Introduction
Can emotions be easily read from facial expressions?
(e.g., Ekman, 1980; Tomkins, 1962; Izard, 1971).
Spontaneous vs. Posed Expressions
Emotions not translated into facial expressions in the
first place?
Or, could it be that observers failed to recognize the
emotion?
The Study
Stimuli-
 Spontaneous facial expressions photographed,
analyzed, and labeled by Paul Ekman (1980).
South Fore of Papua New Guinea
Isolated from Western culture:
“There was an enormous advantage to
being with a people who were not
camera-shy. They did not know what a
camera did so they were not selfconscious about it, and much of their
social life was outdoors and easily seen”
*Contact: russeljm@bc.edu
Endorsement for a Particular Term
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Intensity Ratings. We asked whether there was a
significant difference between the intensity ratings of
Ekman’s predicted label and a comparison label
84.4
For 2 faces, Ekman’s term was selected most
often
For 8 faces, the comparison label was selected
most often
And the remaining 12 faces showed no
differences
42.2
31.5
Consensus Scoring
Endorsement of Modal Responses. Another measure
Chance 8.3%
Ekman's Term
Modal
Response
of “recognition” sets aside the predicted label and
simply relies on the modal response within this
sample.
Modal response endorsement = 42.2%
Chance = 8.3%.
Posed
Expressions
Point of Comparison
Discussion
(Ekman, 1980, p.11).
Results Across Facial Expressions with the Same
Predicted Emotion
Ekman (1980) labeled the emotion conveyed by
each expression, based on:
Knowledge of the expresser’s situation
Analysis of the facial muscle movements visible in the
photograph
Emotion attributions for
Study
Description
Motley &
Camden
(1988)
Posed &
Elaborate Happiness
Spontaneous interaction Sadness
Photos
s & posed Anger
Surprise
Disgust
Confusion
Posed- 81.4%
All spontaneous26%
Dynamic
Emotionspontaneous eliciting
expressions slides
-Above chance:
Happy- 48.4%
Disgust- 22.69%
-Chance levels
(anger, sadness,
fear, neutral)
-Below chance
(surprise)
Happiness- 74%
Other emotions23%
Wagner,
MacDonal
d, &
Manstead
(1986)
Induction
Yik, Meng, Chinese
Lab& Russell babies
eliciting
(1995)
spontaneous procedures
expressions
Emotions
Happiness
Sadness
Anger
Surprise
Disgust
Fear
Neutral
Happiness
Sadness
Anger
Surprise
Disgust
Fear
Recognition
Method
Participants
50 Boston College undergraduates.
Materials
Facial expressions were shown as still black and
white 5” x 7” photographs of 20 spontaneous facial
expressions of members of the South Fore of New
Guinea from Face of Man (Ekman, 1980).
Selection of Photographs- We selected facial
expressions in an effort to include as many different
emotions as possible.
Because recognition of emotion and non-emotion
states (perplexed, hesitant, relaxed) did not differ, this
suggests that the face may portray information beyond
emotion.
Anger
Fear
Disgust
Embarrass
Sadness
Contempt
Hesitant
Perplexed
Surprise
Interest
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Relaxed
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Happiness
Embarrassment
Recognition of Emotion and Non-Emotion States
45
40
35
Anger
Fear
Disgust
Embarras
Sadness
Contempt
Hesitant
Perplexed
Surprise
Interest
Emotion Label
Relaxed
“Since these pictures show universal
facial expressions, the message
conveyed by each face will usually be
quite obvious. In the captions to the
plates I have added brief explanations
of exactly how these emotions are
registered on these faces (or for that
matter, any face)” (p. 11).
% Endorsement
face (2 faces)
Happiness
Spontaneous expressions have obtained lower
recognition than posed expressions:
Ekman (1980) provided a clear prediction
about the level of agreement to be expected:
Anger
Ekman’s ‘embarrassment’
% Endorsement
expressions encountered everyday?
Perhaps they were able to assess the positivity of an
expression and select emotion labels based on those
criteria.
Ekman’s ‘anger’ face (1 face)
Offered observers a greater than usual
number of emotion labels
Which are representative of the facial
Endorsements were higher than chance, showing
that our judges were not random.
Emotion attributions for
Emotions:
States:
happiness anger
contempt
hesitation
sadness
fear
interest
perplexedness
surprise
disgust embarrassment relaxation
Included blended expressions
Low Recognition of discrete emotion from
spontaneous facial expression raises questions about
past research using posed expressions.
Emotion Label
Procedure
Instructions:
1. Circle the single best word for that emotion.
2. Please respond to every emotion word by
circling a number. Each number represents the intensity to
which the emotion is present in the face, ranging from 0 (none)
to 4 (maximum intensity).
None
Maximum
Intensity
I------------------------------------------I
1. Happiness
0
1
2
3
4
2. Fear
0
1
2
3
4
3. Interest
0
1
2
3
4
4. Anger
0
1
2
3
4
5. Embarrassment 0
1
2
3
4
6. Disgust
0
1
2
3
4
7. Sadness
0
1
2
3
4
8. Contempt
0
1
2
3
4
9. Relaxed
0
1
2
3
4
10. Surprise
0
1
2
3
4
11. Perplexed
0
1
2
3
4
12. Hesitant
0
1
2
3
4
Results
Ekman’s Predictions
Endorsement. The most common method for assessing
‘recognition’ is the percent of participants who endorse
the predicted label, in this case Ekman’s label.
Single Emotion Mean Endorsement = 24.2%
Random selection = 8.3%
Blends
38.8% selected one of the two predicted labels
Random selection = 16.7%.
Modal Responses. Another measure of recognition is
whether the modal response corresponded to Ekman’s
predicted label.
Single Emotions- 5 modal responses matched
Ekman’s label (out of 16)
With the 4 blended expressions, the two most
frequently chosen labels matched
two predicted labels for one face
one of the predicted labels for two faces
neither predicted labels for one face
% Endorsement
The current study (N=50) examined recognition from
20 spontaneous expressions from Papua New Guinea
photographed, coded, and labeled by Ekman (1980).
For the 16 faces with a single predicted label, average
endorsement was 24.2%.
For four faces with two predicted labels (blends),
average endorsement was 38.8%.
Spontaneous expressions do not achieve the level of
recognition achieved by posed expressions.
Limitations of these studies:
Small number of emotions studied
Blends not included
Results cannot specify whether
Percent of Ss
Abstract
Pamela Naab & James Russell*
Boston College
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
40.6
29.2
24.3 24
Emotion
States
Ekman's Term
Modal Response
Perhaps there are other things people read into a
face, such as
social messages
(Fridlund, 1997)
or action tendencies
(Frijda & Tscherkassof, 1997).
References
Ekman, P. (1980). The Face of Man. New York, NY: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Fridlund (1997). The new ethology of human facial expressions. In J.M. Russell, & J.M. Fernandez-Dols
(Eds.), The psychology of facial expression (pp.78-102). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Frijda, N. & Tcherkassof, A. (1997). Facial expressions as modes of action readiness. In Russell, J. &
Fernandez-Dols, J. (Eds.), The psychology of facial expression (pp. 103-129). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Izard, C. (1971). The face of emotion. CT, US: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Motley, M. & Camden, C. (1988). Facial expression of emotion: A comparison of posed expressions
versus spontaneous expressions in an interpersonal communication setting.Western Journal of
Speech Communication, 52, 1-22.
Russell, J., Lewicka, M., & Niit, T. (1989). A cross-cultural study of a circumplex model of affect. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 848-856.
Tomkins, S. (1962). Affect, imagery, consciousness: The positive affects. Oxford, England: Springer.
Wagner, H., MacDonald, C., & Manstead, A. (1986). Communication of individual emotions by
spontaneous facial expressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 37-743.
Yik, M., Meng, Z., & Russell, J. (1998). Adults’ freely produced emotion labels for babies’ spontaneous
facial expressions. Cognition and Emotion, 12, 723-730.