Can culture and universalism co-exist in affective neuroscience?

In the last few decades, data on the brain basis of basic emotions has produced a new approach to personality: affective neuroscience personality theory (ANPT) (Davis et al., 2003;Panksepp, 1998). The ANPT has utilized the Affective Neuroscience Personality Scale (ANPS), designed to measure subcortical affective systems; CARE, PLAY, SEEK, ANGER, SADNESS, FEAR (Davis et al., 2003). The account suggests that the strengths and weeknesses found in the universally-shared subcortical affective systems are the epigenetic predictors of personality traits (Davis 2018;Panksepp 2017). Despite this shift, the cultural influences on ANP profiles were still unexplored.Cross-cultural Affective Neuroscience (CAN, Özkarar, 2012) aimed to measure the influence of culture on these basic affective systems. CAN now constitutes a substantial body of work (Özkarar-Gradwohl et al., 2014;2019;Özkarar-Gradwohl et al., 2018;Özkarar-Gradwohl Amiri Cwojdzińska De Almeida, 2016;Geier et al., 2014;Gurfinkel et al., 2018;Montag et al., 2017;Narita et al., 2017;Özkarar-Gradwohl et al., 2014;Pahlavan et al., 2008;Pascazio et al., 2015;Pingault et al., 2012;Reuter et al., 2017;Sinderman et al., 2018;Volf Yu et al., 2016;).The original reliability and validity findings (Davis et al., 2003) were confirmed by all these studies, though a systematic review was not reported. The reliability of the ANPS, across different cultures, was first reviewed by CAN (Özkarar-Gradwohl, 2019). The original U.S. study had shown positive inter-correlations within positive and negative affects, suggesting higher-order universal personality factors (Davis et al., 2003). CAN pointed that this finding exists also for Spanish, French, Turkish, Italian, Japanese, and German samples (Özkarar-Gradwohl, 2019).The construct validity of the original ANPS study (Davis et al., 2003) was measured in relation to the Big Five Scales (B5S) (Goldberg, 1990). CAN detected similar correlation patterns in Spain, Germany, Japan and Türkiye (Özkarar-Gradwohl, 2019). These universal patterns included positive correlations between FEAR/SADNESS/ANGER and Neuroticism, high CARE/low ANGER and Agreeableness, SEEK and Openness to Experience, and finally between PLAY and Extraversion. However, certain culturally-specific correlational patterns between the ANPS and B5S were also noticed. Notably, PLAY was positively correlated with Agreeableness in Japanese and Turkish samples, SEEK was positively correlated with all B5 (except Neuroticism) and FEAR was negatively correlated with Extraversion in Japanese sample (Narita et al., 2017;Özkarar-Gradwohl et al., 2014). Therefore, the universal patterns needed to be investigated further more systematically. Marengo et al. (2021) supplied such a meta-analysis over all studies that include ANPS-B5S findings (21 samples from 12 countries). Significant relationships were obtained between FEAR/SADNESS/ANGER and Neuroticism; SEEKing and Openness; PLAY and Extraversion; and high CARE/low ANGER and high Aggreeableness. Therefore, this first meta-analysis showed that the cortical cognitive Big 5 factors can be universally mapped to the subcortical affective roots measured by the ANPS.Moreover, a CAN review of gender effects in 15 countries showed that universal gender effects do exist: notably higher CARE and SADNESS for females, and equal levels of SEEKING and ANGER for both genders (Özkarar-Gradwohl Irish, 2025;Khan et al., 2017;Matsumoto Thalmayer et.al, 2022). Cultural neuroscience also warned that almost 90% of the fMRI publications come from Western countries, lacking diversity (Chiao, 2017;Chiao 2008), but not yet for the ANPS.CAN was the first to attend to this issue (Özkarar, 2012), by demonstrating the presence of cultural differences, besides the universal similarities (Özkarar-Gradwohl et al., 2014;2018;Özkarar-Gradwohl, 2019;Özkarar-Gradwohl and German rationalism in supressing most affects (Özkarar-Gradwohl et al., 2014;2018). Other themes were: separation-reinforcing parenting styles in the West versus the symbiotic parenting styles in the East (Friedlmeier Friedlmeier et al. 2011;Roland, 1996), and the separation-withoutdetachment style in Türkiye (Özkarar-Gradwohl et al., 2014;2018). However, these discussions were mostly theoretical assumptions, and additional methods are needed to test them further. Moreover, the influence of all types of caregiving styles, including fathering styles, needs to be explored. Moreover, these initial CAN studies were carried out only between two or three cultures (Özkarar-Gradwohl, 2019), therefore a larger-scale ANPS review, on gender effects, was completed across 15 countries (Özkarar-Gradwohl Luo and Han 2014). Nevertheless, these data again suggested the presence of cultural differences. Cultural differences were also observed for affective polarization and affective complexity (Özkarar-Gradwohl, 2019). Although positive and negative affects are universal higher-order personality factors, certain cultures showed higher number of intercorrelations between positive and negative affects (e.g. Persian, Turkish, Japanese samples). This was alligned with the literature showing increased affective complexity and dialectical thinking in Eastern, and affective polarization in Western cultures (Peng Spencer-Rodgers et al., 2010).In sum, CAN demonstrated evidences for the cultural differences in subcortical affective traits, as measured by ANPS. These supplied primary examples on where universalism of ANPT can interact with culture. Moreover, to improve the discussions beyond theoretical assumptions, these culture-specific findings were later explored in relation to connectedness/separateness.Cultural studies define connectedness (interdependence/relatedness) and separateness (independence/autonomy) as two distinct ways of constructing the self in relation to the social group (Markus Singelis, 1994). The two main variables influencing connectedness and separateness are found to be culture and gender, with Eastern cultures (and females) having higher connectedness, while Western cultures (and males) having higher separateness (Bekker et.al., 2011;Kağıtçıbaşı, 2005;Markus Singelis, 1994;Triandis, 1995;Van Assen Triandis 2002). These geographical stereotypes need to be corrected by objective assessments of connectedness/separateness (for criticisms see, Kirmayer, 2012;Voronov 2019).As regards gender, the finding (Özkarar-Gradwohl Van Assen Luo and Han 2014).Interestingly, the levels of ANGER (an affect disrupting connectedness/ activating separateness) did not differ between genders (Özkarar-Gradwohl 2018), pointing to the need of further cultural studies on testosterone.Clearly, future CAN studies must investigate the interaction effects of culture and gender on ANPS.The limitations in all cultural sciences apply also to CAN. Notable examples are narrowness of range in sampling (e.g. limitations in range of age and education, comparison of urban/rural, or ethnic groups) and in procedures (e.g. defining samples based on geography, observing the variables loading on raw scores). There may be also a question of measurement invariance of ANPS. However, the meta-analysis by Marengo et al. (2017) shows that ANPS possess strong measurement invariance not only across genders and over time, but across different cultures and different forms of ANPS as well. Taking these under consideration, CAN demonstrates sufficiently that universally shared basic affective systems are regulated differently across cultures. CAN thus presents a hybrid model, where universal similarities and cultural differences can co-exist (Irish, 2025), and where each culture has a different (perhaps unique) affective personality profile (Özkarar-Gradwohl, 2019). However, issues of methodology still need to be improved, and discussions need to be grounded beyond assumptions.A systematic improvement would be establishing of a global affective map (designed like heat maps for each basic affect, separately for both genders), and grounding this affective map. Such a map may be developed by standardizing the scores from different versions of the ANPS, and comparing these standardized z-scores. The outcome might enlighten the global affective networks alongside the regional similarities. It may also facilitate the observation of both between and within culture variations. On a macro-scale, such a map may help the crosscultural arguments to evolve beyond simple East-West dichotomies, by also adding North-South comparisons. The validation of this map can be supplied by its correlations to the B5 (Schmitt et al., 2007;2008) and Self-Construals (Vignoles et al., 2016).For grounding the global affective map and the discussions, CAN needs to be integrated with surrounding research fields. Firstly, the ANPS findings should be combined with developmental nurture variables, such as: duration of breast-feeding, onset of toilettraining, co-sleeping in parents' room, maternal and paternal attachment styles, family models, and emotion socializations. Such a developmental grounding might support the main premises of CAN, by enlightening the influence of nurture on basic affective systems.Secondly, neuroscientific variables might be better integrated to the CAN studies. These might include neuro-anotomical, neuro-functional, and neuro-chemical assessments, to better clarify the 'nature' variables for CAN. In sum, the grounding of the global affective map by these developmental and neuroscientific methods would clearly enhance CAN.The evidence in this paper support the main hypothesis of CAN, that universal affective systems are also regulated differently by cultures. Thus, universalism and culture can co-exist in affective neuroscience. Applying the recommendations suggested above may strengthen this new-born theory. Notably, these findings can also be utilized to develop culture-sensitive therapies, where psychotherapy techniques and goals are modified according to culture (Özkarar-Gradwohl, 2018).