Facial Expressions Across Cultures

Alan ReinhardtSSCI 306 – 10:40 AM

Fall 2010

Abstract

“Facial Expressions Across Cultures,” by Alan Reinhardt, provides the facts for and

against the effectiveness of reading and interpreting facial expressions cross culturally. Three

sections are included: Reading Facial Expressions, Interpreting Facial Expressions, and

Reading and Interpreting Effectiveness Cross Culturally. The paper provides background on

what defines facial expressions, how accurately facial expressions can be interpreted into one

of six emotional themes (anger, fear, disgust, sadness, surprise, or enjoyment), and the

evidence for and against cross-cultural recognition of these “universal themes,” eventually

reaching the conclusion that reading and interpreting facial expressions proves highly

effective cross-culturally.

Acknowledgements

Completion of this research paper was possible by the efforts of many people. First of

all I wish to thank Graham Kaplan who enthusiastically reviewed and re-reviewed my

writings. Special gratitude is extended to Christine Dias, and to all of the librarians at the

Pfau Library, California State University San Bernardino, for your smiling answers to my

many questions. To my classmates, David, Ivan, Jennifer, Priscilla, and Samantha, thank you

for your editing efforts. Finally, I am grateful to my family, for their support in this paper,

and my career choice: Robert Reinhardt, Theresa Reinhardt, Corinne Reinhardt, Geoff

Herbert, Jeanine Bottoni, Mark Malone, and Zoe Beg. It has been an honor. Thank you.

Introduction

Traveling the world can be one of the most joyous experiences. Such experiences may

include traveling the open seas on a luxurious cruise ship, flying above the clouds at 35,000

feet, or visiting exotic places, historical landmarks, and different peoples and cultures. The

only downside to an across-the-world adventure is the inability to speak all of the foreign

languages that are encountered. Meeting many exotic people and learning about many

unfamiliar cultures would be much simpler if one could effectively communicate. While it

may not be the preferred method of communication with new friends, an excellent alternative

is nonverbal communication. The pseudoscience of reading and interpreting facial

expressions proves effective cross-culturally.

Everyone, no matter who they are or where they reside, has seen an emotion flirt

across someone’s face. Facial expressions are an integral part of daily life. At a funeral, pain

and sadness, or while at a family reunion, joy and happiness, can be observed through the

tensing or relaxing of a few facial muscles. When recalling past experiences, it is very nearly

impossible for the emotions associated with memories not to manifest themselves through

facial expressions. Emotions and facial expressions have always been intertwined with each

other as an integral part of the human experience.

No matter the culture, language, hearing impairment, or speech disorder, “one cannot

not communicate” (Borisoff, 2005). There are many ways to communicate, including

hundreds of languages, writing styles, and body movements. Dissecting this even more, the

meaning of words can be completely altered using paralanguage, which encompasses pitch,

rate, and volume. Likewise, proximity, the distance between two communicators, can alter

the meaning of body language (Borisoff, 2005).

Reading Facial Expressions

Reading a facial expression is a fairly new discipline. Therefore, it is still considered a

pseudoscience, meaning it is presented scientifically, but lacks enough support in the

academic community to achieve scientific status.

While the phrase “reading an expression” is commonly used, it is important to note

that this is not like reading a book or magazine. While there are similarities, the words in a

book are there to be seen. Conversely, the expression can disappear very quickly when

looking at a face. This would be the equivalent of reading a book, but only catching a

glimpse of the words for a second or two. On the contrary, it takes many years to be able to

read fluently. Anyone can learn a letter or a few words in an hour’s time. Likewise, anyone

can learn to recognize these facial expressions, with the correct training material, in several

hours. However, both with reading novels and facial expressions, years of practice along

with additional training and education are required to excel. Of course, there is an exception.

There is a small percentage of the population that seems to have a natural ability to recognize

expressions. The number is small; only twenty out of one thousand two hundred randomly

tested people have been confirmed as having this skill. Dr. Ekman and the scientific

community have coined the title “Wizards of Deception Detection …” for these naturally

gifted people (Ekman, 2004).

In order to recognize facial expressions, one must first understand what constitutes an

expression. Most research considers facial expressions to consist of movements of the face

caused by just the facial muscles. Once in a while, head movement can be included as well.

In expressions of certain emotions, such as sadness and fear, the head will move a certain

direction (up, down, right, or left). Expanding even further, some researchers even include

motion and behavior of the hands in facial expressions. This is mostly seen when the hand

interacts with the face. For example, if a hand covers a sad expression, the emotion seen can

be interpreted as shame (Ekman, 1992, p.9). Although this can all be considered part of facial

expression, most professionals in this field focus on momentary facial expressions, termed

“micro expressions” (Ekman, 2004). This brief expression, which generally lasts 1/25 of a

second or less, shows a “momentary configuration produced by the contraction of a

particular set of facial muscles, that provides the information about whether it is anger, fear,

disgust, sadness, surprise, or enjoyment” (Ekman, 1992, p.9).

Interpreting Facial Expressions

Several prominent researchers have been at the forefront of recognizing and

interpreting facial expressions. Three psychologists stand out above all others; Silvan

Tomkins, Caroll Izzard, and Paul Ekman have led the charge.

In the 1960’s, Paul Ekman and Wally Friesen, a colleague of Ekman’s, spent six

months examining over one hundred thousand feet of motion picture film. This film,

obtained by neurologist Carleton Gajdusek who was researching diseases at the time, showed

the daily activities of Stone Age cultures in Papua, New Guinea (Ekman, 2003, p.5). These

films revealed the truth about interpreting expressions; it was possible, and very accurate.

Weeks later, after watching the thousands of feet of film, an unfamiliar expression

was never detected in the faces of the New Guinea natives. However, there was a flaw: were

Ekman and Friesen only able to identify the expressions because of the social context? They

had never seen “an expression removed from what was happening before, afterward, or at the

same time” (Ekman, 2003, p.6). If the context was removed, would the psychologists still

have understood the expressions? To silence the critics, Silvan Tomkins, who had no part in

this particular research project until this point and was working in a completely different area

of the world at the time, was brought in to identify the expressions. Before Tomkins arrived,

the films were edited so that only the facial expressions were shown. If Tomkins, who had

done research with and was experienced with facial expressions, could identify the

expressions, it would be scientifically proven that interpreting them was possible. In

addition, confidence could then be placed in interpretations of facial expressions from

professionals in this field. When it came to viewing the close up photographs and having

Tomkins identify the expressions, he passed with flying colors. “What’s more, he knew

exactly how he got the information… Silvan walked up to the movie screen and pointed out

exactly which specific muscular movements signaled the emotion” (Ekman, 2003, p.6).

Once a facial expression is formed and has been “read,” it is then the responsibility of

the viewer to categorize the expression and decide what emotion is being displayed. When

Ekman and Friesen measured facial expressions, they found that each expression didn’t have

its own emotion. Instead, a central theme ties many related but visually diverse expressions

together. To date, six themes are defined and publicly accepted: anger, fear, disgust, sadness,

surprise, and enjoyment (Ekman, 1992, p.5).

For example, sixty facial expressions have been identified in the anger theme alone.

These variations within the theme all share certain characteristics that distinguish them from

other themes, and reflect how intense the felt emotion is. The variations of the theme can

also depict the event that sparked the emotion and reveal if the emotion is raw or being

muffled or controlled. The anger family, for example, would include variations in intensity

stretching from annoyance to rage (Ekman, 1992, p.5).

It should also include different forms of anger, such as resentment, which is the kind of anger in which there is a sense of grievance; indignation and outrage, which are anger about the mistreatment of someone; vengeance, the anger that retaliates against a misdeed by another; berserk, anger that appears to others to be an uncontrolled response inappropriate to any provocation; and so on. (Ekman, 1992, p.5)

Interpreting facial expressions can be an uncomplicated task when the

conversationalists are being honest; but what happens when one starts to lie? Can people

have power over a facial expression so completely that it is not visible? The short, simple

answer is no; at least not yet. Humans have developed the ability to misrepresent emotions

by attempting to mask facial expressions. An expression can be fabricated to go along with a

lie. Often times, this fools the observer into thinking an emotion is being felt when it is not.

“The 19th-century French neuroanatomist Duchenne de Bologne suggested that the muscle

orbiting the eye (orbicularis oculi) would be absent from voluntary smiles but present when

enjoyment was felt” (Ekman, 1992, p.11). Ekman found that this specific muscle movement

is nearly impossible for most people to execute. Coupling that with the exact timing and

coordination of other body movements and speech needed to successfully deceive someone,

this task becomes impractical.

Several exemptions must be made for nonsignal emotions and referential and mock

expressions. Currently, there is only speculation of nonsignal emotions, an emotion that is

felt but has no revealing sign. There isn’t even any evidence that these emotions exist

(Ekman, 1992, p.11). Referential expressions portray an emotion being felt, but out of

context. During a conversation, this most commonly occurs when “people talk about past or

future emotional experiences, describing feelings not now being felt” (Ekman, 1992, p.11).

Mock expressions are a type of referential expression that are commonly used in association

with sarcasm. The real emotion may be felt by the speaker, but the opposite of the emotion

being shown is the intended message.

Reading and Interpreting Effectiveness Cross Culturally

Two different theories take center stage regarding the debate about whether facial

expressions depicting emotions are universal and transcend cultural boundaries, or are

culture specific. It is the classic question of nature, the universality of facial expressions

depicting emotions, versus nurture, culturally depicted. On one side of this debate, arguing

that facial expressions were innate and universal to our species was mostly psychologists:

Silvan Tomkins, Caroll Izzard, Paul Ekman, Wally Friesen, and an exception, Charles

Darwin. The opposite side of the argument was provided mostly by anthropologists such as

Margaret Mead, Ray Birdwhistell, and Gregory Bateson. Actually, this side of the argument

was more interested in proving the opposition wrong, that the answer was not nature, and

therefore had to be nurture (Ekman, 2003, p.2).

The evidence provided by the nurture side of the argument states “some cultures do

not provide learning models for certain of what we might call ‘core’ emotions” (Harré &

Parrott, 1996, p.192). Consequently, if an emotion isn’t known by the culture, then it can’t be

universally expressed. An example is provided: the Chewong culture, located in the

Malaysian rainforest, dictates that the connection between a frustrating event and

experiencing anger is overridden by fear, instilled in them by their governing system of

superstitions (Harré & Parrott, 1996, p.196). What has been overlooked is that it is possible

for an emotion to be felt even if it is overridden. The anger can be felt in 1/25 of a second, as

it can be shown this quickly in a micro expression as well. Following this quick expression,

fear can override the anger, giving the appearance that no anger was shown at all. Ekman

(1992, p.13) supplies another explanation called “affect-about-affect.” Individuals may

respond differently to similar situations; if a person becomes angry, they may just be angry

while others may be afraid of their anger, disappointed in themselves for becoming angry, or

disgusted with themselves at the ferocity of their anger. Anger is still the primary emotion

being felt, but another emotion is quickly experienced in response to the original emotion.

Even though this could be explained, the anthropologist Ray Birdwhistell would soon

bring forth the most compelling evidence in support of emotions and facial expressions being

culturally learned.

Birdwhistell, a respected anthropologist who specialized in the study of expression and gesture (a protégé of Margaret Mead), had written that he abandoned Darwin’s ideas when he found that in many cultures people smiled when they were unhappy. Bridwhistell’s claim fit the view that dominated cultural anthropology and most of psychology–anything socially important, such as emotional expression, must be the product of learning, and therefore different in each culture. (Ekman, 2003, pp.3-4)

Not all cultures smile at unhappy experiences. So what could explain this clear division

regarding a cultural division of emotional display? Dr. Ekman proposed that Display Rules

are socially learned, culturally different rules about the management of expression. Display

rules dictate things such as who emotions can be shown to, which emotions can be shown,

and when the emotion may be shown. The most common instance of this occurring is at a

sporting event. At any competition, there is always a loser. After the contest, the loser

doesn’t appear sad or upset. They may feel disappointed or angry, but it is not shown

because they were taught by the culture to “diminish, hide completely, or mask the

expression of emotion[s] we are feeling” (Ekman, 2003, p.4).

A study was then conducted to test this proposal. Americans and Japanese were

individually shown a series of surgical videos. When viewing these films alone, both cultures

reacted similarly to the videos, showing negative expressions of fear and disgust. However,

when viewing these videos with a scientist, the Japanese masked the negative expressions.

The Japanese spectators smiled to hide the negative emotions being felt, while the American

viewers did not (Ekman, 2003, p.4). The results of this experiment seemed to confirm

society’s use of Display Rules; “the way that people perceive others’ emotions can vary by

culture” (United States Dept. of Health and Human Services, 2010, p.1).

Some evidence for the universality of facial expressions is provided, yet again, by

Paul Ekman. In 1968, he visited New Guinea with some colleagues. Very careful testing

methods were used; special care was taken to make sure that no one tipped off the subjects,

either accidently or purposefully. The testing covered three percent of the culture, about three

hundred people, in only a few weeks. The test was very simple in its design. Sets of pictures

with code numbers written on the back were shown to the natives. In addition, to make it

even more difficult to bias the study, the experimenters did not know what expressions

matched what codes. Instructions were easy to follow: read a story describing an emotional

event, have the subject point to the picture he or she thought correctly matched the story, and

write down the code number on the back of the picture that the native chose (Ekman, 2003,

p.10).

The results backed up what the researchers believed. Happiness, anger, disgust, and

sadness were all distinguished from each other. Fear and surprise were not differentiated

from each other, but they were from the other four emotions. Twenty three of the natives that

were tested had contact with the outside world; they had gone to a missionary for a year,

watched films, and learned English. Interestingly, no differences between the twenty three

and the others, and between males and females, were found (Ekman, 2003, pp.10-11).

One last study was completed before Ekman returned to America. Following the

reading of a story, the natives were asked to show what their faces would look like if they

were the character depicted. Nine men were recorded completing this exercise. Upon his

return, Ekman showed the facial expressions to students in the United States. The students

were able to identify all of the expressions except for fear and surprise, just like the natives

from New Guinea, proving that the expressions are not culture specific (Ekman, 2003, p.11).

Coincidentally, an anthropologist named Karl Heider set out to prove Ekman

incorrect. Heider had spent several years with the Dani, another isolated group in Indonesia.

He believed that since the Dani didn’t even have words for emotions, Ekman’s findings

could not be correct. Heider was given all of Ekman’s research tools and was taught how to

run the experiment. “His [Heider] results perfectly replicated my [Ekman] findings, even

down to the failure to distinguish between fear and surprise” (Ekman, 2003, pp.12-13).

A different kind of evidence can be seen in people without sight. Individuals who are

born blind have expressions that are similar to people who have sight. If facial expressions

need to be learned from the culture, then the blind should not be able to produce the same

expressions as the rest of the population (Ekman, 2003, p.14).

Even more peculiar evidence can be obtained from cross cultural vocal studies.

European native English speakers were compared with the Himba, a semi nomadic group in

the Kaokoland region of Namibia. The study was conducted in the most remote location,

where the natives had not had any contact with culture or people from other groups. A short

story, tailored to elicit an emotional reaction, was described to the participant. Two

vocalization sounds were then played; one was from the same category as the emotional

story, and the other was not. The participant then identified the vocalization they believed

matched the emotion from the story. “The emotions found to be recognized from vocal

signals correspond to those universally inferred from facial expressions of emotions. This

finding support theories proposing that these emotions are psychological universals….”

(Sauter, Eisner, Ekman, & Scott, 2010, p.2411).

A great deal of evidence can be seen in support of the universality of facial

expressions; the explanations of “affect-about-affect” and Display Rules, the studies in New

Guinea, the United States, and Indonesia, the cross cultural vocal study, and facial

expressions in the blind compose the tip of the iceberg. Despite the many attempts of critics

to dispute the evidence provided, the facts holds true and these truths are now on the

forefront of turning this pseudoscience into a legitimate practice.

Conclusion

When the study of facial expressions began in 1965, nobody believed that any good

would come from this research. “The face was considered a meager source of mostly

inaccurate, culture specific, [and] stereotypical information” (Ekman, 1992, p.2). Although a

few researchers still disagree, the universality and legitimacy of reading and interpreting

facial expressions across cultures is overwhelmingly supported. Today, there has not been

one instance where 70% of one cultural group has judged a picture as showing fear, anger,

disgust, sadness, or enjoyment facial expressions, and a similar percentage of another culture

has judged the same photo as showing a different expression (Ekman, 1992, p.2).

From many studies and experiments, the facts seem to align and point towards an

inevitable conclusion: “When cultural identity or level of acculturation also was assessed, the

ethnic differences became insignificant” (McClanahan, 2001, p.8). Research on reading and

interpreting facial expressions, spanning several decades, on different cultures, has revealed

that reading and interpreting facial expressions proves highly effective cross-culturally.

Communication is an essential and inescapable part of the human experience.

Languages, words, handwriting, and body language can only communicate so much. To

reference a classic cliché, it is said that the eyes are the windows to the soul. With this said,

to really know someone, facial expressions are the most important source of information.

Effective communication can mean the difference between a career or a job, a friend or an

enemy, or even life or death.

References

Borisoff, D. (Author). (2005). Nonverbal communication and culture. Insight Media.

Ekman, P. (1992). Facial Expression and Emotion. American Psychologist, 48(4), 384.

Retrieved November 15, 2010, from EBSCOhost (Academic Search Premier)

database.

Ekman, P. (2003). Emotions Revealed Recognizing Faces and Feelings to Improve

Communication and Emotional Life. (2nd Ed.) New York: Holt Paperbacks.

Ekman, P. (2004, January 14). [Interview with the author.]

Harré, R., & Parrott, G. (Eds.). (1996). THE EMOTIONS Social, Cultural and Biological

Dimensions. London: SAGE Publications.

McClanahan, P.D.W. (2001). The association among receptive nonverbal decoding accuracy,

cultural identification, and personal functioning in southeastern American Indian

adults. Ph.D. dissertation, Emory University, Georgia.

Sauter, D., Eisner, F., Ekman, P., & Scott, S. (2010). Cross-cultural recognition of basic

emotions through nonverbal emotional vocalizations. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(6), 2408-2412. Retrieved

November 15, 2010, from EBSCOhost (Academic Search Premier) database.

United States Dept. of Health and Human Services. (2010, September). ‘Reading’ Other

People’s Emotions Varies by Culture. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from

http://www.womenshealth.gov/news/english/643234.htm.

“Here are four examples of New Guineans’ poses of emotion” (Ekman, 2003, pp.11-12).