694 vI. SELF‑ AND S OCIAL P ROCESSES
recognition (e.g., embarrassment; Chung & 
Robins, 2015) and emotional expressive -
ness (Matsumoto, Yoo, & Fontaine, 2008). 
Rychlowska et al. (2015) found that these 
variations could be due to differences in 
historical migration patterns. In the nations 
in which current populations descend from 
diverse ethnic groups (e.g., United States, 
Australia), residents were found to be more 
expressive than those in the nations whose 
current populations descend from homo -
geneous groups (e.g., South Korea, Japan). 
Intriguingly, historical heterogeneity pre -
dicted expressiveness above and beyond 
individualism–  collectivism, residential mo -
bility, and latitude. The basic idea is that 
in a heterogeneous population, people need 
to express their emotions and intentions 
very explicitly to avoid misunderstandings, 
whereas in a homogeneous population, peo -
ple need not do so. Studies like this one help 
advance our understanding of the “why” of 
cultural variations.
It is important to note that many studies 
on emotion show cross-  cultural similarities 
at the basic structural level and differences 
in terms of correlates. For instance, Shi et al. 
(2015) found that the structure of pride is 
authentic and hubristic among North Amer -
icans, Chinese, and Koreans. Likewise, 
Tracy and colleagues (2013) found that ex -
pression of pride and happiness was asso -
ciated with high status both among North 
Americans and Fijians, but Fijians viewed 
happiness expression as a stronger indicator 
of high status than did Americans.
Like pride and happiness, anger is a uni -
versal emotion. Yet a relatively recent study 
has shown clearly that anger expression is 
differentially associated with physical health 
across cultures (Kitayama et al., 2015). 
Whereas anger expression was associated 
with inflammation and higher cardiovascu -
lar risk in the United States, it was associ -
ated with lower levels of inflammations and 
cardiovascular risk in Japan (Kitayama et 
al., 2015; also see Curhan et al., 2014, for 
similar results about negative affect in gen -
eral), even after researchers controlled for 
age, gender, health status, health behaviors, 
social status, and the experience of negative 
emotions. This pattern of results indicates 
that the expression of anger in the two cul -
tural contexts might serve as a reliable index of different experiences. Whereas in the 
United States anger expression may index 
how much an individual is vulnerable and 
exposed to negative life events (e.g., life dif -
ficulties, annoyances, and frustrations), in 
Japan, it may index how empowered and en -
titled an individual is.
More recent research also has revealed 
some cultural variations in emotion within 
the West, with results that highlight the 
unique emphasis American culture places on 
positivity, the self, and agency. For instance, 
when expressing sympathy, Americans focus 
more on the positive and less on the negative 
compared to Germans (Koopmann-  Holm 
& Tsai, 2014). The dictionary definition 
of happiness focuses on the satisfaction of 
one’s desires and goals in the United States, 
whereas it focuses on good luck and fortune 
in Germany, France, and Norway (as well 
as Senegal, South Africa, Turkey, Romania; 
Oishi et al., 2013). Interestingly, Oishi et 
al.’s analyses of the State of the Union ad -
dresses (1790–2010) and books published 
since 1800 showed that even in the United 
States, the main definition of happiness cen -
tered around good luck and fortune until the 
1920s. The “good luck and fortune” defi -
nition of happiness suggests that the active 
pursuit of happiness is not realistic, whereas 
the “satisfaction of one’s desires and goals” 
definition of happiness suggests that active 
pursuit of happiness is possible.
Ironically, however, active pursuit of hap -
piness was negatively associated with subjec -
tive well-being among Americans, whereas 
it was unrelated to subjective well-being 
among Germans, and positively correlated 
with subjective well-being among Russians, 
Japanese and Taiwanese (Ford et al., 2015). 
These results hint to some possible cultural 
differences in the motivational basis of hap -
piness goals. Given American culture’s em -
phasis on happiness and positivity, it might 
be that Americans who are not happy about 
the current life conditions actively seek hap -
piness to fulfill this cultural mandate. Re -
latedly, a recent cross-  cultural study also 
showed that people in Malaysia, Singapore, 
Pakistan, Japan, and Taiwan thought that 
happiness is far more fragile (e.g., “Some -
thing might happen at any time and we 
could easily lose our happiness”) than people 
in Brazil, Russia, South Korea, Hong Kong, 