Niedenthal et al. posit an embodied model for perceiving the meaning of smiles through implicit simulation. As noted in section 6, the model is grounded on insights taken from predominately individualistic cultures. This commentary focuses on two culturally limited aspects of the SIMS model. First, the model emphasizes that eye contact serves as a triggering mechanism for the activation of embodied simulations. Second, the model explicates three principal functions that smiles and the simulation of those smiles serve in interpersonal settings. There are compelling reasons to believe that differences in social and environmental context will modulate these particular components of the model.

Eye contact may not provide the primary route toward successful interpersonal simulation in all cultures. (Indeed, as noted in section 4.1, eye contact is presumed to be a sufficient but not a necessary trigger.) Some collectivist cultures, like East Asian cultures, tend to avoid eye contact when processing facial expressions. Children in these cultures are taught that direct eye contact is a sign of disrespect (Argyle & Cook Reference Argyle and Cook1976). Such cross-cultural differences suggest that eye contact is a socially established cue that varies with particular cultural norms. How might such a socially refined behavior affect the SIMS model? Assuming that eye contact is the most frequent triggering mechanism for interpersonal simulation, East Asians would be predicted to often miss this trigger. The result would be little direct simulation or unmediated interpretation of the facial expressions of others. Instead, East Asians would need to rely on conceptual or contextual knowledge when reading facial expressions. Although possible, this conclusion is suspicious. Why should it be the case that any culture would develop in such a way as to negate the occurrence of direct affective resonance? This prediction seems especially peculiar given that “collectivist” cultures are defined by their strong tendency toward shared social intentions and responsibilities.

A reasonable alternative is that the triggering mechanism of affect simulation is not solely based on the activation of a focal facial component, but rather on a gestalt of facial muscular configuration encompassing the supra- and infra-orbital, paranasal, and peribuccal regions. The targeted relational contour could be detected by a fixation that lands centrally at (or slightly above) the tip of the nose, hence making it possible to peripherally process the relevant broader area at once. Evidence for such an alternative relational account is suggested by the findings of a cross-cultural face-processing study (Blais et al. Reference Blais, Jack, Scheepers, Fiset and Caldara2008). East Asian participants did not exhibit the fixation triangle of eyes and nose adopted by their American counterparts, but they preferred instead to fixate a narrow nasal locus.

The relational alternative could extend beyond a biological (facial or otherwise) narrow scope. There is evidence that, in making decisions, people in collectivist cultures forge a broad relational model that gives primacy to social and physical cues assimilated from the environment. Kitayama et al. (Reference Kitayama, Duffy, Kawamura and Larsen2003) demonstrated that American participants were accurate when attempting to replicate the absolute length of a line drawn in a square frame, whereas East Asians were more accurate when replicating relative line length, taking into account both the length of the line and its relation to the size of the frame. Similarly, people from individualistic cultures are more inclined to make person-centered attributions of an event's cause, whereas people from collectivist cultures are more inclined to identify a situation-centered cause (Morris & Peng Reference Morris and Peng1994). This idea is consistent with Niedenthal et al.'s suggestion in section 6.1.1 that context, such as the strength of a personal relationship, is likely to play a role in simulation.

The functional roles of smiling might also be culture-specific. Niedenthal et al. make the cogent suggestion that smiles are distinguished based on the part they play in facilitating interpersonal actions and reactions. Therefore, changes in social structure should coincide with changes in the function of smiles that operate within that structure. Accordingly, some functional smiles described in Niedenthal et al. may be less common or even nonexistent in collectivist cultures. The “dominance smile,” for example, may never have developed as a display of pride in a culture that values equality over individual achievements. Indeed, individuals in collectivist cultures who express too much pride are seen negatively and can be ostracized from society (Kalat & Shiota Reference Kalat and Shirota2006).

Given a culture with salient group identity, the utility of individual expressions to convey affect might be lessened or replaced by other environmental cues. An assessment of the social appropriateness of smiling in Chinese individuals, conducted by Wiseman and Pan (Reference Wiseman and Pan2004), found that Chinese are overall less likely than Americans to smile. On one hand, the SIMS model would predict this finding because less eye contact should lead to fewer simulations of smiles. Indeed, collectivist cultures are characterized as tending to appear more passive and less emotionally expressive than typical individualistic cultures (Matsumoto et al. Reference Matsumoto, Yoo and Fontaine2008). Does this mean that people from collectivist cultures, because they are less likely to smile and to simulate smiles, experience less direct interpersonal affect? If so, then people from collectivist cultures would have to rely almost exclusively on conceptual judgments (based on stereotypes) when interpreting each other's emotions and intentions.

This possibility seems unlikely given that affect guides action and that the implicit, contextual communication of affect facilitates interpersonal actions. An alternative hypothesis is that the same affect that is functionally communicated through facial simulation in individualistic cultures is directly simulated through other environmental media in collectivist cultures. Cues external to any one person might provide better information about the operation of the entire group, so a lessened importance on the individual might mean a lessened utility of an individual's expressions to convey meaningful affect, that is, to guide action. Again, this analysis is consistent with the invocation of context in section 6.1.1 of the target article.

In summation, socially learned behaviors and goals may shape the very foundations of affective resonance, thus rendering any model that describes a particular, fixed route to this resonance too specific to apply across all cultures.