A study arguing this claim resulted in a PNAS paper in April this year
- Microexpressions Training Tools - the window to your emotions.
- Paul Ekman - Scientific Advisor to Pixar/Disney new movie - Inside Out.
- Lying Game - Crimes that Fooled Britain
- Cliff will be exploring how the research into emotions and multi-modal communication channels can help business leaders to read, understand and influence clients, staff and other stakeholders to benefit all parties.
- Behavioral Detection Officers and the SPOT programme - principles and practice are sound and evaluation continues
- Expressions of emotion - universality challenged again?
- MSc in Forensic Emotion Awareness - 10000-hrs to expertise
- 92% of HR professionals believe they are lied to every week
- Prof. Paul Ekman in Italy to meet our delegates
- Paul Ekman commencement speech - Alliant University June 2013
- Risk based screening by Transportation Security Administration based on Paul Ekman science
- Ekman research into face and body language sparked research giving professional basketball players the edge
- The truth is on our faces: Former Army psychologist trains troops to spot lies through microexpressions
- Are Facial Expressions of Emotion Universal ?
- Can Ekman based training in emotions help those on the Aspergers spectrum?
- Cliff Lansley presented at the International Coaching Federation in London about how the science of Dr Paul Ekman can be applied to enhance the coaching process
- Ekman trained staff are 50 times more effective at spotting high risk passengers
- Dr Ekman charms an international delegation with leading edge research and a range of new online tools
- The cost of not picking up deception in job applications can cost employers £4k-£6k per mistake
- Paul Ekman approved courses take facial microexpressions, emotion awareness and deception courses global.
- EIA to launch FACS (Facial Action Coding System) for Body Language
- Emotional awareness (85%) beats IQ (27%) according to recent research by Virgin Media Business
- The average adult in UK lies three times in a day
- LIE TO ME - Series 1-3 spreading around the world on FOX and SKY.
- Paul Ekman approved programmes can now be delivered on-site - giving you the flexibility to choose the time and place for your training.
- Take this ten mnute BBC test to see if you can spot a genuine smile.
- Explore the basic facial expressions with this novel app!
PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) is a well
respected body in America and beyond.
It has been interesting to see and hear reactions to this claim and also to the credibility of PNAS publishing what some claim to be a poor quality paper.
Cliff Lansley has shared his PERSONAL view on this study within the LinkedIn Forum for Facial Action Coding System (FACS) + Emotional Awareness
I struggle with the whole alignment of this study. The research
does not support the claim. The hypothesis that 'facial expressions
of emotion are not culturally universal' is about the display of
the emotion. The universality hypothesis does not claim that all
humans communicate emotions universally - the universality
hypothesis is more to do with, as the paper states later, the
argument that "six basic internal human emotions (i.e., happy,
surprise, fear, disgust, anger, and sad) are expressed using the
same facial movements across all cultures".
These are two different statements.
This study seeks to evaluate subjective, mental representations of facial expressions of emotions and this injects a major contaminant. This alone is reason enough reject the claim of the research. Paul Ekman's research focuses on those displays which happen, unbidden, as a result of experiencing an emotional episode.
The 'Discussion' in the report attempts to deal with this
perception versus production argument. But it doesn't. It argues
that, "the facial movements perceived by observers reflect those
produced in their social environment because signals designed for
communication (and therefore recognition) are those perceived by
the observer". As soon as the paper moved onto "cultural groups who
use them (facial expressions) for social communication" this took
this, for me, firmly into the field of conscious gestures - not
emotionally triggered facial expressions.
We know from the extensive research over the last 40 years that facial expressions of some (7) emotions are displayed universally across cultures, sometimes without consciousness, though they are not always judged accurately. Nor can they be always reconstructed consistently. For example, when some people are asked to draw or imitate a sad face, a common expression that is created consists of pursed lips, tight eyelids and brows down - similar to when a child sulks. Yet genuine felt sadness is universally displayed with inner brows up, relaxed eyelids and mouth corners down - the first and the third components here being very hard to manipulate at will by most people.
Eyeball movements do not feature in the universality of expression hypothesis - yet they play a major part in this study. Display rules of different cultures are mentioned yet not developed enough in terms of these being learned choices about what to display on the face and sometimes come into play after the genuine emotional display has occurred on the face - thereby creating the micro-expression of the genuine, universal emotion followed by the (often) conscious suppression or masking that occurs in some groups, families and cultures when we are in the presence of others. This might explain the differences in intensity scores. Blended emotions where one emotion moves into another feature here too of course.
So has this study helped to stimulate debate? - yes. Does it successfully argue that 'facial expressions of emotion are not culturally universal' - no.
What it might do is help to describe the differences in conscious displays of emotion in certain cultures - though these are not necessarily connected with the evolved, unbidden, facial expressions of emotion that good research has shown to be universal.
Update: January 2013
PNAS have now published a letter that critiques the Glasgow study and states the results "do not refute "universalists" accounts of emotional communication".
Sauter and Eisner question the methodology and highlight that the claim is not supported by their data.