The economic well-being of nations is associated with positive daily situational experiences

People in economically advantaged nations tend to evaluate their life as more positive overall and report greater well-being than people in less advantaged nations. But how does positivity manifest in the daily life experiences of individuals around the world? The present study asked 15,244 college students from 62 nations, in 42 languages, to describe a situation they experienced the previous day using the Riverside Situational Q-sort (RSQ). Using expert ratings, the overall positivity of each situation was calculated for both nations and individuals. The positivity of the average situation in each nation was strongly related to the economic development of the nation as measured by the Human Development Index (HDI). For individuals’ daily experiences, the economic status of their nation also predicted the positivity of their experience, even more than their family socioeconomic status. Further analyses revealed the specific characteristics of the average situations for higher HDI nations that make their experiences more positive. Higher HDI was associated with situational experiences involving humor, socializing with others, and the potential to express emotions and fantasies. Lower HDI was associated with an increase in the presence of threats, blame, and hostility, as well as situational experiences consisting of family, religion, and money. Despite the increase in a few negative situational characteristics in lower HDI countries, the overall average experience still ranged from neutral to slightly positive, rather than negative, suggesting that greater HDI may not necessarily increase positive experiences but rather decrease negative experiences. The results illustrate how national economic status influences the lives of individuals even within a single instance of daily life, with large and powerful consequences when accumulated across individuals within each nation

Assessing the Similarity of Injunctive Norm Profiles across Different Social Roles: The Effect of Closeness and Status in the USA and China

Do social roles affect injunctive norms for behavior and more so in Chinese than American cultural contexts? We use mixed methods to analyze open-ended data describing appropriate behavior within social roles that differ in interpersonal closeness and relative status. American (N = 401) and Chinese (N = 392) participants provided descriptions of ideal behavior of two actors in one of 16 role dyads. The 2,219 (American) and 1,466 (Chinese) behavior descriptions were coded into 71 content categories, forming profiles of appropriate behavior for six social roles (Close/Distant × Low/Equal/High status). First, we adapt a method for assessing profile similarity in personality psychology to quantitatively evaluate how closeness and status affect similarity between the six social roles. By separating profiles into normative (average behavior) and distinctive (behavior specific to a particular social role) components, we find that distinctive behavioral profiles for specific social roles vary systematically by closeness/status in both American and Chinese data; we also find a larger effect of closeness in Chinese data. Second, we qualitatively analyze the content of the distinctive behavioral profiles through the lens of the rapport management model, showing how rights and obligations associated with each role vary, and finding cultural differences in which behaviors appropriately manage these expectations. Quantitative findings emphasize the cross-cultural importance of interpersonal situations for determining appropriate behavior, with some evidence for a greater effect in Chinese culture; qualitative results reveal the culturally specific ways in which relational situations direct expectations for behavior

De Pulchritudine non est Disputandum? A cross-cultural investigation of the alleged intersubjective validity of aesthetic judgment

Since at least Hume and Kant, philosophers working on the nature of aesthetic judgment have generally agreed that common sense does not treat aesthetic judgments in the same way as typical expressions of subjective preferences\u2014rather, it endows them with intersubjective validity, the property of being right or wrong regardless of disagreement. Moreover, this apparent intersubjective validity has been taken to constitute one of the main explananda for philosophical accounts of aesthetic judgment. But is it really the case that most people spontaneously treat aesthetic judgments as having intersubjective validity? In this paper, we report the results of a cross-cultural study with over 2,000 respondents spanning 19 countries. Despite significant geographical variations, these results suggest that most people do not treat their own aesthetic judgments as having intersubjective validity. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for theories of aesthetic judgment and the purpose of aesthetics in general