page count moved to 16 for chapter four. target is 80. I want to keep doing 2 pp./day.
...
full draft done by the end of the year?
...
keep working: drop the steel and wooden balls . . . this one is made of glass . . .
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Sunday, November 7, 2010
chapter four scribblings
Chapter 4
Guiding Research Questions
The guiding research questions of this study are as follows:
• How well do North Americans interpret Korean’s intra-cultural cues for emotional communication?
• What sorts of mechanisms and channels do North Americans and Koreans rely on in interpreting emotional communication cues?
• Is the process of interpreting emotions intra-culturally different than the process inter-culturally?
• How might we teach these emotional communication cues?
Four data analyses
• Data sheets
• Transcript analysis
o Words,
o Themes
o Negotiations
Produce five sections:
1. HOW WELL did North Americans INTERPRET Koreans intra-cultural emotional communication?
2. What do the WORDS they used say about how we talk about emotions?
3. What different MECHANISMS and CHANNELS do the various groups reference in describing how they interpreted emotions?
4. What THEMES emerged out of their discussion and what do those themes tell us about the communication of emotions?
5. How do their negotiations about interpreting emotional communication and display rules provide inferences about the SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION of emotional communication?
Chapter Four – Discussion
This study set out to explore the cues we use for communicating emotion in detail and in a cross-cultural setting as well as the processes involved in interpreting those emotional cues. The specific research questions focus on four ideas: the accuracy of the non-native in interpreting the cues of another culture, the role of various communication channels (words, gestures, tone of voice, etc.) in that emotional communication both intra- and inter-culturally, the role of cognitive processes such as reliance on cultural scripts or cognitive appraisal in the interpretation of emotional cues, various social processes involved in negotiating that interpretation and how that might aid in cross-cultural understanding and education. To that end a focus group methodology supported by individual participants observational worksheets constituted the major data collection tools. The participants’ observational worksheets were analyzed and summarized using descriptive statistics, while the focus group transcripts were analyzed for vocabulary use and emergent themes of individual interpretation, as well as for patterns of negotiation amongst the participants. The discussion of this data has been grouped into five sections: the accuracy of North Americans interpretation of Koreans intra-cultural emotional communication, the language used to talk about emotions, the different mechanisms/channels the various groups use to describe their interpretation process, the themes that emerged out of their discussion regarding emotional communication, and how their negotiations provide inferences about the social construction of emotional communication.
• accuracy of non-native interpretation of intra-cultural emotional communication
• language used to talk about emotional communication
• different mechanisms/channels used in the interpretation process,
• emergent themes regarding emotional communication,
• inferences about the social construction of emotional communication.
Accuracy of Non-native Interpretation of Intra-cultural Emotional Communication
The consideration of accuracy of non-natives’ interpretation of the emotional cues that native speakers use when communicating with one another is essential to determining if cross-cultural differences exist between these two national groups in terms of emotional cue interpretation. The literature offers two suggestions for how accurate the non-native speakers interpretations will be. Ekmans (???) and other’s (???) suggest that emotions and emotional cues are essentially universal, so there should be little difference in interpretations, while Mead (???) and other’s (???) expect that we will find striking differences. The data from this study offers two windows into the question of accuracy. The discussions of the focus groups provide one window into the accuracy of non-natives’ interpretations, while the notetaking worksheets provide another, and more traditional method of measuring the accuracy of non-native interpretations of any cross-cultural interpretive act.
Focus group discussions. The use of focus groups is a fairly unique methodology in foreign language learning research and requires a slightly different conceptualization than other more common FL methods. The examination of the textual data from audio recordings and transcripts in terms of accuracy raised four issues to consider: a holistic view of non-native accuracy, translation effects, word choice differences, and intensity variation. While examining the note-taking worksheets allows us to look at four separate, but interrelated issues: the breadth of responses, the worksheet as a frame, a statistical analysis of comparative accuracy and a separate statistical analysis of intensity differences.
Presence or absence ratings. One of the clearest ways to compare the accuracy of the non-native’s ability to recognize emotions as seen by people native to the culture is to ask if they see the same emotions. In this study, Appendix XXX is the notetaking worksheet that the participants used in recording each participants judgment regarding the presence or absence of some basic emotions. At the bottom of that sheet you can see that each primary character in each scene was to be rated on Ekman’s seven basic emotions. The reason participants were limited to the seven basic emotions was to enable an apples to apples comparison (Erkut, Alarcón, García Coll, Tropp, & Vázquez García, 1999) of their intensity responses. Consequently, these results provide another window for us to gauge the relative difference between the native culture participants’ judgments of the emotional intensity and the non-native participants’ judgments of the same emotions.
The participants rated the intensity of each of the seven emotions [sadness, fear, disgust, surprise, anger, contempt, and enjoyment] on a modified Likert scale in which they first needed to indicate the presence or absence of that emotion in the display of that particular character in that particular scene. Thus, with seven emotions and three characters in each of the two clips, a total of forty-two emotions were evaluated. In evaluating the ratings, the results were looked at using two separate lenses, representing lower and higher standards of agreement. In the lower standard lens, a simple majority of responses–not quite a forced choice–in each national group, were considered to be agreement as to the presence or absence of the emotion. If there was an exact tie the results were considered unclear. Under the higher standard of measurement, if the 75% or more of the nationality group stated that the emotion was present or absent then that result was considered a clear indication of presence or absence. If the response was between 25 and 75% then the result was considered unclear. This analysis regarding the presence or absence of emotions could provide a variety of results: the two groups could disagree in a contradictory fashion [one group clearly seeing the emotion, while the other clearly did not see the emotion], or one group could have a clear response while the other group’s response was unclear, or the two groups could agree.
When applying the simple majority standard to the forty-two cases to be evaluated, the Korean and North American groups agreed 86% of the time. In just less than 10% of cases, the two groups had contradictory results–one group stating that they saw the emotion, while the other group did not. While the other 4% of cases represented instances where one group was uncertain, while the other group perceived the emotion. Eighty-six percent agreement would seem a fairly high level–indeed it exceeds the level at which Ekman set for his cross-cultural studies. When we apply the more stringent 75% standard of agreement in the monocultural groups–requiring 75% or more of the individuals in the cultural group to agree on the presence or absence of the emotion–the results have all large increase in the number of unclear responses. Indeed, in about 35% of the cases one group’s response was unclear well the other group clearly saw an emotion or did not see that emotion. However, the Korean and North American groups still agreed almost 65% of the time, including acute cases where both groups were unclear. Perhaps more importantly, in no cases under this higher standard of contradictory results–where one group perceived an emotion, while the other one did not. This lack of strongly contradictory results seems particularly important, because if one culture clearly and strongly perceived emotion that the other culture clearly and strongly did not perceive, then we would find ourselves looking at a strong case of linguistic relativism indicating major difficulties in the intercultural communication of emotional cues.
A strong case can be made for a fairly broad capability of the non-native participants in this study to, in the large majority of cases, accurately perceive the same basic emotions that the Koreans were perceiving. However, while this result was in line with Ekman’s research, and therefore not entirely surprising, the fact that a real range of questionable and contradictory understandings were found in this study raises an important question that this study was not designed to address: Is there a threshold point where the misinterpretation of displayed emotional cues results in problems for intercultural communication? Is eighty percent accuracy enough for productive and civil interaction, or would a “one in a million” misinterpretation be sufficient to cause problems between individuals?
In addition to determining the presence or absence of the emotions and when the Korean and North American groups are in agreement, the Likert scales can be used to explore differences in intensity ratings for observed emotions across the cultural groups. This question of ability to interpret the intensity of emotions will be addressed later in this chapter.
Researchers’ gut reactions. While the participants’ judgments regarding the presence or absence of basic emotions is certainly revealing, one of the fundamental realities of intercultural communication is that, in very practical ways, a statistical analysis of interpretation accuracy of another culture is probably not sufficient to judge intercultural acuity. Even intra-culturally, a wide range of subjective terms and phrases is used to describe one’s sensitivity to other’s intentions (or lack of sensitivity), In America, we often say someone “is savvy,” someone “gets it.” or, alternatively, someone “is clueless.” Arguably, a more holistic approach may prove more valuable. Indeed, in the vernacular a “gut” reaction is exactly what we would rely on and importantly refers directly to the physical, autonomic, emotional response we have in these situations. Of course, such a holistic analysis is by definition subjective, and the potential for bias is duly noted, yet simultaneously this holistic response is precisely the sort of comparison of expectations to reality that underlies many cross-cultural communication conflicts.
The primary researcher is clearly the individual most embedded within this data. What was my initial gut reaction in analyzing the accuracy of the non-native interpretations? In the moment, I generally thought that the non-natives did a fairly good job in interpreting the Korean emotional cues, based on the Korean focus groups, at one of the comparison phases for example I stated “[your group] didn’t disagree as much about them [the emotions expressed by two of the characters in the first scene].” an in another instance “So, I can pretty much what you all set in that they had nearly the same emotions.” [MUST CHECK THIS AND MAKE CORRECT QUOTATION]
However, while I felt that the non-natives were clearly “in the ballpark” I raised questions in the moment about the absolute precision of their interpretations “although they didn’t say that they were two peas in a pod the businessman and the middleman, say they saw almost the exact same expressions on both the businessmen and this man in the middle.” In addition, even at the during the focus groups, there was some serious questioning of the intensity of the emotions displayed. In a few instances, the non-natives ratings of intensity differed substantially from the natives as we will see more clearly in other analysis. Alternatively, during the focus groups, I pointed to a few clear examples of the non-natives missing a cue completely. In one case I stated, “Mr. Kim was a little bit contemptuous of the other two people, I don’t know if you guys saw that at all.”
While my responses are the responses of a “first-culture American,” the Korean to English translator also reviewed all of the transcript was asked to offer a “first-culture Korean” interpretation. [Ask YOONHWA to complete this section.]
Clearly, the non-natives were less than perfect in their interpretations--even though the primary researcher’s initial reaction was that they had done fairly well in interpreting the emotions displayed in the same manner as the native culture participants. Again, we are forced to consider the threshold question. How much misunderstanding is enough to cause difficulties in communication? Moreover, is it possible to train and educate individuals involved in cross-cultural situations in the required flexibility to overcome a moderate level of misunderstanding that would seem natural in most intercultural situations.
Translation questions. One fundamental concern in a great deal of cross and intercultural research is the issue of translation, and this problem is exacerbated when dealing with issues of emotion which have a tendency to be more subjective (Pavlenko, 2005; Wierzbicka, 1999). Consequently, that issues of translation arose in determining the accuracy of the cross-cultural interpretations is unsurprising. At the most basic level is that cluster of words and phrases that “just don’t translate” to the target language. In addition, participants used a number of notions that have multiple correlates in the other language, and ultimately, the words do matter. Chulchulmaeda, danghok, heodoongdaeda, danghwang (confusion), noonchi, kangok, hogam (good feeling), brazenfacedness (need Korean word), chung (affection), are examples of emotion concepts appearing in this study from the Koreans participants for which the bi-cultural translator, a Korean native who has lived in the United States for more than 15 years while completing a Masters and PhD in counseling psychology and later as a practicing therapist, had difficulty finding satisfactory direct translations.
My intention here is not to suggest a strong version of linguistic relativism to imply that the Western participants cannot perceive or understand the notion presented by the Koreans and codified in the Korean language, rather something more akin to what Kay and Kempton (1984) call “limited linguistic relativity and determinism” (p. 78). Indeed, that the Koreans have a single word or “catch phrase” to represent an emotional state, while the North Americans did not, does not imply at all that the non-native participants did not describe something close to the emotional state the Koreans did. For example, the Koreans considered their concept of noonchi to be both clearly represented in the first video clip and something uniquely Korean. Participant S explained, “I thought what the principal did was very Korean. He showed Korean work place culture where noonchi happens a lot where there is a manager.” Yet at least one North American participants recognized something comparable to noonchi. Participant H says of Teacher Kim, “he’s kind of trying to minimize the damage” and later, “like he was analyzing the situation.”
However, such analogues were not always seen in this study. Indeed, of the XX instances in which the Koreans used nine terms that “just don’t translate” well, only XX showed clear attempts to express something akin to the Korean term by the non-native participants. Thus, this study provides some support for the weak version of the linguistic relativity that when a culture/language does have a succinct word or phrase for a particular emotion, it does raise the presence of that notion. Simply put, having a word for something makes it easier to talk about that thing, which in turn increases the likelihood that people will talk about the notion, and ultimately to raise the level of that notion in the consciousness of the society.
Word choice/intensity. Hand in hand with notions of concepts that “just do not translate” is the concern that subtle differences can matter. For example, in American English we might generally accept that the emotion terms “mad” and “angry” are interchangeable in most situations, yet it is easy to imagine situations where someone would choose one over the other. Such subtleties are fairly difficult to tease out of intercultural communication. One way that this study sought to explore those subtleties was to see if the participants from each country offered similar or different intensity ratings for the emotions that they observed.
i. worksheets
a. breadth of potential responses
b. potential standard (s)
c. accuracy stats
i. contradictory
ii. one clear one unclear
iii. character of ii
d. question of intensity
Erkut, S., Alarcón, O., García Coll, C., Tropp, L. R., & Vázquez García, H. A. (1999). The dual-focus approach to creating bilingual measures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(2), 206-218.
Kay, P., & Kempton, W. (1984). What is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? American Anthropologist, 86(1), 65-79.
Pavlenko, A. (2005). Emotions and Multilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (1999). Emotions across languages and cultures: Diversity and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Guiding Research Questions
The guiding research questions of this study are as follows:
• How well do North Americans interpret Korean’s intra-cultural cues for emotional communication?
• What sorts of mechanisms and channels do North Americans and Koreans rely on in interpreting emotional communication cues?
• Is the process of interpreting emotions intra-culturally different than the process inter-culturally?
• How might we teach these emotional communication cues?
Four data analyses
• Data sheets
• Transcript analysis
o Words,
o Themes
o Negotiations
Produce five sections:
1. HOW WELL did North Americans INTERPRET Koreans intra-cultural emotional communication?
2. What do the WORDS they used say about how we talk about emotions?
3. What different MECHANISMS and CHANNELS do the various groups reference in describing how they interpreted emotions?
4. What THEMES emerged out of their discussion and what do those themes tell us about the communication of emotions?
5. How do their negotiations about interpreting emotional communication and display rules provide inferences about the SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION of emotional communication?
Chapter Four – Discussion
This study set out to explore the cues we use for communicating emotion in detail and in a cross-cultural setting as well as the processes involved in interpreting those emotional cues. The specific research questions focus on four ideas: the accuracy of the non-native in interpreting the cues of another culture, the role of various communication channels (words, gestures, tone of voice, etc.) in that emotional communication both intra- and inter-culturally, the role of cognitive processes such as reliance on cultural scripts or cognitive appraisal in the interpretation of emotional cues, various social processes involved in negotiating that interpretation and how that might aid in cross-cultural understanding and education. To that end a focus group methodology supported by individual participants observational worksheets constituted the major data collection tools. The participants’ observational worksheets were analyzed and summarized using descriptive statistics, while the focus group transcripts were analyzed for vocabulary use and emergent themes of individual interpretation, as well as for patterns of negotiation amongst the participants. The discussion of this data has been grouped into five sections: the accuracy of North Americans interpretation of Koreans intra-cultural emotional communication, the language used to talk about emotions, the different mechanisms/channels the various groups use to describe their interpretation process, the themes that emerged out of their discussion regarding emotional communication, and how their negotiations provide inferences about the social construction of emotional communication.
• accuracy of non-native interpretation of intra-cultural emotional communication
• language used to talk about emotional communication
• different mechanisms/channels used in the interpretation process,
• emergent themes regarding emotional communication,
• inferences about the social construction of emotional communication.
Accuracy of Non-native Interpretation of Intra-cultural Emotional Communication
The consideration of accuracy of non-natives’ interpretation of the emotional cues that native speakers use when communicating with one another is essential to determining if cross-cultural differences exist between these two national groups in terms of emotional cue interpretation. The literature offers two suggestions for how accurate the non-native speakers interpretations will be. Ekmans (???) and other’s (???) suggest that emotions and emotional cues are essentially universal, so there should be little difference in interpretations, while Mead (???) and other’s (???) expect that we will find striking differences. The data from this study offers two windows into the question of accuracy. The discussions of the focus groups provide one window into the accuracy of non-natives’ interpretations, while the notetaking worksheets provide another, and more traditional method of measuring the accuracy of non-native interpretations of any cross-cultural interpretive act.
Focus group discussions. The use of focus groups is a fairly unique methodology in foreign language learning research and requires a slightly different conceptualization than other more common FL methods. The examination of the textual data from audio recordings and transcripts in terms of accuracy raised four issues to consider: a holistic view of non-native accuracy, translation effects, word choice differences, and intensity variation. While examining the note-taking worksheets allows us to look at four separate, but interrelated issues: the breadth of responses, the worksheet as a frame, a statistical analysis of comparative accuracy and a separate statistical analysis of intensity differences.
Presence or absence ratings. One of the clearest ways to compare the accuracy of the non-native’s ability to recognize emotions as seen by people native to the culture is to ask if they see the same emotions. In this study, Appendix XXX is the notetaking worksheet that the participants used in recording each participants judgment regarding the presence or absence of some basic emotions. At the bottom of that sheet you can see that each primary character in each scene was to be rated on Ekman’s seven basic emotions. The reason participants were limited to the seven basic emotions was to enable an apples to apples comparison (Erkut, Alarcón, García Coll, Tropp, & Vázquez García, 1999) of their intensity responses. Consequently, these results provide another window for us to gauge the relative difference between the native culture participants’ judgments of the emotional intensity and the non-native participants’ judgments of the same emotions.
The participants rated the intensity of each of the seven emotions [sadness, fear, disgust, surprise, anger, contempt, and enjoyment] on a modified Likert scale in which they first needed to indicate the presence or absence of that emotion in the display of that particular character in that particular scene. Thus, with seven emotions and three characters in each of the two clips, a total of forty-two emotions were evaluated. In evaluating the ratings, the results were looked at using two separate lenses, representing lower and higher standards of agreement. In the lower standard lens, a simple majority of responses–not quite a forced choice–in each national group, were considered to be agreement as to the presence or absence of the emotion. If there was an exact tie the results were considered unclear. Under the higher standard of measurement, if the 75% or more of the nationality group stated that the emotion was present or absent then that result was considered a clear indication of presence or absence. If the response was between 25 and 75% then the result was considered unclear. This analysis regarding the presence or absence of emotions could provide a variety of results: the two groups could disagree in a contradictory fashion [one group clearly seeing the emotion, while the other clearly did not see the emotion], or one group could have a clear response while the other group’s response was unclear, or the two groups could agree.
When applying the simple majority standard to the forty-two cases to be evaluated, the Korean and North American groups agreed 86% of the time. In just less than 10% of cases, the two groups had contradictory results–one group stating that they saw the emotion, while the other group did not. While the other 4% of cases represented instances where one group was uncertain, while the other group perceived the emotion. Eighty-six percent agreement would seem a fairly high level–indeed it exceeds the level at which Ekman set for his cross-cultural studies. When we apply the more stringent 75% standard of agreement in the monocultural groups–requiring 75% or more of the individuals in the cultural group to agree on the presence or absence of the emotion–the results have all large increase in the number of unclear responses. Indeed, in about 35% of the cases one group’s response was unclear well the other group clearly saw an emotion or did not see that emotion. However, the Korean and North American groups still agreed almost 65% of the time, including acute cases where both groups were unclear. Perhaps more importantly, in no cases under this higher standard of contradictory results–where one group perceived an emotion, while the other one did not. This lack of strongly contradictory results seems particularly important, because if one culture clearly and strongly perceived emotion that the other culture clearly and strongly did not perceive, then we would find ourselves looking at a strong case of linguistic relativism indicating major difficulties in the intercultural communication of emotional cues.
A strong case can be made for a fairly broad capability of the non-native participants in this study to, in the large majority of cases, accurately perceive the same basic emotions that the Koreans were perceiving. However, while this result was in line with Ekman’s research, and therefore not entirely surprising, the fact that a real range of questionable and contradictory understandings were found in this study raises an important question that this study was not designed to address: Is there a threshold point where the misinterpretation of displayed emotional cues results in problems for intercultural communication? Is eighty percent accuracy enough for productive and civil interaction, or would a “one in a million” misinterpretation be sufficient to cause problems between individuals?
In addition to determining the presence or absence of the emotions and when the Korean and North American groups are in agreement, the Likert scales can be used to explore differences in intensity ratings for observed emotions across the cultural groups. This question of ability to interpret the intensity of emotions will be addressed later in this chapter.
Researchers’ gut reactions. While the participants’ judgments regarding the presence or absence of basic emotions is certainly revealing, one of the fundamental realities of intercultural communication is that, in very practical ways, a statistical analysis of interpretation accuracy of another culture is probably not sufficient to judge intercultural acuity. Even intra-culturally, a wide range of subjective terms and phrases is used to describe one’s sensitivity to other’s intentions (or lack of sensitivity), In America, we often say someone “is savvy,” someone “gets it.” or, alternatively, someone “is clueless.” Arguably, a more holistic approach may prove more valuable. Indeed, in the vernacular a “gut” reaction is exactly what we would rely on and importantly refers directly to the physical, autonomic, emotional response we have in these situations. Of course, such a holistic analysis is by definition subjective, and the potential for bias is duly noted, yet simultaneously this holistic response is precisely the sort of comparison of expectations to reality that underlies many cross-cultural communication conflicts.
The primary researcher is clearly the individual most embedded within this data. What was my initial gut reaction in analyzing the accuracy of the non-native interpretations? In the moment, I generally thought that the non-natives did a fairly good job in interpreting the Korean emotional cues, based on the Korean focus groups, at one of the comparison phases for example I stated “[your group] didn’t disagree as much about them [the emotions expressed by two of the characters in the first scene].” an in another instance “So, I can pretty much what you all set in that they had nearly the same emotions.” [MUST CHECK THIS AND MAKE CORRECT QUOTATION]
However, while I felt that the non-natives were clearly “in the ballpark” I raised questions in the moment about the absolute precision of their interpretations “although they didn’t say that they were two peas in a pod the businessman and the middleman, say they saw almost the exact same expressions on both the businessmen and this man in the middle.” In addition, even at the during the focus groups, there was some serious questioning of the intensity of the emotions displayed. In a few instances, the non-natives ratings of intensity differed substantially from the natives as we will see more clearly in other analysis. Alternatively, during the focus groups, I pointed to a few clear examples of the non-natives missing a cue completely. In one case I stated, “Mr. Kim was a little bit contemptuous of the other two people, I don’t know if you guys saw that at all.”
While my responses are the responses of a “first-culture American,” the Korean to English translator also reviewed all of the transcript was asked to offer a “first-culture Korean” interpretation. [Ask YOONHWA to complete this section.]
Clearly, the non-natives were less than perfect in their interpretations--even though the primary researcher’s initial reaction was that they had done fairly well in interpreting the emotions displayed in the same manner as the native culture participants. Again, we are forced to consider the threshold question. How much misunderstanding is enough to cause difficulties in communication? Moreover, is it possible to train and educate individuals involved in cross-cultural situations in the required flexibility to overcome a moderate level of misunderstanding that would seem natural in most intercultural situations.
Translation questions. One fundamental concern in a great deal of cross and intercultural research is the issue of translation, and this problem is exacerbated when dealing with issues of emotion which have a tendency to be more subjective (Pavlenko, 2005; Wierzbicka, 1999). Consequently, that issues of translation arose in determining the accuracy of the cross-cultural interpretations is unsurprising. At the most basic level is that cluster of words and phrases that “just don’t translate” to the target language. In addition, participants used a number of notions that have multiple correlates in the other language, and ultimately, the words do matter. Chulchulmaeda, danghok, heodoongdaeda, danghwang (confusion), noonchi, kangok, hogam (good feeling), brazenfacedness (need Korean word), chung (affection), are examples of emotion concepts appearing in this study from the Koreans participants for which the bi-cultural translator, a Korean native who has lived in the United States for more than 15 years while completing a Masters and PhD in counseling psychology and later as a practicing therapist, had difficulty finding satisfactory direct translations.
My intention here is not to suggest a strong version of linguistic relativism to imply that the Western participants cannot perceive or understand the notion presented by the Koreans and codified in the Korean language, rather something more akin to what Kay and Kempton (1984) call “limited linguistic relativity and determinism” (p. 78). Indeed, that the Koreans have a single word or “catch phrase” to represent an emotional state, while the North Americans did not, does not imply at all that the non-native participants did not describe something close to the emotional state the Koreans did. For example, the Koreans considered their concept of noonchi to be both clearly represented in the first video clip and something uniquely Korean. Participant S explained, “I thought what the principal did was very Korean. He showed Korean work place culture where noonchi happens a lot where there is a manager.” Yet at least one North American participants recognized something comparable to noonchi. Participant H says of Teacher Kim, “he’s kind of trying to minimize the damage” and later, “like he was analyzing the situation.”
However, such analogues were not always seen in this study. Indeed, of the XX instances in which the Koreans used nine terms that “just don’t translate” well, only XX showed clear attempts to express something akin to the Korean term by the non-native participants. Thus, this study provides some support for the weak version of the linguistic relativity that when a culture/language does have a succinct word or phrase for a particular emotion, it does raise the presence of that notion. Simply put, having a word for something makes it easier to talk about that thing, which in turn increases the likelihood that people will talk about the notion, and ultimately to raise the level of that notion in the consciousness of the society.
Word choice/intensity. Hand in hand with notions of concepts that “just do not translate” is the concern that subtle differences can matter. For example, in American English we might generally accept that the emotion terms “mad” and “angry” are interchangeable in most situations, yet it is easy to imagine situations where someone would choose one over the other. Such subtleties are fairly difficult to tease out of intercultural communication. One way that this study sought to explore those subtleties was to see if the participants from each country offered similar or different intensity ratings for the emotions that they observed.
i. worksheets
a. breadth of potential responses
b. potential standard (s)
c. accuracy stats
i. contradictory
ii. one clear one unclear
iii. character of ii
d. question of intensity
Erkut, S., Alarcón, O., García Coll, C., Tropp, L. R., & Vázquez García, H. A. (1999). The dual-focus approach to creating bilingual measures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(2), 206-218.
Kay, P., & Kempton, W. (1984). What is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? American Anthropologist, 86(1), 65-79.
Pavlenko, A. (2005). Emotions and Multilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (1999). Emotions across languages and cultures: Diversity and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Accuracy of Non-native Interpretation of Intra-cultural Emotional Communication
The consideration of accuracy of non-natives’ interpretation of the emotional cues that native speakers use when communicating with one another is essential to determining if cross-cultural differences exist between these two national groups in terms of emotional cue interpretation. The literature offers two suggestions for how accurate the non-native speakers interpretations will be. Ekman (???) and other’s (???) suggest that emotions and emotional cues are essentially universal, so there should be little difference in interpretations, while Mead (???) and other’s (???) expect that we will find striking differences. The data from this study offers two windows into the question of accuracy. The discussions of the focus groups provide one window into the accuracy of non-natives’ interpretations, while the notetaking worksheets provide another, and more traditional method of measuring the accuracy of non-native interpretations of any cross-cultural interpretive act.
i. focus group discussionsa. gut responses
b. vocabulary issuesi. translation questions
ii. word choice questions
iii. intensity questions
ii.worksheetsa. breadth of potential responses
b. potential standard (s)
c. accuracy statsi. contradictory
ii. one clear one unclear
iii. character of ii
d. question of intensity
Sunday, August 22, 2010
intro to chapter 4
Chapter Four – Discussion
This study set out to explore the cues we use for communicating emotion in detail and in a cross-cultural setting as well as the processes involved in interpreting those emotional cues. The specific research questions focus on four ideas: the accuracy of the non-native in interpreting the cues of another culture, the role of various communication channels (words, gestures, tone of voice, etc.) in that emotional communication both intra- and inter-culturally, the role of cognitive processes such as reliance on cultural scripts or cognitive appraisal in the interpretation of emotional cues, various social processes involved in negotiating that interpretation and how that might aid in cross-cultural understanding and education. To that end a focus group methodology supported by individual participants observational worksheets constituted the major data collection tools. The participants’ observational worksheets were analyzed and summarized using descriptive statistics, while the focus group transcripts were analyzed for vocabulary use and emergent themes of individual interpretation, as well as for patterns of negotiation amongst the participants. The discussion of this data has been grouped into five sections: the accuracy of North Americans interpretation of Koreans intra-cultural emotional communication, the language used to talk about emotions, the different mechanisms/channels the various groups use to describe their interpretation process, the themes that emerged out of their discussion regarding emotional communication, and how their negotiations provide inferences about the social construction of emotional communication.
[one page done. only 79 to go]
This study set out to explore the cues we use for communicating emotion in detail and in a cross-cultural setting as well as the processes involved in interpreting those emotional cues. The specific research questions focus on four ideas: the accuracy of the non-native in interpreting the cues of another culture, the role of various communication channels (words, gestures, tone of voice, etc.) in that emotional communication both intra- and inter-culturally, the role of cognitive processes such as reliance on cultural scripts or cognitive appraisal in the interpretation of emotional cues, various social processes involved in negotiating that interpretation and how that might aid in cross-cultural understanding and education. To that end a focus group methodology supported by individual participants observational worksheets constituted the major data collection tools. The participants’ observational worksheets were analyzed and summarized using descriptive statistics, while the focus group transcripts were analyzed for vocabulary use and emergent themes of individual interpretation, as well as for patterns of negotiation amongst the participants. The discussion of this data has been grouped into five sections: the accuracy of North Americans interpretation of Koreans intra-cultural emotional communication, the language used to talk about emotions, the different mechanisms/channels the various groups use to describe their interpretation process, the themes that emerged out of their discussion regarding emotional communication, and how their negotiations provide inferences about the social construction of emotional communication.
• accuracy of non-native interpretation of intra-cultural emotional communication
• language used to talk about emotional communication
• different mechanisms/channels used in the interpretation process,
• emergent themes regarding emotional communication,
• inferences about the social construction of emotional communication.
[one page done. only 79 to go]
OK let start again with this outline for discussion:
Four data analysis procedures
• Data sheets
• Transcript analysis
o Words,
o Themes
o Negotiations
Produce five sections:
1. HOW WELL did Americans INTERPRET Koreans intra-cultural emotional communication?
2. What do the WORDS they used say about how we talk about emotions?
3. What do the different MECHANISMS and CHANNELS do the various groups referenced in describing how they interpreted emotions?
4. What THEMES emerged out of their discussion and what do those themes tell us about the communication of emotions?
5. How do their negotiations about interpreting emotional communication and display rules provide inferences about the SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION of emotional communication?
Four data analysis procedures
• Data sheets
• Transcript analysis
o Words,
o Themes
o Negotiations
Produce five sections:
1. HOW WELL did Americans INTERPRET Koreans intra-cultural emotional communication?
2. What do the WORDS they used say about how we talk about emotions?
3. What do the different MECHANISMS and CHANNELS do the various groups referenced in describing how they interpreted emotions?
4. What THEMES emerged out of their discussion and what do those themes tell us about the communication of emotions?
5. How do their negotiations about interpreting emotional communication and display rules provide inferences about the SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION of emotional communication?
Monday, August 9, 2010
Friday, August 6, 2010
outline of writing work
task one:
the discussion section
three data analyses produce five sections:
OK start writing that tomorrow
task two:
revising methods section
three kinds of data analysis:
lexical
situational/behavioral/semantic
thematic
finish task one first then do this.
the discussion section
three data analyses produce five sections:
what do the words they used say about how we talk about emotions?
what do the things they referenced in interpreting emotions say about how we interpret emotions?
what themes emerged out of their discussion and what do those themes tell us about the communication of emotions?
what can we tell for their negotiation about how emotions and display rules are socially constructed?
how well did they interpret foreign emotional communication?
OK start writing that tomorrow
task two:
revising methods section
three kinds of data analysis:
lexical
situational/behavioral/semantic
thematic
finish task one first then do this.
OK . . . start again.
like getting up after a hangover.
like forcing myself to the gym.
like going in for a "performance" review.
like beating back depression with a pot of coffee.
like dragging myself to a Saharan oasis.
[which would be successfully defending]
like forcing myself to the gym.
like going in for a "performance" review.
like beating back depression with a pot of coffee.
like dragging myself to a Saharan oasis.
[which would be successfully defending]
Sunday, April 18, 2010
sort of conclusiony bit
Koreans will very likely keep their fiery reputations, and Americans will wear their hearts on their sleeves for long into the future. These differences are indeed the spice of life. This study has shown that both the nature and the nurture approach to emotional communication play a role in the interpretation of communicative acts. Moreover, when an emotional script embedded in our native culture is not enacted by the foreign culture, cognitive dissonance arises. For the individuals experiencing that dissonance, resolving that dissonance will be critical in moving forward toward cross-cultural understanding. For those of us who through our work and personal lives spend time crossing the divides between cultures the ability to better understand and more rapidly appreciate the differences is a great benefit. Moreover finding out what bits and pieces of cross-cultural misunderstanding lie embedded in “less than conscious” elements of our communication process and bringing those elements forward into our conscious awareness can only improve our relationships across cultures.
a bit more discussion
One of the important questions of this research is how well do the non-Koreans interpret Korean emotional expressions. Predictably enough, sometimes the North Americans got it right, sometimes they were wrong and sometimes they got it partially correct. As part of the research methodology, the North Americans were informed of areas where they had made the same interpretations as the Korean informants, as well as where their interpretations differed. Their responses to the similarities and differences was telling in important ways. First when the non-native participant interpreted the emotions correctly, for any reason (ie, the two cultures share similar scripts, or the participant had developed sufficient understanding of the other culture), no one including the focus group facilitator felt cognitive dissonance; therefore, the group tended to move on in the discussion. When the participants did not interpret correctly—whether they were thoroughly of base, or they had simply misinterpreted the intensity—discussion always ensued.
One example illustrates both cases. In the scene where a parent interrupts a faculty meeting to accuse Mr. Kim of bribe taking and extortion of his son, the participants were fairly confused about the interpretation of situation and the emotions expressed:
Then later as part of the same discussion the question of appropriate intensity comes up:
Clearly in this instance the participants required a good deal of conversation work to come to terms with the differences between their North American interpretation of the emotional expressions in this situation and the one suggested by the Koreans.
One example illustrates both cases. In the scene where a parent interrupts a faculty meeting to accuse Mr. Kim of bribe taking and extortion of his son, the participants were fairly confused about the interpretation of situation and the emotions expressed:
Participant B: [When the clip was played without sound] I thought, I was thinking only anger. But when it came on again for the first few seconds I was thinking… “drunk anger”? (laughter) I’m not sure (more laughter)
Participant A: The only thing I can think of is that the teacher did something to his daughter.
(Overlap PB: yeah… that was on my)
Participant A: You see I was thinking that there is no other… which might be a woman thing (Participant D: laughter) I don’t know but I was just like what else can get a parent that angry, but then he talked about money and I was like “okay… I guess not”
Then later as part of the same discussion the question of appropriate intensity comes up:
Participant A: If I knew the situation, so I thought that maybe he had done something with his daughter. Had I known that for sure, my answer for how high is the anger would have been would have been would have been higher, do you understand? Then when I hear later it’s about money, I’m like “oh, he’s angry” but come on it’s money. That’s my judgment. … Come on, because I originally thought it was worse.
Clearly in this instance the participants required a good deal of conversation work to come to terms with the differences between their North American interpretation of the emotional expressions in this situation and the one suggested by the Koreans.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
more discussion
In addition, the participants noted that emotional scripts can require a variety of false expressions. Participant Y pointed out a case of contradictory expressions when the Mediator in one scene seemed “a little anxious and worried, but he was hiding it with laughter.” In another case masked emotions were noted: “The businessman [showed] anxiety, relief, happiness/joy. Also it seemed he was trying to hide his inner/true feelings/thoughts” (participant U). Diminished or exaggerated emotions were also noted in several instances, for instance, participant C remarked, “I completely agree that they are being really fake with him. But at the same time I think they were being quite real about how they feel about the school and how they care about the kids.”
Problems of interpretation arise however, when the emotion expressions displayed (and perceived) do not match the expressions required by the script. In terms of interpretation, the participants were caught in a sort of “chicken or the egg” situation. Do they believe that the person did not appraise the situation—and therefore the appropriate script—correctly, or are they simply expressing inappropriate emotions? Both interpretations were seen. When Mr. Kim does not follow the appropriate cultural script, participant A blames him for inappropriate behavior: “[he seemed] overconfident and, umm… because when the guy introduces himself . . . he was just like, “yeah, yeah” and just keeps eating, got his mouthful, the guy gives him his card and he just throws it in his pocket right away.” Alternatively, a person could misunderstand the situation resulting in dissonance, “He/she said that his/her students were nodding their heads and smiling in the class while they did not understand instructions fully. He went on assuming that they all understood and later found that they didn’t. This made him feel danghwang (surprised and confused)” (participant U).
Problems of interpretation arise however, when the emotion expressions displayed (and perceived) do not match the expressions required by the script. In terms of interpretation, the participants were caught in a sort of “chicken or the egg” situation. Do they believe that the person did not appraise the situation—and therefore the appropriate script—correctly, or are they simply expressing inappropriate emotions? Both interpretations were seen. When Mr. Kim does not follow the appropriate cultural script, participant A blames him for inappropriate behavior: “[he seemed] overconfident and, umm… because when the guy introduces himself . . . he was just like, “yeah, yeah” and just keeps eating, got his mouthful, the guy gives him his card and he just throws it in his pocket right away.” Alternatively, a person could misunderstand the situation resulting in dissonance, “He/she said that his/her students were nodding their heads and smiling in the class while they did not understand instructions fully. He went on assuming that they all understood and later found that they didn’t. This made him feel danghwang (surprised and confused)” (participant U).
discussion
While the final results of this study have yet to be complete, some of the clear themes can be discussed.
4.1. The interpretation of emotional meaning is not straightforward.
Much of Ekman’s (Ekman, 1993, 1997, 1999a, 1999b, 2003; Ekman, et al., 1972) basic research into emotion requires individuals to name the emotion that they are seeing. Similarly, in this study the participants were fairly well able to name the emotions they saw, but although most were glad to be able to select their own vocabulary in the naming process, many also had some important difficulties in explaining why they are naming that emotion. Participants frequently used phrases like: “I don’t know,” or “I guess.”
Moreover, all three of the various systems that have been discussed here for interpreting emotion were seen in this study. That is to say participants used paralinguistic interpretations, situational and script based interpretations, lexical interpretations, as well as combinations of the three. The most common cues for interpretation were from different paralinguistic markers: “my first adjective was shy, again and I got that because he was sitting the whole time with his shoulders hunched over” (participant C). However, they also frequently used a variety of situational interpretations: “I didn’t see the movie but know the story, and this made me perceive noonchi (concern for the feelings of others present)” (participant Y). Finally, well much less common lexical interpretations were also seen: “when only the two were talking and he is not, I felt like that’s all flattery” (participant A).
4.2. Emotional scripts play a role.
Emotional scripts are the sorts of preordained patterns for the appropriate communication of emotion in each culture (Planalp, 1999; Saarni, 1989; Tannen, 1990). Similarly, the appraisal of emotion describes how we interpret what the appropriate emotion ought to be (Scherer, 1982, 1999), perhaps based on a cultural script. Unlike direct indications of emotion, scripts are often noted in different ways, for example stereotypes can come to the surface: “Korean people are often compared to as fighting chickens” (participant Q), or those scripts could be indicated through proverbs, “There is a saying that things work if you raising your voice in Korea, and I think raising one’s voice easily seems like a Korean way” (participant Z).
Along the same lines, the participants spontaneously pointed out that Scripts are not entirely rigid and preset. For one, they suggested that emotional scripts have a gendered character: “It is usually a mother who is ‘super-involved’ in their kids’ lives that fights with teachers but it was a father in this clip” (participant V). They also noted that emotional scripts can be embedded in certain cultural acts: “When the parent entered the room angrily, the teacher was running around and making hand gestures wishing other (teachers) fight for/help him, and I thought this was a little Korean. Trying to do it together (and sort of hiding in the crowd) and hoping other teachers deal with parents and not wanting to deal one-on-one with the teacher showed” (participant R).
4.1. The interpretation of emotional meaning is not straightforward.
Much of Ekman’s (Ekman, 1993, 1997, 1999a, 1999b, 2003; Ekman, et al., 1972) basic research into emotion requires individuals to name the emotion that they are seeing. Similarly, in this study the participants were fairly well able to name the emotions they saw, but although most were glad to be able to select their own vocabulary in the naming process, many also had some important difficulties in explaining why they are naming that emotion. Participants frequently used phrases like: “I don’t know,” or “I guess.”
Moreover, all three of the various systems that have been discussed here for interpreting emotion were seen in this study. That is to say participants used paralinguistic interpretations, situational and script based interpretations, lexical interpretations, as well as combinations of the three. The most common cues for interpretation were from different paralinguistic markers: “my first adjective was shy, again and I got that because he was sitting the whole time with his shoulders hunched over” (participant C). However, they also frequently used a variety of situational interpretations: “I didn’t see the movie but know the story, and this made me perceive noonchi (concern for the feelings of others present)” (participant Y). Finally, well much less common lexical interpretations were also seen: “when only the two were talking and he is not, I felt like that’s all flattery” (participant A).
4.2. Emotional scripts play a role.
Emotional scripts are the sorts of preordained patterns for the appropriate communication of emotion in each culture (Planalp, 1999; Saarni, 1989; Tannen, 1990). Similarly, the appraisal of emotion describes how we interpret what the appropriate emotion ought to be (Scherer, 1982, 1999), perhaps based on a cultural script. Unlike direct indications of emotion, scripts are often noted in different ways, for example stereotypes can come to the surface: “Korean people are often compared to as fighting chickens” (participant Q), or those scripts could be indicated through proverbs, “There is a saying that things work if you raising your voice in Korea, and I think raising one’s voice easily seems like a Korean way” (participant Z).
Along the same lines, the participants spontaneously pointed out that Scripts are not entirely rigid and preset. For one, they suggested that emotional scripts have a gendered character: “It is usually a mother who is ‘super-involved’ in their kids’ lives that fights with teachers but it was a father in this clip” (participant V). They also noted that emotional scripts can be embedded in certain cultural acts: “When the parent entered the room angrily, the teacher was running around and making hand gestures wishing other (teachers) fight for/help him, and I thought this was a little Korean. Trying to do it together (and sort of hiding in the crowd) and hoping other teachers deal with parents and not wanting to deal one-on-one with the teacher showed” (participant R).
Sunday, March 14, 2010
pragmatism and action
I've been preparing a presentation on action research the last couple of days while at the hospital with Yoojin [he's getting better slowly, we hope he can be set free tomorrow tuesdayy at the latest].
a couple of thoughts from that writing should bring me back to my dissertation, particularly relating to what Peter Reason (2003) was trying to explain about Richard Rorty's pragmatism.. I really a am trying to redescribe something. I think that we all know about emotions -- they clearly fit into the "we all know an emotion, when we see it" category, yet we see different emotions from the same expressions. not always, and maybe not in consistent ways and national culture is hardly the only thing going on with that interpretive process.
how can I redescribe those processes in ways that help people understand one another better?
---- ----- ----
Reason, P. (2003). Pragmatist Philosophy and Action Research: Readings and Conversation with Richard Rorty. Action Research, 1(1), 103-123
a couple of thoughts from that writing should bring me back to my dissertation, particularly relating to what Peter Reason (2003) was trying to explain about Richard Rorty's pragmatism.. I really a am trying to redescribe something. I think that we all know about emotions -- they clearly fit into the "we all know an emotion, when we see it" category, yet we see different emotions from the same expressions. not always, and maybe not in consistent ways and national culture is hardly the only thing going on with that interpretive process.
how can I redescribe those processes in ways that help people understand one another better?
---- ----- ----
Reason, P. (2003). Pragmatist Philosophy and Action Research: Readings and Conversation with Richard Rorty. Action Research, 1(1), 103-123
Saturday, February 27, 2010
wanted to post this section of an article I was reading today:
I often quote Schumann saying something to the effect that psychological behaviors we see and categorize may or may not have neurological representations, and therefore we should be cautious about concluding the absolute veracity of our psychological interpretations, while I simultaneously go about making psychological interpretations :).
it is nice to find this article that seems to support my psychological conclusions on a neurological level! will reference this one (and since I have all the authors' references with links, I hope to read and reference others) in the paper.
The effects of cultural exposure on neural activation have also been found in the areas of emotion recognition and inferences of intentions. Neural responses to emotional expressions in Japanese and Caucasian faces by native Japanese participants in Japan and Caucasian participants in the United States were examined by Chiao et al. (2008). Distinct neural responses were found in response to ingroup members, with individuals from both cultures showing greater amygdala activation to faces expressing fear of members of their own cultural groups. Moreover, Moriguchi et al. (2005) also found activation to Japanese fear expressions in emotion-related areas of the brain in Caucasians who had lived in Japan for more than a year. These two studies suggest that exposure to a culture can affect neural responses to emotional expressions. In another study, the ability to infer intentions was evaluated from a “reading the mind in the eyes” task used in studies examining the ability to infer intentions and feelings from pictures of the eyes. This task agrees with traditional tests of theory of mind and has been demonstrated to reliably differentiate between nonclinical samples and populations exhibiting psychopathologic disorders marked by impaired theory of mind (Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, Hill, Raste, & Plumb, 2001). Japanese participants showed more activation in the superior temporal sulcus (STS), an area found to be activated in previous neuroimaging studies examining inferences of intentions, when they were judging the intentions of Japanese as compared to American targets from pictures of their eyes. Americans participants showed the opposite pattern, with more STS activation when judging intentions from Caucasian as compared to Japanese eyes (Adams et al., 2009). Thus, there seem to be selective neural responses to cultural ingroup faces, probably due to more exposure to these faces.here is the link to the full text: http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/18/6/342.full
I often quote Schumann saying something to the effect that psychological behaviors we see and categorize may or may not have neurological representations, and therefore we should be cautious about concluding the absolute veracity of our psychological interpretations, while I simultaneously go about making psychological interpretations :).
it is nice to find this article that seems to support my psychological conclusions on a neurological level! will reference this one (and since I have all the authors' references with links, I hope to read and reference others) in the paper.
Monday, February 8, 2010
final themes (really, I mean it this time!)
I spent the morning revising the themes/codes. this is the final time, I think. but I plan to completely recode the four transcripts, so I could be fooling myself :).
anyway, here they are:
Theme 1. How did they interpret emotion meaning(s)?
Theme 2. How did scripts play a role?
Theme 3 How did the focus groups show the social construction of emotional interpretation?
Theme 4 What are the implications for teaching discussed by participants?
anyway, here they are:
Theme 1. How did they interpret emotion meaning(s)?
- Theme 1.1 [They can’t explain why they “see” the emotion]
- Theme 1.2 [They use a circular definition]
- Theme 1.3 [They use situational interpretation]
- Theme 1.3.1 [Interpretation based on situation in film]
- Theme 1.3.2 [“Reverse” situational interpretation]
- Theme 1.4 [They use a behavioral/paralinguistic interpretation]
- Theme 1.5 [They use a lexical interpretation]
- Theme 1.6 [They use a combination of interpretations] [situational and paralinguistic cues used]
- Theme 1.7 [side note: They use an interpretation embedded in character assessment]. [ie. emotion=characteristic/temperament]
Theme 2. How did scripts play a role?
- Theme 2.1 [Participants recognize the importance of scripts]
- Theme 2.2.1 [Scripts get referenced in proverbs and sayings]
- Theme 2.1.2 [Scripts get referenced in archetypes]
- Theme 2.1.3 [Scripts are gendered].
- Theme 2.1.4 [Scripts can be embedded in certain culturally emotional acts (e.g. “doing noonchi”)]
- Theme 2.1.5 [Scripts can respond to emotional temperament]
- Theme 2.2 [Scripts may require contradictory, masked, or diminished emotional expressions].
- Theme 2.3 [When script is not followed, that creates cognitive dissonance].
- Theme 2.3.1 [Cases of behavior seen dominantly]
- Theme 2.3.2 [Cases where situational appraisal is seen dominantly]
- Theme 2.4 [How do non-natives interpret the scripts of the other]
- Theme 2.4.1 [Non-natives interpret the script accurately]
- Theme 2.4.2 [Non-natives interpret the script inaccurately]
- Theme 2.4.3 [Non-natives interpret the script with partial accuracy!]
Theme 3 How did the focus groups show the social construction of emotional interpretation?
- Theme 3.1 [Participants persuading one another to change their opinion]
- Theme 3.2 [Multiple/complex emotions likely to be “sussed” and discussed]
- Theme 3.3 [The process of “sussing out” the other’s cultural script requires group consideration].
Theme 4 What are the implications for teaching discussed by participants?
- Theme 4.1 [Are movies real?]
- 4.1.1 Movie depictions can accurately represent real life
- 4.1.2 But movie depictions may not be universal
- 4.1.3 Cinema and cinematic effects affect emotional interpretations.
- Theme 4.2 [Questions of linguistics, like language register, diction, and profanity differences may be more important for FL learners].
- Theme 4.3 [FL education’s focus on translation]
Monday, February 1, 2010
trapped
I cannot get any time to work on the dissertation. I have been trapped by revisions on the wiki paper. who knew there were so many different non-parametric statistics?
only one more day on this--less, I hope.
only one more day on this--less, I hope.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
don't let this happen to you
this is your brain. this is your brain doing data analysis
some piles of data
some piles of data
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
thematic codes
first things first:
- I ejected the ‘basic emotions” stuff to the linguistic counting section . . . the simple point to make from that data is that we humans are not really that basic in our communication of emotions. we need more vocabulary, more than “basic,” to understand one another.
- also completely eliminated the “cognitive/conscious/unconscious/social” stuff, because there are too many definitional problems.
so I am left with four main codes to work through:
- what did their explanations of their “interpretation of emotions across cultures” look like? (what did they say they were doing as individuals)
- how did their cultural scripts come into play?
- when there was disagreement, what social and cognitive processes did they demonstrate in their focus group interactions?
- finally, what insights we draw for the teaching cross-cultural emotional interpretation?
now I have to sort out the sub themes.
final codes
just want to list the final codes and give a brief summary of my thoughts on each.
ultimately, I have four different sets of codes.
one set is a “linguistic” coding (although more like counting) set. what words did the focus groups use in their discussions? does this linguistic data show that the different groups even though they were looking at identical clips discuss the same or different things? even if they did not use identical words were there synonyms being used in similar discussions? were there things that both Korean groups discussed that neither (or just one) western group did? and vice versa, were there notions that the westerners discussed that the koreans did not? were there things that only one group discussed?
another set is the “intensity” coding comparisons of the basic emotion list. I have yet to do this, but the sample size is small. actually, I think I should drop this, because it mixes the methods more than I would like. in the end, the comparison is going to be statistical and may prove very little. did the Korean groups’ intensity ratings differ significantly form the intensity ratings of the westerners? the standard deviation seem to be fairly broad, so I don't see much chance for statistical significance with a small sample like this one. in the future, this could be a fairly simple correlative study.
a third set of codes is the “channel” coding. what aspects of the communicative event did the westerners and koreans look at in determining what emotions were being expressed? are there differences between and amongst the different groups? there is an excel chart that summarizes these results on a previous post.
the final, hardest, and most important (I think) set is the “thematic” coding. that deserves a separate post.
ultimately, I have four different sets of codes.
one set is a “linguistic” coding (although more like counting) set. what words did the focus groups use in their discussions? does this linguistic data show that the different groups even though they were looking at identical clips discuss the same or different things? even if they did not use identical words were there synonyms being used in similar discussions? were there things that both Korean groups discussed that neither (or just one) western group did? and vice versa, were there notions that the westerners discussed that the koreans did not? were there things that only one group discussed?
another set is the “intensity” coding comparisons of the basic emotion list. I have yet to do this, but the sample size is small. actually, I think I should drop this, because it mixes the methods more than I would like. in the end, the comparison is going to be statistical and may prove very little. did the Korean groups’ intensity ratings differ significantly form the intensity ratings of the westerners? the standard deviation seem to be fairly broad, so I don't see much chance for statistical significance with a small sample like this one. in the future, this could be a fairly simple correlative study.
a third set of codes is the “channel” coding. what aspects of the communicative event did the westerners and koreans look at in determining what emotions were being expressed? are there differences between and amongst the different groups? there is an excel chart that summarizes these results on a previous post.
the final, hardest, and most important (I think) set is the “thematic” coding. that deserves a separate post.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
two week progress report
in five minutes, what have I done in the last two weeks?
soooo . . . . . I am getting closer. here are the things I would like to do this week:
- finished the thematic coding
- got it off to the primary peer reviewer
- got it back (ok, that is not me, but something done for the project).
- looked lexically at the words they used in their discussion.
- created categories of words
- listed "universal" emotions and recognizable intensity variants
- listed other emotion catagories
- as well as the frequencies
- BUT I did not cross list for different focus groups . . .
- fortunately TAMS will let me do that fairly well.
- here is that summary:
- basic
- fear disgust sadness surprise anger happiness
- other
- gen. arousal (anticipation) gen. agony (pain) shyness "weighingoptions" (noonchi) gen. "nice" character gen. "bad" character - arrogance flattery archetypes interest guilt (shame/embarrassment) anxiety relief (post-anxiety) showing no emotion (calm) true v. false conflicted (mixed/confused)
- coded all of the "behavioral" cues
- compared the frequency of the different code for different nationalities and for individual focus groups
soooo . . . . . I am getting closer. here are the things I would like to do this week:
- complete a second thematic coding of the data.
- did a partial review . . .
- read Yoonhwa’s notes
- discuss with her today
- decide if I need to go back and do all four focus groups again
- write my advisor.
- contact the program and register for courses.
- [tertiary coding?] look at how the participants coded the basic emotions and of their intensity.
- outline chapter 4
- member checks?
- revise the methodology section regarding data collection and data analysis.
- look at the edits for the first three chapters.
digging deeper into behavioral coding
I wanted to dig deeper into the behavioral codes. It was fairly easy to break the individual focus groups out of the "big transcript" of all of the focus groups and then do a code count . . . [while I think there is something to be learned from breaking each individual participant out of each focus group, that process will take more time . . . time is running :(]
the neat thing is that three of the focus groups showed almost identical patterns in this analysis. that is the relative frequency of the codes of each type was remarkably similar. Check it out.
the "freakazoid" group, and I say that in the nicest possible way, was the first western group--the green line. Funny thing is that at least one participant in that group said something to the effect of "I'm so perverse in how I look at people: I will probably wreck your study." lol :)
However, now that I look at it, the "freakazoid group" is not really that freaky . . . only a couple of data points are substantially different . . . I think I can argue that at least.
the neat thing is that three of the focus groups showed almost identical patterns in this analysis. that is the relative frequency of the codes of each type was remarkably similar. Check it out.
the "freakazoid" group, and I say that in the nicest possible way, was the first western group--the green line. Funny thing is that at least one participant in that group said something to the effect of "I'm so perverse in how I look at people: I will probably wreck your study." lol :)
However, now that I look at it, the "freakazoid group" is not really that freaky . . . only a couple of data points are substantially different . . . I think I can argue that at least.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
behavioral codes in the bag
here are the summary code counts from that part of the coding process:
Appraisal 185
Circular 31
Lexical_Semantic 25
Behavior>Face 136
Behavior>Gestures 41
Behavior>Kinesic 97
Behavior>Prosodic 46
Behavior>Proxemic 21
Total behaviorial
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
reverse appraisal
noticed something today.
in answering questions of what emotion do you see and why the participants were answering not my question: "why did you say that emotion was expressed--what did you see or hear?" but a completely different question: "why do you think he/she was feeling the emotion that you think he was feeling. What would that person's reason for feeling that way be?"
in other words, they are doing a sort of "reverse appraisal." That is the opposite of what Scherer says that when we understand a situation and that appraisal/understanding causes us to feel and express an emotion. particularly i noticed this occuring when the 'denotative' situation and the participants expectations of what emotions 'ought to be' expressed did not exactly match.
in answering questions of what emotion do you see and why the participants were answering not my question: "why did you say that emotion was expressed--what did you see or hear?" but a completely different question: "why do you think he/she was feeling the emotion that you think he was feeling. What would that person's reason for feeling that way be?"
in other words, they are doing a sort of "reverse appraisal." That is the opposite of what Scherer says that when we understand a situation and that appraisal/understanding causes us to feel and express an emotion. particularly i noticed this occuring when the 'denotative' situation and the participants expectations of what emotions 'ought to be' expressed did not exactly match.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
after a mini holiday
idea(s?) to save:
- in coding the cues mentioned by the participants, I found direct examples of mixed emotions with multiple and conflicting emotional cues.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
day to recover from
some days are setbacks . . . or at least so little forward movement was made that is seems that way. today was almost that bad :).
as I was entering the data from the "non-basic" emotion words used in the focus groups. I noticed a couple of things. one, I had actually made far more groups than I had estimated yesterday at the end of the job. instead of 8-10 there were actually 16 -- plus a fairly healthy handful (~20?) of words that did not really fit into any of these categories. next, and I think I have yoonhwa to blame for this revelation, just calculating the averages and sums does not really show what happened across cultures and within groups in the discussion of these concepts. what if one group talked about schadenfreude a lot, but none of the rest of them did? does that make it invalid? if all of the groups talked about anger about with the same frequency, does that make it more salient? a "qualified" yes to both questions, and the qualification is that it is fairly easy to imagine exceptions to each rule. an obvious structural research design example is how the weigookin got to discuss a summary of what the koreans had said. if they had not already discussed some item in the korean summary, they would after in the discussion of the summary. so precisely where in the north american focus groups discussion the item occurs matters.
then the bad things started to happen :)
do you know how annoying it is to reroll a roll of toilet paper? neither do I, but rerolling half a roll of toilet paper is a real pain--and it barely fit back on the roller. since every four year-old is required to unroll at least one roll of toilet paper, that alone should be reason not to have another child after the oldest gets to be four.
potentially newly minted phrase of the day: "toddler inertia"
a toddler in motion tends to stay in motion. a toddler at rest tends to stay at rest.
you know how they don't want to go to day care, but at the end of the day, they don't want to come home? man, it was hard to get yoojin out of the house today. but the minute he got up on my shoulders, everything was ok.
of course following rapidly on the heels of that event, the cell phone fell out of my pocket. really hard to meet up with people nowadays without a cell phone . . . we used to be able to do it, but now we are dependent on the cellie. the person meeting me got to talk with the bus driver. daejeon city bus terminals seem to be way-the-heck-out-in-nowhere.
and what day would be complete without an accident . . . after being awakened from a doze in the back seat of the car when arriving at costco and being placed in a shopping cart. actually kind of convenient . . . he was sitting down, so it shot straight down through the shopping car onto the parking lot . . . wonder if anyone walked through that? another fortunate thing was the fancy hand dryer in the costco. was able to rise out yoojin's underpants and get them pretty dry pretty quickly. of course, the other dude in the bathroom did not get to dry his hands.
no real energy to do more when we got home, got the groceries put away and got some dinner eaten.
still lots left to do:
as I was entering the data from the "non-basic" emotion words used in the focus groups. I noticed a couple of things. one, I had actually made far more groups than I had estimated yesterday at the end of the job. instead of 8-10 there were actually 16 -- plus a fairly healthy handful (~20?) of words that did not really fit into any of these categories. next, and I think I have yoonhwa to blame for this revelation, just calculating the averages and sums does not really show what happened across cultures and within groups in the discussion of these concepts. what if one group talked about schadenfreude a lot, but none of the rest of them did? does that make it invalid? if all of the groups talked about anger about with the same frequency, does that make it more salient? a "qualified" yes to both questions, and the qualification is that it is fairly easy to imagine exceptions to each rule. an obvious structural research design example is how the weigookin got to discuss a summary of what the koreans had said. if they had not already discussed some item in the korean summary, they would after in the discussion of the summary. so precisely where in the north american focus groups discussion the item occurs matters.
then the bad things started to happen :)
do you know how annoying it is to reroll a roll of toilet paper? neither do I, but rerolling half a roll of toilet paper is a real pain--and it barely fit back on the roller. since every four year-old is required to unroll at least one roll of toilet paper, that alone should be reason not to have another child after the oldest gets to be four.
potentially newly minted phrase of the day: "toddler inertia"
a toddler in motion tends to stay in motion. a toddler at rest tends to stay at rest.
you know how they don't want to go to day care, but at the end of the day, they don't want to come home? man, it was hard to get yoojin out of the house today. but the minute he got up on my shoulders, everything was ok.
of course following rapidly on the heels of that event, the cell phone fell out of my pocket. really hard to meet up with people nowadays without a cell phone . . . we used to be able to do it, but now we are dependent on the cellie. the person meeting me got to talk with the bus driver. daejeon city bus terminals seem to be way-the-heck-out-in-nowhere.
and what day would be complete without an accident . . . after being awakened from a doze in the back seat of the car when arriving at costco and being placed in a shopping cart. actually kind of convenient . . . he was sitting down, so it shot straight down through the shopping car onto the parking lot . . . wonder if anyone walked through that? another fortunate thing was the fancy hand dryer in the costco. was able to rise out yoojin's underpants and get them pretty dry pretty quickly. of course, the other dude in the bathroom did not get to dry his hands.
no real energy to do more when we got home, got the groceries put away and got some dinner eaten.
still lots left to do:
- conduct a secondary coding of the data.
- code the different behavioral characteristics: kinesic, proxemic, or whatever.
- look at how the participants coded the basic emotions and of their intensity.
- outline chapter 4
- revise the methodology section regarding data collection and data analysis.
- look at the edits for the first three chapters.
- write my advisor.
- contact the program and register for courses.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
it's a magic number
ok day three.
bachelor dad and doing data analysis. yoojin is so good and helpful. ok he does not always do what he is told, but he is cute about asking and tries to do what is right. if you ask him--sometimes it takes ten or fifteen tries--he will do something. he honestly wants to help--particularly when you make brownies.
first thing I did this morning was some simple counting of the words that clearly fit into the basic emotions categories, as well as establishing the clusters of words that represent the intensity of each emotion. then put those numbers in a spreadsheet. then wrapped up the little bits of paper and made mini envelopes for them. all that left the table much less crowded, but unfortunately that is the way that it stayed most of the the day . . . cooking and cleaning and eating with yoojin.
finally, however, yoojin finished his day and went to sleep, so my own anxiety kept me up working on the remaining sixty percent of the not satisfactorily 'basic' emotion words that I had indexed from the transcripts . . . ended up with around 8-10 clusters in this group that do not clearly fit into the 6 basic emotions. clusters like: general anxiety, bad characteristics with embedded emotions (eg. "bastard"), or embarrassment and guilt. still a few words did not fit well in any of these clusters. anyway, those slips of paper are still on the table to be tabulated and packaged up. will do that first thing in the morning.
read yoonhwa's peer review notes. I think I understood them . . . a couple of questions to ask . . . and then I have to do what she recommended.
what else to do:
bachelor dad and doing data analysis. yoojin is so good and helpful. ok he does not always do what he is told, but he is cute about asking and tries to do what is right. if you ask him--sometimes it takes ten or fifteen tries--he will do something. he honestly wants to help--particularly when you make brownies.
first thing I did this morning was some simple counting of the words that clearly fit into the basic emotions categories, as well as establishing the clusters of words that represent the intensity of each emotion. then put those numbers in a spreadsheet. then wrapped up the little bits of paper and made mini envelopes for them. all that left the table much less crowded, but unfortunately that is the way that it stayed most of the the day . . . cooking and cleaning and eating with yoojin.
finally, however, yoojin finished his day and went to sleep, so my own anxiety kept me up working on the remaining sixty percent of the not satisfactorily 'basic' emotion words that I had indexed from the transcripts . . . ended up with around 8-10 clusters in this group that do not clearly fit into the 6 basic emotions. clusters like: general anxiety, bad characteristics with embedded emotions (eg. "bastard"), or embarrassment and guilt. still a few words did not fit well in any of these clusters. anyway, those slips of paper are still on the table to be tabulated and packaged up. will do that first thing in the morning.
read yoonhwa's peer review notes. I think I understood them . . . a couple of questions to ask . . . and then I have to do what she recommended.
what else to do:
- conduct a secondary coding of the data.
- code the different behavioral characteristics: kinesic, proxemic, or whatever.
- look at how the participants coded the basic emotions and of their intensity.
- outline chapter 4
- revise the methodology section regarding data collection and data analysis.
- look at the edits for the first three chapters.
- write my advisor.
- contact the program and register for courses.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
the second day of the rest of the dissertation
Taking care of a four year old can be like juggling cats.
Taking care of a four year old and trying to do data analysis on your dissertation is like juggling cats until they fall asleep, and then propping your eyes open while you juggle around your categories while praying that they will make some sense to other human beings, because nothing really makes much sense after all that cat juggling.
Nonetheless, I took the emotion words and put them into Ekman's categories (ADHFSS: anger, disgust, happiness, fear, sadness, surprise), and started to look at some other things that are going on with the character of our focus group discussions.
One thing I can say is there was a fairly frequent and deep conversation on happiness, fear, and anger; but little about disgust, sadness, and surprise. Of course, that has a lot to do with the clips that were watched. Another interesting thing that I noticed was that, linguistically speaking, we have a fairly good cluster of words around in happiness, fear and anger that serve to represent pretty straightforwardly the emotions, but also show a pretty subtle palate of intensities. For example, words in the angry constellation ranged from enraged and outraged to irritated and annoyed in our conversation.
Yet there were EVEN MORE words that did not really fit in any of these categories, but were also clearly emotion words. Where does "guilt" fit in. The point of the study is not really to do a discourse or conversation analysis, so this part need be only a little superficial, but the point here is to help show that in discussing the culture differences around emotion, we are going to need a fairly wide range of vocabulary to get to the subtle differences in emotion words and words to depict mixed emotions and varying emotional intensities.
OK. Tomorrow, I finish the categories to see if some additional clusters of emotion words crop up in the "not ADHFSS" words. Also want to review yoonhwa's comments on the first run of coding. Finally, want to try and run codes on the which cues were paid attention to in interpreting the emotions.
Day two of the last of the dissertation is done.
Taking care of a four year old and trying to do data analysis on your dissertation is like juggling cats until they fall asleep, and then propping your eyes open while you juggle around your categories while praying that they will make some sense to other human beings, because nothing really makes much sense after all that cat juggling.
Nonetheless, I took the emotion words and put them into Ekman's categories (ADHFSS: anger, disgust, happiness, fear, sadness, surprise), and started to look at some other things that are going on with the character of our focus group discussions.
One thing I can say is there was a fairly frequent and deep conversation on happiness, fear, and anger; but little about disgust, sadness, and surprise. Of course, that has a lot to do with the clips that were watched. Another interesting thing that I noticed was that, linguistically speaking, we have a fairly good cluster of words around in happiness, fear and anger that serve to represent pretty straightforwardly the emotions, but also show a pretty subtle palate of intensities. For example, words in the angry constellation ranged from enraged and outraged to irritated and annoyed in our conversation.
Yet there were EVEN MORE words that did not really fit in any of these categories, but were also clearly emotion words. Where does "guilt" fit in. The point of the study is not really to do a discourse or conversation analysis, so this part need be only a little superficial, but the point here is to help show that in discussing the culture differences around emotion, we are going to need a fairly wide range of vocabulary to get to the subtle differences in emotion words and words to depict mixed emotions and varying emotional intensities.
OK. Tomorrow, I finish the categories to see if some additional clusters of emotion words crop up in the "not ADHFSS" words. Also want to review yoonhwa's comments on the first run of coding. Finally, want to try and run codes on the which cues were paid attention to in interpreting the emotions.
Day two of the last of the dissertation is done.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
starting today
so the whole point of making this blog is to force me to write every day -- and to write about my dissertation -- and to think about my dissertation.
The dissertation is about the differences in how Koreans and North Americans interpret the emotions that are communicated by Korean people.
This is what I have so far:
The dissertation is about the differences in how Koreans and North Americans interpret the emotions that are communicated by Korean people.
This is what I have so far:
- I've conducted maybe half a dozen focus groups with both Korean people and Western people.
- I have had those focus groups audio recordings transcribed and where necessary translated into English.
- I've gone through and put a preliminary set of codes on those transcripts.
- I've asked my peer reviewer to look over those codes, and she has come back to me with a reply -- that I have not read yet :-(.
- I have indexed all the emotion words in the transcripts in order to cross reference those emotion words to among other things basic emotions.
- I've developed a coding system for categorizing the different sorts of behavioral characteristics that are used to justify the interpretation of specific emotions [ E.g. whether it's tone of voice, facial expression, situational interpretation, or something else ].
- I need to read the peer reviewer notes.
- I need to take into consideration those notes as I conduct a secondary coding of the data.
- I need to look at the different behavioral characteristics that have been mentioned in the text and code those. Whether they are kinesic, proxemic, or whatever.
- I need to go back in revised my methodology section to indicate what I have actually done in data collection and data analysis.
- I need to go back and look at the edits that Schwandt gave me and incorporate them in the first three chapters.
- I need to... um... write chapters four and five.
- I need to write my thesis advisor.
- I need to contact the program and register for courses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
