Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, used the Greek myth of Narcissus to describe narcissism. Later psychoanalysts, including Heinz Kohut, Karen Horney, and Otto Kernberg, built on Freud’s foundation to refine the concept. The development of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), a compilation of all mental disorders, permitted professionals to diagnose and treat them, including narcissistic personality disorder. Social-personality psychologists took the DSM description and developed psychometric tests to measure grandiose, vulnerable, collective, and other forms of narcissism. Despite professional disagreement about narcissistic personality disorder, it is clear mental health professionals have identified a constellation of traits and behaviors that are recognizable even by laypersons. Exploitativeness and retaliation, both part of narcissism, can be personally and socially harmful.

This chapter explores the foundations from which cultural variability in emotion emerges by providing a theoretical framework to query degrees of universality for different emotion components. We first review two dominant approaches in affective science that diverge on the extent to which culture is deemed central for emotion: the basic emotions approach and the psychological constructionist approach. Then we apply Norenzayan and Heine’s hierarchical system of cultural universals to the empirical literature on cultural variation in two components of emotion: felt experience and nonverbal expression. In reviewing representative sets of findings, we suggest that while some aspects of emotional experience may be existential universals, nonverbal expressions may reflect functional universals. Our chapter emphasizes the interplay between biological preparedness and cultural learning in shaping emotions. To enable fruitful discussions between scholars of varied research traditions, we advocate for a common set of criteria to evaluate cultural similarities and differences in emotion.

Individuals engage in a variety of narcissistic crimes. Scientists such as Stephen Breuning and Erif Poehlman committed serious research misconduct for which they were criminally charged. Actresses Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman were involved in the Varsity Blues college admission scandal. Those committing sex offenses include Dr. Robert Hadden, Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Donald Trump.

This chapter documents how cultural variation in emotion is not arbitrary, but follows a “cultural logic.” It examines how cultural models of independence and interdependence – along with their associated interpersonal goals and focus – co-occur with the emotions people both value (their ideal affect) and actually experience. For example, people in independent cultures (e.g., the United States) tend to value high arousal positive states like excitement more, and report socially disengaging emotions like anger more than people in interdependent cultures (e.g., East Asia), who tend to place greater value on low arousal positive states like calm and more frequently report socially engaging emotions like shame. These differences emerge across every level of the cultural cycle: in individual behaviors, social interactions, institutional practices, and broader cultural ideas. The chapter highlights how these cultural logics shape various aspects of life, including social judgments, resource sharing, and well-being. and concludes by outlining a roadmap for future research.

In this chapter, we review emerging evidence on cultural differences in emotion regulation by featuring three key aspects. First, cultural contexts influence what people want to feel (i.e., emotion goals). Second, cultural contexts shape the means with which people try to change their emotions (i.e., emotion regulation strategies). Third, cultural contexts guide the extent to which people attend to emotions. Furthermore, cultural contexts influence the association between emotion regulation and well-being. Engaging in emotion regulation valued within one’s cultural contexts tends to be associated with better well-being and health, whereas engaging in devalued emotion regulation tends to be associated with poorer well-being and health. These findings on cultural differences in emotion regulation and their consequences for well-being and health provide insight into how cultural meaning systems shape individuals’ emotional experiences.

Deficits and excesses in emotional experience and behavior are central transdiagnostic features of mental illness. This chapter examines how culture shapes the impact of mental illness on emotional functioning. It draws on insights from clinical psychology, affective science, and cultural psychology, and identifies areas ripe for integration and interdisciplinary work. Despite differences in levels of analysis, target populations, theories, and methodologies, these fields are united in their efforts to understand how people interpret bottom-up changes (e.g., subjective reports of emotions and symptoms, physiological reactivity) using top-down categorical judgments that are consensually shared within local cultural contexts (e.g., culturally salient forms of distress). These processes in turn shape experiences of distress. It synthesizes empirical research to examine how patterns of emotional functioning give rise to both culturally divergent and convergent experiences of mental illness, with implications for both the treatment of mental illness and mental health education.

This chapter builds on the premise that emotions are relational acts: they reveal partners’ intentions and are geared toward relationship goals. Given that these goals differ across cultures, the emotions that arise and unfold during couples’ interactions – particularly during conflict – also differ. For example, in cultures that emphasize autonomy in relationships, annoyance is commonly experienced, whereas in cultures that prioritize harmony, empathy and validation are prevalent. This chapter explores how cultural ideals for “good” relationships shape not only which emotions are felt and expressed, but also how partners respond to each other’s and regulate their own emotions in ways that support those ideals. Finally, the chapter highlights evidence suggesting that couples are most satisfied with their relationships when their emotions align with culturally valued relationship goals. It concludes by discussing gaps in the literature and offering recommendations for future research.

Fairness norms operate in virtually every area of social endeavor. There are several common behavioral responses to exchanges between social actors. Exploitation and retaliation, both of which are threats to fairness, are closely associated with narcissism. Other behavioral responses include cooperation, reciprocity, acquiescence, withdrawal, and altruism. Social movements such as Black Lives Matter and #MeToo are collective responses to profound unfairness.

This introductory chapter outlines the central premise of The Cultural Shaping of Emotion: Emotions vary across cultures in meaningful ways as they are shaped by the meanings and practices of the social worlds we inhabit. It introduces working definitions of both “emotion” and “culture” and reviews the historical debate between universalist and constructionist approaches to emotion. It advocates for a nuanced view that can accompany the reader throughout the rest of the book. This first chapter also situates the book’s next eleven chapters in three parts that explore i) a cultural logic to emotion; ii) how cultural differences in emotions come about; and iii) emotion dynamics in multicultural societies. As such, it sets out a coherent narrative for understanding how culture and emotion shape one another. In closing, it sketches how we can employ this book’s insights via a “culturally-informed not-knowing approach” in both research and daily life.

Narcissism has garnered a great deal of attention in the early twenty-first century. Because sociology has dominated much thinking in criminology, personality styles including narcissism have not received as much attention. Analysts can conceive of narcissism more broadly and, in doing so, attempt to explain the various forms of unfairness that take the form of crimes.

Of the crimes making contemporary news, mass shootings occur too frequently and result in a tremendous loss of life. Many represent offenders attempting to get even with immigrants, minorities, and others they think have hurt mainstream American culture. Sex offenders include trusted adults such as scout leaders, physicians, and politicians who victimize children, patients, and employees. Some offenders are highly educated and behave as though they are entitled to violate norms and laws. These contemporary offenses involve either exploitation or retaliation in response to a grievance. Both these behavioral responses are associated with the personality style known as narcissism.

Narcissism in America is a maladaptive posture that infects individuals, organizations, social movements, and even the entire country. A comprehensive strategy to address narcissism in the future should include primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention. Young people can learn to not exploit or retaliate. Organizations should weed out narcissistic leaders who can corrupt the entire organization. Those eligible to vote should support candidates and issues that advance cooperation, reciprocity, and altruism. Future research should include countries like the Russian Federation to better understand how a democracy can take a dark turn toward autocracy. AI could express itself narcissistically, and this warrants thoughtful study.

The roots of American narcissism can be traced back to its beginnings. European whites fled to North America to escape repression. Once settled, they assumed a posture of superiority toward Native Americans, black slaves, Chinese immigrants, and others. After the Civil War, American narcissism expressed itself differently through the forced assimilation of Native tribes and the influence of white supremacists, robber barons, eugenics, and Donald Trump’s MAGA movement. Despite advances in civil rights, the United States in the twenty-first century evidences a great deal of support for a narcissistic posture.

This chapter documents a cultural logic to the content of emotions, linking cultural models of agency to different emotional conceptualizations, appraisals, and connotations. The authors argue that emotions can either be conceptualized as originating from within the individual, aligning with a disjoint model of agency, or as emerging from social interactions, reflecting a conjoint model of agency. They further show how cultural differences in both the magnitude and relevance of appraisals align people’s emotional experiences with their cultural context. Specifically, experiences of happiness, anger, and awe, are found to come in different variants, implying that the “same” emotion can be associated with slightly different appraisal patterns. By relying on the Natural Semantic Metalanguage research approach, the chapter finally highlights some likely universal and highly cultural specific aspects of emotion experience. The chapter concludes by suggesting future research directions, including the integration of cultural neuroscience and the analysis of emotions in social media.