面部表情的跨文化表达与识别研究述评

近年来面部表情的跨文化研究显示出更多的跨文化一致性和差异性证据。自发面部表情的表达和识别、组内优势效应以及面部表情信息的上下不对称性已成为该领域的研究热点。方言理论、中国民间模型和EMPATH模型从三种不同的角度对面部表情跨文化研究的结果进行了理论解释。而表达规则和解码规则以及语言效应是面部表情跨文化表达与识别的重要影响因素。今后, 面部表情跨文化的表达和识别研究应更加关注面部表情特征信息和影响因素这两个方面。     

声音情绪的跨文化识别

声音情绪跨文化识别是在跨文化前提下对无语义声音所传递情绪信息的识别。目前, 对声音情绪跨文化识别的研究热点主要集中于：跨文化一致性、群内优势效应、性别和年龄问题、自发声音情绪识别、语言材料的选取等五个方面的研究。今后, 声音情绪跨文化识别的研究应在声音情绪的材料获取、影响因素、双语研究这三个方面作进一步的探索和完善。     

群体信息对面部表情识别的影响

本研究通过3个实验探讨群体信息对面部表情识别的影响。结果发现：(1)周围面孔的情绪状态影响个体对目标面孔情绪的识别,两者情绪一致时的反应时显著短于不一致时的反应时,且面部表情识别准确性更高。(2)群体信息会调节周围面孔情绪对目标面孔的影响,进而影响面部表情识别。具体而言,群体条件下,个体对目标面部表情的识别受到周围面孔情绪状态的影响,相比周围面孔情绪与目标面孔情绪不一致,两者情绪一致时,即符合个体基于知觉线索建立的群体成员情绪具有一致性的预期,面部表情识别的准确性更高、速度更快;而非群体条件下,个体则不受周围面孔情绪状态的影响。研究结果表明,个体能够基于互动人物之间的社会关系识别面孔情绪,群体存在时,会建立群体成员情绪具有一致性的预期,进而影响面部表情识别。     

中国、波兰大学生对基于声音线索的情绪知觉*

研究考察了42名大学生（中国21人,波兰21人）对男、女性用5种不同情绪声音（高兴、生气、害怕、难过和中性）表达的中性语义句子的情绪类型和强度判断,从而分析中国、波兰不同文化背景下,个体对基于声音线索的情绪知觉差异。结果表明：（1）中国被试对声音情绪类型判断的正确率以及情绪强度的评定上均高于波兰被试,说明在声音情绪知觉上存在组内优势;（2）所有被试对女性声音材料情绪类型识别的正确率以及情绪强度的评定均高于对男性声音材料;（3）在对情绪类型判断上,被试对害怕情绪识别的正确率高于对高兴、难过和中性情绪,对中性情绪识别的正确率最低;（4）在情绪强度评定上,被试对害怕情绪的评定强度高于对难过情绪,对高兴情绪的评定强度最低。     

情绪背景对面部表情识别的影响及其作用机制

正确识别面部表情对成功的社会交往有重要意义。面部表情识别受到情绪背景的影响。本文首先介绍了情绪背景对面部表情识别的增强作用,主要表现为视觉通道的情绪一致性效应和跨通道情绪整合效应;然后介绍了情绪背景对面部表情识别的阻碍作用,主要表现为情绪冲突效应和语义阻碍效应;接着介绍了情绪背景对中性和歧义面孔识别的影响,主要表现为背景的情绪诱发效应和阈下情绪启动效应;最后对现有研究进行了总结分析,提出了未来研究的建议。     

面孔表情判断和效价判断的研究

面部表情加工是情绪心理学研究的重要内容,也是认知神经科学研究的热点问题。本文以不同情绪效价的面孔表情图片为研究材料,以高中生为研究对象,采用"识别-判断"的实验范式考察面部表情识别的方法,对高中学生的情绪面孔的识别判断进行具体的研究。研究结果显示:不同面孔加工水平对被试进行面孔表情判断无显著影响;两种情绪极性对被试进行面孔表情图片识别有影响;且被试对正性情绪的判断要快于对负性情绪的判断。     

短暂呈现的背景情绪词对面部表情识别的影响

语言常常伴随表情出现,情绪知觉一定程度上是通过语言建构的,语言对情绪表情的识别具有重要作用。但情绪词对短暂呈现的面部表情(即人工微表情)的识别是否也有影响并不清楚。采用短暂呈现的情绪词和面部表情,使用类Stroop干扰任务与情感启动任务,考察背景情绪词对面部表情识别的影响。结果发现,情绪词效价与面部表情效价的匹配关系的主效应显著,这表明背景情绪词影响短暂呈现的面部表情的识别。研究结果深化了对微表情识别机制的理解。     

新手和专家警察对犯罪嫌疑人面部和情绪躯体语言识别的ERP研究

本文采用脑电技术通过混合因素设计对专家与新手警察识别犯罪嫌疑人说真话和假话时的面部和情绪躯体语言的ERPs进行了研究。结果表明,在350~550ms时窗的P300成分上,在真话面部和情绪躯体语言以及假话情绪躯体语言上,专家警察都比新警察的振幅更正,差异表现在额区和中央区;在550~800ms的晚期慢波成分上,对于嫌犯说假话时的面部表情刺激,出现了效应的反转,新手比专家警察的振幅更正,差异位于枕叶。以上结果表明,具有长期审讯经验的专家警察对于嫌犯的真假话表情识别主要在于对这些刺激的分析和判断的认知过程上显著强于新手警察,且更加关注嫌犯的情绪躯体语言,而新手警察对嫌犯的谎言行为虽然也有一定的敏感性,但仍停留在对嫌犯面部表情的持续注意上,无法形成正确的判断。     

表情强度对自闭症儿童面部表情识别影响的实验研究

为探寻自闭症儿童在识别低强度（10%,30%）、中强度（40%,60%）和高强度（70%,90%）的愤怒和开心面部表情时,识别情绪类型的既有能力和差异。采用表情标签范式,用E-prime软件在电脑上呈现不同强度的3D合成面部表情刺激,分别对10名自闭症儿童、10名正常发育儿童和10名智障儿童进行了实验研究。结果发现,自闭症儿童在低强度表情时具有面部表情识别障碍,其对不同强度面部表情识别正确率显著低于智障儿童和正常发育儿童;自闭症儿童面部表情识别正确率与面部表情强度呈正相关,面部表情强度越大,自闭症儿童面部表情识别的正确率越高;自闭症儿童对低强度面部表情识别时,对开心表情的识别正确率高于愤怒表情,但是,在中强度和高强度面部表情识别时,存在显著的愤怒优势效应。     

抑郁症患者的面部表情识别研究

抑郁症患者的情绪信息加工已成为前沿科学问题和研究热点,其特异模式或许可以作为检测抑郁的有效指标。研究发现,与正常人相比,抑郁症患者对正性情绪信息的反应水平以及对情绪表情(尤其是悲伤表情)的辨别能力都有所降低,不仅抑制负性情绪的能力受损,而且在社会情境下精确判断面部表情微弱改变的能力也受损。本文系统梳理了有关抑郁症患者面部表情识别研究及其主要发现,并借鉴对精神分裂症患者微表情识别训练的研究结果提出有必要开展抑郁症患者微表情识别及训练的研究,最后分析该领域目前存在的问题并提出未来研究展望。     

Universals and cultural differences in recognizing emotions

Moving beyond the earlier nature-versus-nurture debate, modern work on the communication of emotion has incorporated both universals and cultural differences. Classic research demonstrated that the intended emotions in posed expressions were recognized by members of many different cultural groups at rates better than predicted by random guessing. However, recent research has also documented evidence for an in-group advantage, meaning that people are generally more accurate at judging emotions when the emotions are expressed by members of their own cultural group rather than by members of a different cultural group. These new findings provide initial support for a dialect theory of emotion that has the potential to integrate both classic and recent findings. Further research in this area has the potential to improve cross-cultural communication.     

The effect of group-identification on emotion recognition: The case of cats and basketball players

It has been suggested that the in-group advantage in the recognition of emotional expressions by members of different cultural groups may be due to either encoder differences in expressive style or to decoder biases. The latter may be explained by the fact that individuals who identify with an ethnic or social group exert more effort when trying to decode the emotional expressions of group members. The present study investigates this notion. For this, two target groups were chosen such that in-group and out-group members shared the same cultural knowledge and linguistic background and all participants rated the same expressions to control for encoder differences. Both studies showed that individuals who identified with a social group were better at recognizing expressions by individuals perceived as members of that group.     

On the context dependence of emotion displays: Perceptions of gold medalists’ expressions of pride

In spite of various claims for cross-cultural differences in the experience of pride, studies on the expression of pride have revealed few cross-cultural differences. Five studies using archival data from Olympic and national championships do show cross-cultural differences in the expression of pride and other positive emotions in pride-eliciting contexts, contingent on the social context of the expression, notably the in-group or out-group status of the audience. Chinese gold medalists were perceived to express less pride than American medalists when outperforming in-group competitors; when outperforming out-group members, however, no or smaller cross-cultural differences were observed. These findings are important because they indicate that cultural norms about emotion expression may be activated only in situations in which they serve a function in coordinating people's behaviour.     

Is there an in-group advantage in emotion recognition?

H. A. Elfenbein and N. Ambady (2002) examined the evidence for an in-group advantage in emotion recognition, whereby recognition is generally more accurate for perceivers from the same cultural group as emotional expressors. D. Matsumoto's (2002) comment centered on 3 asserted methodological requirements. This response addresses the lack of consensus conceming these "requirements" and demonstrates that none alter the presence of the in-group advantage. His analyses had a serious flaw and, once corrected, replicated the original findings. Furthermore, he described results from his empirical work not meeting a literal interpretation of his own requirements. Overall, where Matsumoto considers subtle cross-cultural differences in emotional expression a methodological artifact in judgment studies, the present authors find a core phenomenon worthy of attention.     

On the universality and cultural specificity of emotion recognition: a meta-analysis

A meta-analysis examined emotion recognition within and across cultures. Emotions were universally recognized at better-than-chance levels. Accuracy was higher when emotions were both expressed and recognized by members of the same national, ethnic, or regional group, suggesting an in-group advantage. This advantage was smaller for cultural groups with greater exposure to one another, measured in terms of living in the same nation, physical proximity, and telephone communication. Majority group members were poorer at judging minority group members than the reverse. Cross-cultural accuracy was lower in studies that used a balanced research design, and higher in studies that used imitation rather than posed or spontaneous emotional expressions. Attributes of study design appeared not to moderate the size of the in-group advantage.     

小学儿童情绪认知发展研究

本研究采用故事情境法探究小学儿童情绪认知的发展。随机抽取60名小学儿童（2、4、6年级各20名）,研究他们对五种不同的情绪状态识别、情绪原因认知、情绪外在行为表现认知以及对情绪后继调节方式的认知发展特点。结果发现：总体而言,情绪认知在小学不同年级有明显发展;基本情绪认知最好,其次是积极自我意识情绪认知和冲突情绪认知,对消极自我意识情绪的认知最差;情绪识别和情绪原因认知明显好于情绪行为认知和情绪调节认知;对情绪表现者的情绪认知明显好于对情绪接受者的情绪认知。     

In the eye of the beholder? Universality and cultural specificity in the expression and perception of emotion

Do members of different cultures express (or “encode”) emotions in the same fashion? How well can members of distinct cultures recognize (or “decode”) each other's emotion expressions? The question of cultural universality versus specificity in emotional expression has been a hot topic of debate for more than half a century, but, despite a sizeable amount of empirical research produced to date, no convincing answers have emerged. We suggest that this unsatisfactory state of affairs is due largely to a lack of concern with the precise mechanisms involved in emotion expression and perception, and propose to use a modified Brunswikian lens model as an appropriate framework for research in this area. On this basis we provide a comprehensive review of the existing literature and point to research paradigms that are likely to provide the evidence required to resolve the debate on universality vs. cultural specificity of emotional expression. Applying this fresh perspective, our analysis reveals that, given the paucity of pertinent data, no firm conclusions can be drawn on actual expression (encoding) patterns across cultures (although there appear to be more similarities than differences), but that there is compelling evidence for intercultural continuity in decoding, or recognition, ability. We also note a growing body of research on the notion of ingroup advantage due to expression “dialects,” above and beyond the general encoding or decoding patterns. We furthermore suggest that these empirical patterns could be explained by both universality in the underlying mechanisms and cultural specificity in the input to, and the regulation of, these expression and perception mechanisms. Overall, more evidence is needed, both to further elucidate these mechanisms and to inventory the patterns of cultural effects. We strongly recommend using more solid conceptual and theoretical perspectives, as well as more ecologically valid approaches, in designing future studies in emotion expression and perception research.     

Methodological requirements to test a possible in-group advantage in judging emotions across cultures: comment on Elfenbein and Ambady (2002) and evidence

H. A. Elfenbein and N. Ambady's (2002) conclusions concerning a possible in-group advantage in judging emotions across cultures are unwarranted. The author discusses 2 methodological requirements for studies to test adequately the in-group advantage hypothesis and an additional requirement in reviewing multiple judgment studies and examining variance in judgment effects across those studies. The few studies that Elfenbein and Ambady reported that support the in-group advantage hypothesis need to be examined for whether they meet the criteria discussed; if they do not, their data cannot be used to support any contention of cultural differences in judgments, let alone the in-group advantage hypothesis. Furthermore, the role of signal clarity needs to be explored in possibly moderating effects across studies; however, this was not done.     

Human Nature and Culture: An Evolutionary Psychological Perspective

Personality psychology is the broadest of all psychological subdisciplines in that it seeks a conceptually integrated understanding of both human nature and important individual differences. Cultural differences pose a unique set of problems for any comprehensive theory of personality—how can they be reconciled with universals of human nature on the one hand and within‐cultural variation on the other? Evolutionary psychology provides one set of conceptual tools by which this conceptual integration can be made. It requires jettisoning the false but still‐pervasive dichotomy of culture versus biology, acknowledging a universal human nature, and recognizing that the human mind contains many complex psychological mechanisms that are selectively activated, depending on cultural contexts. Culture rests on a foundation of evolved psychological mechanisms and cannot be understood without those mechanisms.