Literature DB >> 19682907

Cultural confusions show that facial expressions are not universal.

Rachael E Jack1, Caroline Blais, Christoph Scheepers, Philippe G Schyns, Roberto Caldara.   

Abstract

Central to all human interaction is the mutual understanding of emotions, achieved primarily by a set of biologically rooted social signals evolved for this purpose-facial expressions of emotion. Although facial expressions are widely considered to be the universal language of emotion, some negative facial expressions consistently elicit lower recognition levels among Eastern compared to Western groups (see [4] for a meta-analysis and [5, 6] for review). Here, focusing on the decoding of facial expression signals, we merge behavioral and computational analyses with novel spatiotemporal analyses of eye movements, showing that Eastern observers use a culture-specific decoding strategy that is inadequate to reliably distinguish universal facial expressions of "fear" and "disgust." Rather than distributing their fixations evenly across the face as Westerners do, Eastern observers persistently fixate the eye region. Using a model information sampler, we demonstrate that by persistently fixating the eyes, Eastern observers sample ambiguous information, thus causing significant confusion. Our results question the universality of human facial expressions of emotion, highlighting their true complexity, with critical consequences for cross-cultural communication and globalization.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19682907     DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.07.051

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Biol        ISSN: 0960-9822            Impact factor:   10.834


  99 in total

1.  Facial expressions of emotion are not culturally universal.

Authors:  Rachael E Jack; Oliver G B Garrod; Hui Yu; Roberto Caldara; Philippe G Schyns
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-04-16       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 2.  Grist and mills: on the cultural origins of cultural learning.

Authors:  Cecilia Heyes
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2012-08-05       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 3.  Conceptual challenges and directions for social neuroscience.

Authors:  Ralph Adolphs
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2010-03-25       Impact factor: 17.173

4.  Brain structure differences between Chinese and Caucasian cohorts: A comprehensive morphometry study.

Authors:  Yuchun Tang; Lu Zhao; Yunxia Lou; Yonggang Shi; Rui Fang; Xiangtao Lin; Shuwei Liu; Arthur Toga
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 5.038

5.  The neural representation of facial-emotion categories reflects conceptual structure.

Authors:  Jeffrey A Brooks; Junichi Chikazoe; Norihiro Sadato; Jonathan B Freeman
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-07-22       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Reply to Sauter and Eisner: Differences outweigh commonalities in the communication of emotions across human cultures.

Authors:  Rachael E Jack; Oliver G B Garrod; Hui Yu; Roberto Caldara; Philippe G Schyns
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-01-15       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Depression severity is associated with impaired facial emotion processing in a large international sample.

Authors:  Lauren A Rutter; Eliza Passell; Luke Scheuer; Laura Germine
Journal:  J Affect Disord       Date:  2020-07-10       Impact factor: 4.839

8.  Putting culture under the 'spotlight' reveals universal information use for face recognition.

Authors:  Roberto Caldara; Xinyue Zhou; Sébastien Miellet
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-03-18       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Looking just below the eyes is optimal across face recognition tasks.

Authors:  Matthew F Peterson; Miguel P Eckstein
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-11-12       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  Culture modulates eye-movements to visual novelty.

Authors:  Joshua O Goh; Jiat Chow Tan; Denise C Park
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-12-16       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.