Are emotions culturally intersubjective

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 1

Are Emotions Cross-Culturally Intersubjective? A Chinese Test.

By Herman W Smith

UM-St. Louis-MO

Supported by National Science Foundation grant #9809513. This paper has been prepared for submittal to the 2002 American Sociological Association meeting in Chicago. Parts of this paper were also read at the International Sociological Association Congress in Brisbane, July, 10, 2002. Direct all correspondence to [email protected].

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 2 Abstract for

Are Emotions Cross-Culturally Intersubjective? A Chinese Test. Are emotions universally shared or culturally relative? I formulate ten hypotheses based upon one of the few rigorous cross-cultural studies by MacKinnon and Keating (1989) for which I find consistent support for eight. However, their study compared only Canadians and Americans. This study replicates their design for the study of 99 "pure" emotion words using Mandarin in Mainland China. The data is univocal in suggesting that emotion words share a large amount in common across cultures and males and females, but that there are systematic differences between cultures and the two sexes predicted by the existing cross-cultural literature in social psychology. As with MacKinnon and Keating, I show that (a) the universal structure of emotions appears to be elliptical rather than circumplex; (b) three dimensions of evaluation, potency and activity add useful information not found in earlier studies suggesting a one or two-dimension solution; (c) emotions are more gendered in China than North America with females more expressive as expected; (d) Chinese are less expressive emotionally than North Americans as expected; and (e) five clusters describe the Chinese that are very similar to those found for North Americans in spite of clear cultural differences within each.

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 3

Are Emotions Cross-Culturally Intersubjective? A Chinese Test. Do humans share a common ground of emotions? Despite apparent cultural differences separating East and West, there is considerable empirical support for the century old Darwinian hypothesis of a core set of emotions that are universally understood and innate (Ekman 1972; Izard 1994). Logic also supports the search for such a set of universally recognized primary emotions. During her tenure as Prime Minister of Israel, Golda Meier pointed out that Arab mothers felt the same grief as Israeli mothers who have lost their sons in the line of military hostilities. Some philosophers (Rouner 1995) suggest that philosophical dialogue is possible only because grief, love, fear and anger are universally shared. Other scholars challenge this hypothesis under the assumption of cultural relativism (Lutz 1988). Stipek (1998) reports very different circumstances that evoke pride, shame and guilt among Americans and Chinese. Brody summarizes a large empirical literature demonstrating common stereotypes that females are more emotionally expressive and less physically aggressive than males (Brody 1997). However, she demonstrates how such differences may easily be explained by status and power imbalances caused by differential socialization of males and females. Thus, it is possible that core emotions share a universal structure, but persons of each sex, and in different cultures and subcultures, express them differently. Clear, unambiguous evidence for the existence of universal facial expression of emotions comes from studies using the Facial Affect Scoring System (FAST). The short list of biologically innate and universal primary emotions usually includes seven: happiness, anger, contempt, disgust, fear, happiness, and sadness (Ekman and Friesen

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 4 1975). All of the seven emotions – except contempt – have been confirmed as universally recognized by Americans, Japanese, Chileans, Argentineans, and Brazilians (Ekman and Friesen 1971). Izard (1971) used the same technique to independently verify equivalent abilities of humans to judge the same core set of emotional expressions from a uniform set of color photos in France, Greece, Switzerland and Africa. Ekman and Friesen (1971) used preliterate tribes in New Guinea to reinforce the validity of the universality of these emotions beyond literate cultures. Contempt was added to the short list of universal emotions during the 1980s [See Matsumoto (1996:26) for a review of the evidence using the FAST methodology.] Wang and Markham (1999) have replicated these seven emotions as universally recognized among Mainland Chinese. As judgments of emotional expression produce remarkably high agreement for these seven emotions – regardless of culture – it seems reasonable to conclude that they may be evolutionarily adaptive and generalizable across cultures. Nevertheless, just because these seven emotions are recognizable by most humans through standardized color photos of facial expressions does not mean that these are the only emotions that share a similar, universal structure. Many of the more "complex" emotions like embarrassment, jealousy, or regret, may simply not be amenable to study using the FAST methodology because they probably do not involve unique facial expressions. Consequently, investigators often use factor analysis to describe selfreported affectual states for common structure following the lead of Nowlis and Nowlis (1956). That is, the assumption is that affective states are related to each other in a highly systematic fashion.

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 5 Russell (1980) hypothesizes that a two-dimensional circumplex model best describes the universal structure of emotions. He suggests that – analogous to implicit personality theory – humans cognitively represent emotions with an implicit bipolar theory of affect. The first dimension in his model is equivalent to the evaluation dimension of semantic differential studies (Osgood, May, and Miron 1975). The second dimension of the circumplex model of affect corresponds to the third semantic differential dimension of activity. He found that the semantic differential dimension of potency added little information to his model. However, non-emotive affective stimuli such as sleepy and droopy contaminated the 28 words he used in his original American studies. Russell (1983) tested the universality of the circumplex structure of human affect among English, Chinese, Japanese, Gujarati, and Croatian populations. He found limited support for his thesis. However, at least eight of the 36 words he tested (aroused, badtempered, discouraged, droopy, relaxed, sleepy, tired, and troubled) are not accepted currently as true emotions (Clore, Ortony, and Foss 1987). Russell admits that the factors of pleasure-displeasure (evaluation) and arousal-sleepiness (activity) may well have been an artifact of his inclusion of such non-emotive stimuli. Finally, he acknowledges that his translations may have been poor. If so, a different set of purer emotion terms might have well lead to different conclusions for his non-English study participants. Watson, Clark and Tellegen (1984) point out that many of the earlier studies in this tradition were lax in describing the quality of translations (who and how many persons translated, translator qualifications, attempts to back-translate for measures of accuracy) that may well affect results.

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 6 Most factor analytic and multidimensional structure analyses based on the seminal work by Russell point to a three-dimensional structure in decreasing explanatory value of evaluation, arousal, and potency to define emotional states adequately (as reviewed by Morgan and Heise 1988). Part of the reason that these studies may have found three rather than two necessary and sufficient dimensions for describing the structure of emotions is that they usually filtered out terms free of traits, physical states, and cognitions. Yet these few studies mentioned by Morgan and Heise concentrate on the structure of emotion terms for Americans. One of the few large-scale cross-cultural studies of emotion structure compared the structure of 57 mood terms for Japanese and Americans (Watson, Clark, and Tellegen 1984). Yet it suffers from many of the problems of definition already noted. First, it includes non-emotive terms like sleepy, tired and sluggish. This study also reports a twofactor solution of positive and negative affect that is actually equivalent to the single dimension of evaluation of semantic differential studies. Another approach uses some form of cluster analysis in the search for a prototypic structure of emotion terms. Shaver, Murdaya and Fraley (2001) map the family resemblance of the most common 124 Bahasa Indonesian terms for emotions into five emotive prototypes of love, happiness, anger, fear and sadness. With a few exceptions, the 125 terms fit well into the five American prototypes. The only other published non-American study of the structure of emotions hardly qualifies as a definitive test of universal structure as it compares neighboring Anglophone Canadians and Americans (MacKinnon and Keating 1989).1 Nevertheless, it sets the most rigorous benchmark for such a test. First, it uses a standard set of 99 emotion terms that

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 7 qualify under the standards set by Clore, Ortony, and Foss (1987) as "pure". Second, it measures emotional affect using the three-dimension solution of evaluation, potency and activity. Thus the MacKinnon methodology allows for control for the possible confounding effects of different languages by explicitly employing three universal dimensions of all microinteraction (Collins and Kemper 1990). The logic of the approach advocated by MacKinnon is that if an innate, biological structure exists for the vocabulary of a culture's emotions, it should manifest itself in similar cultural structures. By the same reasoning, culture should evidence itself through variations in the structure of pure emotive terms. Further, all of the studies reviewed other than the one by M-K have ignored subcultural differences. Because emotional vocabularies differ by gender for Americans (Hochschild 1983) and Canadians (M-K) it is important to analyze the Chinese emotive vocabularies at the refined levels of acrossgender/within-culture, and across-culture/within-gender differences. Issues in Emotion Structure How Many Dimensions? The earliest factor analytic studies of the structure of affective states produced non-parsimonious results ranging from five to twelve dimensions (Russell 1980; Watson and Tellegen 1985). The situation was so confusing that Russell (1980:1161) opined that most psychologists might well treat each affective concept as a separate dimension. However, Russell (1980) then proposed a twodimensional solution that was accepted throughout most of the 1980s. Semantic differential studies (MacKinnon and Keating 1989; Morgan and Heise 1988) recommended adding the power dimension to Russell's evaluation and arousal for a more complete depicting of the structure of emotive vocabularies.

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 8 This paper follows this semantic differential tradition for several reasons. First, the MacKinnon and Keating (1989) study demonstrates that it is high efficient for representing the emotive domain. Second, they also revealed that the power dimension provides important information for negative emotions (p. 81). Third, replication of methods has been rare in this area. It is important to make sure that any differences found in comparisons of North American and Chinese emotion vocabularies are not due to artifacts of the methods. Is a Circumplex Model Accurate? The two-dimensional model proposed by Russell (1980; 1983) suggests that emotion terms fit an elegant circumplex configuration with the following properties. First, the two bipolar dimensions of pleasant-unpleasant and arousal-sleep describe the major proportion of variance in judgments of similarity among emotion terms. Second, each of these two dimensions is bipolar. Third, extreme values on one dimension are intermediate on the other dimension so that all of the emotions are spread around the perimeter of a circle. As visually appealing as the circumplex model seems, several studies (Morgan and Heise, 1989; M-K) indicate significant deviations when the stimuli are limited to those recommended by Clore and his colleagues (1987). After extracting the non-emotive terms like sleepy and droopy and including a broader range of emotion words, the circumplex structure fails to appear. In fact, Ortony, Clore and Anthony (1987) eliminated roughly three-fourths of the 500-odd terms employed by researchers in earlier studies. Essentially, they demonstrated that individuals categorize a word as an emotion "only if it deals with internal, mental feeling states and focuses exclusively on affect" (Kroska and Goldstone 1996:27).

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 9 Shaver et al. (1987) and Morgan and Heise (1988) independently showed that a three-dimensional solution fits multidimensional scaling analyses better than a twodimensional model. Both research teams note that adding a third dimension of potency to evaluation and arousal helps to elucidate fundamental emotions like fear and anger. Thus, this paper follows the three universal dimensions solution identified as evaluation, activity and potency by Osgood, Miron and May (1975). There are also good reasons for including the power dimension based upon theoretical predictions. First, the social interactional theory of emotions (Kemper 1990) details strong empirical support indicating that perceived gains or losses of power or status predict displays of various emotions. Second, recent cognitive theories of emotions (Lazarus 1991; Lazarus 1999) indicate that power and status of real, anticipated or recollected social events are important to predicting emotional consequences. Finally, affect control theory presents a theory of emotion compatible with the two theories above. From an affect control perspective (Heise and Weir 1999; Smith-Lovin 1990), all three semantic differential dimensions of evaluation (status), power and activity are necessary to make accurate predictions of emotional outcomes. Kroska and Goldstone (1996) tested key features of all three theories. They found that knowledge-based information about changes in status and power give the best account of emotion categorization. PROCEDURES

Stimuli I chose all of the Chinese emotion terms that I use in this study to be as identical as possible to those used in the Morgan and Heise (1988) and Mackinnon and Keating

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 10 (1989) studies through an iterative procedure of translation and back-translation. The goal was two-fold. I wished to use only pure emotion terms suggested by the Clore et al. (1987) lexicon. My desire was to replicate the Canadian and American data collection procedures as close to identical as possible so as to rule out difference in methods as a plausible alternative hypothesis. First, a bilingual Chinese graduate student studying in the USA did an initial translation of all 99 emotion terms from the Morgan and Heise (1988) and M-K studies. Second, colleagues in the Center for Psychological Assessment at Fudan University in Shanghai who critiqued this preliminary list made various suggestions for additions and deletions. Third, I pre-tested this list of choices using 10 undergraduate students at Fudan to make sure the stimuli were unambiguous and well understood by the target population of informants. This process resulted in a list of 99 Chinese emotion terms comparable to the American and Canadian stimuli. Fifth, two native Chinese colleagues from the Business School and Department of Economics at my own university back-translated the concepts into English. Although many of the emotion words are "fuzzy" like their English counterparts, they do represent the broad spectrum of emotion terms for both languages. Despite the inherent fuzziness of emotional terms selected, we shall see that they neatly cluster into theoretically recognizable prototypes according to similar EPA ratings. That is, even when the backtranslations disagreed with the original translations, the back-translators simply substituted from a family of related emotions terms. For example, aggravated and irritated share similar EPA profiles with other terms related to anger for both male and female Chinese.

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 11

Computerized Questionnaire The same team of translators and back-translators modified an American Pascal program for semantic differential data collection among English-speaking cultures (Heise 1997) for use by Mandarin readers of simplified Chinese characters.2 The stimuli always appeared in the Chinese equivalent of "[emotion word] feels" to replicate the American and Canadian questionnaires. Although the instructions requested that informants skip any emotion words that they didn't know, no one dropped any scale or item due to the fact that I had already pre-selected the stimuli for cognitive accessibility The computer program presented all 99 emotion words randomly to native informants for rating. To further balance the program presents order of presentation of stimuli, scales and dimensions randomly for each of the EPA dimensions. The bipolar ends of each scale are also randomly presented on the computer screen. Randomization presents a safeguard against effects of response sets of stimuli ordering, dimensional presentation, and scale orientation. I use the dimensions and bipolar scales derived from the original Cantonese psychometric studies of the semantic differential by Chinese colleagues of Osgood. The evaluation dimension for the Mandarin version uses bipolar end-points equivalent to good - bad, nice - awful, The potency dimension uses simplified Chinese characters for big – small and powerful - weak. The arousal dimension included bipolar opposites equivalent to fast– slow and active - inactive.3 The program provides for nine labeled checking positions on each scale. Chinese adverbs from the original Cantonese scales for "neutral" = 0, "slightly" = ± 1, "quite" = ± 2, and "extremely = ± 3, are supplemented by "infinitely" = ± 4.3 for each of the three

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 12 scales. The informants could discriminate among 80 different scalar points from 4.3 to –4.3 on each dimension that they rated. Cultural Informants Thirty male and 31 female students at Fudan University agreed to complete the computerized questionnaires. I paid each student 30 yuan (roughly $4) for the average 30 minutes it took to complete each questionnaire. Romney, Weller, and Batchelder (1986) demonstrate that I am measuring highly intersubjective cultural knowledge amenable to convenience samples of 30 cultural informants, rather than population differences that require large random samples (Romney, Weller, and Batchelder 1986).4 Informants were told in Mandarin only that I was interested in comparing Chinese with Americans and Japanese. The standard deviations are consistently smaller than those derived for the American (Heise 1979) and Canadian (Morgan and Heise 1988) lexicons for the evaluation and potency dimensions, but slightly higher for the arousal dimension. With a scalar range of 8.6 points, the mean standard deviations for the EPA dimensions are 1.39, .83, and 1.20 points for males. Compare this with mean standard deviations of 1.80, 1.32 and 1.05 for Canadian males in M-K, and 1.99, 1.59, and 1.38 for American males in Morgan and Heise (1988). The analogous standard deviations over all ninety-nine-emotion terms for Chinese female raters are 1.68, .95, and 1.47 points. Compare these EPA standard deviations with 1.98, 1.49, and 1.07 for Canadian females; and 2.36, 1.92, and 1.67 for American females. These results suggest that Chinese are somewhat more intersubjective than North Americans when rating emotions terms.

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 13 RESULTS

Global Analysis I follow M-K (p. 73) in employing mean ratings to make cross-cultural similarities and differences comparable across studies. One reason is to allow for difference of means and homogeneity of variance tests across cultures. I compute difference of means and homogeneity of variance test to explore variations in emotional intensity and range respectively. Although my data do not conform strictly to the usual assumptions of significance tests, I use Chinese comparisons to the few equivalent crosscultural studies to form falsifiable hypothesis for future inquiries. Mean EPA ratings for the 99 Chinese emotion terms are shown in Table 1 by sex of informant and EPA dimension. When Chinese men and women are compared using paired samples tests of significance for the means of the 99 emotions, all three dimensions show greater gender differences than in the Canadian and American data (p < .001 for E; p < .001 for P; and p = .05 for A). Tests of homogeneity of variance indicate p-values greater than .001 for the E and P dimensions for gender differences. These malefemale differences are in the same direction for those in the American and Canadian data. That is, females consistently exhibit greater affective range. As Hochschild (1983) observed for Americans – and M-K found for Canadians – Chinese women seem more focused on their feelings, and men on their actions. Scherer (1986) has also hypothesized that European women appear to externalize their emotions more than men, while men center on common physiological reactions. This leads to the first hypothesis: H1 = Women are more affectively expressive than men, regardless of culture.

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 14 M-K found that Canadians are significantly less affectively than Americans, when gender is ignored. There is a growing literature suggesting that affective expression among Asians may be more restricted than among Westerners. The Asian focus on connection to others, reciprocity, belongingness, hierarchy, and social obligations (Markus and Kitayama 1991; Triandis 1995) appear to restrict feelings of goodness about themselves. It is likely that obligations to conform to the expectations of others (Fiske, Kitayama, Markus, and Nisbett 1998) make Asians more reserved emotionally than Westerners. A second hypothesis is that: H2 = Asians show less affective intensity of emotional expression than Westerners. The data in Table 1, when put under the scrutiny of homogeneity of variance tests supports this conjecture. Chinese average less spread in evaluative and potency ratings of the 99 emotional words than Canadians, but have greater range of expression of arousal than Canadians. Are these differences due to observed differences in the affective range of males and females? Or might they be affected by differences in specific emotions? The former question can be addressed by across-culture, within-gender comparisons. The latter question will be considered later in this paper. +++++++++++++ Table 1 about here +++++++++++++ Across-Gender, Cross-Culture Comparisons M-K (p.74) report that females in both the United States and Canada rated virtually all of the negative emotions lower in evaluation and positive emotions higher than males. They found this consistent cross-cultural difference in spite of the fact that

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 15 the Canadian data indicate no more gender differences than one would expect by chance while 44 significant gender differences exist for the comparable 99 American emotion words. Given the earlier literature review suggesting that women manifest greater emotional expressiveness, a third hypothesis is: H3 = Regardless of culture, females rate negative emotions lower in evaluation and positive emotions more affirmatively than males. The Chinese data conforms well to this hypothesis for all 27 emotions rated by males as positive The mean female rating of positive emotions is .50 more positive with a range of .01 to .9. However, negative emotions show no discernible pattern with half rated more negatively by females than males. Table 2 lists the three positive emotions and 30 negative emotions for which the difference is significant at the .05 level or greater with one-tailed tests of paired comparisons. These data fit well with the Canadian and American (M-K) and European (Scherer 1986) findings. Chinese females report negative feelings at higher levels of intensity than males, which is consistent with the observations of Scherer (1986:173) for European women. In spite of these differences in evaluation of the 99 emotion words, there is high intersubjectivity among Chinese men and women on this dimension. The correlation between male and female ratings is .95. One can predict Chinese female ratings by the simple linear formula of evaluation rating equals .23 + 1.18*male evaluation. We shall see that this reflects more salient positive moods in later cluster analyses. A fourth hypothesis can be gleaned from the within-gender analysis of M-K (p. 75).

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 16 H4 = Positive emotions are rated as more potent, and negative emotions as more impotent, by women. This was true for American and Canadian women. However, the Chinese data do not conform to this pattern. Of the 25 positive emotions, Chinese women rate 18 (72%) as more potent. Although this is roughly consistent with the first part of the fourth hypothesis, the Chinese females rate only 28 of the remaining 74 (38%) negative emotions as impotent. Thus, the Chinese data do not support hypothesis 4 at both ends of the evaluation dimension. The Chinese differences with North American predictions appear better predicted by sex of rater of the potency of the emotion word. Thirty-five of the 55 impotent emotion words (64%) are perceived as more impotent by men; Thirty-four of the 44 potent emotion words (77%) are viewed as more potent by women than men among the Chinese informants. In fact, there is lower intersubjectivity among men and women in rating potency of the 99 emotion words than evaluation. The correlation is .89. Female Chinese potency ratings are transformable into their male equivalents by the more complex formula of .30 + .78Male Potency +.20Male Arousal. That is, Chinese females rate equivalent emotion words as more powerful and arousing on average +++++++++++++ Table 2 about here +++++++++++++ As shown in Table 2, women rate ten of the 99 emotion words as significantly higher in potency (.05 level, two-tailed test). However, only three of those are positive emotion words. Females rate only one emotion – lovesick – as significantly more

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 17 impotent. So although twice as many of the 99 emotion words show gendered difference at the .05 or better level, hypothesis four is not clearly supported by the Chinese data. The structure of emotions separated by sex of raters appears to differ considerably by potency. The arousal dimension showed no gender differences in the American and Canadian analyses that can be attributed to anything other than chance (M-K, p. 75). By contrast, Table 2 suggests four times as many differences in how males and females rate emotion words on the arousal dimension as we might expect by chance (two-tailed tests at .05 level). Fifteen of those test indicate emotion words that women are much more likely to rate significantly higher in arousal; and six instances in which they are more likely to rate the emotion words as more lethargic. Nevertheless, Chinese men and women are highly intersubjective in rating the arousal dimension for these 99 emotion words. The correlation is .91 between the two sexes. Female emotions can be well predicted by fitting a linear equation of multiplying the male A-rating by 1.17 suggesting that females find equivalent emotions more significantly arousing (.01 level, two-tailed test). Of the 59 emotions that are rated above "0" on the arousal scale, Chinese females rate 50 (85%) as more arousing. Among the remaining 40 of relatively lethargic emotion words, exactly half are rated either more or less arousing by the Chinese female informants. Thus, the greater arousing capacity of emotions for Chinese females appears to be for particularly stimulating emotions (as also evidenced by those typeset in bold in Table 2).

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 18 Emotion Structure MacKinnon and Keating (1989:75) report much higher correlations between male and female EPA ratings than I have reported: .99, .96, and .95 for Canadians; .99, .97, and .97 for Americans. Correlations for mean average Chinese emotion word ratings are lower: .91 (.4 more positive on average), .86 (1.0 more potent on average), and .83 (..41 less active on average) compared to Americans. Given these differences, we should expect a quite different cross-cultural structure for Chinese emotion terms than for either Canada or the United States. The Circumplex Issue. A series of four figures that plot the standard 99 emotion words evaluation and arousal dimensions on a bi-dimensional surface for Canadian men, Canadian women, American men, and American women demonstrate no support for the circumplex model among either culture (M-K, p. 76-79). The most reasonable hypothesis therefore is the null hypothesis: H5 = The structure of emotions is not depicted by a circumplex model for any culture; instead, it is elliptical. Figures 1 and 2 replicate the bi-dimensional surface representations of the standard 99 emotion words employed by M-K. The two Chinese configurations are very different from those depicted for Americans and Canadians. The North American emotion words are distributed in two linear groups. Group one is spread out in Quadrant 2, generally across the top of the evaluation dimension from +2 to +3 between 0 and +3 on the arousal dimension. That is, there is a large relatively rectangular cluster of North American emotions that are positive and arousing such as elated, joyful, excited, and glad. A second North American set of emotion words resides in the lower part of

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 19 Quadrants 3 and 4. These emotions are predominantly negative and unenergetic such as sad, blue, gloomy and sick-at-heart. This relatively rectangular cluster extends over into Quadrant four with negative but arousing emotions such as outraged, irate and angry. Quadrant 1 (good, unenergetic) emotions are virtually non-existent in the North American diagrams. +++++++++++++ Figures 1 and 2 about here +++++++++++++ Mackinnon and Keating (p. 76) report that the North American patterns are more elliptical than circular. The Chinese patterns are even more elliptical – with more emotion words in the middle (clustered around the neutral point on both dimensions) than is true of the two North American patterns. The nearly empty Quadrants 1 and 4 suggest that there are no positive emotions of low intensity, or negative emotions of high arousal among Chinese. This suggests that Chinese either suppress emotions clustering around anger, or feel compelled to direct such emotions inwardly, as opposed to the North American tendency toward overt expression of the same emotions.5 Indeed, this is also what the earlier literature review suggested should be distinctive of Asian cultures. North American emotion words that are negative appear to have a much wider range of expression on the arousal dimension than do positive emotions. The result is that – when negative emotions are singled out – the correlations range only from .3 to .4 across all North American scatterplots (p. 76). By contrast, the same E-A correlation for Chinese males is .52, and it is .40 for females.

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 20 The circumplex model also requires that extreme values on either the evaluation or arousal dimension have corresponding middle-range values on the other one. Stated negatively, one should not find emotions that are extreme on both of these dimensions. However, Figures 1 and 2 demonstrate that the Chinese emotions have two large clusters of emotion terms that are extreme on both values. Quadrant 2 has a sizeable number of extremely positive, energized emotions related to the happiness prototype such as ecstatic, overjoyed, proud and glad. Also, the largest cluster of Chinese emotions resides at the extremely negative and suppressed ends of the spectrum in Quadrant 3 – such as dejected, depressed, heavy-hearted, frustrated and empty. This Quadrant 2 pattern fits the major contention of the Asian literature review (Fiske, Kitayama, Markus, and Nisbett 1998; Kitayama, Markus, and Kurokawa 2000) stating that Asians should be much more reserved emotionally. However, Figures 1 and 2 suggest that the Asian literature review only captures half of the actual picture. Quadrant 3 emotions reveal a dark picture of suppression of extremely negative emotions related to depression. But Chinese expression of extremely positive emotions appears to allow for much greater expression of spontaneity and arousal than is true of North Americans. It remains to be seen whether the Chinese patterns in Figures 1 and 2 will replicate across other Asian cultures or is peculiar to them alone. The middle of the two figures shows relatively distinctive patterns for Chinese males and females. Females report nearly neutral evaluation and arousal when feeling homesick, awestruck, sorry, or dissatisfied. Male emotions that are close to neutral on both of these dimensions include dissatisfied, sorry, envious, irate, and lovesick. None of

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 21 these emotions appear near the neutral point on both the evaluation and arousal scales for North Americans. M-K also describe a cluster of North American emotions that are low in activation but fairly positive including at ease, calm, contented, and moved. In Figures 1 and 2, all of them except contented fits this pattern. Both sexes in our Chinese sample rate the other three emotions of at ease, calm, and moved as fairly positive, slightly arousing emotions. In the North American figures, a number of good, quiet emotions cluster including pleased, charmed, relieved, and touched. However, these emotions are good but slightly active emotions in the minds of both Chinese men and women. Finally, the lower-right-hand quadrant contains between 15 and 20 fear and anger-related terms for North Americans. However – among Chinese – only mad for males, and aggravated for females are clearly highly arousing and negative emotions. Feeling irritated barely makes into this quadrant for Chinese males for a total of two emotions related to anger and none to fear. Among Chinese females, only six negative emotions of only slight activation exist in Quadrant 4 of Figure 2 – dissatisfied, crushed, furious, aggravated, angry, and crushed. Fear terms (shaken, terrified, horrified, afraid, and petrified) typically evoke bad, quiet images among North Americans. All of these emotions share comparatively similar evaluation and arousal ratings for Chinese men and women between –1 and –2 on both scales. Anger terms may be distinguished from fear terms in the North American figures of M-K by their more extreme average ratings on these same two dimensions. They list (p. 78) two groups of anger-related terms that share these extreme values depending on

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 22 whether American men or women, or Canadian men or women, are considered. Cluster one includes aggravated, annoyed, agitated, irritated, and irked. Cluster two embarrasses frightened, horrified, scared, nervous, shook up, and apprehensive. Chinese, however, do not so easily compartmentalize anger and fear terms according to these two dimensions. This is partly because most of the eleven anger terms listed in the previous paragraph tend to be lower in activation than is true for Americans and Canadians. We shall see shortly that the third dimension of potency adds useful information to separating anger and fear terms for Chinese. The Potency Dimension Redundancy Issue. As already discussed, a burning issue since the 1970s has centered on whether the two dimensions of evaluation and arousal are sufficient to model the structure of emotions cross-culturally. M-K (1989:79-80) conclude that the potency dimension is not redundant of information in the evaluation and arousal dimensions – even though there are high correlations between all three. They state that "the potency of anger emotions is underestimated by evaluation and activity ratings and that the potency of fear terms is overestimated" (p. 80) for Americans and Canadians. Their analyses of residuals demonstrate other clusters of emotion words that emerge only from all three dimensions. Finally, they employ a series of four threedimensional graphs that visualize the importance of potency as a third dimension. Their three-dimensional analysis also boils down to a series of hypotheses they claim are invariant across both gender and culture that I subject to a Chinese test in this section. H6 = Good emotions are mostly powerful, and bad emotions, impotent. H7 = Arousing emotions are typically experienced as potent, and quiet emotions as impotent.

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 23 H8 = The potency of anger emotions is underestimated by evaluation and activity ratings while the potency of fear terms is overestimated by the same dimensions. H9 = A cluster of bad, impotent, low activation emotion terms (disgusted, distressed, embarrassed, flustered, frustrated and tormented) appears only when potency is considered. H10 = A set of depression-related emotions cluster together marked by bad, impotent, and even lower activation – broken-hearted, crushed, grief-stricken, heavy-hearted, joyless, lovesick, sad, and unhappy. Hypotheses 6 and 7 find stronger support among Chinese than North Americans. For Chinese males, the correlations are Re-p = .86 and Re-a = .94. For females, the respective correlations are .82 and .89. One might superficially conclude that only one dimension is needed – evaluation – and that both arousal and potency are redundant. The analyses of Hypotheses 8-10 demonstrate why.6 +++++++++++++ Table 1 about here +++++++++++++ Hypothesis eight suggests that potency is an important distinguisher of anger and fear for North Americans. The EPA centroids in Table 3 confirm this that is also true for Chinese. Note that the centroid for emotions related to anger (Column Two) is .74 points higher than that for fear (Column Three) for Chinese males. For females, the P-centroid is .91 points higher. Analysis of residuals after regressing potency ratings on evaluation and activity ratings also supports hypothesis eight as was true for the four North American tests. 69% of the 13 anger-related terms in Table 3 indicate that evaluation and activity

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 24 ratings underestimate potency ratings. Fifty-nine percent of the 39 Column Three fearrelated terms overestimate potency ratings. Fear and anger-related terms, however, are related to very different sets of emotion words for Chinese men and women, and one can see from Table 3. Only seven of the 13 (54%) anger-related terms in Column 2 are common to both sexes. Eight of 39 fear-related terms (21%) are common to both Chinese men and women from Column 3. Comparisons of male and female centroids for Columns three and four are consistent with Hypotheses 1 and 2. The corresponding EPA centroids for women is lower in badness, and judged more powerfully for both sets of emotions. Furthermore, Chinese females judge both sets of terms as more activating. M-K also identified a set of depression-related emotions (disgusted, distressed, embarrassed, flustered, frustrated, and tormented) among all four North American groups described as "bad, impotent states of low activation" (p. 80) that do not conform to a circumplex model. Their description corresponds to Column one of Table 3. Note, however, that three of the North American set (disgusted, embarrassed, and flustered) align with the fear-related emotions for Chinese males. Note that the cluster numbers of 1 for males and 2 for females indicate that statistically the cluster is more easily identified than at least three of the five. Compared to the other clusters, there are more of these emotions that are shared by individuals of both sexes (21) and more that are unique to being a Chinese woman (28). This group of emotions, however, has a quite different profile from the North American set in that potency ratings are lower and activation rating considerably higher. Both sexes share

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 25 thirty-eight percent, but another 50 percent are unique to Chinese women, and only 12 percent are distinctive of Chinese males. The two remaining dimensions in need of description are both variations on positive, powerful and active emotions. These two dimension account for only about onefourth of all of the 99 emotions in this study. At the grossest level, the cluster number indicates that Chinese males are more sensitive to negative emotions (Male Clusters 1, 2 and 3), and Chinese females aligned with good, potent, and active emotions (Females Clusters 1 and 3). The cluster in the fourth column centers on happiness-related emotions. It is the dimension with the most common ground shared by men and women with 81% of the terms common to both sexes. The final cluster of emotions share much lower intensities of goodness, potency, and liveliness, and are only 62% are shared by both Chinese men and women. Note that the happiness cluster has more female-related emotions and the final cluster that are more male-related. Herein lies part of the reason that females are more affectively expressive – Column Four emotions have centroids much higher on the EPA dimensions than those of Column Five. Discussion It would be informative if the M-K data sets could be reanalyzed using the same methods of cluster analysis for comparative purposes. Likewise, it would be helpful if future cross-cultural studies would use the methods of M-K and the cluster analytic methods I have employed in the service of more accurate comparisons. The closest study cross-culturally is one by Shaver et al (2001). Unfortunately, they used only the positivenegative dimension to measure differences among 126 Indonesian emotion terms. Even

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 26 so, they came up with five clusters, of which four have Chinese equivalents: A happiness dimension that overlaps nicely with the Chinese male cluster #4 and female cluster #1 in Table 3. An Anger cluster that has much in common with male Cluster 2 and female Cluster 5. A Fear cluster that is much like that described in the column 3 clusters 3 for males and 4 for females. Finally, a sadness related set with much overlap with clusters 1 (male) and 2 (female) in column 1. The fifth Indonesian cluster was positive, like my Table 3, fifth column cluster, but bears little relation to the second positive dimension among Chinese. The wide overlap between Chinese and Indonesian clusters is important if only because Shaver and his colleagues used very different methods but arrive at compatible results. They tapped only one dimension - evaluation. They didn't report differences by gender. They used some terms as emotional indicators that appear to be behaviors or nonemotions such as liking, fondness, sexual desire, and sympathy. By contrast, I report findings for Chinese that are about as precise a cross-cultural replication as possible of M-K. Even given the imprecision of translation and backtranslation (witness the strange case of "mad" as aligned with the happiness cluster as one example), I find strong support for the main conclusions of M-K through a series of ten hypotheses that summarize their North American findings. Several things seem clear from the evidence in support of these ten hypotheses. First, it is unlikely that the circumplex model is an accurate depiction of the emotional lexicons of any culture. Second, emotional lexicons need to be systematically studied for each gender in future studies. As with M-K, we find subtle, systematic differences. Third, even in a culture such as Mainland China where the EPA dimensions are unusually

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 27 highly correlated compared to North Americans, the evaluation dimension is not sufficient for adequate description of the structure of emotions. The potency and arousal dimensions still add unique information that discriminates in systematic ways between clusters, and the two sexes, in spite of cultural differences. However, some of those cultural differences may well be due to the inadequacies of translation. Several of my translators and back-translators complained of the very subtle discriminations between different Chinese character combinations that they analyzed. From the standpoint of across-culture comparisons, their complaints are certainly justified. Still, data I have presented are consistent with a growing literature on expected differences between and Asian and Western cultures (summarized in Hypothesis 2) so the differences can't easily be explained away as an artifact of translation. Nevertheless, the strong gendered differences I find cannot be explained away by the same arguments. Furthermore, those gendered difference fit well with the expectations of Hypotheses 1, 3, and 4. Future articles on the structure of emotions need to clarify across-gender analyses.

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 28 Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Mean Evaluation, Potency, and Arousal Ratings for Chinese, American and Canadian Emotion Terms* _______________________________________ Label Mean SD Min Max N _______________________________________ Chinese _______________________________________ E -.67 1.54 -2.44 2.76 198 P .27 .89 -1.20 2.20 198 A -.38 1.33 -2.27 2.44 198 M-E -.53 1.39 -2.15 2.40 99 F-E -.86 1.68 -2.44 2.76 99 M-P .16 .83 -1.20 1.95 99 F-P .35 .95 -1.20 2.20 99 M-A -.35 1.20 -1.84 2.19 . 99 F-A -.46 1.47 -2.27 2.44 99 ________________________________________ Canadian _______________________________________ E -.80 1.89 -3.06 3.31 198 P -.58 1.40 -2.89 2.59 198 A .00 1.06 -2.06 2.24 198 M-E -.74 1.80 -2.82 2.65 99 F-E -.88 1.98 -3.06 3.31 99 M-P -.61 1.32 -2.45 2.28 99 F-P -.54 1.49 -2.89 2.59 99 M-A -.04 1.05 -2.89 2.59 . 99 F-A .05 1.07 -2.06 2.24 99 ________________________________________ American _______________________________________ E -.99 2.18 -3.41 3.72 198 P -.71 1.76 -3.15 2.98 198 A -.03 1.53 -2.85 3.13 198 M-E -.86 1.99 -3.00 3.06 99 F-E -1.12 2.36 -3.41 3.72 99 M-P .58 1.59 -2.97 2.87 99 F-P -.83 1.92 -3.15 2.98 99 M-A .02 1.38 -2.19 2.82 . 99 F-A -.07 1.67 -2.85 3.13 99 ________________________________________

*Canadian and American data from MacKinnon and Keating (1989:73). (M)ale; (F)emale; (E)valuation; (P)otency; ((A)rousal.

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 29

Table 2. List of Emotions Reaching Statistical Significance at Least at the .05 level by EPA Dimension Evaluation Potency Arousal _______________________________________________________________________ At ease Agitated Apprehensive Calm At ease Ashamed Pleased Discontented Dejected Grief-stricken Depressed Irate Displeased Agitated Impatient Distressed Anxious Moved Heavy-hearted Apprehensive Nervous Lonely Cheerless Overjoyed Lovesick Crushed Sickened Overwhelmed Dejected Sad Depressed Lovesick Self-pitying Disappointed Sick-at-heart Displeased Sorry Uneasy Downhearted Envious Fed up Cheered Frustrated Mad Furious Outraged Heavy-hearted Petrified Irate Proud Irked Resentful Irritated Lovesick Mad Mortified Regretful Sad Self-pitying Sick-at-heart Sickened Tormented Uneasy Unhappy Bold = females rate the emotion word as significantly more positive, potent, or active.

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 30 Table 3. Cluster Membership of Prototypic Chinese Male and Female Emotions.* ________________________________________________________________________ Cluster# Male E Male P Male A

1 -1.55 -.48 -1.41

2 -.54 .44 -.13

3 -1.33 -.30 -.90

4 1.88 1.53 1.81

5 1.34 .96 .75

Cluster# Female E Female P Female A

2 -1.88 -.38 -1.57

5 -1.44 1.14 .26

4 -1.55 .23 -.58

1 2.10 1.78 2.04

3 1.40 1.25 .31

________________________________________________________________________ anguished blue broken-hearted cheerless deflated dejected depressed disappointed distressed downhearted empty frustrated grief-stricken heart-broken heavy-hearted horrified hurt impatient irked joyless lonesome low mortified petrified sad sorrowful unhappy upset

afraid anxious apprehensive ashamed bitter disgusted displeased embarrassed fearful

Draft! Please do not quote.

aggravated angry awestruck crushed dissatisfied envious furious irate irritated lovesick sick-at-heart sorry

resentful

afraid agitated annoyed anxious apprehensive ashamed bitter discontented disgusted displeased embarrassed fearful fed-up flustered frightened ill-at-ease jealous lonely melancholy miserable nervous outraged regretful remorseful resentful scared self-pitying shaken shook-up sickened terrified tormented uneasy

awestruck envious horrified impatient

amused at ease cheered calm contented charmed delighted homesick ecstatic mad elated moved excited relieved glad touched happy in-love joyful overjoyed overwhelmed passionate pleased proud satisfied thrilled at-ease charmed moved

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 31 fed-up flustered ill-at-ease lovesick melancholy miserable outraged overwhelmed regretful remorseful self-pitying shaken sick-at-heart sickened terrified tormented uneasy unhappy upset

petrified sorry

________________________________________________________________________) *normal = males only, italicized = female only Bold = males and females in cluster #Final cluster centers are given for each EPA dimension.

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 32

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 33

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 34 REFERENCES

Brody, Leslie R. 1997. "Gender and Emotion: Beyond Stereotypes." Journal of Social Issues 53:369-394. Clore, Gerald L., Anthony Ortony, and Mark A. Foss. 1987. "The Psychological Structure of the Affective Lexicon." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53:751-66. Collins, Randall and Theodore D. Kemper. 1990. "Dimensions of Microinteraction." American Journal of Sociology 96:32-68. Ekman, Paul. 1972. "Universal and Cultural Differences in Facial Expression of Emotion." Pp. xx-xx. in Nebraska Symposium of Motivations, 1971, vol. 19, edited by J. Cole. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Ekman, Paul and Wallace V. Friesen. 1971. "Constants across Cultures in the Face and Emotions." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 17:124-129. —. 1975. Unmasking the Face. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Fiske, Alan P., Shinobu Kitayama, Hazel R. Markus, and Richard E. Nisbett. 1998. "The Cultural Matrix of Social Psychology." Pp. 915-981 in Handbook of Social Psychology, vol. 5, edited by D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey. New York: McGraw-Hill. Heise, David R. 1969. "Some Methodological Issues in Semantic Differential Research." Psychological Bulletin 72:406=422. —. 1979. Understanding Events: Affect Control Theory and the Construction of Social Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 35 —. 1997. "ATTITUDE." http://www.indiana.edu/~socpsy/ACT/interact/JavaInteract.html Retrieved February 20. Bloomington, IN. —. 2000. "Magellan.Surveyor. http://www.indiana.edu/~socpsy/ACT/SDscale.html. Retrieved December 30, 2001." Heise, David R. and Brian Weir. 1999. "A Test of Symbolic Interactionist Predictions about Emotions in Imagined Situations." Symbolic Interaction 22:139-161. Hochschild, Alice R. 1983. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Izard, Carroll E. 1971. The Face of Emotions. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. —. 1994. "Innate and Universal Facial Expressions: Evidence from Development and Cross-Cultural Research." Psychological Bulletin 115:288-299. Kemper, Theodore D. 1990. A Social Interactional Theory of Emotions. New York: Wiley. Kitayama, Shinobu, Hazel R. Markus, and Masaru Kurokawa. 2000. "Culture, Emotion, and Well-Being: Good Feelings in Japan and the United States." Cognition and Emotion 14:93-124. Kroska, Amy and Robert L. Goldstone. 1996. "Dissociations in the Similarity and Categorisation of Emotions." Cognition and Emotion 10:27-43. Lazarus, Richard S. 1991. Emotions and Adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press. —. 1999. "The Cognition-Emotion Debate: A Bit of History." Pp. 3-19 in Handbook of Cognition and Emotion., edited by T. Dalgleish and M. J. Power. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 36 Lutz, Catherine A. 1988. Unnatural Emotions: Everyday Sentiments on a Micronesian Atoll and Their Challenge to Western Theory. Chicago:: University of Chicago Press. MacKinnon, Neil J. and Leo J. Keating. 1989. "The Structure of Emotions: CanadaUnited States Comparisons." Social Psychology Quarterly 52:70-83. Markus, Hazel R. and Shinobu Kitayama. 1991. "Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion and Motivation." Psychological Review 98:224-253. Morgan, Rick and David R. Heise. 1988. "Structure of Emotions." Social Psychology Quarterly 51:19-31. Nowlis, Vincent and Helen H. Nowlis. 1956. "The Description and Analysis of Mood." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 65:345-355. Ortony, Anthony, Gerald A. Clore, and Mark A. Foss. 1987. "Disentangling the Affective Lexicon." in Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Berkeley: Cognitive Science Society. Osgood, Charles E., William H. May, and Murray S. Miron. 1975. Cross-Cultural Universals in Affective Meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Romney, A. Kimball, Susan C. Weller, and William H. Batchelder. 1986. "Culture as Consensus: A Theory of Culture and Informant Accuracy." American Anthropologist 88:313-38. Rouner, Leroy S. 1995. "Ecstasy and Epistemology." Pp. 91-108 in Emotions in Asian Thought: A Dialogue in Comparative Philosophy, edited by J. Marks and R. T. Ames. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 37 Russell, James A. 1980. "A Circumplex Model of Affect." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39:1161-1178. —. 1983. "Pancultural Aspects of the Human Conceptual Organization of Emotions." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45:1281-1288. Scherer, Klaus R. 1986. "Emotion Experiences across European Cultures: A Summary Statement." in Experiencing Emotion: A Cross-Cultural Study., edited by K. R. Scherer, H. G. Wallbott, and A. B. Summerfield. New York: Cambridge University Press. Shaver, Phillip R., Upekkha Murdaya, and R. Chris Fraley. 2001. "Structure of the Indonesian Emotion Lexicon." Asian Journal of Social Psychology 4:201-224. Shaver, Phillip R., Judith Schwartz, Donald Kirson, and Cary O'Connor. 1987. "Emotion Knowledge: Further Explorations of a Prototype Approach." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52:1061-1086. Smith, Herman W, Takanori Matsuno, and Shuuichirou Ike. 2001. "The Social Construction of Japanese and American Versions of Attributional Principles." Social Psychology Quarterly 64:180-194. Smith-Lovin, Lynn. 1990. "Emotion as the confirmation and disconfirmation of identity: An affect control model." Pp. 238-270 in Research Agendas in the Sociology of Emotion., edited by T. D. Kemper. Albany: State University of New York Press. Stipek, Deborah. 1998. "Differences between Americans and Chinese in the Circumstances Evoking Pride, Shame, and Guilt." Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 29:616-629. Triandis, Harry C. 1995. Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 38 Wang, Lei and Roslyn Markham. 1999. "The Development of a Series of Photographs of Chinese Facial Expressions of Emotions." Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 30:397-410. Watson, David, Lee Anna Clark, and Anke Tellegen. 1984. "Cross-Cultural Convergence in the Structure of Mood: A Japanese Replication and a Comparison with U.S. Findings." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47:127-144. Watson, David and Anke Tellegen. 1985. "Toward a Consensual Structure of Mood." Psychological Bulletin 98:219-235.

Draft! Please do not quote.

ChineseEmoteStructure – p. 39

Endnotes

1

Hereafter, I use the acronym M-K to save space.

2

A Java-translation of the English and Simplified Chinese version of this semantic

differential instrument is now available to those with a browser with Java and Chinese fonts at http://www.indiana.edu/~socpsy/ACT/SDscale.html The original stimuli are available from the author upon request. 3

The latest version of our instrument, Magellan.Surveyor shows the actual Chinese

characters for each dimension. It also adds two more bipolar indicators for E (highly esteemed – stigmatized, and loveable – evil); P (tall – short; heavy –thin; and A (liberated – restricted and energetic – lethargic). I am indebted to Prof. Oliver Tzeng of Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis, and Prof. Runjahm Hoosian of Hong Kong University for providing me with the original Chinese dimensions, scales and checking positions.. 4

Test-retest reliability coefficients for American (Heise 1969) and Japanese (Smith et al

2001) samples are above .98 over one-month periods. There is no reason to suppose that reliability of the Chinese data is lower. 5

I am indebted to Neil MacKinnon (personal communication of 12/31/01) for these

suggestions. 6

Five clusters give the most interpretable results. Two clusters simple divide into positive

and negative emotions. Three to four clusters start to approximate the distinctions between EPA dimensions. Six and Seven clusters simply splits off two to three emotions into the sixth and seventh clusters.

Draft! Please do not quote.