open expression of positive and negative emotions, and PAH tend to value controlled expression of positive and negative emotions. We therefore hypothesized that PLH and PEH would value positive emotional experience and expression equally, whereas PAH would value positive emotional experience more highly than its expression. In contrast, we hypothesized that PLH and PAH would value negative emotional experience more highly than its expression, whereas PEH would value negative emotional experience and expression equally.

Participants were recruited from three universities in western, southwestern, and south-Atlantic regions of the United States using participant pools for human subjects research that were open to all eligible students. To be eligible for inclusion in the current study, PEH had to self-report being White/Caucasian and born in the United States; PAH had to self-report being of Chinese, Japanese, or Korean heritage; and PLH had to report being of Mexican or other Latin American heritage. Respondents who reported being multiracial/ethnic were not included in analyses. Of the 2,637 respondents who completed the survey, 660 (25%) were excluded because they failed at least one of three attention/comprehension checks, 396 (15%) because they did not meet eligibility criteria, and 20 (1%) due to missing data, yielding an analytic sample of 1,561 participants (see Table 1). Power analysis using G*Power indicated that for a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) interacting culture with 3 within-subjects factors, this sample size provided 99% power at α = .05 to detect a small effect (Cohen’s f2 = .10), with an adjustment of alpha to p = .003, using the Bonferroni method to correct for multiple comparisons (see Analytic Method section for details).

All PEH (n = 446) reported being White/Caucasian. The majority of PLH identified as being of Mexican heritage (n = 530, 80%), with 86 (13%) reporting another Latin American heritage (e.g., Guatemalan, El Salvadoran) and 43 (6.5%) reporting a combination of these. PAH identified as being of Chinese (n = 318, 70%), Korean (n = 110, 24%), or Japanese (n = 18, 3.9%) heritage or a combination of these (n = 10, 2.2%). Participants in each cultural group were more likely to be female than male. PLH were more likely than PAH or PEH to be female (χ2 [2, N = 1,561] = 27.35, p < .001) and more likely than PAH to be born in the United States (χ2 [1, N = 1,113] = 216.23, p < .001). PLH born outside the United States also reported having spent more time in the United States, on average, than PAH born outside the United States, t(280) = −10.77, p < .001.

Ethical approval was obtained from the institutional review boards at all three universities. Participants completed surveys online in exchange for partial course credit. To comprehensively capture whether patterns of emotion values were consistent with simpatía among PLH, the survey asked about the desirability of experiencing and the desirability of expressing specific emotions, followed by the appropriateness of experiencing and the appropriateness of expressing emotions. Emotion terms within each scale were presented in random order. To maximize data quality, the survey included three attention checks instructing participants to select a designated response (i.e., “Choose ‘Strongly Agree’”). Participants that did not select the instructed response were excluded from analyses. Participants were also asked about other aspects of their emotional lives, cultural values, and personalities that were not analyzed for the present research. The full survey instrument is available in Appendix 1 in the online supplemental materials. Participation took approximately 40 min.

Emotion values

Four scales adapted from Eid and Diener (2001) measured beliefs about the desirability and appropriateness of emotional experience and expression. The original measure created by Eid and Diener (2001) combined desirability and appropriateness to measure emotion norms, based on a prior study demonstrating strong associations between them. Based on more recent literature differentiating emotion ideals from emotion norms (Kim-Prieto & Eid, 2004; Tsai et al., 2006, 2007) and evidence of the different implications of ideals and norms for motivation and behavior (Higgins, 1997), we assessed and analyzed these separately. Participants indicated “how desirable is it to experience,” “how desirable is it to express,” “how appropriate is it to experience,” and “how appropriate is it to express” each of 19 emotions in daily life. A list of 11 positive emotions (joy, amusement, pride, awe, contentment, interest, excitement, gratitude, compassion, affection, and love) and 8 negative emotions (fear, anger, disgust, contempt, sadness, guilt, shame, and embarrassment) followed each prompt. These items were rated on a 7-point scale (1 = Extremely undesirable/Extremely inappropriate, 7 = Extremely desirable/Extremely appropriate). These scales are described in more detail later in the article (see factor analysis results).

Acculturation

Orientation to U.S. culture was measured using a shortened version of the Anglo Orientation subscale of the shortened Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans (ARSMA-II, Cuéllar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995), which focuses on respondents’ use of the English language as an index of U.S. acculturation. Seven items assessed tendencies to use English in everyday life (e.g., “My thinking is done in the English language”). Items were rated on a 5-point scale (1 = Not at all, 5 = Extremely often or almost always). Cronbach’s alpha was acceptable among PLH (α = .69) and PAH (α = .85).

Orientation to heritage culture

We assessed bilingualism among PLH and PAH as an indicator of orientation to their heritage culture. Participants reported whether they, their parents, or their grandparents spoke a language other than English at home and, if yes, identified the language spoken at home. A majority of both PLH and PAH reported that they did speak a second language at home (95% PLH, 88% PAH). Six items then assessed participants’ use of their heritage-culture language in everyday life (e.g., “I speak this language with friends and acquaintances,” “I think in this language”). Items were rated on a 4-point scale (1 = False, 4 = True). Cronbach’s alpha was acceptable among PLH (α = .83) and PAH (α = .81). On average, both groups reported high use of a heritage-culture language (PAH: mean [M] = 3.15, standard deviation [SD] = .73; PLH: M = 3.28, SD = .64), with PLH reporting significantly greater second-language use than PAH, t(1,046) = 3.03, p = .002.

Preliminary analyses

Because emotion words may differ in meaning across cultural contexts, we first conducted preliminary factor analyses on the reported desirability of experiencing, desirability of expressing, appropriateness of experiencing, and appropriateness of expressing emotions (four analyses total) in each of the three cultural contexts. We forced 2-factor solutions based on a rich body of literature emphasizing the distinction between positive and negative emotions (Feldman, 1995; Russell, 1980; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) as well as the theoretical basis for this distinction for the current research. Because some of the emotion items were nonnormally distributed, each set of questions was analyzed using the principal axis factoring extraction method with direct oblimin rotation to account for correlation among factors. Next, Pearson correlations tested the distinctness of each set of values in order to confirm that they could be considered separate constructs for the purposes of hypothesis testing.

Primary analyses

Data were analyzed using a 3 × 2 × 2 × 2 mixed-model ANOVA to predict ratings of emotion values. Culture (PLH, PAH, PEH) was entered as a between-subjects factor, whereas emotion valence (positive, negative), value type (desirability, appropriateness), and response type (feeling, expression) were entered as within-subjects variables. To test whether the overall pattern of emotion values among PLH significantly differed from patterns among PAH and PEH, we examined the 4-way interaction among culture and emotion valence, response type, and value type—which would suggest distinct patterns of emotion values existed across cultural contexts.

Cultural differences in emotion values

To test whether values endorsed by PLH were consistent with simpatía and differed from other groups as hypothesized, we used post hoc means comparisons to decompose complex interaction effects. We did not test all possible comparisons, instead focusing only on comparisons that tested study hypotheses. Thus, we report test statistics for comparisons between emotion values among PLH and those of PAH and PEH, but not between PAH and PEH emotion values. This yielded a total of 16 between-group contrasts (PLH vs. PEH and PLH vs. PAH: 2 valence × 2 value type × 2 response type). Bonferroni adjustments for multiple hypothesis testing were made in all post hoc analyses, with a critical p-value of .05/16 = .003.

Stratified acculturation analyses

To test the extent to which observed group differences in emotion values can be attributed to culture, we repeated the previously described analyses using samples of PLH and PAH stratified based on their orientation to U.S. culture. The first model included only PLH and PAH in the lower tertile of scores for orientation toward U.S. culture and all PEH. The second model included only PLH and PAH with scores in the upper tertile for orientation toward U.S. culture and all PEH. We reasoned that theoretically expected patterns would be more likely to emerge when PLH and PAH are less strongly acculturated to U.S. culture. To further test the degree to which cultural differences in emotion values could be attributed to culture, we included additional analyses comparing emotion values among PLH and PAH (a) born in the United States and outside the United States and (b) with high versus low orientation to their heritage culture. These analyses are presented in Appendix 2 in the online supplemental materials.

Comparison of experience and expression values

To test whether groups differed in the extent to which they valued emotional experience versus emotional expression, we used post hoc means comparisons of the primary mixed-model ANOVA. Specifically, we examined the 12 within-group contrasts of experience versus expression (2 valence × 2 value type × 3 groups). The adjusted p-value for these comparisons was .05/12 = .004. All tests reported as significant reflect these more conservative criteria.

Additional analyses

Due to the specific relevance of positive, socially engaging emotions (i.e., gratitude, compassion, affection, and love) in defining simpatía, a supplementary analysis reports our tests for cultural differences in patterns of values related to this subset of positive emotions (see Appendix 3 in the online supplemental materials). The results of this analysis closely resembled those for the analysis that included all positive emotions, which are reported in the following section. An additional analysis included sex (male, female) and its interaction with culture in the model described previously. The 5-way interaction among culture, sex, emotion type, response type, and value type was not significant, nor were any other interactions involving both culture and sex, suggesting the effects of culture described later in the article were not significantly moderated by participants’ sex.

Factor analysis

In each group, the 2 factors reflecting positive and negative emotions explained between 41.47% and 58.54% of the total variance. Factor analyses are reported in detail in Appendix 4 in the online supplemental materials. Based on factor loadings below .4, pride did not load with other positive emotions in any of the three groups’ factor solutions for any set of values, a result that is consistent with past research (Scollon, Diener, Oishi, & Biswas-Diener, 2004). Pride was therefore excluded from further analyses. Contempt did not load with other negative emotions in factor solutions for any group’s values about the desirability of experience or expression. Contempt loaded with other negative emotions in factor solutions for the appropriateness of experience and expression among PAH and PEH, but not PLH, participants. Thus, to ensure comparability of measures, we also excluded contempt from further analyses. Contentment did not load with other positive emotions in any group’s factor solution for the desirability of experience. It also did not load with other positive emotions among PEH, but it did for PAH and PLH, in factor solutions for the desirability of expression and appropriateness of experience. However, Cronbach’s alpha remained within an acceptable range when contentment was included with other positive emotions. Therefore, contentment was retained in further analyses. Excluding contentment from the analyses did not change the overall patterns of results.

We formed scales using the 10 remaining positive emotions (joy, amusement, awe, interest, excitement, contentment, gratitude, compassion, affection, and love) and 7 remaining negative emotions (fear, anger, disgust, sadness, guilt, shame, and embarrassment). Scales were formed reflecting the desirability of positive emotional experience, positive emotional expression, negative emotional experience, and negative emotional expression. Similarly, we formed scales reflecting the appropriateness of positive emotional experience, positive emotional expression, negative emotional experience, and negative emotional expression. Cronbach’s alphas for each scale for each group were acceptable (αs > .70; see Table 1 in the online supplemental materials).

Correlations among scales

Ratings of the desirability of experiencing, desirability of expressing, appropriateness of experiencing, and appropriateness of expressing positive and negative emotions were correlated to each other in all groups. The desirability and appropriateness of positive emotions were moderately to strongly associated (.39 < rs < .81) in each group, whereas most associations between desirability and appropriateness of negative emotions were small to moderate in size (.14 < rs < .64). The size of the correlation coefficients suggested that the desirability and appropriateness of positive and negative emotional experience and expression could be considered conceptually distinct constructs, especially in the case of negative emotions (see Table 2). Finally, the desirability of positive emotions was negatively correlated with the desirability of negative emotions in all groups, whereas the appropriateness of positive emotions was positively associated with the appropriateness of negative emotions in all groups.

Significant main effects, 2-way interactions, and 3-way interactions were qualified by a significant, although small, 4-way interaction among culture, emotion valence, response type, and value type, F(2, 1558) = 7.45, p = .001, ηp2 = .009. For the sake of parsimony, main effects, 2-way interactions, and 3-way interactions are not described in detail within the body of this article. The size of each main effect and interaction can be found in Table 2 in the online supplemental materials. To summarize, the main effect of emotion valence was extremely large. The main effect of value type was also large, although a Valence × Value Type interaction showed that the distinction between desirability and appropriateness was important for negative but not positive emotion values. Interactions between culture and other aspects of emotion values were very small to medium in size but appeared consistently. The main effect of the distinction between experience and expression values was very small, as were effect sizes for all interactions involving this distinction. Using Bonferroni-adjusted mean comparisons, we decomposed the significant 4-way interaction to test hypotheses about differences in ratings across cultural groups separately for each aspect of emotional values (see Figure 1).

Cultural differences in emotion values

Figure 1 displays means and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) around the means for all emotion values across groups. Pairwise comparisons are detailed in Table 3. In the case of positive emotions, as expected, and consistent with simpatía, PLH rated positive emotions as more desirable and appropriate to experience and express than PAH (ps < .001). However, contrary to expectations, PLH rated positive emotions to be less desirable and appropriate to experience and express than PEH (ps ≤ .001).

In the case of negative emotions, as expected and consistent with simpatía, PLH rated negative emotions as less desirable to experience and express than PAH (ps < .001) and similarly desirable compared with PEH (ps > .05, Table 3). Regarding the appropriateness of negative emotions, again as expected, PLH rated negative emotions as similarly appropriate to experience and express compared with PAH (adjusted ps > .05) and as less appropriate to experience (p < .001) than PEH. Contrary to hypotheses, PLH and PEH rated negative emotions as similarly inappropriate to express (p > .05).

Stratified acculturation analyses

An independent-samples t test revealed that PLH (M = 4.53, SD = 0.46) were more oriented to U.S. culture than PAH (M = 4.15, SD = 0.80; t(1,113) = 10.06, p < .001). This is not surprising, given that PAH were more likely to have been born outside the United States.

Low orientation to U.S. culture

In the model including only PLH and PAH with scores in the lower tertile for orientation toward U.S. culture (M ≤ 4.29; 200 PLH, 227 PAH), the results replicated those reported previously. Regarding cultural differences in rated desirability and appropriateness of emotions, each of the 11 statistically significant cultural differences in emotion values described earlier persisted, and no new differences emerged.

High orientation to U.S. culture

In the model including only PLH and PAH with scores in the upper tertile for orientation toward U.S. culture (M ≥ 4.86; 182 PLH, 107 PAH), the results differed substantially from those reported earlier. In this version of the model, all cultural differences in ratings of positive emotion values became nonsignificant, as did differences in ratings of the desirability of experiencing and expressing negative emotions. However, PLH’s ratings of the appropriateness of experiencing negative emotions remained lower than PEH’s ratings. Interestingly, an additional cultural difference emerged in this analysis, with highly acculturated PLH rating negative emotions as less appropriate to experience than highly acculturated PAH (p = .002). It appears that highly acculturated PAH rated negative emotions as more appropriate to experience than did PAH in the full model, whereas ratings among highly acculturated PLH remained similar to those from the full model reported previously. As in the earlier results, groups did not differ in the appropriateness of expressing negative emotions (adjusted ps > .05).

Comparison of experience and expression values

As shown in Table 4, positive emotions were rated as more desirable to experience than to express among PLH and PAH (ps < .001) and marginally among PEH (p = .006, adjusted p = .07) and as more appropriate to experience than express among PLH and PEH (ps ≤ .001) but not PAH (p = .04, adjusted p = .44). Members of all three groups rated negative emotions as less desirable to experience than express (ps < .001). Negative emotions were rated as similarly appropriate to experience and express among PLH (p = .98) and PAH (p = .02, adjusted p = .24) but as more appropriate to experience than to express among PEH (p < .001).

Across cultural contexts, positive emotions are more strongly valued than negative emotions, and negative emotions are viewed as more appropriate than desirable. Within this broadly shared pattern, this study found that emotion values among PLH living in the United States differed from those of both PAH and PEH living in the United States and were largely consistent with simpatía. Hypothesized differences between PLH and PAH were supported, consistent with the idea that the cultural model of simpatía promotes a convivial collectivist approach to emotion values that emphasizes positive and de-emphasizes negative emotions. This approach contrasts with the values of emotional moderation and balance more typical of East Asian collectivism. Hypothesized differences between PLH and PEH, however, received mixed support. This research contributes to the literature on emotion by providing some evidence that PLH emotion values are consistent with simpatía, identifying several similarities in emotion values across cultural groups, and detailing key areas of cultural difference in emotion values.

This study is the first to systematically document patterns of emotion values among PLH and to contrast them with the emotion values of PAH and PEH. Our findings add to a growing body of work suggesting that cultural variability in emotion values extends beyond the standard East–West group comparisons that continue to characterize much research on this topic (Campos & Kim, 2017; Ruby et al., 2012). Although both Latin American and Asian cultures are collectivist relative to European American culture, hypothesized differences in ratings of the desirability and appropriateness of positive and negative emotions between our PLH and PAH groups were consistently supported. PLH tended to value positive emotions more highly than PAH. They also viewed negative emotions as less desirable, although similarly inappropriate, compared with PAH. This pattern is consistent with convivial collectivism’s emphasis on positivity in Latin American cultural contexts, versus moderation and balance among East Asians (Campos & Kim, 2017; Peng et al., 2006; Ramírez-Esparza et al., 2019; Rodríguez-Arauz et al., 2019; Spencer-Rodgers et al., 2010). Hypothesized comparisons between PLH and PEH received mixed support. Counter to hypotheses, PLH reported valuing positive emotions less highly than did PEH. This suggests the emphasis on positivity may be even stronger among PEH than it is among PLH. However, as expected, PLH viewed negative emotions as similarly undesirable to experience and express, but less appropriate to experience, than PEH. This finding supports an emphasis on the potential negative consequences of negative emotion among PLH and an emphasis on authenticity of experience among PEH (English & Chen, 2011; Kim & Sherman, 2007; Rodríguez-Arauz et al., 2019; Triandis et al., 1984). We had also expected PLH to rate negative emotions as less appropriate to express than PEH but found that the groups did not differ in this domain of emotion values. This latter finding seems to be driven by PEH strongly devaluing negative emotional expression.

Although not the focus of our hypotheses, our data also point to several important commonalities in emotion values across cultures. First, consistent with past work, a very large effect of emotion valence suggested positive emotions are more highly valued than negative emotions in all groups (Diener, Suh, Smith, & Shao, 1995). Second, large effects of emotion value type suggested negative emotions are generally rated as less desirable than appropriate. This finding likely reflects the fact that negative emotions are unpleasant but can be normal and appropriate responses to some situations. Third, positive emotions were rated as more desirable to experience than to express, although these effects were small and only approached significance among PEH. Perhaps there is a shared understanding that expressing positive emotions can have negative social consequences even in cultural contexts where positive emotions are widely valued. For example, prior work has documented the regulation of positive emotion among PEH, suggesting that some positive emotions can be perceived negatively by others (Gross, Richards, & John, 2006; Kalokerinos, Greenaway, Pedder, & Margetts, 2014; Miyamoto & Ma, 2011). Finally, in all three groups, expressing negative emotions is believed to be more desirable than experiencing them, although these effects were also very small in size. This finding was unexpected but may reflect an implicit understanding of the potential benefits of sharing negative emotions (e.g., eliciting social support, bonding, or defending oneself; Parrott, 2014). Taken together, these shared patterns indicate that emotion values across cultures are more alike than they are different.

Analyses stratified by orientation to U.S. culture further suggest that the observed group differences in emotion values can be attributed to culture. When only highly U.S.-acculturated individuals were included in analyses, emotion values were more similar across cultures; this was especially true of positive emotion values. However, even highly acculturated PLH continued to view experiencing negative emotions as relatively inappropriate. Perhaps this value is especially integral to Latino cultural values and retained across generations in the United States. Maintaining this value may be adaptive for Latinos in the United States and may play a role in successful interactions with diverse partners (Holloway et al., 2009). Including this measure of acculturation contributes to a more nuanced understanding of emotion values and how they may change as individuals adapt to new or dominant cultural contexts. However, these data are imperfect, with PLH and PAH in our sample differing significantly from each other in the amount of time spent in the United States. Supplementary analyses (see Appendix 2 in the online supplemental materials) comparing emotion values among PLH and PAH born in the United States and outside the United States, as well as PLH and PAH with high and low orientation toward their heritage culture (as indicated by fluency in a language other than English), also show a pattern consistent with predictions. Together, these analyses suggest that cultural differences are strongest among PLH and PAH who are less strongly oriented to U.S. culture, more strongly oriented to their heritage culture, and have spent less time in the United States.

Within-group differences in the value of emotional experience versus expression were very small and largely counter to hypotheses. For example, PEH tended to view negative emotional expression as less appropriate than its experience—an effect that appears to be driven by a heightened sense of the appropriateness of negative emotional experience among PEH. The comparisons between ratings of experience and expression values were intended to capture values related to the open versus controlled expression of emotions and the possibility that this might vary across cultures (e.g., Deffenbacher & Swaim, 1999; Holloway et al., 2009; Matsumoto, 1990; Matsumoto et al., 2008; Mauss et al., 2010). However, the present results were not consistent with this prediction.

The current work fills an important gap in the literature by systematically describing emotion values among Latinos and comparing them to the better-studied patterns of emotion values among PEH and PAH. An important next step in this research is to explore which aspects of cultural group membership explain reported differences in emotion values. Future analyses using these data will examine predictors of cultural variation in emotion values. Future work may also benefit from testing associations among emotion values and various cultural values such as simpatía, which were unmeasured in these data (Griffith, Joe, Chatham, & Simpson, 1998). This research also does not account for the great heterogeneity within the cultural groups we studied. Emotion values and emotional behavior may differ within broad categories such as “European American” (Tsai & Chentsova-Dutton, 2003), and although we did not find evidence that sex interacted with culture to influence emotion values, other group memberships (e.g., socioeconomic status) may do so. There may also be substantial heterogeneity with respect to heritage culture orientation among those reporting high or low orientation to U.S. culture (Ryder, Alden, & Paulhus, 2000). Future research that incorporates more aspects of individual identities would be an important contribution to our understanding of how emotion values are shaped by social context.

These results are likely a conservative test of cultural differences in emotion values. Larger group differences may have emerged had we used data from people living in East Asian or Latin American countries or had we heightened the salience of emotions’ interpersonal benefits and costs by examining emotion values in specific social contexts (e.g., at work, with family). It is also possible that asking about emotion values without specifying the context may have resulted in within-group or between-group variation in the kinds of settings respondents were most likely to consider in reporting their emotion values. For example, if PLH were more likely to think of close friends or family and PEH were more likely to think of acquaintances, this systematic difference in imagined context may explain some variation in the reported emotion values. Finally, our analysis excluded pride because, consistent with past work, the evaluation of pride did not align with other positive emotions (Scollon et al., 2004). Because past work demonstrates this emotion is valued differently across cultural contexts, particularly between the United States and East Asia, future analyses examining Latino Americans’ ratings of pride would add further clarification to how this group’s emotion values differ from those of other groups.

The current research builds on existing work by testing theoretically driven hypotheses about the values of an understudied group, people of Latino heritage in the United States, and by including multiple components of emotion values in a single study. We found evidence that U.S. Latinos’ emotion values are distinct from those of both PAH and PEH—affirming that there is heterogeneity within cultures that are viewed as collectivistic. Consistent with the cultural model of simpatía, PLH value the experience and expression of positive emotion while simultaneously viewing negative emotions as highly undesirable and inappropriate. Understanding these differences in emotion values is a foundational step toward predicting cultural variation in emotion, which is important to many domains of interest, including close relationships, clinical communication, and conflict resolution. This knowledge can also be helpfully applied to such diverse contexts as the workplace (e.g., Sanchez-Burks, 2002) and health-care settings (e.g., Senft et al., 2018; Sims, Tsai, Koopmann-Holm, Thomas, & Goldstein, 2014) to encourage communication that effectively bridges cultural differences in emotion values.

Abu-Lughod, L. (1986). Veiled sentiments: Honor and poetry in a Bedouin society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Bastian, B., Kuppens, P., Hornsey, M. J., Park, J., Koval, P., & Uchida, Y. (2012). Feeling bad about being sad: The role of social expectancies in amplifying negative mood. Emotion, 12, 69–80. 10.1037/a0024755

Butler, E. A., Lee, T. L., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Emotion regulation and culture: Are the social consequences of emotion suppression culture-specific?Emotion, 7, 30–48. 10.1037/1528-3542.7.1.30

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

Campos, B., Schetter, C. D., Abdou, C. M., Hobel, C. J., Glynn, L. M., & Sandman, C. A. (2008). Familialism, social support, and stress: Positive implications for pregnant Latinas. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14, 155–162. 10.1037/1099-9809.14.2.155

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 and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20, 191–201. 10.1037/a0034094

Cohen, D. (2007). Methods in cultural psychology. In S.Kitayama & D.Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 196–236). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

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, 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, 275–304. 10.1177/07399863950173001

Deffenbacher, J. L., & Swaim, R. C. (1999). Anger expression in Mexican American and White non-Hispanic adolescents. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 61–69. 10.1037/0022-0167.46.1.61

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). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

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: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being, 1, 159–176. 10.1023/A:1010031813405

Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Smith, H., & Shao, L. (1995). National differences in reported subjective well-being: Why do they occur?Social Indicators Research, 34, 7–32. 10.1007/BF01078966

Doi, T. (1992). On the concept of amae. Infant Mental Health Journal, 13, 7–11. 10.1002/1097-0355(199221)13:1<7::AID-IMHJ2280130103>3.0.CO;2-E

Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2001). Norms for experiencing emotions in different cultures: Inter- and intranational differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 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, 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, 314–329. 10.1037/a0029847

Feldman, L. A. (1995). Valence focus and arousal focus: Individual differences in the structure of affective experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 153–166. 10.1037/0022-3514.69.1.153

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

Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences, 359, 1367–1378. 10.1098/rstb.2004.1512

Griffith, J. D., Joe, G. W., Chatham, L. R., & Simpson, D. D. (1998). The development and validation of a simpátia scale for Hispanics entering drug treatment. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 20, 468–482. 10.1177/07399863980204004

Gross, J. J., Richards, J. M., & John, O. P. (2006). Emotion regulation in everyday life. In D. K.Snyder, J.Simpson, & J. N.Hughes (Eds.), Emotion regulation in couples and families: Pathways to dysfunction and health (pp. 13–35). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 10.1037/11468-001

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

Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300. 10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280

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, 1012–1028. 10.1037/a0013883

Kalokerinos, E. K., Greenaway, K. H., Pedder, D. J., & Margetts, E. A. (2014). Don’t grin when you win: The social costs of positive emotion expression in performance situations. Emotion, 14, 180–186. 10.1037/a0034442

Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (1999). Social functions of emotions at four levels of analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 13, 505–521. 10.1080/026999399379168

Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2001). Social functions of emotions. In T. J.Mayne & G. A.Bonanno (Eds.), Emotions: Current issues and future directions (pp. 192–213). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Kim, B. S. K., Atkinson, D. R., & Yang, P. H. (1999). The Asian Values Scale: Development, factor analysis, validation, and reliability. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 342–352. 10.1037/0022-0167.46.3.342

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, 1–11. 10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.1

Kim, H. S., Sherman, D. K., & Taylor, S. E. (2008). Culture and social support. American Psychologist, 63, 518–526. 10.1037/0003-066X

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

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

Lange, J., & Boecker, L. (2019). Schadenfreude as social-functional dominance regulator. Emotion, 19, 489–502. 10.1037/emo0000454

Lu, L., & Gilmour, R. (2004). Culture and conceptions of happiness: Individual oriented and social oriented SWB. Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being, 5, 269–291. 10.1007/s10902-004-8789-5

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

Matsumoto, D. (1990). Cultural similarities and differences in display rules. Motivation and Emotion, 14, 195–214. 10.1007/BF00995569

Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., & Fontaine, J. (2008). Mapping expressive differences around the world: The relationship between emotional display rules and individualism versus collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 55–74. 10.1177/0022022107311854

Mauss, I. B., Butler, E. A., Roberts, N. A., & Chu, A. (2010). Emotion control values and responding to an anger provocation in Asian-American and European-American individuals. Cognition and Emotion, 24, 1026–1043. 10.1080/02699930903122273

Miyamoto, Y., & Ma, X. (2011). Dampening or savoring positive emotions: A dialectical cultural script guides emotion regulation. Emotion, 11, 1346–1357. 10.1037/a0025135

Miyamoto, Y., Uchida, Y., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2010). Culture and mixed emotions: Co-occurrence of positive and negative emotions in Japan and the United States. Emotion, 10, 404–415. 10.1037/a0018430

Paez, D., & Vergara, A. I. (1995). Culture differences in emotional knowledge. In J. A.Russell, J.-M.Fernández-Dols, A. S. R.Manstead, & J. C.Wellenkamp (Eds.), Everyday conceptions of emotion: An introduction to the psychology, anthropology and linguistics of emotion (pp. 415–434). New York, NYKluwer Academic/Plenum Press. 10.1007/978-94-015-8484-5_24

Parrott, W. G. (2014). The positive side of negative emotions. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

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). Boston, MA: Springer. 10.1007/0-387-28662-4_11

Potter, S. H. (1988). The cultural construction of emotion in rural Chinese social life. Ethos, 16, 181–208. 10.1525/eth.1988.16.2.02a00050

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, e0214117. 10.1371/journal.pone.0214117

Ramírez-Esparza, N., Mehl, M. R., Álvarez-Bermúdez, J., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2009). Are Mexicans more or less sociable than Americans? Insights from a naturalistic observation study. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 1–7. 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.09.002

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 and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 25, 379–387. 10.1037/cdp0000232

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, 1206–1209. 10.1037/a0029118

Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1161–1178. 10.1037/h0077714

Ryder, A. G., Alden, L. E., & Paulhus, D. L. (2000). Is acculturation unidimensional or bidimensional? A head-to-head comparison in the prediction of personality, self-identity, and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 49–65. 10.1037/0022-3514.79.1.49

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, 397–412. 10.1177/07399863870094003

Safdar, S., Friedlmeier, W., Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., Kwantes, C. T., Kakai, H., & Shigemasu, E. (2009). Variations of emotional display rules within and across cultures: A comparison between Canada, USA, and Japan. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 41, 1–10. 10.1037/a0014387

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, 830–837. 10.1038/s41562-018-0435-z

Sanchez-Burks, J. (2002). Protestant relational ideology and (in)attention to relational cues in work settings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 919–929. 10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.919

Scollon, C. N., Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2004). Emotions across cultures and methods. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 304–326. 10.1177/0022022104264124

Senft, N., Hamel, L. M., Penner, L. A., Harper, F. W. K., Albrecht, T. L., Foster, T., & Eggly, S. (2018). The influence of affective behavior on impression formation in interactions between Black cancer patients and their oncologists. Social Science & Medicine, 211, 243–250. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.06.022

Sims, T., Tsai, J. L., Koopmann-Holm, B., Thomas, E. A., & Goldstein, M. K. (2014). Choosing a physician depends on how you want to feel: The role of ideal affect in health-related decision making. Emotion, 14, 187–192. 10.1037/a0034372

Soto, J. A., Perez, C. R., Kim, Y. H., Lee, E. A., & Minnick, M. R. (2011). Is expressive suppression always associated with poorer psychological functioning? A cross-cultural comparison between European Americans and Hong Kong Chinese. Emotion, 11, 1450–1455. 10.1037/a0023340

Spencer-Rodgers, J., Williams, M. J., & Peng, K. (2010). Cultural differences in expectations of change and tolerance for contradiction: A decade of empirical research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 296–312. 10.1177/1088868310362982

Su, J. C., Lee, R. M., Park, I. J. K., Soto, J. A., Chang, J., Zamboanga, B. L., . . .Brown, E. (2015). Differential links between expressive suppression and well-being among Chinese and Mexican American college students. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 6, 15–24. 10.1037/a0036116

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, 482–493. 10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.482

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

Tamir, M., Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Riediger, M., Torres, C., Scollon, C., . . .Vishkin, A. (2016). Desired emotions across cultures: A value-based account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 67–82. 10.1037/pspp0000072

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

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

Tsai, J. L., & Chentsova-Dutton, U. (2003). Variation among European Americans in emotional facial expression. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 650–657. 10.1177/0022022103256846

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

Tsai, J. L., Miao, F. F., Seppala, E., Fung, H. H., & Yeung, D. Y. (2007). Influence and adjustment goals: Sources of cultural differences in ideal affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1102–1117. 10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1102

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

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

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. 10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

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

Submitted: August 14, 2019 Revised: January 13, 2020 Accepted: January 15, 2020