The Effectiveness of Somatization in Communicating Distress in Korean and American Cultural Contexts.

Eunsoo Choi, Yulia Chentsova-Dutton, W Gerrod Parrott
Author Information
  1. Eunsoo Choi: Japanese Society for the Promotion Fellowship, Kokoro Research Center, Kyoto University Kyoto, Japan.
  2. Yulia Chentsova-Dutton: Department of Psychology, Georgetown University, Washington DC, USA.
  3. W Gerrod Parrott: Department of Psychology, Georgetown University, Washington DC, USA.

Abstract

Previous research has documented that Asians tend to somatize negative experiences to a greater degree than Westerners. It is posited that somatization may be a more functional communication strategy in Korean than American context. We examined the effects of somatization in communications of distress among participants from the US and Korea. We predicted that the communicative benefits of somatic words used in distress narratives would depend on the cultural contexts. In Study 1, we found that Korean participants used more somatic words to communicate distress than US participants. Among Korean participants, but not US participants, use of somatic words predicted perceived effectiveness of the communication and expectations of positive reactions (e.g., empathy) from others. In Study 2, we found that when presented with distress narratives of others, Koreans (but not Americans) showed more sympathy in response to narratives using somatic words than narratives using emotional words. These findings suggest that cultural differences in use of somatization may reflect differential effectiveness of somatization in communicating distress across cultural contexts.

Keywords

References

  1. Novartis Found Symp. 2007;278:71-80; discussion 80-96, 216-21 [PMID: 17214311]
  2. Psychosom Med. 2007 Dec;69(9):832-40 [PMID: 18040090]
  3. J Affect Disord. 2011 Dec;135(1-3):111-4 [PMID: 21794924]
  4. Psychol Sci. 2008 Jun;19(6):579-84 [PMID: 18578848]
  5. Am Psychol. 2008 Sep;63(6):518-26 [PMID: 18793039]
  6. Am J Psychiatry. 2001 Jun;158(6):857-64 [PMID: 11384889]
  7. Psychol Sci. 2013 Sep;24(9):1809-15 [PMID: 23846717]
  8. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004 Sep;87(3):354-62 [PMID: 15382985]
  9. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994 Apr;66(4):776-97 [PMID: 8189352]
  10. Psychol Bull. 2004 Sep;130(5):711-47 [PMID: 15367078]
  11. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2004 Sep;30(9):1226-38 [PMID: 15359024]
  12. Transcult Psychiatry. 2007 Jun;44(2):171-202 [PMID: 17576725]
  13. Cult Med Psychiatry. 2013 Mar;37(1):81-104 [PMID: 23229388]
  14. Am Psychol. 1990 Mar;45(3):347-55 [PMID: 2310083]
  15. Psychol Sci. 2007 Sep;18(9):831-7 [PMID: 17760781]
  16. Cult Med Psychiatry. 1984 Dec;8(4):371-80 [PMID: 6499507]
  17. Cult Med Psychiatry. 1982 Jun;6(2):117-90 [PMID: 7116909]
  18. Front Psychol. 2013 Jun 27;4:377 [PMID: 23818884]
  19. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991 Sep;61(3):459-70 [PMID: 1941517]
  20. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2012 Mar;35(1):15-36 [PMID: 22370488]
  21. Soc Sci Med. 1989;29(3):327-39 [PMID: 2669146]
  22. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2006 Dec;32(12):1595-607 [PMID: 17122173]
  23. Psychosom Med. 1994 Jul-Aug;56(4):353-9 [PMID: 7972618]
  24. Behav Res Methods. 2009 Aug;41(3):924-36 [PMID: 19587209]
  25. Perception. 2004;33(6):717-46 [PMID: 15330366]
  26. Behav Brain Sci. 2002 Feb;25(1):1-20; discussion 20-71 [PMID: 12625087]
  27. Emotion. 2007 Feb;7(1):30-48 [PMID: 17352561]
  28. Annu Rev Psychol. 2003;54:547-77 [PMID: 12185209]
  29. BMC Med. 2011 Jul 26;9:90 [PMID: 21791035]
  30. Soc Sci Med. 1982;16(16):1519-30 [PMID: 7135026]
  31. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2010 Jul;5(4):482-93 [PMID: 26162194]
  32. Cult Med Psychiatry. 1984 Sep;8(3):207-28 [PMID: 6488844]
  33. Psychiatry Investig. 2009 Mar;6(1):7-12 [PMID: 20046367]
  34. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1997 Apr;72(4):863-71 [PMID: 9108699]
  35. Behav Res Ther. 2005 Sep;43(9):1203-18 [PMID: 16005706]
  36. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Apr;84(4):857-70 [PMID: 12703653]
  37. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999 Dec;77(6):1296-312 [PMID: 10626371]
  38. Am Psychol. 2000 Nov;55(11):1217-30 [PMID: 11280936]
  39. Soc Sci Med. 2003 Nov;57(10):1833-45 [PMID: 14499509]
  40. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996 Mar;70(3):614-36 [PMID: 8851745]
  41. Psychosom Med. 1998 Jul-Aug;60(4):420-30 [PMID: 9710287]
  42. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2011 Nov;15(4):367-93 [PMID: 21693670]
  43. J Abnorm Psychol. 2008 May;117(2):300-13 [PMID: 18489206]
  44. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991 Sep;61(3):413-26 [PMID: 1941512]
  45. Psychol Sci. 2007 Jul;18(7):600-6 [PMID: 17614868]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0distresssomatizationparticipantswordsKoreansomaticnarrativescommunicationUSculturalmayAmericanpredictedusedcontextsStudyfounduseeffectivenessempathyothersusingPreviousresearchdocumentedAsianstendsomatizenegativeexperiencesgreaterdegreeWesternerspositedfunctionalstrategycontextexaminedeffectscommunicationsamongKoreacommunicativebenefitsdepend1communicateAmongperceivedexpectationspositivereactionseg2presentedKoreansAmericansshowedsympathyresponseemotionalfindingssuggestdifferencesreflectdifferentialcommunicatingacrossEffectivenessSomatizationCommunicatingDistressCulturalContextscultureemotions

Similar Articles

Cited By (19)