Russell, Bachorowski, & Fernandez Dols 1Running Title: Emotional ExpressionsAnnual Review of Psychology, 2003Facial and Vocal Expressions of EmotionJames A. RussellDepartment of Psychology Boston [email protected] BachorowskiDepartment of PsychologyVanderbilt [email protected]é-Miguel Fernández-DolsDepartmento de Psicología Social y MetodologíaUniversidad Autónoma de [email protected] words: affect, display rule, perception, nonverbal, communicationCorresponding author:James A. RussellDepartment of PsychologyMcGuinn Hall140 Commonwealth AvenueBoston CollegeChestnut Hill, MA 02467email: [email protected]: 617 552-4546fax: 617 552-0523Russell, Bachorowski, & Fernandez Dols 2AbstractA flurry of theoretical and empirical work concerning the production of and response to facialand vocal expressions has occurred in the past decade. That emotional expressions expressemotions is a tautology, but may not be a fact. Debates have centered on universality, the natureof emotion, and the link between emotions and expressions. Modern evolutionary theory isinforming more models, emphasizing that expressions are directed at a receiver, that the interestsof sender and receiver can conflict, that there are many determinants of sending an expression inaddition to emotion, that expressions influence the receiver in a variety of ways, and that thereceiver’s response is more than simply decoding a message.Russell, Bachorowski, & Fernandez Dols 3OutlineIntroduction: Definition and scopeHistoryKey Theoretical AdvancesThe Receiver’s ResponseRecognition of Discrete EmotionsAlternative Views of the ReceiverStill Other EffectsThe SenderEmotions as causes of facial expressionsMeasurementPositive EmotionsNegative EmotionsSurpriseEmotions as causes of vocal expressionsMeasurementNonlinguistic vocalizationsSpeechFuture DirectionsConclusionsRussell, Bachorowski, & Fernandez Dols 4Introduction: Definition and ScopeSmiles, chuckles, guffaws, smirks, frowns, and sobs — these and their milder cousinsoccurring in the fleeting changes in the countenance of a face and in the tone of a voice areessential aspects of human social interaction. Indeed, expressionless faces and voices areconsidered to be indicators of mental illness, expressive faces and voices to be windows to thesoul. The last chapter in the Annual Review of Psychology devoted entirely to this topic (Ekman& Oster 1979) summarized a rich research tradition that was predominant in the study ofemotion at that time. Since their chapter, much has changed.Both scientists and nonscientists traditionally considered smiles, chuckles, and the rest tobe “expressions of emotion” (EEs). Ekman and Oster (1979) continued this tradition, but newerwork questions the assumptions in both key words, expression and emotion. Signals might be abetter term for some cases of EE, although signal, symptom, symbol, manifestation, display,sign, expression and other terms are often used interchangeably, without clear definitions ordistinctions. The relation of EEs to emotion (and the nature of emotion) remains unclear. Further,the class of EEs is probably heterogeneous and so any one name will prove misleading. Forinstance, some EEs are, to use Goffman’s (1959) terms, given (produced for the purpose ofcommunication) and others are given off (side-effects of movements produced for otherpurposes). The boundaries encircling the class of EEs are not self-evident, leaving us pointing toexamples and leaving the category EE conceptually undefined. Indeed, we doubt that it is ascientifically viable unitary category.HistoryTraditionally, senders have been thought to “express” or “encode” – that is, emit veridicalinformation about – their internal state, much as a lighthouse broadcasts its visual and auditoryRussell, Bachorowski, & Fernandez Dols 5warning to any and all who happen to perceive it. In turn, receivers “recognize” or “decode” themessage and benefit thereby. This image of honest and altruistic broadcasting has deep historicalroots. Thought of as a God-given and universal language, EEs revealed passions (such as loveand hate), virtues (courage), and vices (sloth). These ideas were evident in philosophical,religious, and artistic theories from ancient times to the 19th century, and continued to appear inlater work by anatomists, physiologists, and other scientists (Montagu 1994). Among thosescientists was Charles Darwin (1872). Although he relied on traditional assumptions aboutexpression and emotion, Darwin substituted natural selection for God and made importantobservations about cross-species and cross-cultural similarities in EEs to bolster his argument forthat substitution.The modern era of the study of EEs began in 1962 with a theory proposed by SylvanTomkins. Like Darwin, Tomkins and those he inspired (Izard 1971, Ekman et al 1972)perpetuated many of the traditional assumptions about expression. To these, Tomkins addedanother ancient idea, that of a small, fixed number of discrete (“basic”) emotions. On Tomkins’theory, each basic emotion can vary in intensity and consists of a single brain process (an “affectprogram”), whose triggering produces all the various manifestations (components) of theemotion, including its facial and vocal expression, changes in peripheral physiology, subjectiveexperience, and instrumental action. Because they have a single cause, these components tightlycohere in time and are intercorrelated in intensity. Emotions are sharply distinguished fromcognitions. The set of theories, methods, and assumptions inspired by Tomkins guided the studyof emotion for over a quarter century.Another assumption found in Darwin and continued by Tomkins – that the same messageis encoded and decoded – guided much of the research on EEs: If (except in cases of deliberate,Russell, Bachorowski, & Fernandez Dols 6socially induced deception) EEs broadcast veridical information which the receiver recognizes,then researchers can focus on either the encoding (sending) or decoding (receiving) side. Eithercould establish which of the small number of basic emotions was expressed by a specific facialor vocal pattern. For practical reasons, most research therefore relied on decoding (judgments byobservers) to establish just what emotion a specific EE represents. The actual emotional state ofthe sender was typically neglected.Some Key Theoretical AdvancesModern evolutionary