Psychology Reader

Condoned or Condemned: The Situational Affordance of Anger and Shame

Michael Boiger, Batja Mesquita, Yukiko Uchida, and Lisa Feldman Barrett · 2013 · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Role
Methodological contribution
Difficulty
Moderate
Full work length
14 pages
Type
Journal article

Access

Psychology Reader links to legitimate sources and does not host article PDFs.

Reading focus

Syllabus: How Do Culture and Emotion Shape Each Other?

Compare judgments of a situation’s frequency with judgments of the emotion it could elicit, and inspect the less consistent predictions.

Why you’re reading it. Test the idea that cultural organization affects emotional life partly through recurring situations.

A question to consider. How would you combine event diaries with vignette ratings to separate exposure to criticism from interpretations of criticism?

Why this reading

Boiger and colleagues move the comparison from how much emotion people report to the situations thought to invite it. Their design compares interpretations of vignettes drawn from both participating settings.

Before you read

A situational affordance is an opportunity a setting offers for a response. The study asks students about typical students’ experiences. These judgments differ from directly observing how often events occur in everyday life.

Read for

  1. Follow how situations were collected, translated, sampled and rated for likely occurrence and emotional impact.
  2. Compare the questionnaire evidence with the card sorting used to organize situations; identify predictions that received weaker support.

Consider afterwards

  1. How would a diary study distinguish actual exposure to situations from beliefs about their frequency?
  2. Could the same event invite anger in one relationship and shame in another within a single community?

Editorial context

A published erratum corrects production errors, including a group label and a shame-comparison statistic; the linked author copy predates that notice. The two studies use US and Japanese university samples. The perceived likelihood of situations cannot establish their actual frequency or a causal effect of cultural norms. Some within-group shame associations were weak, and the proposed differences in anger elicitors were only partly supported. The authors discuss experience sampling as a needed extension. These results should not become rules that all Americans welcome anger or all Japanese people welcome shame.