Emotion experience and regulation in China and the United States: How do culture and gender shape emotion responding?

Culture and gender shape emotion experience and regulation, in part because the value placed on emotions and the manner of their expression is thought to vary across these groups. This study tested the hypothesis that culture and gender would interact to predict people's emotion responding (emotion intensity and regulatory strategies). Chinese (n=220; 52% female) and American undergraduates (n=241; 62% female) viewed photos intended to elicit negative emotions after receiving instructions to either \"just feel\" any emotions that arose (Just Feel), or to \"do something\" so that they would not experience any emotion while viewing the photos (Regulate). All participants then rated the intensity of their experienced emotions and described any emotion-regulation strategies that they used while viewing the photos. Consistent with predictions, culture and gender interacted with experimental condition to predict intensity: Chinese men reported relatively low levels of emotion, whereas American women reported relatively high levels of emotion. Disengagement strategies (especially distancing) were related to lower emotional intensity and were reported most often by Chinese men. Taken together, findings suggest that emotion-regulation strategies may contribute to differences in emotional experience across Western and East Asian cultures.     

How and when do students use flashcards?

Previous survey research has documented students' use of self-regulated study strategies, with a particular interest in self-testing. These surveys indicate that students frequently use flashcards to self-test and that self-testing is primarily used as a way to monitor learning. Whereas previous surveys provide information about whether and why students self-test, they provide minimal information about how and when students choose to self-test. Accordingly, the primary purpose of the current survey was to explore how and when students engage in self-testing. We surveyed 374 undergraduates about the amount of practice and the timing of practice, two factors that strongly affect the efficacy of self-testing. Results indicate that students understand the benefits of practising to higher criterion levels (amount of practice) but do not typically implement or understand the benefits of practising with longer lags (timing of practice). We discuss practical implications for supporting more successful student learning.