Can culture and universalism co-exist in affective neuroscience?

In the last few decades, data on the brain basis of basic emotions have led to 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, and fear (Davis et al., 2003). The account suggests that the strengths and weaknesses found in the universally shared subcortical affective systems are the epigenetic predictors of personality traits (Davis and Panksepp, 2011, 2018; Panksepp and Biven, 2012). These systems are shaped by nurture, namely early life experiences and learning (Panksepp, 1998). Thus, ANPT initiated a paradigm shift toward a holistic approach to personality, integrating nature and nurture (Montag and Panksepp, 2017).

Despite this shift, cultural influences on ANP profiles were still unexplored. Cross-cultural Affective Neuroscience (CAN, Özkarar-Gradwohl, 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; Özkarar-Gradwohl, 2019; Özkarar-Gradwohl et al., 2018; Özkarar-Gradwohl and Turnbull, 2021), including a collaborative meta-analysis (Marengo et al., 2021). Its hypothesis is that universal subcortical affective systems (which are epigenetic predictors of personality) are regulated (reinforced and/or inhibited) differently across cultures, via varying parenting styles, family models, emotion socialization, and cultural norms (Özkarar-Gradwohl, 2019). Therefore, CAN predicts both universal similarities and cultural differences in cross-cultural ANPS comparisons. As a hybrid model (Irish, 2025), CAN seeks to integrate not only nature and nurture, but also universal and cultural findings on emotion.

Can culture and universalism co-exist in affective neuroscience? This opinion paper evaluates the main CAN hypothesis by categorizing its evidence as quasi-universal similarities and cultural differences. It observes improvements in methodology for analyzing connectedness and separateness and suggests further investigation of the interaction of culture and gender. Finally, limitations and recommendations are discussed.