To which degree is pride a socially desirable emotion in Ghana?
- Taking a closer look at verbal emotion communication
Bachelor Thesis – Social Psychology Florine Zegers
13 - 01 - 17
University of Amsterdam
INDEX
Abstract ... 3
Introduction ... 4
The concept of self across cultures ... 4
Display rules, social desirability and emotion communication ... 6
Valence of Pride ... 7
Ghana ... 9
Purpose of the study ... 10
Methods ... 12
Participants ... 12
Procedure ... 12
Materials & Instruments ... 14
Design & Measures ... 14
Results ... 16
Manipulation checks ... 16
General characteristics of pride communication ... 17
Valence of pride ... 19
Personal or group pride ………... 20
Conclusions and Discussion …... 22
Literature ... 26
Appendix A ... 33
Abstract
The present study investigates social desirability of pride in Ghana. To find out if pride is a desired emotion, the valence of affective communication was assessed. Specifically, this means that the frequency was measured of how often subjects explicitly mentioned a positive or negative emotion by name, how often they revealed positive or negative vague emotion descriptions and how often they explicitly appraised the pride event as either positive or negative. Speech samples of 24 Ghanaian high school teachers were analyzed. The
mentioning of either more positive or more negative affective terms was expected. Secondly, frequency of mentioning self versus group was measured, to assess whether Ghanaians experience pride as a more personal or group-based emotion. Considering desirability of pride in other collectivistic cultures, more group-references were expected if more positive verbal expressions would be disclosed. The results revealed that Ghanaians talk more
positively than negatively about pride - more positive terms were used. Against expectations, results further showed that Ghanaians primarily experience pride as a personal emotion. While talking (positively) about pride, more references were made to the self rather than group. Considering the positive valence of its affective communication, pride in Ghana seems to be fairly socially desired.
The experience of pride is considered to be a natural reaction to personal triumph (Tracy & Robins, 2004a). When a goal is achieved it generates a positive feeling towards the self. As a self-conscious emotion (Sauter, McDonald, Gangi & Messinger, 2014), pride is closely related to the concept of self in relation to others. It involves complex self-evaluative processes (Niedenthal, Krauth-Gruber & Ric, 2006) and thus may show greater variability across cultures than intrinsically less social emotions (Tracy & Robins, 2007). Depending on the cultural context, expression or communication of a self-conscious emotion like pride might be more, or less desirable. In order to gain a greater understanding of the social desirability of pride in a collectivistic context,the present study will explore its affective communication in Ghana.
The concept of self across cultures
In order to understand the social desirability of pride it is essential to first understand the importance of cultural context. That the concept of self differs cross-culturally is a widely accepted assumption in Psychology. One’s self-concept has an influence and can even
determine the way individuals experience their emotions (Eid & Diener, 2001). Herewith, the experience of a self-conscious emotion like pride might be culturally dependent. The most common cultural distinction considering the construal of the self, is made between the individualistic view - of an independent self - versus the collectivistic view - of an interdependent self (Hofstede, 1984). Individualistic cultures foster the idea of personal growth, individual goals and one’s uniqueness (Markus & Kitayama, 2010; Heine, 2012). Focusing on one’s successes, like in the case of pride, emphasizes positive internal qualities (Kitayama, Markus & Kurokawa, 2001) and therefore is associated with positive feelings and
expressions in an independent context (Kitayama et al., 2001). Collectivistic cultures on the other hand, take human connectedness and interdependence as most important elements for the construal of self (Markus & Kitayama, 2010). It is characterized by the belief that it is not possible to separate the self from the social context whereby there is more emphasis on social harmony, common goals and group feelings (Tracy & Robins, 2008). In this case, focusing on one’s personal successes may lower the social harmony and thus might be considered
undesirable (Matsumoto, 1991). Heine, Kitayama and Hamamura (2007) indeed found that collectivistic cultures value explicit self-enhancement less in comparison to more
individualistic societies. However, when focus is on group successes or group benefits, occurrence of positive feelings or expressions might as well be more likely, in a dependent context (Matsumoto, 1991).
It may be clear that a self, related to others creates a bigger influence of others on who you are or what you are supposed to do and communicate (Markus & Kitayama, 2010). A culture’s degree of individualism or collectivism can therefore directly influence emotion experience or communication by creating behavioral norms and preferences (Kapoor,
Hughes, Baldwin & Blue, 2003). Less positive and more negative emotion experiences might come along when going against the cultural norms or expectations (Keltner, Ekman,
Gonzaga, & Beer, 2003). Consequently, when an emotion like pride is less socially valued or desired, regulation is likely to occur (Matsumoto, Yoo, & Nakagawa, 2008). Moreover, Verkuyten & Pouliasi (2002) suggest that the dichotomy between the different selves may directly influence the experience of pride by influencing the individual’s causal attributions and evaluations of success or failure. Someone holding an independent self may define
concepts may foresee cultural differences in emotion norms and values and so affect the way an emotion is experienced or communicated.
Display rules, social desirability and emotion communication
The culturally bounded concept of self (Tracy & Robins, 2007) may influence or be
influenced by adhered display rules or emotion norms. As a self-conscious emotion, pride is more prone to be altered by such existing social norms. Like mentioned above, expression of personal pride might be considered undesirable in a collectivistic context and therefore will be more likely regulated by display rules. Ekman and Friesen (1969) define display rules as cultural norms that direct regulation and modification of emotional display, depending on the social context. Usually these rules are learned along the course of socialization (Saarni, 1999). The display, in other words the expression of emotion, has an important
communicative value since it regulates social interaction (Matsumoto, Yoo, & Fontaine, 2008). Bond and Smith (1996) found that collectivistic cultures foster higher conformity and prefer emotions that benefit the group goals and social harmony. An innate positive feeling after personal triumph might be regulated for the sake of social cohesion. Individualistic cultures on the other hand, aim for a more autonomous being and prefer to freely express their emotions, particularly emotions that emphasize one’s personal abilities and strength (Markus & Kitayama, 2010). The prevailing (emotion) norms for social interaction go hand in hand with these preferences and thus cross-culturally differ. In a way, norms can be seen as guidelines for which feelings are socially expected and accepted. This means the desirability of emotions like pride, and the perceived appropriateness can differ. Social norms and display
rules seem to somehow reflect the social desirability of specific emotions and therefore influence its communication.
When an emotion is socially desired in a specific situational context, it is more likely that this emotion will be (positively) communicated (Keltner et al., 2003). The opposite is expected for socially undesired emotions, requiring more regulation and so possibly
influencing the valence and frequency of its communication. Eid and Dieners’ study (2001) showed that pride is considered less positively in a collectivistic context and is less typically experienced after personal achievement (Stipek, 1998). Hence, it is probable that in
collectivistic societies, pride is expressed infrequently in daily social situations or may be more regulated when displayed – by disclosing less positively valenced terms and possibly more negatively valenced terms. Display rules and the willingness to express an emotion like pride will come apparent in verbal affective communication (Matsumoto, Yoo, & Fontaine, 2008). If pride indeed is evaluated differently across cultures, we could expect the along going norms to be shown in its communication. It is expected that the less desirable an emotion is, the fewer positive and the more negative terms people will use. Contrarily, when an emotion is positively evaluated in a certain social context, more positive words will be likely to be communicated (Keltner et al., 2003). The social desirability of a specific emotion seems to go together with the valence, either positive of negative, of its communication.
Valence of pride
Different perspectives on what is valued in a social context, raises the question of possible implications for a complex self-conscious emotion like pride.
The evaluation and valence of this emotion is likely to depend on social context (Tracy & Robins, 2007b), when for example considering the social implications of its expression or agent. Goal achievement might generate a positive feeling towards the self all over the world, but William & DeSteno (2008) believe that it’s fundamental for the experience of pride, to attribute this achievement to personal competence or effort. It is likely that on this point, the contradicting self-concepts of an independent versus an interdependent self will show the biggest discrepancy. It seems plausible that holding a different concept of self may have implications for, in specific, the willingness to express pride. Where an independent individual might consider the expression of pride as a valuable way to stress one’s abilities (Markus & Kitayama, 2010); people holding an interdependent self will be more likely to find the expression of pride inappropriate, since it underlines individuality and so undermines social harmony (Matsumoto, 1991). So far, research indeed affirms this difference in the evaluation of pride. American and European participants (representing independent cultures), valued pride more positively than Taiwanese and Chinese (interdependent) participants (Eid & Diener, 2001). Stipek (1988) even found a negative evaluation of pride expression after personal success, in the case of Chinese participants. Considering the interdependent goal of most collectivistic cultures, celebrating an individual’s personal accomplishments might seem irrelevant or even dangerous (Mesquita & Karawasa, 2004). However, when pride is
experienced for achievements that are beneficial for the group, the communication of pride is more accepted (Stipek, 1988). For example, Chinese participants did report more feelings of pride in the case of success of a team member, than Americans did. Accomplishments were mainly based on group benefits instead of personal outcomes. The general description of pride as a positive, individual feeling that can strengthen the self-concept seems inadequate in explaining the importance of cross-cultural context. Lazarus (1991) wondered if his Japanese
participant who reported to feel embarrassed when outperforming her male peers, was actually feeling pride initially but reported the opposite because of social norms. Would the natural feeling of pride be regulated before communication or is there actually a different concept of success?
Most emotion research is based on Asian, collectivistic samples. There is a need to empirically test the current findings on other collectivistic cultures, in order to gain a greater understanding of pride expression. Since great differences in emotions and emotion norms can be found across the world (Kim-Prieto & Eid, 2004), the same can be expected for its communication. So far, little is known about the generalizability of the above named findings to other collectivistic societies - in particular, those of African (Kim-Prieto & Eid, 2004).
Ghana
Since the relative gap of research on emotion communication in African collectivistic countries (Kim-Prieto & Eid, 2004), the current study will take a closer look at emotion - specifically pride - communication in Ghana. According to the cultural value scale of
Hofstede (1991) Ghana is considered a collectivistic society. An interesting dichotomy is the contrast between this score, and their relatively long history of English colonial rule. Today, English is still the first official language in Ghana, even though many local languages are spoken as well. Since language caries emotional lexica, you could at least expect a partial internalization of British (individualistic) values and norms considering social interaction. According to Stearn and Lewis (1998) the emotional climate of a country, including its norms, is indeed subject to historical change. Therefore, it can be interesting to see if
findings among Asian samples, we could expect pride to be primarily communicated as a group-based emotion rather than individually experienced. In the case of personal
achievements, expression of pride would be non-desirable and therefore positive terms would be less frequently used than negative terms. The findings of Meijer, Sachisthal and Zweet (2016)’s pilot study in Ghana, are in line with this prediction. If Ghanaians mostly express group-based pride, a positive valence of its affective communication do is expected to come along. However, like mentioned above, still little is known about the generalizability of the current findings to other than Asian collectivistic cultures (Kim-Prieto & Eid, 2004).
Purpose of the study
As an answer to the so far neglected population in this area of research, this study investigates emotion, particularly pride communication in Ghana by focusing on social desirability. Based on the widely accepted assumption of a cross-culturally varying self-concept (Eid & Diener, 2001) and its possible influence on emotion communication, it stresses the importance of taking cultural variability of social values for emotion expression into account. Unlike previous research, actual emotion expression will be compared, avoiding the use of just self-report. We want to determine how people talk about or what they choose to socially share about pride, by trying to keep the actual emotion under control. By and large, we hope to further explore the social desirability of pride in an interdependent context, by looking at the valence of affective communication. How positively or negatively do Ghanaians talk about pride? This will be measured by counting the amount of both positive as negative affective information terms used. More positive terms could be seen as an indication for pride being a socially desirable emotion. Based on the majority of emotion research we could expect this positive tendency. However, prior research in other collectivistic cultures makes the
expression of (positive, personal) pride less likely to occur. It will be interesting to see if Ghanaians experience pride as socially desirable, with what they would communicate more positive affective terms; or as rather socially undesirable, with what they would communicate relatively less positive and more negative affective terms. Our first hypothesis therefore is based on expecting to find either more positive or more negative affective information terms used when talking about pride. The valence of pride communication will be taken as an indication for the social desirability of this self-conscious emotion.
Secondly, this study will investigate if Ghanaians consider pride as a more personal or a more group-based emotion. This will be measured by counting the amount of references to both personal emotions (e.g. “I’m filled with joy”) as group emotions (e.g. “We feel
blessed”). When looking at the cultural value scale of Hofstede (1991), Ghana is considered collectivistic. Prior research in collectivistic cultures would suggest that the expression of personal pride is undesirable; whereas showing group pride would be socially appropriate and desired. Most people will experience less positive and more negative emotions when going against what is seen as socially appropriate or what are the prevailing cultural norms (Keltner et al., 2003). Herewith our second hypothesis states that if Ghanaians talk more positively about pride, they will primarily refer to group successes; while on the contrary, if Ghanaians use more negative terms when talking about pride, they will be more likely referring to personal emotions.
Methods
Participants
This study consisted of a total of 27 Ghanaian participants, between the ages of 22 to 59, with a mean of 39.40 years (SD = 9.67), of which 7 were female. All participants were born in Ghana and never lived abroad. The participants were high school teachers of different schools from the capital of the country, Accra. They were videotaped throughout the course of the study and received a reward of €5 for participation. The Ethical Commission of the University of Ghana approved the research.
Procedure
Participants were recruited with the help of students of the University of Ghana. Participants were welcomed in a light and quiet room and were seated in front of a desk. A camera in front recorded them throughout the research. The research assistant tried to create a friendly atmosphere to set participants at ease. Then participants were asked to read the information brochure that was lying on the table in front of them. By signing an informed consent they agreed on the terms of the research. A short briefing from the research assistant followed, to make sure the procedure and instructions were well understood. The actual purpose of the study was not mentioned, to assure natural emotion communication and avoid priming. After one test round, the research assistant left the room until all trials were completed. In the first part of this study, four different emotion scenarios were presented - aiming to trigger the emotions: joy, sadness, pride and shame. They were asked to carefully read each situation and imagine it happening to themselves. The order of the emotion vignettes was counterbalanced
among participants. Nonetheless, considering our main research question we will further only focus on pride communication. After a short scenario description, participants were asked to imagine having a video call with an acquaintance, talking about the emotional situation. They were ensured there were no good or wrong answers and they could freely talk about each situation in their own words, as long as up to three minutes per scenario. An hourglass was used to set the time. The pride scenario included receiving a personal compliment of the school principal for the good work you’ve done, calling you “a very skilled and valuable teacher”(see Appendix A). Following, participants were asked to specify which emotion they had experienced and to what intensity they had so. Intensity was measured on a scale ranging from 1 (very weak) to 10 (very strong). When all four scenarios were completed, the camera was turned off and participants were asked to continue with the rest of the questionnaires that consisted of various self-report measures. Personal beliefs were measured using the CVScale of Yoo, Donthu and Lenartowitcz (2011), and preferred communication style by using the scale of Gudykunst, Matsumoto, Ting-Toomey, Nishida, Kim and Heyman (1996). These questionnaires were however not relevant for our main research question, so results were left aside. Lastly, participants filled in a demographic questionnaire about amongst other things their age, gender and mother language. The video material of the pride scenario was
transcribed and turned into a data file. Using the program Catma, both frequency and valence of specific emotion terms, valence-only descriptions and appraisals of pleasantness were highlighted and counted. The same was done for the owner of emotion: self versus group. A debriefing and the possibility to ask questions followed, and participants were thanked for their participation.
Materials & Instruments
For this research we used a questionnaire containing a pride vignette (see Appendix A) and questions about emotion experience. All instructions were in paper form and a pen was provided to fill in the questionnaires. The chosen scenario was researched to consistently trigger pride across cultures. A video camera was used to record participants’ emotion communication, while talking about the scenario. The verbatim, transcriptions of the pride communication, was analyzed by using the program Catma together with a codebook (see Apendix B).
Design & Measures
The pride verbatim was used as data about the verbal affective communication of the Ghanaians. To determine the desirability of pride communication, the valence (either positive or negative) of affective information terms used when talking about pride is taken into
account. Furthermore, to decide if pride in Ghana is considered as a more personal or group emotion, we will study the references of owner of emotion (self versus group).
Valence of affective emotion terms: The valence of the pride communication is measured by counting how often both positive as negative affective information terms are used. Specifically this means the frequency is measured how often participants directly mention a positive or negative emotion (specific emotion terms), how often participants reveal positive or negative vague emotion descriptions (valenced-only descriptions) and how often they explicitly appraise the pride event as either positive or negative (appraisals of pleasantness). An example of a specific emotion term could be an expression like “I am proud” or “Sadly, he has decided to …”. Valenced-only descriptions can consist phrases like
“I feel good” or “we feel down”, and so is a more indirect way of emotion communication. Lastly, a possible appraisal of pleasantness could be a sentence like “Something great happened” or “I just received terrible news”. Frequencies of both the total as the separate positive and negative affective information terms are compared.
Owner of emotion: self versus group: Secondly, the owner of the (pride) emotion will be measured by dividing the disclosed affective terms into either personally experienced emotions (owner of emotion: self) or group-based experienced emotions (owner of emotion: group). How often does the participant talk about himself as the owner of the emotion, using expressions like “I feel great” or “something embarrassing happened to me”; versus how often does the participant talk about a group including himself as the owner of the emotion, “we felt blessed” or “we were delighted”. Frequencies are compared.
Eliciting pride: To control if participants actually experience the induced emotion pride, participants are asked to specify the emotion they have felt. This is measured by using open questions like: “Did you experience any emotion or feeling when you imagined the situation above? If so, please specify which emotion or feeling you experienced” and “Did you experience any other emotion or feeling when you imagined the situation above? If so, please specify which emotion or feeling you experienced”. Answers are categorized in target emotion, referring to pride; congruent emotions, referring to emotions similar to pride by for example sharing the same valence (e.g. happiness, elated); and incongruent emotions, referring to emotions that do not resemble pride (e.g. ashamed, sad). Frequencies of these categories are used as an indication for the successfulness of the emotion manipulation.
“Did you find it difficult to follow the instructions of this research in English?” and “Did you find it difficult to talk about the events in part 1 of this research?”. Both questions are
measured on a scale ranging from 1 (very much) to 10 (not at all).
Results
The research included 27 participants from who three were excluded from analysis because of missing data. For that reason only 24 participant were taken into further account. Due to the small sample size it was not possible to determine a normal distribution of the data. Therefore, for all analysis, the assumption of normality will be taken as non-violated.
Eliciting pride
To see if the vignette successfully manipulated the emotion and participants actually
experienced feelings of pride, the frequencies of the indicated emotions were measured. The answers on which emotion they had experienced were divided into three categories: Target emotion (e.g. pride), Congruent emotion (e.g. happy, excited) and Incongruent emotion (e.g. ashamed, sad). One participant did not answer the question what accounted for 3.7% of the total. The results indicated that 7.4% of all participants experienced the target emotion pride and no less than 88.9% experienced a similar emotion. None of the participants experienced any incongruent or negative emotions, which may be seen as a first indication for a positive evaluation and so valence of pride in Ghana. Since a relatively large percentage primarily reported a similar to pride -, congruent emotion, answers were further analyzed to specify which emotion participants had actually felt. It became apparent that approximately 63% of the participants had experienced happiness during the pride scenario. Additionally, 25.9%
reported to have experienced another positive emotion. Even though based on these outcomes, 96.3% of all participants still experienced either pride or an emotion closely related to this target emotion, it is tricky to say the manipulation was resounding successful. One could wonder if pride was actually measured, considering the large percentage of experienced happiness. We will further discuss possible implications of these findings in the conclusions.
English proficiency
To make sure participants were able to follow the instructions and carry out the procedure, there was controlled for language proficiency. A mean was calculated for both the difficulties following the instructions as for the difficulties to talk in English. On a scale from 1 (very much) to 10 (not at all), the majority of participants showed little difficulty following the instructions M=8.73 (SD=2.03), nor talking about the events in English M=8.85 (SD=1.84).
General verbal affective communication in Ghana
To get a brief picture of verbal affective communication on pride, time, amount of words and amount of affective information terms were taken into account and compared to the other three emotions. For the rest of the analysis these emotions are not relevant.
In the pride scenario participants talked on average 175.08 seconds (SD=66.23), and disclosed 239.62 words (SD=91.68). This was good for an average speech rate of 1.34 words per second. In the case of happiness, they spent less time talking (M=163.57, SD=72.57) and used fewer words (M=238.00, SD=112.69) but taken together, participants talked a bit faster
needing fewer words (M= 237.12, SD=99.10), by what they talked relatively more slow than in the case of pride (M=1.24). On the contrary, when elaborating about shame participants spent less time talking (M= 168.00, SD= 68.02) in comparison to pride, but seemed to disclose more words (M= 256.54, SD= 97.54). Taken together, participants talked the fasted when elaborating about shame (M=1.52). If participants would have used fewer words or time or talked relatively slower about pride in comparison to other emotions, it might have been an indication for experienced difficulty elaborating about this self-conscious emotion. Sequential, difficulty could to a certain extend reveal social undesirability of pride
expression. However, based on these results this cannot be concluded. Participants showed relatively little differences among emotions.
Furthermore, we took a look at the verbal disclosure of affective information terms. Affective information terms consisted of the verbalization of specific emotion terms (e.g. ‘I am so proud’), valenced-only emotion descriptions (‘I feel good’) and appraisals of
pleasantness (e.g. ‘what a great news’). On average 10.25 (SD=6.22) affective information terms were used within the pride scenario, covering 4.48% of all verbal communication on pride. In the case of happiness this was a mean of 9.04 (SD= 6.51), taking up 4.29%; when talking about sadness participants used affective information terms up to a mean of 10.68 (SD= 4.66), good for 5.18% of it’s total; and in the case of shame this mean was 8.42 (SD= 4.19), covering 3.77% of the total shame communication. Taken together subjects talked a similar amount of time and used a similar amount of (affective) words during the pride scenario in comparison to the other emotions.
On a scale from 1 (very easy) to 10 (very difficult) subjects reported to have
experienced little difficulties talking about pride in front of the camera (M=3.81). Lastly, of all participants, 21 indicated to have experienced a similar situation before.
Valence of pride communication
Frequencies and means of positive and negative affective information terms, were compared, see Table 1. On 11 occasions, subjects used positive terms when explicitly stating that they or someone else experienced pride in the pride scenario (M=3.62, SD=2.84), “We are so proud”. Nine times, participants directly referred to pride but in terms of positive valence (M=0.63, SD=0.824). An example of what was said was “I feel very good”. Furthermore, nine times participants positively evaluated the pride event in terms of pleasantness (M=1.71, SD=2.29), “Today has been so wonderful”. Neither negative specific emotion terms nor negative
valenced-only descriptions were used. In total, one participant used four negative terms when referring to the pleasantness of the pride event (M=0.17, SD=0.816), “It was awkward”. In total subjects referred to pride 29 times using positive affective information terms, versus 4 times using negative affective information terms. Ghanaians seem to communicate more positively about pride rather than negative.
Table 1. Positive and negative frequencies and means of affective information terms
Affective
information terms
Positive (total) Positive mean
Negative (total) Negative mean Specific emotion terms 11 3.62 (SD=2.84) 0 0 Valenced only descriptions 9 0.63 (SD=0.824) 0 0 Appraisals of pleasantness 9 1.71 (SD=2.29) 4 0.17 (SD=0.816) Total of affective information terms 29 4
H1. In order to see if pride in Ghana is socially desirable and so if Ghanaians talked in a significantly more positive or negative way about pride, a 2x3 repeated measures ANOVA was conducted. The assumption of Sphericity did therefore not apply. Furthermore, no significant outliers were found. A significant main effect was found of Valence on affective information terms used, F (3, 21) = 15.65, p < .001. Ghanaians talked more positively than negatively about pride.
When looking at the different affective information terms separately, we accordingly found significant main effects of Valence on specific emotion terms mentioned, F (1,23) = 39.08, p < .001; valenced-only descriptions mentioned, F (1,23) = 13.80, p = .001; and appraisals of pleasantness mentioned, F (1,23) = 8.75, p < .007. Throughout the pride scenario, participants used more positive than negative affective information terms.
Post hoc tests using the Bonferroni correction were done to officially affirm the direction of the found effects. Participants indeed used significantly more positive specific emotion terms (p < .001), more positive valenced-only emotion terms (p < .001) and more positive appraisals of pleasantness (p = .007). Therefore, we can conclude with certainty that Ghanaians overall talked significantly more positive than negative about pride.
Personal or group pride
To see if pride in Ghana is a more personal or group-based emotion, it was counted how often participants referred to themself when talking about pride (owner of emotion: self) versus how often they referred to a group including themself (owner of emotion: group). Frequencies
of mentioning self versus group were compared. Personal references included expressions like “I am happy”; whereas group references covered expressions like “we are happy”.
When talking about pride, 20 of the participants referred to themself as the one
experiencing the emotion (owner of emotion: self), up to a frequency of fourteen times during the scenario (M=5.17, SD=3.62). Four participants also referred to collective feelings (owner of emotion: group), up to a frequency of 5 times during scenario (M=0.38, SD=1.10). See Table 2.
H2. In order to see if Ghanaians experienced pride significantly more as a personal
emotion rather than a group emotion, a paired t-test was done. Subjects significantly differed in how frequently they referred to themself as the owner of emotion (M=5.17, SD=3.62) in comparison to the group as the owner of emotion (M=0.38, SD=1.09), when talking about
Table 2. Frequencies and means of references to
owner of emotion: self versus group in pride scenario Owner of emotion Amount of participants referencing Frequency Mean S.D. Self 14 14 5.17 3.62 Group 5 5 0.38 1.10
the way pride is generally valued in other collectivistic cultures, these results were
unexpected. Ghanaians talked more positively about pride, which according to the second hypothesis would lead to primarily group references. The opposite effect was found whereby the second hypothesis was rejected. Apparently, pride in Ghana is experienced as a more individualistic, personal emotion.
Conclusions and Discussion
This research examined social desirability of the self-conscious emotion pride in Ghana, whereby valence and owner of emotion were taken into account.
Social desirability was defined by looking at the valence (positive / negative) of verbal affective communication on pride. Therefore, our main goal was to determine if Ghanaians talked more positively or negatively about pride. More positive than negative affective information terms could be seen as an indication for pride being a socially desirable emotion in Ghana. Even though the majority of emotion research would predict this positive valence of pride, prior research in collectivistic societies challenged this view. The results revealed that Ghanaians talk more positively than negatively about pride. A positive evaluation of the pride scenario led participants elaborate more positively about their pride experience. Based on the positive valence of its affective communication, pride in Ghana seems to be rather socially desirable. When comparing general characteristics of affective communication on pride to other emotions, we furthermore found little difference in both time as amount of words used. A relatively slower speech rate of pride might have been considered as an indication for experienced difficulty elaborating and so possibly existing
display rules or taboos. This would somehow reveal social undesirability of pride expression. However, this was not found. Ghanaians talked a similar amount of time and used a similar amount of affective words during the pride scenario as during the three other emotion scenarios. Also, there was a low self-reported difficulty talking about pride and almost all participants indicated to have experienced a similar situation before. This underlines the existence of little taboo or negative social evaluation of pride.
Or second goal was to assess if pride in Ghana is primarily experienced as a personal or a group emotion. Taking general collectivistic values in to account, more group-references were expected if Ghanaians disclosed more positively valenced affective terms about pride, in comparison to negative. Positively valenced, group-based expressions of pride could
contribute to the social harmony, which is a common aspiration in collectivistic cultures. Surprisingly, results revealed that Ghanaians primarily experience pride as a personal emotion rather than a group-based emotion. While talking (positively) about pride, more personal references were made than group references. Maybe the Stearn and Lewis (1998) were right, and did the relatively long history of English colonization indeed left its imprint on the emotional climate of Ghana. Just the English language could already have brought along certain individualistic values considering emotional lexica or values. Based on these results, Ghanaians seem to have a more individualistic approach on pride, mentioning more personal emotion experiences despite the positive valence.
Shortcomings of the study included the pride manipulation and the unequal
distribution of gender. Even though 96.3% of all participants had experienced either pride or a similar to pride emotion, a fairly large part, up till 63% of this group indicated to have
explicitly mentioning feelings of pride is more socially undesired, than simply and maybe less explicitly talking about this emotion. The pride vignette was researched to be measuring pride similarly across cultures, but based on these results we can not say the manipulation was unambiguously successful. Though, it may be stressed that none of the participants
experienced any incongruent or negative emotions, what does give at least a tentative push in the direction of it actually being a rather successful manipulation. Although the pride
manipulation was partially successful, since the majority of the participants experienced pride or at least a similar to pride emotion - it is still difficult to say to which degree we actually measured happiness. Future research could maybe use a different pride vignette or include a questionnaire about beliefs concerning the social evaluation or perceived appropriateness of emotions and emotion communication.
The unequal distribution of gender might have influenced the (positive) valence of pride. Up to 70% of the sample were male participants, which could have affective
implications for the way a self-conscious emotion like pride is experienced. It is likely that expression of (personal) pride is more socially accepted or even desired for men in
comparison to women. The unequal distribution of gender might be due to the small sample. Future research should aim for a more equal distribution of gender by looking at a larger sample. It would be interesting to see if the relative social desirability of pride and the
findings on a more positively valenced pride communication will hold when more women are included.
All in all, the research showed that Ghanaians communicate more positively than negatively about pride. This is taken, as an indication for the social desirability of pride in Ghana. Additionally, we found that Ghanaians primarily experience pride as a personal emotion. Herewith, they unexpectedly showed a rather individualistic approach on pride. The
results therefore emphasize the importance of cultural variety in research. Earlier findings on social desirability and affective communication in collectivistic cultures were not
generalizable to Ghana. Other cultural values than just the degree of individualism or collectivism and its cultural differences in the construal of self, might be of great(er) importance to emotion experience or verbal affective communication. In order to gain a greater understanding of emotions and particularly emotion communication across cultures, more varied (collectivistic) samples are desired.
Literature
Diener, E., Diener, M., & Diener, C. (1995). Factors predicting the subjective well-being of
nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 851-864.
Dzokoto, V. A. A. (2012). Ghanaian Happiness: Global, Cultural, and Phenomenological
Perspectives. Happiness Across Cultures, 311–327.
Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2001). Norms for experiencing emotions in different cultures: inter
and intranational differences. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81, 869.
Ekman, P. (1972). Universal and cultural differences in facial expression of emotion.
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 207-283.
Field, A. P. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th edition).
Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & Ter Schure, E. (1989). Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of personality and social psychology, 57(2), 212. Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences.
Psychophysiology, 39(3), 281-291.
Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, I., and Heyman, S. (1996). The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self-construals, and individual values on communication styles across cultures. Human Communication Research, 22, 510–43.
American Behavioral Scientist, 3, 384-400. Heine, S. J. (2012). Cultural psychology. (2nd edition).
Heine, S. J., Kitayama, S., & Hamamura, T. (2007). Which studies test whether self enhancement is pancultural? Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 10(3), 198-200. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Beyond WEIRD: Towards a broad-based
behavioral science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 111-135.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pacific journal of management, 1(2), 81-99.
Kapoor, S., Hughes, P. C., Baldwin, J. R., & Blue, J. (2003). The relationship of
individualism–collectivism and self-construal’s to communication styles in India and the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(6), 683-700. Kim-Prieto, C., & Eid, M. (2004). Norms for experiencing emotions. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 5 (3), 241-268.
Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., and Kurokawa, M. (2000). Culture, Emotion, and Well- being: Good Feelings in Japan and the United States, Cognition & Emotion, 14(1), 93 – 124. Niedenthal, P. M., Krauth-Gruber, S., & Ric, F. (2006). Psychology of emotion:
Interpersonal, experiential, and cognitive approaches. Psychology Press.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1994). A collective fear of the collective: Implications for
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2010). Culture and the self: a cycle of mutual constitution.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 420-430.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2001). The cultural construction of self and emotion: Implications for social behavior. Emotions in social psychology: Essential reading, 119-137.
Matsumoto, D. (1990). Cultural similarities and differences in display rules. Motivation &
Emotion, 14, 195-214.
Matsumoto, D. (2007). Culture, context, and behavior. Journal of Personality, 75, 1287-1320.
Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., & Nakagawa, S. (2008). Culture, emotion regulation, and adjustment. Journal of personality and social psychology, 94(6), 925.
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(1), 55-74.
Matsumoto, D., Takeuchi, S., Andayani, S., Kouznetsova, N., & Krupp, D. (1998). The contribution of individualism-collectivism to cross-national differences in display rules. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 147-165.
Mesquita, B., & Karasawa, M. (2004). Self-conscious emotions as dynamic cultural processes. Psychological Inquiry, 15(2), 161-166.
Meijer, L., Sachisthal, M. S. M., & Zweet, D. (2016). Positive emotions in Ghana. (not publicated pilot study of the department of Psychology of Amsterdam).
differentiate discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67,
206-221.
Saarni, C. (1999). The development of emotional competence. Guilford Press.
Sauter, D. A., McDonald, N. M., Gangi, D. N., & Messinger, D. S. (2014). Nonverbal expressions of positive emotions. Handbook of Positive Emotion, 179-200.
Scherer, K. (1997). Profiles of emotion-antecedent appraisal: Testing theoretical predictions across cultures. Cognition & Emotion, 11(2), 113-150.
Stipek, D. (1998). Differences between Americans and Chinese in the circumstances evoking pride, shame, and guilt. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 29, 616-629.
Suh, E. M., & Oishi, S. (2002). Subjective well-being across cultures. In W. J. Lonner, D. L. Dinnel, S. A. Hayes, & D. N. Sattler (Eds.), Online Readings in Psychology and Culture
7.
Sullivan, G. B. (2007). Wittgenstein and the grammar of pride: The relevance of
philosophy to studies of self-evaluative emotions. New Ideas in Psychology, 25, 233-252.
Sullivan, G. B., & Strongman, K. T. (2003). Vacillating and mixed emotions: A conceptual discursive perspective on contemporary emotion and cognitive appraisal theories through examples of pride. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 33, 203-226. Tracy, J., & Robins, R. (2004). Putting the Self into Self-Conscious Emotions: A Theoretical
Model. Psychological Inquiry, 15(2), 103-125.
nonverbal behavioral coding system. Emotion, 7, 789-801.
Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007a). Emerging insights into the nature and function of pride. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 147-150.
Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007b). The psychological structure of pride: A tale of two facets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 506-525.
Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2008). The nonverbal expression of pride: Evidence for cross cultural recognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 516-530. Tov, W., & Diener, E. (2007). Culture and subjective well-being. Handbook of cultural
psychology, 691-713.
Van Baaren, R. B., Maddux, W. M., Chartrand, T. L., de Bouter, C., & van Knippenberg, A. (2003). It takes two to mimic: Behavioral consequences of self-construals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1093-1102.
Verkuyten, M., & Pouliasi, K. (2006). Biculturalism and group identification: The mediating
role of identification in cultural frame switching. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 37, 312-326.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lenartowicz, T. (2011). Measuring Hofstede's five dimensions of cultural values at the individual level: Development and validation of CVSCALE. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 23(3-4), 193-210.
Yoo, S. H., Matsumoto, D., & LeRoux, J. A. (in press). Emotion regulation, emotion recognition, and intercultural adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations.
Apendix A
Pride scenario and questionnaire used in the procedure
1. Please take your time and imagine the following situation happening to you.
2. Now imagine waiting for a video call (on your phone or a computer) with an acquaintance.
3. Your acquaintance is now calling, he or she is asking how you are doing and how your day has been.
4. Turn the hourglass, look at the camera and greet your acquaintance (call him or her by name).
5. Tell him or her within the cycle of the hourglass how you are doing and what you have just experienced. Feel free to talk about the event above in any way you like, there is no right or wrong way of talking.
6. If the hourglass has not finished yet, you may tell a little bit more about the event. Is there anything else you would like to tell the stranger about this event?
A few minutes ago, the principle of your school approached you and thanked you for your outstanding work on a project. This project was important not only for the school but also for you personally and you had worked hard for the success of it. The principle is very pleased and
Please answer the following questions by ticking the box or specifying your answer. There are no right or wrong answers, we are just interested in your opinion. Please be as honest as possible.
1. Did you experience any emotion or feeling when you imagined the situation above? If so, please specify which emotion or feeling you experienced.
Yes, I felt
No
2. On a scale from 1 to 10, how much did you experience this emotion? Please circle the number that matches the strength of your feeling.
Very weak 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 very strong
3. Did you experience any other emotion or feeling when you imagined the situation above? If so, please specify which emotion or feeling you experienced.
Yes, I felt
No
4. On a scale from 1 to 10, how much did you experience this emotion? Please circle the number that matches the strength of your feeling.
Very weak 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 very strong
5. Did you express any emotion or feeling when you imagined the situation above? If so, please specify which emotion or feeling you expressed.
Yes, I felt
No
6. On a scale from 1 to 10, how much did you express this emotion? Please circle the number that matches the strength of your feeling.
Very weak 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 very strong
7. Did you express any other emotion or feeling when you imagined the situation above? If so, please specify which emotion or feeling you expressed.
Yes, I felt
No
8. On a scale from 1 to 10, how much did you express this emotion? Please circle the number that matches the strength of your feeling.
Very weak 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 very strong
9. On a scale from 1 to 10, how difficult did you find it to talk about this particular situation in front of the camera?
Very easy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 very difficult
10. To what extent did it bother you not be able to see or hear your interaction partner? Very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all 11.
Yes
Appendix B
Codebook for the analysis of verbal affective communication
Variable Description Instruction Name in SPSS
Amount of general informatio n disclosed
How much general information
(emotional & non-emotional information together) does person share? Count number of words
(per scenario and across all
scenarios)
DISC_TOT (sum of all 4 scenarios)
DISC_JY (# words joy scenario)
DISC_PD (# words pride scenario)
DISC_SD (# words sadness scenario)
DISC_SH (# words shame scenario)
Length How long (in seconds) does subject talk?
1st word until last LENGTH_TOT (sum of seconds spoken in all 4 scenarios)
LENGTH_JY/SD/PD/SH Speech
Rate*
How fast/slow does subject talk? How many words does subject disclose per minute?
Divide number of words by length (per scenario and across all scenarios) RATE_TOT RATE_JY/SD/PD/SH Organizati on At which point in time does the subject reveal the first affective information?
Note down second at which 1st verbal affective information unit is mentioned ORG_TOT ORG_JY/SD/PD/SH Amount of affective informatio n disclosed How much affective information does subject reveal? Count number of verbal affective information units (eg specific emotion terms, valenced-only terms, appraisals, emotion-related actions) VBINFOA_TOT (sum of verbal affective information units) VBINFOA_JY/SD/PD/SH (per scenario) Relative amount of affective informatio n disclosed* How much affective information does subject reveal controlling for the amount of time (s)he talks? Divide number of verbal affective information units by number of words • Eg VBINFOA _TOT : DISC_TO REL_VBINFOA_TOT REL_VBINFOA_JY/SD/PD /SH
T • Eg. VBINFOA _PD : DISC_PD Amount of specific emotion terms disclosed
How many specific emotion words does subject mention? • Definition: Words directly referring to affective states (note: can be different types of words • Eg. Sadly, the government has decided to abandon financing • I am happy/sad, worried/con fident, angry/pleas ed, keen/uninte rested • His fear was obvious to all • I was overcome with joy Count number of specific emotion terms (per scenario and across all scenarios) SPECEMO_TOT SPECEMO_JY/SD/PD/SH Relative amount of specific emotion terms disclosed*
How many specific emotion words does subject
mention controlling for the amount of time (s)he talks?
Count number of specific emotion terms (per scenario and across all scenarios) and divide by number of words SPECEMO_TOT SPECEMO_JY/SD/PD/SH
terms disclosed mention? • Words directly referring to affective state but only in terms of valence • eg. I feel good, I feel down across all scenarios) Relative amount of valenced-only emotion terms disclosed* Amount of appraisals How many appraisals does subject use? • Definition: Evaluation of significance of event (and attribution of the cause of those events) • Appraisals occur after the event, before the experience of an emotion or emac. • Eg. something great just happened, bad news, it was expected • Please mark Count number of appraisals APP_TOT APP_JY/SD/PD/SH
with CATMA which type of appraisal was made (more details bellow) Relative amount of appraisals* REL_APP_TOT REL_APP_JY/SD/PD/SH Amount of emotion-related actions How many emotion-related actions does subject use? • Definition: Actions and emotional responses indirectly referring to affective states, eg physiologic al reaction, motor expression, action tendencies • EMACS occur as a consequenc e (after) of an experienced emotion • Eg. I am blushing, I wanted to punch someone, I wanted to run away Count number of emotion-related actions EMAC_TOT EMAC_JY/SD/PD/SH
related actions * Owner of emotion (self)
How often does subject speak of himself as the owner of the emotion? • eg. I feel great, something horrible happened to me, I wanted to run away OSELF_TOT Owner of the emotion (3rd person)
How often does subject speak of others as the owner of the emotion? • eg. one surely feels great in such a situation • Note: only count when emotion is a result of event (receiving a praise; being shamed publicly) so the fact that your boss is happy with your work does not count! OTHRD_TOT Owner of emotion (group)
How often does subject speak of a group including him/herself as the owner of the emotion? • Eg we were delighted by OGROUP_TOT
the news General attempt to involve interaction partner
How often does the subject make an attempt to reach out, get a response from the imagined receiver of the message? • Eg. Do you have any children yourself? INVOLVE_GEN Attempt to emotionall y involve interaction partner
How often does the subject make an attempt to
emotionally reach out, get an
emotional response from the imagined receiver of the message?
• Eg. wouldn’t you feel the same? • Eg. how
would you feel?
INVOLVE_EMO
• * Variable has to be transformed IN SPSS, calculated based on existing variables • Forms of appraisals (based on Scherer, 1997) to be tagged in CATMA
o 1. Novelty/Expectation:
Did you expect this situation to occur?
• E.g. Something weird just happened; I did not see that coming
o 2. Intrinsic Pleasantness:
Did you find the event itself pleasant or unpleasant? • E.g. Something horrible happened; I had a great day o 3. Goal-conduciveness/significance:
How important was the event for your goals, needs, or desires at the time it happened? Did it help or hinder you to follow your plans or
Who do you think was responsible for the event in the first place ? (self, close persons, other persons, impersonal agency).
• E.g. It wasn’t my fault; I should have never said anything o 5.Coping potential & Control/Power/Adjustment:
How did you evaluate your ability to act on or to cope with the event and its consequences you were confronted with this situation? (eg. having or needing less power to deal with an event to being able to positively influence an event, powerless, escape possible, pretend nothing happened, no action necessary, could positively influence event and change consequences. )
• E.g. I did not know what to do; This will never happen again; I don’t really care
o 6. Compatibility with internal standard (Self-ideal)
How did this event affect your feelings about yourself, such as your self-esteem or your self-confidence?
• E.g. it made me look like a fool; I came across so dumb o 7. Compatibility with external standards (Norms & Fairness)
If the event was caused by your own or someone else’ behaviour, would this behavior itself be judged as improper or immoral by your
acquaintances?
Would you say that the situation or event that caused your emotion was unjust or unfair?
• E.g. it wasn’t fair; Who does something like that?; I find it rather odd
• Some general coding tips & rules
o If subject repeats phrases literally from the scenario (eg “I can hardly wait to see the baby”), they are not coded and do not count.
o If the subject expresses two verbal affective information units together (“I was very excited AND wanted to run to their house as fast as I could”), you count them double (in this case: 1 x specific emotion term, 1 x emotion-related action)
o If subject repeats an affective information unit (“I was so excited, really excited”), they count double.
