Abstract

The cognitive appraisal of an event is crucial for the elicitation and differentiation of emotions, and causal attributions are an integral part of this process. In an interdisciplinary project comparing Tonga and Germany, we examined how cultural differences in attribution tendencies affect emotion assessment and elicitation. Data on appraising causality and responsibility and on emotional responses were collected through questionnaires based on experimentally designed vignettes, and were related to culture-specific values, norms, and the prevailing self-concept. The experimental data support our hypothesis that – driven by culturally defined self-concepts and corresponding attribution tendencies – members of the two cultures cognitively appraise events in diverging manners and consequently differ in their emotional responses. Ascription of responsibility to self and/or circumstances, in line with a more interdependent self-concept, co-varies with higher ratings of shame, guilt, and sadness, whereas ascription of responsibility to others, in line with a less interdependent self-concept, co-varies with higher ratings of anger. These findings support the universal contingency hypothesis and help to explain cultural differences in this domain on a fine-grained level.

Highlights

  • Interactions between people of different cultural background are often strained with misunderstandings, some of which arise from diverging cognitive appraisals of the situation in which they are involved or of the event they face

  • In view of the specific evaluation of emotions in the two cultures, we assumed that socially disruptive emotions such as anger should be reported more frequently in Germany than in Tonga, whereas the reverse should hold for conciliatory emotions

  • They corroborate our interpretation of the results presented in the preceding section: it appears that cultural differences in anger intensity are primarily mediated by differences in the appraisal of damage

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Interactions between people of different cultural background are often strained with misunderstandings, some of which arise from diverging cognitive appraisals of the situation in which they are involved or of the event they face. Are these differences due to idiosyncratic features of the respective situation and the persons involved, or do they reflect deeper, more systematic disparities between cultures? Appraising causation is where attribution theory enters the picture (e.g., Heider, 1958; Shaver, 1985; Hewstone, 1989; Weiner, 1995) In their attempt to find explanations for others’ (or their own) behavior, people often fall prey to attribution biases. The self-serving bias (Miller and Ross, 1975), for instance, leads people to take more credit for positive outcomes than for failures, eventually enhancing the likelihood of pride elicitation

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call