173
British Journal of Psychology (2014), 105, 173–186 © 2013 The British Psychological Society www.wileyonlinelibrary.com
Communal and agentic behaviour in response to facial emotion expressions Marije aan het Rot*, Koen Hogenelst and Christina M. Gesing Department of Psychology, University of Groningen, The Netherlands Facial emotions are important for human communication. Unfortunately, traditional facial emotion recognition tasks do not inform about how respondents might behave towards others expressing certain emotions. Approach-avoidance tasks do measure behaviour, but only on one dimension. In this study 81 participants completed a novel Facial Emotion Response Task. Images displaying individuals with emotional expressions were presented in random order. Participants simultaneously indicated how communal (quarrelsome vs. agreeable) and how agentic (dominant vs. submissive) they would be in response to each expression. We found that participants responded differently to happy, angry, fearful, and sad expressions in terms of both dimensions of behaviour. Higher levels of negative affect were associated with less agreeable responses specifically towards happy and sad expressions. The Facial Emotion Response Task might complement existing facial emotion recognition and approach-avoidance tasks.
Emotions are best viewed as social phenomena. Expressed in faces, they provide an important means of communication (Parkinson, 1996, 2005). There exist a number of basic emotions that are accompanied by specific facial expressions (Ekman, 1972). By informing people of others’ feelings, thoughts, and intentions, facial emotion expressions direct the appropriateness of behavioural responses between individuals in social interaction (Horstmann, 2003). Here, we propose using the circumplex model of interpersonal behaviour (Leary, 1957; Wiggins, 1991) for assessing how people might respond to others displaying facial emotion expressions. Traditional facial emotion recognition tasks require people to look at face images taken from or similar to the Pictures of Facial Affect Series (Ekman & Friesen, 1976) and to accurately identify the emotion expressed in each face. They are easy to administer and have been extensively used as a measure of social cognition, for example in individuals diagnosed with psychiatric disorders (Demenescu, Kortekaas, den Boer & Aleman, 2010; Marwick & Hall, 2008). Unfortunately, facial emotion recognition tasks provide little information about how people might behave in response to seeing others’ facial expressions. This is an important
*Correspondence should be addressed to M. aan het Rot, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS Groningen, The Netherlands (email: [email protected]). DOI:10.1111/bjop.12029
174
Marije aan het Rot et al.
limitation: in real life people may vary in their behaviour towards a person showing a certain emotion, and it is behaviour that ultimately determines the flow of everyday social interactions. For example, people may become aggressive when they recognize the expression in another person’s face as angry, or they may withdraw. Similarly, sad facial expressions may elicit either compassion or irritability. Thus, researchers interested in interpersonal behaviour might benefit from directly asking people how they would respond to particular facial expressions. Consistent with this idea, several studies have investigated approach and avoidance in response to seeing different facial expressions. Angry and fearful expressions are both considered aversive and might thus elicit avoidance. However, Parkinson (1996) has suggested that fearful expressions primarily serve to request help from others when a threat is present. Indeed, Marsh, Ambady and Kleck (2005) reported that fearful expressions elicit approach rather than avoidance. Thus, even though fearful expressions suggest the presence of a threat that may jeopardize both individuals in social interactions, these expressions may still invite pro-social behaviour. Marsh et al. (2005) also reported avoidance of angry expressions, as might have been expected based on their aversive nature and communicative role (Parkinson, 1996). Seidel, Habel, Kirshner et al. (2010) replicated this finding. However, angry expressions may not always have this effect. Wilkowski and Meier (2010) found that angry expressions elicited avoidance when immediately followed by happy expressions but elicited approach when followed by fearful expressions. Anger followed by happiness is thought to communicate victory whereas anger followed by fear communicates defeat (De Waal, 1986). Thus, only in situations that are unambiguous with respect to the lower status of the person making the expression, anger may elicit approach. Seidel, Habel, Kirshner et al. (2010) also reported approach of both happy and sad expressions. The result for sadness can only be explained by considering its communicative role (Parkinson, 1996) in addition to its aversive nature. Indeed Seidel, Habel, Kirshner et al., (2010) found that while sad expressions were approached when shown during the approach/avoidance task, when rated afterwards participants indicated a wish to avoid them. Overall, approach/avoidance tasks may better distinguish between people than facial emotion recognition tasks. For example, by assessing facial expression-elicited approach and avoidance in individuals diagnosed with psychiatric disorders (e.g., Heuer, Rinck & Becker, 2007; Seidel, Habel, Finkelmeyer et al., 2010; Von Borries et al., 2012), differentiation between disorders characterized by similar facial emotion recognition deficits might be improved. The finding that angry others may be approached rather than avoided (Wilkowski & Meier, 2010) is consistent with a study in which participants reported quarrelsomeness during social interactions in which they felt criticized by others in a lower status role, but submissiveness when they felt criticized by others in a higher status role (Fournier, Moskowitz & Zuroff, 2002). Quarrelsomeness and submissiveness were assessed using a validated list of items representing the four dimensions of social behaviour that define the interpersonal circumplex (Moskowitz, 1994). This model contends that variables that measure relations between people are arranged around a circle defined by two axes (Leary, 1957; Wiggins, 1991). One axis indicates communion in behaviour and ranges from quarrelsomeness to agreeableness. The other axis indicates agency in behaviour and ranges from dominance to submissiveness. The interpersonal circumplex has proven useful in many settings, for example when studying social interactions, including those of individuals diagnosed with psychiatric disorders (Fournier et al., 2002; Moskowitz, 1994; Russell, Moskowitz, Zuroff, Sookman & Paris, 2007; Russell et al., 2011).
Responding to facial emotions
175
An advantage of the interpersonal circumplex is that behaviour is organized along two dimensions rather than solely in terms of approach versus avoidance. The model has been used to characterize facial emotion expressions. Knutson (1996) asked students to rate images from the Picture of Facial Affect Series in terms of trait levels of communion and agency. Anger was associated with low communion and high agency (i.e., quarrelsome dominance), fear with high communion and low agency (agreeable submissiveness), happiness with high communion and high agency (agreeable dominance), and sadness was primarily associated with low agency (submissiveness). Behavioural responses to facial emotion expressions may also be described in terms of communion and agency. According to the principles of interpersonal complementarity described by Carson (1969), agreeableness invites agreeableness and quarrelsomeness invites quarrelsomeness whereas dominance invites submissiveness and vice versa. However, Orford (1986) has shown that while agreeable dominance and agreeable submissiveness tend to invite agreeable submissiveness and agreeable dominance, respectively, quarrelsome dominance most often invites quarrelsome dominance. Therefore, following Knutson (1996), behavioural responses to angry expressions would likely be quarrelsome and dominant, responses to fearful expressions agreeable and dominant, and responses to happy expressions agreeable and submissive. These hypotheses would be consistent with Wilkowski and Meier (2010) with respect to anger, with Marsh et al. (2005) with respect to fear, and with Seidel, Habel, Kirshner et al., (2010) with respect to happiness. Moreover, the finding by Seidel, Habel, Kirshner et al., (2010) that sad expressions elicit approach suggests that behavioural responses to sadness may primarily be dominant. In this study we tested these hypotheses by asking participants to use the interpersonal circumplex to indicate how they would respond to angry, fearful, happy, and sad facial expressions. In other words, they were asked to indicate their behaviour in terms of two dimensions: communion and agency. We used the Picture of Facial Affect Series to test our hypotheses. We named our task the Facial Emotion Response Task. An additional aim was to see if mood state might influence responses to the various facial expressions. Mood state has previously been shown to influence facial emotion recognition (Coupland et al., 2004; Forbes, Phillips, Silk, Ryan & Dahl, 2011) and approach/avoidance tendencies (Heuer et al., 2007). Moreover, mood state has previously been associated with concurrent levels of communion and agency (Cote & Moskowitz, 1998; Moskowitz & Cote, 1995). Due to the exploratory nature of this part of the study, we did not formulate hypotheses about the expected findings a priori.
Method Participants The study was conducted at the University of Groningen. First-year students in its Bachelor in Psychology program participate in research for educational purposes. Participants for this study (n = 81) were recruited from this group. They ranged from 18 to 29 years of age (M = 20.8, SD = 2.0). For 48%, Dutch or English was their native language. Women (63%) did not differ significantly from men in age, in the percentage Dutch or English native speakers, or in mood state. In accordance with the departmental ethics board, which approved the study, participants (‘perceivers’) received partial course credit for their participation.
176
Marije aan het Rot et al.
Facial emotion response task This task was adapted from an existing facial emotion recognition task. Greyscale face images of three men and three women (‘targets’) were taken from the Pictures of Facial Affect Series (Ekman & Friesen, 1976). All targets portrayed a neutral face and four emotional faces: angry, fearful, happy, and sad. For each of the emotional faces, the intensity of the emotion was varied by computer between 0% and 100% in five 20% steps. This allowed us to explore the linearity of facial expression intensity to behavioural response associations. The 126 faces were presented in random order for 500 ms each. Preceding each face a fixation symbol was shown for 300 ms. Following each face a response grid was shown for up to 5 s. Therefore, the maximum inter-stimulus interval was 5800 ms. The response grid, divided into four quadrants by horizontal (X) and vertical (Y) axes, was identical to the one by Moskowitz and Zuroff (2005) for the 43 perceivers who completed the task in English, and translated into Dutch for the 38 perceivers who completed the task in Dutch. Perceivers were instructed to use the computer mouse to indicate how they would behave if they were to interact with the target whose face they just saw. They were trained to simultaneously indicate how communal and agentic they would be by considering the X axis and the Y axis of the grid respectively. For each of the face stimuli presented during the task, the output considered the target, the expressed emotion, the intensity of the emotion, the X and Y coordinates of each response, and the response time. X and Y ranged from 100 to +100 and represented quarrelsomeness versus agreeableness and dominance versus submissiveness, respectively, with 0 representing neutral behaviour. X and Y thus constitute the two outcome measures for the Facial Emotion Response Task. From here on, they are labelled Communion and Agency, respectively.
Procedure Perceivers were recruited using a website accessible only to first-year Psychology students. The advertisement asked for participants for a study on how people react to others. Interested students were scheduled to come into a local university lab using an online sign-up system. In the lab the study was explained verbally by one of the researchers with the help of a detailed written information sheet. Students who subsequently agreed to participate signed an informed consent document. A session usually lasted 45 min. Prior to completing the Facial Emotion Response Task, perceivers completed a Positive Affect and Negative Affect Schedule (Thompson, 2007). Item scores could vary between 1 (not at all) and 5 (extremely). Positive affect (PA) was defined as the sum score on the items active, alert, attentive, determined, and inspired. Negative affect (NA) was defined as the sum score on the items upset, hostile, ashamed, nervous, and afraid. There were no significant differences in PA between women, M = 16.4, SD = 3.0, and men, M = 16.1, SD = 3.4, t(79) = 0.36, p > 0.7, and there were no significant differences in NA between women, M = 7.9, SD = 3.0, and men, M = 8.3, SD = 3.5, t(79) = 0.59, p > 0.5.
Statistical analyses Analyses were conducted using PROC MIXED, Version 9.3 (SAS Institute, 2010). The degrees of freedom for F tests were determined by dividing the residual degrees of freedom into between- and within-subjects portions. All models included a random
Responding to facial emotions
177
intercept and the default error covariance matrix. Interaction effects were analysed using a correction for multiple comparisons (described below). First, we explored whether there was variation in response times to the different facial emotion expressions. Response times of more than five-seconds were excluded. The maximum number of exclusions per perceiver was 11. Response times were log transformed. The fixed-effects portion of each model included Facial Expression. Based on the outcome of this examination, subsequent models controlled for log response times. Second, analogous to Knutson (1996), we tested if there was a main effect of Facial Expression on Communion and Agency without any additional effect of Target. The fixedeffects portion of each model included Facial Expression, Target, and their interaction as predictors. Based on the outcome of this examination, subsequent models also controlled for Target. Third, to find out how behavioural responses varied depending on how happy, angry, sad, or fearful a target looked, the fixed-effects portion of each model included Facial Expression, Intensity, and their interaction as predictors. Responses to neutral expressions did not vary in intensity and were therefore not included. Fourth, to test the impact of mood state on behavioural responses, we included as predictors Facial Expression, PA or NA, and their interaction. In this analysis we also controlled for Intensity because Coupland et al. (2004) have found that mood state may influence the intensity threshold at which certain facial expressions are accurately detected. PA scores were normally distributed. NA scores were left-skewed. Both were standardized to a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. Again responses to neutral expressions were not included.
Results Response times The effect of Facial Expression was significant, F(4,320) = 41.42, p < .0001. The simple contrasts, analysed using a Tukey-Kramer correction, revealed that perceivers were slowest in responding to fearful expressions and quickest in responding to happy expressions, with intermediate response times for sad, angry, and neutral expressions.
Task characteristics Communion The effect of Facial Expression was significant, F(4,320) = 581.25, p < .0001. However, so were the effects of Target, F(5,400) = 144.86, p < .0001, and of the two-way interaction, F(20,1598) = 7.82, p < .0001.
Agency The effect of Facial Expression was significant, F(4,320) = 106.78, p < .0001, but again so were the effects of Target, F(5,400) = 3.84, p < .003, and of the two-way interaction, F(20,1598) = 2.07, p < .004. Post-hoc testing of the observed Target by Facial Expression effects primarily revealed a tendency for perceivers to evaluate one of the targets differently from the others. However, when we excluded this target, the interaction effect remained significant. As it
178
Marije aan het Rot et al.
is conceivable that behavioural responses to faces are influenced by more than their expressions alone, we retained the data from all targets. Behavioural responses to facial expressions of varying intensity Communion The effects of Facial Expression, F(3,240) = 827.22, p < .0001, and of the Facial Expression by Intensity interaction, F(12,960) = 73.36, p < .0001, were significant. The interaction effect was analysed further using a Tukey-Kramer correction. Communion decreased from 20% to 40% anger, from 40% to 60% anger, and from 60% to 80% anger. Communion also decreased in response to seeing a 60%, 80%, or 100% fearful expression compared with seeing a 20% fearful expression. Communion increased from 20% to 40% happiness, from 40% to 60% happiness, and from 60% to 80% happiness. Communion also increased in response to seeing a 100% sad expression compared with seeing a 20% or 40% sad expression.
Agency Again the effects of Facial Expression, F(3,240) = 143.91, p < .0001, and of the Facial Expression by Intensity interaction, F(12,960) = 19.09, p < .0001, were significant. The interaction effect was analysed further using a Tukey-Kramer correction. Agency did not vary as a function of the intensity of anger displayed by a target. In contrast, perceivers reported a lower level of agency in response to seeing an 80% or 100% fearful expression compared to seeing a 20% fearful expression. Furthermore, agency increased from 20% to 60% happiness, from 40% to 80% happiness, and from 60% to both 80% and 100% happiness, and decreased from 20% sadness to both 80% and 100% sadness. The effects of Facial Expression and Intensity on Communion and Agency have been summarized in Figure 1. Perceivers responded in an increasingly quarrelsome way to targets with increasingly angry expressions, without becoming more or less dominant (Figure 1a). Perceivers responded in a mildly agreeable-dominant way towards mildly fearful targets and in a mildly quarrelsome-submissive way towards highly fearful targets (Figure 1b). Perceivers responded in an increasingly agreeable-dominant way towards targets with increasingly happy expressions (Figure 1c). Perceivers responded primarily in a somewhat dominant way towards mildly sad targets and in a somewhat agreeable way towards highly sad targets (Figure 1d). Mood state Communion For PA, the effect of Facial Expression was significant, F(3,240) = 754.21, p < .0001, but the effects of PA, F(1,79) = 0.68, p > .41, and of the two-way interaction, F (3,9516) = 1.09, p > .35, were not. For NA, the effects of Facial Expression, F(3,240) = 756.12, p < .0001, NA, F (1,79) = 5.64, p < .02, and the two-way interaction, F(3,9516) = 8.67, p < .0001, were all significant. Post-hoc testing of the relevant simple contrasts included a correction for the four planned comparisons so p < .0125 was deemed significant. Perceivers with more NA rated their behaviour towards happy targets as less agreeable (though not quarrelsome) than perceivers with less NA, t(9516) = 3.22, p < .002. They also rated their behaviour towards sad targets as less agreeable, t(9516) = 2.97, p < .004. There
Responding to facial emotions
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
179
Figure 1. Participants’ self-rated behaviour towards targets with (a) angry, (b) fearful, (c) happy, and (d) sad facial expressions of varying intensity (20–100%). Communion in behaviour is reflected on the horizontal axis and ranges from quarrelsomeness on the left to agreeableness on the right. Agency in behaviour is reflected on the vertical axis and ranges from dominance in the top to submissiveness in the bottom. The data points represent estimated means and error bars.
were no significant effects of mood state on behavioural responses towards angry or fearful targets, t(9516) < 2.22, p > .02. The findings did not change when we controlled for concurrent levels of PA.
Agency For PA, the effects of Facial Expression, F(3,240) = 138.64, p < .0001, and the PA by Facial Expression interaction, F(3,9516) = 3.88, p < .009, were significant. However, post-hoc testing of the relevant simple contrasts, which again included a correction for the four planned comparisons so p < .0125 was deemed significant, revealed no significant contrasts, t(9516) < 1.75, p > .08. For NA, the effects of Facial Expression, F(3,240) = 138.94, p < .0001, and the NA by Facial Expression interaction, F(3,9516) = 7.02, p < .0001, were significant. However, post-hoc testing of the four planned comparisons revealed no significant contrasts, t(9516) < 1.40, p > .16.
Additional analyses We repeated the mood state analyses using single NA items. The inter-individual variation in communion towards happy and sad targets appeared primarily driven by interindividual variation in nervousness.
180
Marije aan het Rot et al.
We repeated all analyses using Target Sex as the covariate instead of Target. This did not change our findings. We then added Perceiver Sex as an additional covariate. Again this did not change our findings, and the effect of Perceiver Sex was never significant. Finally, we repeated all analyses using either Language (coded as English vs. Dutch for the language in which participants completed the task or Native (coded as native vs. nonnative for the language in which participants completed the task) as an additional moderator of the effects of Facial Expression on Communion and Agency. Language did not moderate the Facial Expression by Target effects reported under Task characteristics, the Facial Expression by Intensity effects reported under Behavioural responses to facial expressions of varying intensity, or the Facial Expression by NA effect reported under Mood state. Similarly, Native did not moderate these reported interaction effects. We did not add Language and Native to the models simultaneously given unequal numbers of participants in each of the four resulting groups.
Discussion We used a novel Facial Emotion Response Task to collect data on behavioural responses to anger, fear, happiness, and sadness in terms of communion and agency. These two dimensions of behaviour comprise the two orthogonal axes that define the interpersonal circumplex (Leary, 1957; Wiggins, 1991). Anger invited quarrelsome dominance, but with increasing intensities of emotion perceivers primarily reported an increase in quarrelsomeness. Fear invited agreeable dominance at lower intensities, but quarrelsome submissiveness at higher intensities. Happiness invited progressively more agreeable dominance with increasing intensities of emotion, and sadness primarily invited dominance at lower intensities and agreeableness at higher intensities. The behavioural responses to happiness and sadness were influenced by mood state (NA), though only in terms of communion. Knutson (1996) found that people expect angry others to behave in a quarrelsomedominant way and Orford (1986) has argued that quarrelsome dominance tends to invite quarrelsome dominance from others. Thus, we hypothesized that perceivers would respond to angry targets in a quarrelsome-dominant way. This hypothesis was confirmed, a finding that is consistent with Wilkowski and Meier (2010), who found that people tend to approach angry others when they appear in a lower status position. Our study adds to that of Wilkowski and Meier (2010) in that increasingly angry facial expressions primarily elicited more quarrelsomeness, without participants reporting a change in dominance (Figure 1a). Our second hypothesis was that behavioural responses to fearful expressions would likely be agreeable and dominant (cf. Knutson, 1996; Orford, 1986). This hypothesis was partially confirmed. Towards mildly fearful targets, perceivers respond in a mildly agreeable-dominant way. However, towards highly fearful targets perceivers responded in a mildly quarrelsome-submissive way (Figure 1b). Responding to fearful expressions with agreeable dominance is consistent with one previous approach/avoidance study (Marsh et al., 2005), but responding to fearful expressions with quarrelsome submissiveness is not. Wilkowski and Meier (2010) reported a tendency for faster avoidance of fearful expressions. According to Parkinson (1996), fearful expressions serve to request help from others. Perceivers’ agreeable dominance towards mildly fearful targets is consistent with this. However, perceivers’ quarrelsome submissiveness towards highly fearful targets indicated a wish to withdraw. One explanation of this finding is that fear signals, though often adaptive, may have negative consequences when displayed unnecessarily (Gilbert, 2001). Individuals with social anxiety disorder constitute one
Responding to facial emotions
181
group likely characterized by maladaptive fear signalling. They often behave overly submissively (Russell et al., 2011) and this may elicit negative evaluations (Plasencia, Alden & Taylor, 2011) and social withdrawal from others. Another explanation of our finding is that highly fearful targets signalled the presence of too large a threat for the perceivers to approach. This explanation might also apply to the approach/avoidance study by Wilkowski and Meier (2010). In this study, like in ours, the highly fearful targets were three male and three female actors from the Picture of Facial Affect Series expressing fear at 100% intensity. In contrast, Marsh et al. (2005), who found that fearful targets are approached rather than avoided, used another stimulus set. Targets in the two sets may differ in threat signalling. Fearful expressions are often mistaken for surprise (Johnston, McCabe & Schall, 2003); this may have occurred more often in the study by Marsh et al. (2005) than in our study, thus reducing the overall level of threat. Future approach/avoidance studies might include targets with fearful expressions of varying intensity. Perceivers responded to happy targets in an agreeable-dominant way. Our hypothesis was thus confirmed with respect to communion, but not with respect to agency. We had expected perceivers to respond to happy targets in an agreeable-submissive way (cf. Knutson, 1996; Orford, 1986). One way to explain our finding is that there were no clear status differences between perceivers and targets. Previous studies reporting reciprocity of agency in behaviour have often used goal-oriented tasks to evoke dominance and submissiveness (e.g., Sadler & Woody, 2003). Another way to explain our finding is that the targets were strangers to the perceivers. People who are acquainted are more likely to reciprocate interpersonal behaviour than people who are unacquainted (Markey & Kurtz, 2006). Though not hypothesized, the finding that perceivers responded to happy targets in an agreeable-dominant way is still consistent with Seidel, Habel, Kirshner et al., (2010). This study adds to their approach/avoidance study in that increasingly happy facial expressions elicited both more agreeableness and more dominance (Figure 1a). With respect to our fourth hypothesis, we found that targets with mildly sad expressions primarily invited dominance (Figure 1d). This is consistent with prior work showing higher levels of dominance during interactions with others of low social status (Fournier et al., 2002), given that individuals displaying sadness are considered low on agency (Knutson, 1996). The fact that, at lower levels of emotional intensity, perceivers responded to sad expressions with dominance might be seen as an attempt to improve the emotional state of the target by taking charge of the situation. However, targets with extremely sad facial expressions primarily invited agreeableness (Figure 1d). This is more compatible with the idea that sad facial expressions signal loss and serve to communicate a need for comfort (Parkinson, 1996). Perceivers’ agreeable behaviour in response to very intense sadness might be seen as an attempt to improve the emotional state of the target by showing affection. At both high and low levels of emotional intensity, our finding is compatible with Seidel, Habel, Kirshner et al., (2010), who found that sad expressions elicited approach rather than avoidance. Both dominance and agreeableness may be seen as approach behaviours. Our study adds to that of Seidel, Habel, Kirshner et al., (2010) by showing that increasingly sad facial expressions might elicit an increase in agreeableness without perceivers becoming more dominant (Figure 1d). Finally, we found that perceivers with relatively high levels of NA reported relatively low levels of communion (agreeableness) towards happy as well as sad targets. There were no associations between NA and communion (quarrelsomeness) towards angry targets and between NA and communion (agreeableness or quarrelsomeness) towards fearful targets. The level of communion towards highly happy and highly sad targets was
182
Marije aan het Rot et al.
higher than towards highly angry and highly fearful targets (see Figure 1), and so in the latter situations there was less room for change. There were also no associations between NA and agency in behaviour, and between PA and either communion or agency. Perhaps in our relatively homogeneous study sample the inter-individual variability in PA and NA was too small to be associated with considerable variability in agentic responses. We might have observed larger effects of NA and PA after an experimentally induced mood change or in patients with psychiatric disorders.
Limitations One limitation of the study is that participants completed the task either in English or in Dutch, and either in their native language (English or Dutch) or in a non-native language (for example, several participants were German). As pointed out by a reviewer, this may have influenced participants’ behavioural responses. With the current sample size we were unable to analyse the potentially confounding impact of language-related factors fully. Nonetheless, they did not appear to moderate the observed effects. It remains to be seen if, for example, German participants complete the Facial Expression Response Task differently in English than French participants, and if, for example, Dutch participants complete the task differently in Dutch than in English. Additional limitations to this study become evident when comparing the Facial Emotion Response Task to other tasks described in this study. For example, while we used the Picture of Facial Affect Series (Ekman & Friesen, 1976), others have used more recent sets of facial expressions such as the International Affective Picture System (Lang, Bradley & Cuthbert, 2005). In future studies, these sets could be used instead. Furthermore, while facial emotion recognition tasks have traditionally used static face stimuli, more recent versions have used morphs or video clips, which are more naturalistic (Biele & Grabowska, 2006; Hess & Blairy, 2001). Moreover, we do not know whether perceivers were able to accurately recognize targets or whether they did so consciously before (or after) providing their behavioural responses. Notably, Knutson (1996) also used static face stimuli and did not test for facial emotion recognition accuracy. Our study was different, however, in that perceivers saw the targets multiple times. Furthermore, the target ratings reported by Knutson (1996) were based on a series of interpersonal adjectives representing communion and agency in behaviour and thus concerned dispositional trait-like inferences. Instead, we asked perceivers to indicate on the interpersonal grid, a single-item measure that simultaneously assesses state levels of communion and agency, how they would respond behaviourally. A final concern is that we did not test whether perceivers would have rated the various facial expressions the way Knutson’s (1996) participants did. Therefore, we cannot exclude the possibility that perceivers rated the targets in terms of likely target behaviours instead of their behavioural responses to the targets. However, the results for angry expressions do not fit this concern, nor do the results for highly fearful and highly sad expressions. A major limitation of the Facial Emotion Response Task compared with approachavoidance tasks is that it assesses how people might behave in response to facial emotion expressions of others; it does not actually measure behaviour. Moreover, it asks of participants to consciously label their behaviour, which is not something they normally do. Lastly, there are several limitations that the Facial Emotion Response Task has in common with facial emotion recognition tasks, the task described by Knutson (1996), and approach/avoidance tasks. Our task was administered in a laboratory. It did not involve
Responding to facial emotions
183
actual social interactions in which individuals react to each other’s facial expressions. Furthermore, as mentioned before, the targets were strangers to the perceivers. The facial expressions were not accompanied by additional non-verbal cues and verbal expressions that are common during social interactions. And finally, actual interpersonal behaviour was not measured. Thus, the Facial Emotion Response Task, like the other tasks, has low ecological validity.
Implications Clearly the Facial Emotion Response Task has significant limitations. However, we wish to emphasize that facial emotion recognition tasks and approach/avoidance tasks have similar problems. An additional limitation of facial emotion recognition tasks is that data are usually only interpreted in terms of what the emotions communicated by the targets mean to the perceivers, even though (in everyday life) the emotions also mean something to the targets. For example, fearful faces have been considered indicative of a threat to the perceiver (e.g., Forbes et al., 2011; Harmer et al., 2003; Marsh et al., 2006) without taking into account that they are also a sign of distress communicated by the target, exposed to the same threat and thus asking for help (Parkinson, 1996). Poor facial emotion recognition task performance has generally been interpreted as an impairment in intrapersonal functioning, whereas it might also imply an impairment in interpersonal functioning. While approach/avoidance tasks using emotional face stimuli do include an interpersonal component, a limitation of these tasks is that the behaviour of the perceivers is assessed on a single dimension. This leaves ample room for interpretation particularly with respect to approach behaviour (see Marsh et al., 2005; Wilkowski & Meier, 2010). The Facial Emotion Response Task assesses interpersonal behaviour more indirectly, but has the advantage of doing so on two dimensions, communion and agency. Our data help explain why angry, fearful, and sad expressions may all be approached rather than avoided (Marsh et al., 2005; Seidel, Habel, Kirshner et al., (2010); Wilkowski & Meier, 2010). Laboratory measures of social functioning that consider the emotional states of targets include both explicit (Marsh et al., 2005) and implicit (Seidel, Habel, Kirshner et al., (2010)) approach/avoidance tasks. Furthermore, Todorov, Harris and Fiske (2006) have described angry and happy faces in terms of the extent to which they signal trustworthiness, and thus help facilitate either avoidance or approach. Biele and Grabowska (2006) described a facial emotion recognition task that employed more dynamic face stimuli. This task could be adapted such that participants rate their behavioural responses to the targets’ emotional expressions. However, to assess social functioning in the laboratory, measures that are even more ecologically valid could easily be developed. For example, Zaki, Bolger and Ochsner (2008) asked participants to continuously rate how targets felt while discussing autobiographical emotional events in video clips. This task could be also adapted such that participants could continuously indicate their behaviour towards targets, either in terms of approach versus avoidance or in terms of communion and agency.
Conclusion This is the first study to use a standardized computer task for assessing how people might respond to others with different facial emotion expressions in terms of communion and agency. Behaviour ratings obtained using the Facial Emotion Response Task were sensitive to different target emotions of varying intensity and to inter-individual variability
184
Marije aan het Rot et al.
in NA. Despite its limitations, the task might complement existing facial emotion recognition tasks. This is relevant to the study of psychiatric disorders, which are often associated with abnormal social functioning (Hirschfeld et al., 2000; Morrison & Bellack, 1987; Russell et al., 2011).
Acknowledgements The authors thank Eise Hoekstra from Technical Support Services at the University of Groningen Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences for programming the Facial Expression Response Task. Dr. aan het Rot is supported by the Innovational Research Incentives Scheme Veni from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO).
References Biele, C., & Grabowska, A. (2006). Sex differences in perception of emotion intensity in dynamic and static facial expressions. Experimental Brain Research, 171, 1–6. doi:10.1007/s00221-0050254-0 Carson, R. C. (1969). Interaction Concepts of Personality. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Cote´, S., & Moskowitz, D. S. (1998). On the dynamic covariation between interpersonal behaviour and affect: prediction from neuroticism, extraversion, and agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1032–1046. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.1032 Coupland, N. J., Sustrik, R. A., Ting, P., Li, D., Hartfeil, M., Singh, A. J., & Blair, R. J. (2004). Positive and negative affect differentially influence identification of facial emotions. Depression and Anxiety, 19, 31–34. doi:10.1002/da.10136 De Waal, F. B. (1986). The integration of dominance and social bonding in primates. Quarterly Review of Biology, 61, 459–479. doi:10.1086/415144 Demenescu, L. R., Kortekaas, R., den Boer, J. A., & Aleman, A. (2010). Impaired attribution of emotion to facial expressions in anxiety and major depression. PLoS ONE, 5, e15058. doi:10. 1371/journal.pone.0015058 Ekman, P. (1972). Universals and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotion. In J. Cole (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 19, pp. 207–283). Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. (1976). Pictures of Facial Affect. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists’ Press. Forbes, E. E., Phillips, M. L., Silk, J. S., Ryan, N. D., & Dahl, R. E. (2011). Neural systems of threat processing in adolescents: role of pubertal maturation and relation to measures of negative affect. Dev Neuropsychol, 36, 429–452. doi:10.1080/87565641.2010.550178 Fournier, M. A., Moskowitz, D. S., & Zuroff, D. C. (2002). Social rank strategies in hierarchical relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 425–433. doi:10.1037//00223514.83.2.425 Gilbert, P. (2001). Evolution and social anxiety: the role of attraction, social competition, and social hierarchies. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 24, 723–751. doi:10.1016/S0193-953X(05) 70260-4 Harmer, C. J., Bhagwager, Z., Perrett, D. I., Voellm, B. A., Cowen, P. J., & Goodwin, G. M. (2003). Acute SSRI administration affects the processing of social cues in healthy volunteers. Neuropsychopharmacology, 28, 148–152. doi:10.1038/sj.npp.1300004 Hess, U., & Blairy, S. (2001). Facial mimicry and emotional contagion to dynamic emotional facial expressions and their influence on decoding accuracy. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 40, 129–141. doi:10.1016/S0167-8760(00)00161-6 Heuer, K., Rinck, M., & Becker, E. S. (2007). Avoidance of emotional facial expressions in social anxiety: the Approach-Avoidance Task. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45, 2990–3001. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2007.08.010
Responding to facial emotions
185
Hirschfeld, R. M., Montgomery, S. A., Keller, M. B., Kasper, S., Schatzberg, A. F., Moller, H. J., . . . Bourgeois, M. (2000). Social functioning in depression: a review. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 61, 268–275. doi:10.4088/JCP.v61n0405 Horstmann, G. (2003). What do facial expressions convey: feeling states, behavioural intentions, or action requests? Emotion, 3, 150–166. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.3.2.150 Johnston, P. J., McCabe, K., & Schall, U. (2003). Differential susceptibility to performance degradation across categories of facial emotion–a model confirmation. Biological Psychology, 63, 45–58. doi:10.1016/S0301-0511(03)00026-7 Knutson, B. (1996). Facial expressions of emotion influence interpersonal trait inferences. The Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour, 20, 165–182. doi:10.1007/BF02281954 Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2005). International affective pictures system (IAPS). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality. New York, NY: Ronald Press. Markey, P. M., & Kurtz, J. E. (2006). Increasing acquaintanceship and complementarity of behavioural styles and personality traits among college roommates. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 907–916. doi:10.1177/0146167206287129 Marsh, A. A., Ambady, N., & Kleck, R. E. (2005). The Effects of Fear and Anger Facial Expressions on Approach- and Avoidance-Related Behaviours. Emotion, 5, 119–124. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.5. 1.119 Marsh, A. A., Finger, E. C., Buzas, B., Soliman, N., Richell, R. A., Vythilingam, M., . . . Blair, R. J. (2006). Impaired recognition of fear facial expressions in 5-HTTLPR S-polymorphism carriers following tryptophan depletion. Psychopharmacology (Berl), 189, 387–394. doi:10.1007/s00213-0060581-2 Marwick, K., & Hall, J. (2008). Social cognition in schizophrenia: a review of face processing. British Medical Bulletin, 88, 43–58. doi:10.1093/bmb/ldn035 Morrison, R. L., & Bellack, A. S. (1987). Social functioning of schizophrenic patients: clinical and research issues. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 13, 715–725. doi:10.1093/schbul/13.4.715 Moskowitz, D. S. (1994). Cross-situational generality and the interpersonal circumplex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 921–933. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.66.5.921 Moskowitz, D. S., & Cote´, S. (1995). Do interpersonal traits predict affect? A comparison of three models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 915–924. doi:10.1037//0022-3514. 69.5.915 Moskowitz, D. S., & Zuroff, D. C. (2005). Assessing interpersonal perceptions using the interpersonal grid. Psychological Assessment, 17, 218–230. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.17.2.218 Orford, J. (1986). The rules of interpersonal complementarity: does hostility beget hostility and dominance, submission? Psychological Review, 93, 365–377. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.93.3. 365 Parkinson, B. (1996). Emotions are social. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 663–683. doi:10.1111/ j.2044-8295.1996.tb02615.x Parkinson, B. (2005). Do facial movements express emotions or communicate motives? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 278–311. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0904_1 Plasencia, M. L., Alden, L. E., & Taylor, C. T. (2011). Differential effects of safety behaviour subtypes in social anxiety disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 49, 665–675. doi:10.1016/j.brat. 2011.07.005 Russell, J. J., Moskowitz, D. S., Zuroff, D. C., Bleau, P., Pinard, G., & Young, S. N. (2011). Anxiety, emotional security, and the interpersonal behaviour of individuals with social anxiety disorder. Psychological Medicine, 41, 545–554. doi:10.1017/S0033291710000863 Russell, J. J., Moskowitz, D. S., Zuroff, D. C., Sookman, D., & Paris, J. (2007). Stability and variability of affective experience and interpersonal behaviour in borderline personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 578–588. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.116.3.578 Sadler, P., & Woody, E. (2003). Is who you are who you’re talking to? Interpersonal style and complementarity in mixed-sex interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 80–96. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.84.1.80
186
Marije aan het Rot et al.
Seidel, E. M., Habel, U., Finkelmeyer, A., Schneider, F., Gur, R. C., & Derntl, B. (2010). Implicit and explicit behavioural tendencies in male and female depression. Psychiatry Research, 177, 124– 130. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2010.02.001 Seidel, E. M., Habel, U., Kirschner, M., Gur, R. C., & Derntl, B. (2010). The impact of facial emotional expressions on behavioural tendencies in women and men. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 500–507. doi:10.1037/a0018169 Thompson, E. R. (2007). Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 227–242. doi:10.1177/0022022106297301 Todorov, A., Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2006). Towards socially inspired social neuroscience. Brain Research, 1079, 76–85. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2005.12.114 Von Borries, A. K. L., Volman, I., de Bruijn, E. R. A., Bulten, B. H., Verkes, R. J., & Roelofs, K. (2012). Psychopaths lack the automatic avoidance of social threat: relation to instrumental aggression. Psychiatry Research, 200, 761–766. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2012.06.026 Wiggins, J. S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for the understanding and measurement of interpersonal behaviour. In W. M. Grove & D. Ciccetti (Eds.), Thinking Clearly about Psychology: Personality and Psychopathology (pp. 89–113). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Wilkowski, B. M., & Meier, B. P. (2010). Bring it on: angry facial expressions potentiate approachmotivated motor behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 201–210. doi:10.1037/a0017992 Zaki, J., Bolger, N., & Ochsner, K. (2008). It takes two: the interpersonal nature of empathic accuracy. Psychological Science, 19, 399–404. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02099.x Received 29 August 2012; revised version received 8 January 2013
British Journal of Psychology (2014), 105, 173–186 © 2013 The British Psychological Society www.wileyonlinelibrary.com
Communal and agentic behaviour in response to facial emotion expressions Marije aan het Rot*, Koen Hogenelst and Christina M. Gesing Department of Psychology, University of Groningen, The Netherlands Facial emotions are important for human communication. Unfortunately, traditional facial emotion recognition tasks do not inform about how respondents might behave towards others expressing certain emotions. Approach-avoidance tasks do measure behaviour, but only on one dimension. In this study 81 participants completed a novel Facial Emotion Response Task. Images displaying individuals with emotional expressions were presented in random order. Participants simultaneously indicated how communal (quarrelsome vs. agreeable) and how agentic (dominant vs. submissive) they would be in response to each expression. We found that participants responded differently to happy, angry, fearful, and sad expressions in terms of both dimensions of behaviour. Higher levels of negative affect were associated with less agreeable responses specifically towards happy and sad expressions. The Facial Emotion Response Task might complement existing facial emotion recognition and approach-avoidance tasks.
Emotions are best viewed as social phenomena. Expressed in faces, they provide an important means of communication (Parkinson, 1996, 2005). There exist a number of basic emotions that are accompanied by specific facial expressions (Ekman, 1972). By informing people of others’ feelings, thoughts, and intentions, facial emotion expressions direct the appropriateness of behavioural responses between individuals in social interaction (Horstmann, 2003). Here, we propose using the circumplex model of interpersonal behaviour (Leary, 1957; Wiggins, 1991) for assessing how people might respond to others displaying facial emotion expressions. Traditional facial emotion recognition tasks require people to look at face images taken from or similar to the Pictures of Facial Affect Series (Ekman & Friesen, 1976) and to accurately identify the emotion expressed in each face. They are easy to administer and have been extensively used as a measure of social cognition, for example in individuals diagnosed with psychiatric disorders (Demenescu, Kortekaas, den Boer & Aleman, 2010; Marwick & Hall, 2008). Unfortunately, facial emotion recognition tasks provide little information about how people might behave in response to seeing others’ facial expressions. This is an important
*Correspondence should be addressed to M. aan het Rot, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS Groningen, The Netherlands (email: [email protected]). DOI:10.1111/bjop.12029
174
Marije aan het Rot et al.
limitation: in real life people may vary in their behaviour towards a person showing a certain emotion, and it is behaviour that ultimately determines the flow of everyday social interactions. For example, people may become aggressive when they recognize the expression in another person’s face as angry, or they may withdraw. Similarly, sad facial expressions may elicit either compassion or irritability. Thus, researchers interested in interpersonal behaviour might benefit from directly asking people how they would respond to particular facial expressions. Consistent with this idea, several studies have investigated approach and avoidance in response to seeing different facial expressions. Angry and fearful expressions are both considered aversive and might thus elicit avoidance. However, Parkinson (1996) has suggested that fearful expressions primarily serve to request help from others when a threat is present. Indeed, Marsh, Ambady and Kleck (2005) reported that fearful expressions elicit approach rather than avoidance. Thus, even though fearful expressions suggest the presence of a threat that may jeopardize both individuals in social interactions, these expressions may still invite pro-social behaviour. Marsh et al. (2005) also reported avoidance of angry expressions, as might have been expected based on their aversive nature and communicative role (Parkinson, 1996). Seidel, Habel, Kirshner et al. (2010) replicated this finding. However, angry expressions may not always have this effect. Wilkowski and Meier (2010) found that angry expressions elicited avoidance when immediately followed by happy expressions but elicited approach when followed by fearful expressions. Anger followed by happiness is thought to communicate victory whereas anger followed by fear communicates defeat (De Waal, 1986). Thus, only in situations that are unambiguous with respect to the lower status of the person making the expression, anger may elicit approach. Seidel, Habel, Kirshner et al. (2010) also reported approach of both happy and sad expressions. The result for sadness can only be explained by considering its communicative role (Parkinson, 1996) in addition to its aversive nature. Indeed Seidel, Habel, Kirshner et al., (2010) found that while sad expressions were approached when shown during the approach/avoidance task, when rated afterwards participants indicated a wish to avoid them. Overall, approach/avoidance tasks may better distinguish between people than facial emotion recognition tasks. For example, by assessing facial expression-elicited approach and avoidance in individuals diagnosed with psychiatric disorders (e.g., Heuer, Rinck & Becker, 2007; Seidel, Habel, Finkelmeyer et al., 2010; Von Borries et al., 2012), differentiation between disorders characterized by similar facial emotion recognition deficits might be improved. The finding that angry others may be approached rather than avoided (Wilkowski & Meier, 2010) is consistent with a study in which participants reported quarrelsomeness during social interactions in which they felt criticized by others in a lower status role, but submissiveness when they felt criticized by others in a higher status role (Fournier, Moskowitz & Zuroff, 2002). Quarrelsomeness and submissiveness were assessed using a validated list of items representing the four dimensions of social behaviour that define the interpersonal circumplex (Moskowitz, 1994). This model contends that variables that measure relations between people are arranged around a circle defined by two axes (Leary, 1957; Wiggins, 1991). One axis indicates communion in behaviour and ranges from quarrelsomeness to agreeableness. The other axis indicates agency in behaviour and ranges from dominance to submissiveness. The interpersonal circumplex has proven useful in many settings, for example when studying social interactions, including those of individuals diagnosed with psychiatric disorders (Fournier et al., 2002; Moskowitz, 1994; Russell, Moskowitz, Zuroff, Sookman & Paris, 2007; Russell et al., 2011).
Responding to facial emotions
175
An advantage of the interpersonal circumplex is that behaviour is organized along two dimensions rather than solely in terms of approach versus avoidance. The model has been used to characterize facial emotion expressions. Knutson (1996) asked students to rate images from the Picture of Facial Affect Series in terms of trait levels of communion and agency. Anger was associated with low communion and high agency (i.e., quarrelsome dominance), fear with high communion and low agency (agreeable submissiveness), happiness with high communion and high agency (agreeable dominance), and sadness was primarily associated with low agency (submissiveness). Behavioural responses to facial emotion expressions may also be described in terms of communion and agency. According to the principles of interpersonal complementarity described by Carson (1969), agreeableness invites agreeableness and quarrelsomeness invites quarrelsomeness whereas dominance invites submissiveness and vice versa. However, Orford (1986) has shown that while agreeable dominance and agreeable submissiveness tend to invite agreeable submissiveness and agreeable dominance, respectively, quarrelsome dominance most often invites quarrelsome dominance. Therefore, following Knutson (1996), behavioural responses to angry expressions would likely be quarrelsome and dominant, responses to fearful expressions agreeable and dominant, and responses to happy expressions agreeable and submissive. These hypotheses would be consistent with Wilkowski and Meier (2010) with respect to anger, with Marsh et al. (2005) with respect to fear, and with Seidel, Habel, Kirshner et al., (2010) with respect to happiness. Moreover, the finding by Seidel, Habel, Kirshner et al., (2010) that sad expressions elicit approach suggests that behavioural responses to sadness may primarily be dominant. In this study we tested these hypotheses by asking participants to use the interpersonal circumplex to indicate how they would respond to angry, fearful, happy, and sad facial expressions. In other words, they were asked to indicate their behaviour in terms of two dimensions: communion and agency. We used the Picture of Facial Affect Series to test our hypotheses. We named our task the Facial Emotion Response Task. An additional aim was to see if mood state might influence responses to the various facial expressions. Mood state has previously been shown to influence facial emotion recognition (Coupland et al., 2004; Forbes, Phillips, Silk, Ryan & Dahl, 2011) and approach/avoidance tendencies (Heuer et al., 2007). Moreover, mood state has previously been associated with concurrent levels of communion and agency (Cote & Moskowitz, 1998; Moskowitz & Cote, 1995). Due to the exploratory nature of this part of the study, we did not formulate hypotheses about the expected findings a priori.
Method Participants The study was conducted at the University of Groningen. First-year students in its Bachelor in Psychology program participate in research for educational purposes. Participants for this study (n = 81) were recruited from this group. They ranged from 18 to 29 years of age (M = 20.8, SD = 2.0). For 48%, Dutch or English was their native language. Women (63%) did not differ significantly from men in age, in the percentage Dutch or English native speakers, or in mood state. In accordance with the departmental ethics board, which approved the study, participants (‘perceivers’) received partial course credit for their participation.
176
Marije aan het Rot et al.
Facial emotion response task This task was adapted from an existing facial emotion recognition task. Greyscale face images of three men and three women (‘targets’) were taken from the Pictures of Facial Affect Series (Ekman & Friesen, 1976). All targets portrayed a neutral face and four emotional faces: angry, fearful, happy, and sad. For each of the emotional faces, the intensity of the emotion was varied by computer between 0% and 100% in five 20% steps. This allowed us to explore the linearity of facial expression intensity to behavioural response associations. The 126 faces were presented in random order for 500 ms each. Preceding each face a fixation symbol was shown for 300 ms. Following each face a response grid was shown for up to 5 s. Therefore, the maximum inter-stimulus interval was 5800 ms. The response grid, divided into four quadrants by horizontal (X) and vertical (Y) axes, was identical to the one by Moskowitz and Zuroff (2005) for the 43 perceivers who completed the task in English, and translated into Dutch for the 38 perceivers who completed the task in Dutch. Perceivers were instructed to use the computer mouse to indicate how they would behave if they were to interact with the target whose face they just saw. They were trained to simultaneously indicate how communal and agentic they would be by considering the X axis and the Y axis of the grid respectively. For each of the face stimuli presented during the task, the output considered the target, the expressed emotion, the intensity of the emotion, the X and Y coordinates of each response, and the response time. X and Y ranged from 100 to +100 and represented quarrelsomeness versus agreeableness and dominance versus submissiveness, respectively, with 0 representing neutral behaviour. X and Y thus constitute the two outcome measures for the Facial Emotion Response Task. From here on, they are labelled Communion and Agency, respectively.
Procedure Perceivers were recruited using a website accessible only to first-year Psychology students. The advertisement asked for participants for a study on how people react to others. Interested students were scheduled to come into a local university lab using an online sign-up system. In the lab the study was explained verbally by one of the researchers with the help of a detailed written information sheet. Students who subsequently agreed to participate signed an informed consent document. A session usually lasted 45 min. Prior to completing the Facial Emotion Response Task, perceivers completed a Positive Affect and Negative Affect Schedule (Thompson, 2007). Item scores could vary between 1 (not at all) and 5 (extremely). Positive affect (PA) was defined as the sum score on the items active, alert, attentive, determined, and inspired. Negative affect (NA) was defined as the sum score on the items upset, hostile, ashamed, nervous, and afraid. There were no significant differences in PA between women, M = 16.4, SD = 3.0, and men, M = 16.1, SD = 3.4, t(79) = 0.36, p > 0.7, and there were no significant differences in NA between women, M = 7.9, SD = 3.0, and men, M = 8.3, SD = 3.5, t(79) = 0.59, p > 0.5.
Statistical analyses Analyses were conducted using PROC MIXED, Version 9.3 (SAS Institute, 2010). The degrees of freedom for F tests were determined by dividing the residual degrees of freedom into between- and within-subjects portions. All models included a random
Responding to facial emotions
177
intercept and the default error covariance matrix. Interaction effects were analysed using a correction for multiple comparisons (described below). First, we explored whether there was variation in response times to the different facial emotion expressions. Response times of more than five-seconds were excluded. The maximum number of exclusions per perceiver was 11. Response times were log transformed. The fixed-effects portion of each model included Facial Expression. Based on the outcome of this examination, subsequent models controlled for log response times. Second, analogous to Knutson (1996), we tested if there was a main effect of Facial Expression on Communion and Agency without any additional effect of Target. The fixedeffects portion of each model included Facial Expression, Target, and their interaction as predictors. Based on the outcome of this examination, subsequent models also controlled for Target. Third, to find out how behavioural responses varied depending on how happy, angry, sad, or fearful a target looked, the fixed-effects portion of each model included Facial Expression, Intensity, and their interaction as predictors. Responses to neutral expressions did not vary in intensity and were therefore not included. Fourth, to test the impact of mood state on behavioural responses, we included as predictors Facial Expression, PA or NA, and their interaction. In this analysis we also controlled for Intensity because Coupland et al. (2004) have found that mood state may influence the intensity threshold at which certain facial expressions are accurately detected. PA scores were normally distributed. NA scores were left-skewed. Both were standardized to a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. Again responses to neutral expressions were not included.
Results Response times The effect of Facial Expression was significant, F(4,320) = 41.42, p < .0001. The simple contrasts, analysed using a Tukey-Kramer correction, revealed that perceivers were slowest in responding to fearful expressions and quickest in responding to happy expressions, with intermediate response times for sad, angry, and neutral expressions.
Task characteristics Communion The effect of Facial Expression was significant, F(4,320) = 581.25, p < .0001. However, so were the effects of Target, F(5,400) = 144.86, p < .0001, and of the two-way interaction, F(20,1598) = 7.82, p < .0001.
Agency The effect of Facial Expression was significant, F(4,320) = 106.78, p < .0001, but again so were the effects of Target, F(5,400) = 3.84, p < .003, and of the two-way interaction, F(20,1598) = 2.07, p < .004. Post-hoc testing of the observed Target by Facial Expression effects primarily revealed a tendency for perceivers to evaluate one of the targets differently from the others. However, when we excluded this target, the interaction effect remained significant. As it
178
Marije aan het Rot et al.
is conceivable that behavioural responses to faces are influenced by more than their expressions alone, we retained the data from all targets. Behavioural responses to facial expressions of varying intensity Communion The effects of Facial Expression, F(3,240) = 827.22, p < .0001, and of the Facial Expression by Intensity interaction, F(12,960) = 73.36, p < .0001, were significant. The interaction effect was analysed further using a Tukey-Kramer correction. Communion decreased from 20% to 40% anger, from 40% to 60% anger, and from 60% to 80% anger. Communion also decreased in response to seeing a 60%, 80%, or 100% fearful expression compared with seeing a 20% fearful expression. Communion increased from 20% to 40% happiness, from 40% to 60% happiness, and from 60% to 80% happiness. Communion also increased in response to seeing a 100% sad expression compared with seeing a 20% or 40% sad expression.
Agency Again the effects of Facial Expression, F(3,240) = 143.91, p < .0001, and of the Facial Expression by Intensity interaction, F(12,960) = 19.09, p < .0001, were significant. The interaction effect was analysed further using a Tukey-Kramer correction. Agency did not vary as a function of the intensity of anger displayed by a target. In contrast, perceivers reported a lower level of agency in response to seeing an 80% or 100% fearful expression compared to seeing a 20% fearful expression. Furthermore, agency increased from 20% to 60% happiness, from 40% to 80% happiness, and from 60% to both 80% and 100% happiness, and decreased from 20% sadness to both 80% and 100% sadness. The effects of Facial Expression and Intensity on Communion and Agency have been summarized in Figure 1. Perceivers responded in an increasingly quarrelsome way to targets with increasingly angry expressions, without becoming more or less dominant (Figure 1a). Perceivers responded in a mildly agreeable-dominant way towards mildly fearful targets and in a mildly quarrelsome-submissive way towards highly fearful targets (Figure 1b). Perceivers responded in an increasingly agreeable-dominant way towards targets with increasingly happy expressions (Figure 1c). Perceivers responded primarily in a somewhat dominant way towards mildly sad targets and in a somewhat agreeable way towards highly sad targets (Figure 1d). Mood state Communion For PA, the effect of Facial Expression was significant, F(3,240) = 754.21, p < .0001, but the effects of PA, F(1,79) = 0.68, p > .41, and of the two-way interaction, F (3,9516) = 1.09, p > .35, were not. For NA, the effects of Facial Expression, F(3,240) = 756.12, p < .0001, NA, F (1,79) = 5.64, p < .02, and the two-way interaction, F(3,9516) = 8.67, p < .0001, were all significant. Post-hoc testing of the relevant simple contrasts included a correction for the four planned comparisons so p < .0125 was deemed significant. Perceivers with more NA rated their behaviour towards happy targets as less agreeable (though not quarrelsome) than perceivers with less NA, t(9516) = 3.22, p < .002. They also rated their behaviour towards sad targets as less agreeable, t(9516) = 2.97, p < .004. There
Responding to facial emotions
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
179
Figure 1. Participants’ self-rated behaviour towards targets with (a) angry, (b) fearful, (c) happy, and (d) sad facial expressions of varying intensity (20–100%). Communion in behaviour is reflected on the horizontal axis and ranges from quarrelsomeness on the left to agreeableness on the right. Agency in behaviour is reflected on the vertical axis and ranges from dominance in the top to submissiveness in the bottom. The data points represent estimated means and error bars.
were no significant effects of mood state on behavioural responses towards angry or fearful targets, t(9516) < 2.22, p > .02. The findings did not change when we controlled for concurrent levels of PA.
Agency For PA, the effects of Facial Expression, F(3,240) = 138.64, p < .0001, and the PA by Facial Expression interaction, F(3,9516) = 3.88, p < .009, were significant. However, post-hoc testing of the relevant simple contrasts, which again included a correction for the four planned comparisons so p < .0125 was deemed significant, revealed no significant contrasts, t(9516) < 1.75, p > .08. For NA, the effects of Facial Expression, F(3,240) = 138.94, p < .0001, and the NA by Facial Expression interaction, F(3,9516) = 7.02, p < .0001, were significant. However, post-hoc testing of the four planned comparisons revealed no significant contrasts, t(9516) < 1.40, p > .16.
Additional analyses We repeated the mood state analyses using single NA items. The inter-individual variation in communion towards happy and sad targets appeared primarily driven by interindividual variation in nervousness.
180
Marije aan het Rot et al.
We repeated all analyses using Target Sex as the covariate instead of Target. This did not change our findings. We then added Perceiver Sex as an additional covariate. Again this did not change our findings, and the effect of Perceiver Sex was never significant. Finally, we repeated all analyses using either Language (coded as English vs. Dutch for the language in which participants completed the task or Native (coded as native vs. nonnative for the language in which participants completed the task) as an additional moderator of the effects of Facial Expression on Communion and Agency. Language did not moderate the Facial Expression by Target effects reported under Task characteristics, the Facial Expression by Intensity effects reported under Behavioural responses to facial expressions of varying intensity, or the Facial Expression by NA effect reported under Mood state. Similarly, Native did not moderate these reported interaction effects. We did not add Language and Native to the models simultaneously given unequal numbers of participants in each of the four resulting groups.
Discussion We used a novel Facial Emotion Response Task to collect data on behavioural responses to anger, fear, happiness, and sadness in terms of communion and agency. These two dimensions of behaviour comprise the two orthogonal axes that define the interpersonal circumplex (Leary, 1957; Wiggins, 1991). Anger invited quarrelsome dominance, but with increasing intensities of emotion perceivers primarily reported an increase in quarrelsomeness. Fear invited agreeable dominance at lower intensities, but quarrelsome submissiveness at higher intensities. Happiness invited progressively more agreeable dominance with increasing intensities of emotion, and sadness primarily invited dominance at lower intensities and agreeableness at higher intensities. The behavioural responses to happiness and sadness were influenced by mood state (NA), though only in terms of communion. Knutson (1996) found that people expect angry others to behave in a quarrelsomedominant way and Orford (1986) has argued that quarrelsome dominance tends to invite quarrelsome dominance from others. Thus, we hypothesized that perceivers would respond to angry targets in a quarrelsome-dominant way. This hypothesis was confirmed, a finding that is consistent with Wilkowski and Meier (2010), who found that people tend to approach angry others when they appear in a lower status position. Our study adds to that of Wilkowski and Meier (2010) in that increasingly angry facial expressions primarily elicited more quarrelsomeness, without participants reporting a change in dominance (Figure 1a). Our second hypothesis was that behavioural responses to fearful expressions would likely be agreeable and dominant (cf. Knutson, 1996; Orford, 1986). This hypothesis was partially confirmed. Towards mildly fearful targets, perceivers respond in a mildly agreeable-dominant way. However, towards highly fearful targets perceivers responded in a mildly quarrelsome-submissive way (Figure 1b). Responding to fearful expressions with agreeable dominance is consistent with one previous approach/avoidance study (Marsh et al., 2005), but responding to fearful expressions with quarrelsome submissiveness is not. Wilkowski and Meier (2010) reported a tendency for faster avoidance of fearful expressions. According to Parkinson (1996), fearful expressions serve to request help from others. Perceivers’ agreeable dominance towards mildly fearful targets is consistent with this. However, perceivers’ quarrelsome submissiveness towards highly fearful targets indicated a wish to withdraw. One explanation of this finding is that fear signals, though often adaptive, may have negative consequences when displayed unnecessarily (Gilbert, 2001). Individuals with social anxiety disorder constitute one
Responding to facial emotions
181
group likely characterized by maladaptive fear signalling. They often behave overly submissively (Russell et al., 2011) and this may elicit negative evaluations (Plasencia, Alden & Taylor, 2011) and social withdrawal from others. Another explanation of our finding is that highly fearful targets signalled the presence of too large a threat for the perceivers to approach. This explanation might also apply to the approach/avoidance study by Wilkowski and Meier (2010). In this study, like in ours, the highly fearful targets were three male and three female actors from the Picture of Facial Affect Series expressing fear at 100% intensity. In contrast, Marsh et al. (2005), who found that fearful targets are approached rather than avoided, used another stimulus set. Targets in the two sets may differ in threat signalling. Fearful expressions are often mistaken for surprise (Johnston, McCabe & Schall, 2003); this may have occurred more often in the study by Marsh et al. (2005) than in our study, thus reducing the overall level of threat. Future approach/avoidance studies might include targets with fearful expressions of varying intensity. Perceivers responded to happy targets in an agreeable-dominant way. Our hypothesis was thus confirmed with respect to communion, but not with respect to agency. We had expected perceivers to respond to happy targets in an agreeable-submissive way (cf. Knutson, 1996; Orford, 1986). One way to explain our finding is that there were no clear status differences between perceivers and targets. Previous studies reporting reciprocity of agency in behaviour have often used goal-oriented tasks to evoke dominance and submissiveness (e.g., Sadler & Woody, 2003). Another way to explain our finding is that the targets were strangers to the perceivers. People who are acquainted are more likely to reciprocate interpersonal behaviour than people who are unacquainted (Markey & Kurtz, 2006). Though not hypothesized, the finding that perceivers responded to happy targets in an agreeable-dominant way is still consistent with Seidel, Habel, Kirshner et al., (2010). This study adds to their approach/avoidance study in that increasingly happy facial expressions elicited both more agreeableness and more dominance (Figure 1a). With respect to our fourth hypothesis, we found that targets with mildly sad expressions primarily invited dominance (Figure 1d). This is consistent with prior work showing higher levels of dominance during interactions with others of low social status (Fournier et al., 2002), given that individuals displaying sadness are considered low on agency (Knutson, 1996). The fact that, at lower levels of emotional intensity, perceivers responded to sad expressions with dominance might be seen as an attempt to improve the emotional state of the target by taking charge of the situation. However, targets with extremely sad facial expressions primarily invited agreeableness (Figure 1d). This is more compatible with the idea that sad facial expressions signal loss and serve to communicate a need for comfort (Parkinson, 1996). Perceivers’ agreeable behaviour in response to very intense sadness might be seen as an attempt to improve the emotional state of the target by showing affection. At both high and low levels of emotional intensity, our finding is compatible with Seidel, Habel, Kirshner et al., (2010), who found that sad expressions elicited approach rather than avoidance. Both dominance and agreeableness may be seen as approach behaviours. Our study adds to that of Seidel, Habel, Kirshner et al., (2010) by showing that increasingly sad facial expressions might elicit an increase in agreeableness without perceivers becoming more dominant (Figure 1d). Finally, we found that perceivers with relatively high levels of NA reported relatively low levels of communion (agreeableness) towards happy as well as sad targets. There were no associations between NA and communion (quarrelsomeness) towards angry targets and between NA and communion (agreeableness or quarrelsomeness) towards fearful targets. The level of communion towards highly happy and highly sad targets was
182
Marije aan het Rot et al.
higher than towards highly angry and highly fearful targets (see Figure 1), and so in the latter situations there was less room for change. There were also no associations between NA and agency in behaviour, and between PA and either communion or agency. Perhaps in our relatively homogeneous study sample the inter-individual variability in PA and NA was too small to be associated with considerable variability in agentic responses. We might have observed larger effects of NA and PA after an experimentally induced mood change or in patients with psychiatric disorders.
Limitations One limitation of the study is that participants completed the task either in English or in Dutch, and either in their native language (English or Dutch) or in a non-native language (for example, several participants were German). As pointed out by a reviewer, this may have influenced participants’ behavioural responses. With the current sample size we were unable to analyse the potentially confounding impact of language-related factors fully. Nonetheless, they did not appear to moderate the observed effects. It remains to be seen if, for example, German participants complete the Facial Expression Response Task differently in English than French participants, and if, for example, Dutch participants complete the task differently in Dutch than in English. Additional limitations to this study become evident when comparing the Facial Emotion Response Task to other tasks described in this study. For example, while we used the Picture of Facial Affect Series (Ekman & Friesen, 1976), others have used more recent sets of facial expressions such as the International Affective Picture System (Lang, Bradley & Cuthbert, 2005). In future studies, these sets could be used instead. Furthermore, while facial emotion recognition tasks have traditionally used static face stimuli, more recent versions have used morphs or video clips, which are more naturalistic (Biele & Grabowska, 2006; Hess & Blairy, 2001). Moreover, we do not know whether perceivers were able to accurately recognize targets or whether they did so consciously before (or after) providing their behavioural responses. Notably, Knutson (1996) also used static face stimuli and did not test for facial emotion recognition accuracy. Our study was different, however, in that perceivers saw the targets multiple times. Furthermore, the target ratings reported by Knutson (1996) were based on a series of interpersonal adjectives representing communion and agency in behaviour and thus concerned dispositional trait-like inferences. Instead, we asked perceivers to indicate on the interpersonal grid, a single-item measure that simultaneously assesses state levels of communion and agency, how they would respond behaviourally. A final concern is that we did not test whether perceivers would have rated the various facial expressions the way Knutson’s (1996) participants did. Therefore, we cannot exclude the possibility that perceivers rated the targets in terms of likely target behaviours instead of their behavioural responses to the targets. However, the results for angry expressions do not fit this concern, nor do the results for highly fearful and highly sad expressions. A major limitation of the Facial Emotion Response Task compared with approachavoidance tasks is that it assesses how people might behave in response to facial emotion expressions of others; it does not actually measure behaviour. Moreover, it asks of participants to consciously label their behaviour, which is not something they normally do. Lastly, there are several limitations that the Facial Emotion Response Task has in common with facial emotion recognition tasks, the task described by Knutson (1996), and approach/avoidance tasks. Our task was administered in a laboratory. It did not involve
Responding to facial emotions
183
actual social interactions in which individuals react to each other’s facial expressions. Furthermore, as mentioned before, the targets were strangers to the perceivers. The facial expressions were not accompanied by additional non-verbal cues and verbal expressions that are common during social interactions. And finally, actual interpersonal behaviour was not measured. Thus, the Facial Emotion Response Task, like the other tasks, has low ecological validity.
Implications Clearly the Facial Emotion Response Task has significant limitations. However, we wish to emphasize that facial emotion recognition tasks and approach/avoidance tasks have similar problems. An additional limitation of facial emotion recognition tasks is that data are usually only interpreted in terms of what the emotions communicated by the targets mean to the perceivers, even though (in everyday life) the emotions also mean something to the targets. For example, fearful faces have been considered indicative of a threat to the perceiver (e.g., Forbes et al., 2011; Harmer et al., 2003; Marsh et al., 2006) without taking into account that they are also a sign of distress communicated by the target, exposed to the same threat and thus asking for help (Parkinson, 1996). Poor facial emotion recognition task performance has generally been interpreted as an impairment in intrapersonal functioning, whereas it might also imply an impairment in interpersonal functioning. While approach/avoidance tasks using emotional face stimuli do include an interpersonal component, a limitation of these tasks is that the behaviour of the perceivers is assessed on a single dimension. This leaves ample room for interpretation particularly with respect to approach behaviour (see Marsh et al., 2005; Wilkowski & Meier, 2010). The Facial Emotion Response Task assesses interpersonal behaviour more indirectly, but has the advantage of doing so on two dimensions, communion and agency. Our data help explain why angry, fearful, and sad expressions may all be approached rather than avoided (Marsh et al., 2005; Seidel, Habel, Kirshner et al., (2010); Wilkowski & Meier, 2010). Laboratory measures of social functioning that consider the emotional states of targets include both explicit (Marsh et al., 2005) and implicit (Seidel, Habel, Kirshner et al., (2010)) approach/avoidance tasks. Furthermore, Todorov, Harris and Fiske (2006) have described angry and happy faces in terms of the extent to which they signal trustworthiness, and thus help facilitate either avoidance or approach. Biele and Grabowska (2006) described a facial emotion recognition task that employed more dynamic face stimuli. This task could be adapted such that participants rate their behavioural responses to the targets’ emotional expressions. However, to assess social functioning in the laboratory, measures that are even more ecologically valid could easily be developed. For example, Zaki, Bolger and Ochsner (2008) asked participants to continuously rate how targets felt while discussing autobiographical emotional events in video clips. This task could be also adapted such that participants could continuously indicate their behaviour towards targets, either in terms of approach versus avoidance or in terms of communion and agency.
Conclusion This is the first study to use a standardized computer task for assessing how people might respond to others with different facial emotion expressions in terms of communion and agency. Behaviour ratings obtained using the Facial Emotion Response Task were sensitive to different target emotions of varying intensity and to inter-individual variability
184
Marije aan het Rot et al.
in NA. Despite its limitations, the task might complement existing facial emotion recognition tasks. This is relevant to the study of psychiatric disorders, which are often associated with abnormal social functioning (Hirschfeld et al., 2000; Morrison & Bellack, 1987; Russell et al., 2011).
Acknowledgements The authors thank Eise Hoekstra from Technical Support Services at the University of Groningen Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences for programming the Facial Expression Response Task. Dr. aan het Rot is supported by the Innovational Research Incentives Scheme Veni from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO).
References Biele, C., & Grabowska, A. (2006). Sex differences in perception of emotion intensity in dynamic and static facial expressions. Experimental Brain Research, 171, 1–6. doi:10.1007/s00221-0050254-0 Carson, R. C. (1969). Interaction Concepts of Personality. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Cote´, S., & Moskowitz, D. S. (1998). On the dynamic covariation between interpersonal behaviour and affect: prediction from neuroticism, extraversion, and agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1032–1046. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.1032 Coupland, N. J., Sustrik, R. A., Ting, P., Li, D., Hartfeil, M., Singh, A. J., & Blair, R. J. (2004). Positive and negative affect differentially influence identification of facial emotions. Depression and Anxiety, 19, 31–34. doi:10.1002/da.10136 De Waal, F. B. (1986). The integration of dominance and social bonding in primates. Quarterly Review of Biology, 61, 459–479. doi:10.1086/415144 Demenescu, L. R., Kortekaas, R., den Boer, J. A., & Aleman, A. (2010). Impaired attribution of emotion to facial expressions in anxiety and major depression. PLoS ONE, 5, e15058. doi:10. 1371/journal.pone.0015058 Ekman, P. (1972). Universals and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotion. In J. Cole (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 19, pp. 207–283). Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. (1976). Pictures of Facial Affect. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists’ Press. Forbes, E. E., Phillips, M. L., Silk, J. S., Ryan, N. D., & Dahl, R. E. (2011). Neural systems of threat processing in adolescents: role of pubertal maturation and relation to measures of negative affect. Dev Neuropsychol, 36, 429–452. doi:10.1080/87565641.2010.550178 Fournier, M. A., Moskowitz, D. S., & Zuroff, D. C. (2002). Social rank strategies in hierarchical relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 425–433. doi:10.1037//00223514.83.2.425 Gilbert, P. (2001). Evolution and social anxiety: the role of attraction, social competition, and social hierarchies. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 24, 723–751. doi:10.1016/S0193-953X(05) 70260-4 Harmer, C. J., Bhagwager, Z., Perrett, D. I., Voellm, B. A., Cowen, P. J., & Goodwin, G. M. (2003). Acute SSRI administration affects the processing of social cues in healthy volunteers. Neuropsychopharmacology, 28, 148–152. doi:10.1038/sj.npp.1300004 Hess, U., & Blairy, S. (2001). Facial mimicry and emotional contagion to dynamic emotional facial expressions and their influence on decoding accuracy. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 40, 129–141. doi:10.1016/S0167-8760(00)00161-6 Heuer, K., Rinck, M., & Becker, E. S. (2007). Avoidance of emotional facial expressions in social anxiety: the Approach-Avoidance Task. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45, 2990–3001. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2007.08.010
Responding to facial emotions
185
Hirschfeld, R. M., Montgomery, S. A., Keller, M. B., Kasper, S., Schatzberg, A. F., Moller, H. J., . . . Bourgeois, M. (2000). Social functioning in depression: a review. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 61, 268–275. doi:10.4088/JCP.v61n0405 Horstmann, G. (2003). What do facial expressions convey: feeling states, behavioural intentions, or action requests? Emotion, 3, 150–166. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.3.2.150 Johnston, P. J., McCabe, K., & Schall, U. (2003). Differential susceptibility to performance degradation across categories of facial emotion–a model confirmation. Biological Psychology, 63, 45–58. doi:10.1016/S0301-0511(03)00026-7 Knutson, B. (1996). Facial expressions of emotion influence interpersonal trait inferences. The Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour, 20, 165–182. doi:10.1007/BF02281954 Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2005). International affective pictures system (IAPS). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality. New York, NY: Ronald Press. Markey, P. M., & Kurtz, J. E. (2006). Increasing acquaintanceship and complementarity of behavioural styles and personality traits among college roommates. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 907–916. doi:10.1177/0146167206287129 Marsh, A. A., Ambady, N., & Kleck, R. E. (2005). The Effects of Fear and Anger Facial Expressions on Approach- and Avoidance-Related Behaviours. Emotion, 5, 119–124. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.5. 1.119 Marsh, A. A., Finger, E. C., Buzas, B., Soliman, N., Richell, R. A., Vythilingam, M., . . . Blair, R. J. (2006). Impaired recognition of fear facial expressions in 5-HTTLPR S-polymorphism carriers following tryptophan depletion. Psychopharmacology (Berl), 189, 387–394. doi:10.1007/s00213-0060581-2 Marwick, K., & Hall, J. (2008). Social cognition in schizophrenia: a review of face processing. British Medical Bulletin, 88, 43–58. doi:10.1093/bmb/ldn035 Morrison, R. L., & Bellack, A. S. (1987). Social functioning of schizophrenic patients: clinical and research issues. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 13, 715–725. doi:10.1093/schbul/13.4.715 Moskowitz, D. S. (1994). Cross-situational generality and the interpersonal circumplex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 921–933. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.66.5.921 Moskowitz, D. S., & Cote´, S. (1995). Do interpersonal traits predict affect? A comparison of three models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 915–924. doi:10.1037//0022-3514. 69.5.915 Moskowitz, D. S., & Zuroff, D. C. (2005). Assessing interpersonal perceptions using the interpersonal grid. Psychological Assessment, 17, 218–230. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.17.2.218 Orford, J. (1986). The rules of interpersonal complementarity: does hostility beget hostility and dominance, submission? Psychological Review, 93, 365–377. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.93.3. 365 Parkinson, B. (1996). Emotions are social. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 663–683. doi:10.1111/ j.2044-8295.1996.tb02615.x Parkinson, B. (2005). Do facial movements express emotions or communicate motives? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 278–311. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0904_1 Plasencia, M. L., Alden, L. E., & Taylor, C. T. (2011). Differential effects of safety behaviour subtypes in social anxiety disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 49, 665–675. doi:10.1016/j.brat. 2011.07.005 Russell, J. J., Moskowitz, D. S., Zuroff, D. C., Bleau, P., Pinard, G., & Young, S. N. (2011). Anxiety, emotional security, and the interpersonal behaviour of individuals with social anxiety disorder. Psychological Medicine, 41, 545–554. doi:10.1017/S0033291710000863 Russell, J. J., Moskowitz, D. S., Zuroff, D. C., Sookman, D., & Paris, J. (2007). Stability and variability of affective experience and interpersonal behaviour in borderline personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 578–588. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.116.3.578 Sadler, P., & Woody, E. (2003). Is who you are who you’re talking to? Interpersonal style and complementarity in mixed-sex interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 80–96. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.84.1.80
186
Marije aan het Rot et al.
Seidel, E. M., Habel, U., Finkelmeyer, A., Schneider, F., Gur, R. C., & Derntl, B. (2010). Implicit and explicit behavioural tendencies in male and female depression. Psychiatry Research, 177, 124– 130. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2010.02.001 Seidel, E. M., Habel, U., Kirschner, M., Gur, R. C., & Derntl, B. (2010). The impact of facial emotional expressions on behavioural tendencies in women and men. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 500–507. doi:10.1037/a0018169 Thompson, E. R. (2007). Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 227–242. doi:10.1177/0022022106297301 Todorov, A., Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2006). Towards socially inspired social neuroscience. Brain Research, 1079, 76–85. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2005.12.114 Von Borries, A. K. L., Volman, I., de Bruijn, E. R. A., Bulten, B. H., Verkes, R. J., & Roelofs, K. (2012). Psychopaths lack the automatic avoidance of social threat: relation to instrumental aggression. Psychiatry Research, 200, 761–766. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2012.06.026 Wiggins, J. S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for the understanding and measurement of interpersonal behaviour. In W. M. Grove & D. Ciccetti (Eds.), Thinking Clearly about Psychology: Personality and Psychopathology (pp. 89–113). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Wilkowski, B. M., & Meier, B. P. (2010). Bring it on: angry facial expressions potentiate approachmotivated motor behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 201–210. doi:10.1037/a0017992 Zaki, J., Bolger, N., & Ochsner, K. (2008). It takes two: the interpersonal nature of empathic accuracy. Psychological Science, 19, 399–404. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02099.x Received 29 August 2012; revised version received 8 January 2013
