Tag: America

The Smile Effect: How Culture Shapes Who We Trust

Posted on by Leave a comment

How do people determine trustworthiness in others? 

While research has shown that smiling faces are generally trusted more than non-smiling ones, the perception of trustworthiness varies significantly across cultures. 

We discussed this in last week’s blog, which examined cross-cultural research that delved into the complex and varied interpretations of smiling.

Yet another study on the subject seems to confirm that research.

Exploring the “smile effect” in American and Japanese participants, this study focuses on how different elements of a smile – intensity at the eyes, intensity at the mouth, and facial symmetry – influence judgments of trustworthiness.

Let’s dive in.

Cultural Variations in Smile Perception

Researchers initially had Japanese participants rate 54 American and 69 Japanese male faces for smile intensity at the eyes and mouth, as well as facial symmetry. 

These images were then presented to 142 American and 80 Japanese participants, who rated each face’s trustworthiness.

The findings revealed stark cultural differences. 

Japanese participants found faces with greater upper-half (eye) intensity and smile symmetry to be more trustworthy but viewed faces with greater lower-half (mouth) intensity as less trustworthy. 

Conversely, American participants perceived faces with greater lower-half intensity as more trustworthy, while upper-half intensity and smile symmetry had no significant impact.

Understanding These Differences

Why do these cultural differences occur? 

The study suggests that in Japanese culture, people tend to control their emotional expressions, relying more on the eyes and smile symmetry, which are harder to manipulate, to judge trustworthiness. 

Additionally, in Japan, highly expressive smiles are less appropriate in cooperative contexts, leading to a lower trust rating for strongly smiling faces.

In contrast, American culture encourages overt emotional expression. 

Therefore, American participants focused more on the mouth, the most expressive part of the face, when making trust judgments.

Additional Findings

The study also examined other personality traits and found a variety of cultural differences and similarities.

Interestingly, American faces were rated by Japanese participants as more trustworthy than Japanese ones, while Japanese faces were rated by American participants as more trustworthy than American ones. 

This suggests that cultural biases can influence perceptions of trustworthiness.

The study had several limitations. 

The three smile elements were rated only by Japanese participants, and these ratings may differ across cultures. 

The photographs used were taken for electoral campaigning, which might not reflect everyday expressions.

Furthermore, only male faces were used, so future studies should include female faces to see if the findings apply across genders.

Smile Trustworthiness

This study highlights significant cultural differences in how trustworthiness is inferred from smiles. 

To fully understand the detection of trustworthiness, future research should explore how people express their intentions and emotions when they have an incentive to be trusted, considering both the receivers and senders of facial signals. 

Additionally, understanding the historical context and origins of these cultural differences would provide a deeper insight into the mechanisms of nonverbal communication, which becomes more important as the world becomes more globally connected.

Eye Contact & Culture: A Guide to Understanding Non-Verbal Communication

Posted on by Leave a comment

Eye contact is a fundamental aspect of human communication, serving as a powerful non-verbal cue conveying various emotions and intentions. 

However, the interpretation and significance of eye contact can vary dramatically across cultures, often leading to misunderstandings in cross-cultural interactions. 

Understanding these differences is crucial for effective communication in global business.

Western Cultures: Direct Eye Contact = Confidence

In many Western cultures, particularly in the United States and Europe, direct eye contact is often seen as a sign of confidence, sincerity, and attentiveness. 

People who make steady eye contact during conversations are typically perceived as trustworthy and engaged.

In business settings, maintaining eye contact is crucial during negotiations and presentations, as it demonstrates interest and credibility.

But this doesn’t end at business: direct eye contact is also valued in social interactions. 

It is considered polite and respectful, indicating that you are actively listening and interested in the other person’s words. 

However, balance is necessary, as excessive staring can be perceived as confrontational or aggressive.

East Asian Cultures: Indirect Eye Contact = Respect

In contrast, many East Asian cultures, including Japan, China, and Korea, view direct eye contact differently.

Here, indirect eye contact is often a sign of respect and deference, particularly towards elders or those in positions of authority. 

Avoiding prolonged eye contact is seen as a way to show humility and politeness.

For instance, in Japan, a child might lower their gaze when speaking to a teacher or elder as a mark of respect. 

Similarly, employees may avoid direct eye contact with their superiors during meetings to demonstrate deference. 

Misinterpreting this cultural norm can lead Westerners to mistakenly perceive East Asians as being evasive or untrustworthy, when they are simply adhering to cultural standards of respect.

Studies Confirm These Differences

Research has shown that faces making eye contact are quickly detected and preferentially processed, a phenomenon known as the eye contact effect. 

This sensitivity to eye contact is believed to be innate and universal among humans. 

However, cultural norms influence eye contact behaviors, with Japanese individuals typically making less eye contact than those from Western European or North American cultures.

This study explored how cultural differences affect eye contact behaviors by examining autonomic responses (heart rate), looking time, and evaluative ratings of eye contact with a person displaying a neutral expression.

Participants from Western European (Finnish) and East Asian (Japanese) cultures were compared. 

The findings revealed that eye contact elicited stronger heart rate deceleration (indicative of attentional orienting), shorter looking times, and higher arousal ratings in both cultures compared to averted gaze.

However, cultural differences were evident in how participants interpreted faces making eye contact. 

Japanese participants rated faces as angrier, less approachable, and more unpleasant compared to Finnish participants. 

These results suggest that cultural norms and display rules influence how eye contact is perceived, rather than culture directly affecting physiological responses to eye contact.

We’ll talk more about culture’s influence on eye contact norms next week.

The Theory of a Universal Structure of Human Values

Posted on by Leave a comment

What values do you consider “collectivist”? How about “individualist”?

If you had to explain your own values, under which headline would they fall?

This study examines the values of American, Indian, and Japanese populations. 

The intent of this cross-cultural research was to measure the individualist, collectivist, and mixed values in each culture to see where they fell.

First off, what constitutes an “individualist” versus a “collectivist” value?

The Values

The researchers used the theory of a universal structure of human values, proposed by Schwartz and Bilsky in 1987 (revised in 1992).

Each value is labeled individualist, collectivist, or mixed and are as follows:

  • Power: Attainment of social status, dominance, and control. (Individualist)
  • Achievement: Personal success and competence. (I)
  • Hedonism: Pleasure and enjoyment. (I)
  • Stimulation: Excitement, novelty, and a thrilling life. (I)
  • Self-Direction: Independent thought, action, and autonomy. (I)
  • Benevolence: Preserving and improving the welfare of others. (Collectivist)
  • Tradition: Respect for and acceptance of cultural customs and traditions. (C)
  • Conformity: Restraint of behaviors to maintain social order and harmony. (C)
  • Universalism: Understanding, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all. (Mixed)
  • Security: Stability of self, relationships, and society. (M)
  • Spirituality: Finding meaning, inner harmony, and having a spiritual life. (M)

These values encompass a range of motivations and goals that individuals may prioritize in their lives.

The Results

Along with these value types were subcategories of value traits. 

And of these value traits, Americans, Indians, and Japanese participants were compatible in 14 of the 22 individualist values.

Of the collectivist values, participants were compatible in 13 out of 15.

Lastly, of the mixed values, there was compatibility in 9 out of 15 (and absolutely none regarding spiritual values).

The American participants, as expected, scored high on individualist values and mixed types. They had a preference for standing out from the crowd. 

Indians, on the other hand, were drawn to collectivist and mixed values. They believed in the power of unity. 

The Japanese students threw a bit of a curveball. They didn’t follow any clear pattern of individualism or collectivism.

This study suggests that no country – including the United States, India, or Japan – can be neatly labeled as just individualist or collectivist. Each has a melting pot of values.

Independent variables like gender, race, income, or media usage may also help us understand why individualistic and collectivist orientations coexist in the same cultures.

Religion’s Influence on Cultural Drinking Behaviors

Posted on by Leave a comment

Culture and religion are inevitably intertwined.

Today, we’ll discuss some studies that demonstrate this exchange.

Our first study comes out of America and Canada, in which researchers analyzed whether culture or religion more greatly influenced drinking behaviors.

Canadian Versus American Drinking Behaviors

Past studies had shown that drinking patterns amongst college students differed across countries. 

The difference in behaviors suggests that anything from a country’s public policies to their politics, values, or economy influences alcohol consumption levels and produces different alcohol-related problems within each country.

For example, one study showed that while more Canadian students drink alcohol than American students, heavy alcohol use (5+ drinks in a row for men / 4+ for women) was much more prevalent amongst Americans than Canadians in both past-year and past-week stats. 

41% of American students had drunk heavily within the past year versus 35% of Canadian students, and 54% of American students had drunk heavily within the past week compared to 42% of their Canadian counterparts.

One reason for this may be the drinking age disparity. In Canada, 18 (in some provinces) and 19 are legal drinking ages, while in the U.S., drinking is legal at 21. 

The study concluded that a student’s place of residence may also influence the difference in drinking behaviors:

“In our sample, 52% of Canadian college respondents lived off-campus with parents while only 15% of the US college respondents did so. Our study suggests that students who live off-campus with their parents are less likely to use alcohol and to be heavy alcohol drinkers in both countries.”

While this study identified different cultural drinking habits, researchers in the ‘90s wanted to delve into religious influence on those same habits.

Religious Influence on Drinking Habits

The drinking behaviors of non-abstinent Catholics, moderately abstinent Protestants, and abstinent Jews in both America and Canada were put under the microscope.

Researchers discovered that the absence or presence of conflicting values between the country’s culture and the religion’s drinking norms predicted the drinking habits of each group. 

For instance, the drinking habits of non-abstinent Catholics generally aligned with those of the country’s culture; however, the drinking habits between abstinent Canadian Jews and American Jews were the same, as most follow the religion’s strict law in lieu of the broader cultural drinking norms.

The study concludes:

“Among this sample it was concluded that religious norms have a greater influence in cohesive religious groups while cultural norms are more influential among less cohesive groups. The results also support the Canadian ‘Mosaic’ and American ‘Melting Pot’ assumption.”

This indicates that the norms of religious-based sub-cultures are more adherent to the group norms than national ones.

When Religious Norms Become National Culture

Religious norms regarding alcohol consumption can, at times, even imbed into the national culture.

It’s not unusual to see a glass of wine or pint of beer drank with lunch in a Catholic country, while abstinence from such habits would be the norm in a Protestant country. 

In fact, in the “Bible Belt” of America, which is predominantly Protestant, you may even see alcohol norms written into law. A number of counties in this region are “dry.”

In some parts of the world, drinking norms are legally bound, nationwide. For instance, some Islamic countries follow strict drinking norms (abstaining from alcohol) and expect outsiders to, as well. In countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, there are laws enforcing such norms.

In such cases, adapting or adopting as an outsider is required, in order to avoid legal issues or imprisonment.

All of this is to say that a country’s dominant religion(s) influence the culture’s norms and values, whether an individual is a believer or not.

In order to understand the culture of a country, therefore, you must get to know the ideology and rules/laws of its religion(s). 

We’ll discuss how religion may imprint on business next week.

How Culture Impacts a Person’s Sense of Control (aka Locus of Control)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Do you believe in fate?

Last week, we talked about how the degree to which someone feels life is directed by destiny dictates their locus of control – that is their feeling of control over their own lives.

Let’s look at how the locus of control unfolds in the workplace.

The Blame Game

When a goal is set and not reached in a workplace environment, the reactions of your colleagues can be very telling.

Sheila blames Jeremy for not delivering the documents in time for her to complete her task.

Jeremy blames Tom for not communicating promptly.

Tom blames his home life for distracting him.

Team Leader Lisa admits she missed the mark and should have taken the campaign in another direction. She apologizes for the part she played in not meeting the goal.

People with an internal locus of control take personal responsibility for their role in a group’s failure, while those with an external locus point at everyone else but themselves, whether they see fault in the “weakest links” of the group or in external factors.

Cross-Cultural Factors

How do cross-cultural factors come into play in the locus?

The locus of control is directly related to personality orientation; however, social psychologists have begun to study the majority locus of control in various cultures and the factors that influence it.

They’ve discovered that quite often the people of any given culture look at fate or self-control in a generally collective manner.

As you may have guessed, individualist cultures generally demonstrate an internal locus of control. They believe they’re the masters of their own fate.

Collectivist cultures – like those of China or Japan – demonstrate an external locus. They accept that things are out of their hands and don’t put weight on the individual’s role in the whole.

To illustrate this, when Americans and Chinese were surveyed about their view of fate, these were the results.

locusofcontrol

89% of questioned Americans agreed with the statement, “What happens to me is my own doing,” while 65% of Chinese admitted, “Sometimes I feel I don’t have control over the direction my life is taking.”

This aligns with each culture’s dominant traits, with Americans espousing ambition, individualism, and the “American dream,” while China espouses harmony and collectivism.

Next week, we’ll talk a little bit about how the group locus of control can be divided up further amongst ethnic groups and even simply locations in the same country. We’ll also talk about primary and secondary control. Stay tuned.

Margaret Mead: A Study in Scarlet

Posted on by Leave a comment

A kiss isn’t just a kiss.

Last week, we spoke about different kissing traditions in different cultures.

This week, we’ll continue this discussion through Margaret Mead’s in depth research on the subject.

Margaret Mead

Margaret Mead was an American cultural anthropologist who dug deep into South Pacific sexual mores into the ’60s and ’70s.

She wrote a book on the subject called Coming of Age in Samoa. At the time, society and cultural traditions there allowed more sexual freedom than those in Western culture.

Mead argued that this freedom created an easier transition from childhood to adulthood and believed in encouraging broader sexual mores. Her theories were promoted by advocates of the sexual revolution in the ‘60s.

But although this was what brought Margaret Mead’s work to the forefront, this wasn’t her first course of research into sexual mores.

Courting Habits: American vs. Britain

The second world war brought American GIs to the United Kingdom and with this contact came cross-cultural courting.

Margaret Mead studied the conflicting courting habits of the two cultures.

Her findings:

  • American men believed British women were “too easy”
  • British women believed American men were “too fast and direct”

So, both cultures felt pressured by the other’s courting habits.

How and why did these seemingly contradictory conclusions occur?

30 Steps of Courting

Mead categorized the courting habits of both cultures from first contact to sexual intercourse. In doing so, she broke down each process – that of American courting and British courting – into around 30 steps. That’s how long it took for a relationship to progress from casual to intimate on both sides of the Atlantic.

What she found, however, was that though the process clocked in the same number of steps, there was a significant difference in progression.

The French Kiss

The real hitch all boiled down to French kissing.

For the Americans, French kissing was introduced into the mix in around the fifth step, as it was viewed as rather casual. On the other hand, the Brits viewed frenching as intimate, so it didn’t enter into the progression until step 25.

Therefore, if a British woman gave into her American counterpart and accepted his cultural courting mores at step five, she would then accept that the level of intimacy had jumped to the 25th step in her own cultural mores, thereby moving ahead much further than the American was prepared for.

This simple miscalculation created conflict that left Americans and Brits thinking negatively about each other and feeling pressured in their courting and mating habits. All because the other’s cultural values and norms differed from one’s own.

Next week, we’ll further discuss the differences in intimacy and personal distance. Stay tuned.