Charles Darwin's emotional expression "experiment" and his contribution to modern neuropharmacology

Four Misconceptions About Nonverbal Communication

Research and theory in nonverbal communication have made great advances toward understanding the patterns and functions of nonverbal behavior in social settings. Progress has been hindered, we argue, by presumptions about nonverbal behavior that follow from both received wisdom and faulty evidence. In this article, we document four persistent misconceptions about nonverbal communication-namely, that people communicate using decodable body language; that they have a stable personal space by which they regulate contact with others; that they express emotion using universal, evolved, iconic, categorical facial expressions; and that they can deceive and detect deception, using dependable telltale clues. We show how these misconceptions permeate research as well as the practices of popular behavior experts, with consequences that extend from intimate relationships to the boardroom and courtroom and even to the arena of international security. Notwithstanding these misconceptions, existing frameworks of nonverbal communication are being challenged by more comprehensive systems approaches and by virtual technologies that ambiguate the roles and identities of interactants and the contexts of interaction.

Non-human contributions to personality neuroscience – from fish through primates. An introduction to the special issue

The most fundamental emotional systems that show trait control are evolutionarily old and extensively conserved. Psychology in general has benefited from non-human neuroscience and from the analytical simplicity of behaviour in those with simpler nervous systems. It has been argued that integration between personality, psychopathology, and neuroscience is particularly promising if we are to understand the neurobiology of human experience. Here, we provide some general arguments for a non-human approach being at least as productive in relation to personality, psychopathology, and their interface. Some early personality theories were directly linked to psychopathology (e.g., Eysenck, Panksepp, and Cloninger). They shared a common interest in brain systems that naturally led to the use of non-human data; behavioural, neural, and pharmacological. In Eysenck’s case, this also led to the selective breeding, at the Maudsley Institute, of emotionally reactive and non-reactive strains of rat as models of trait neuroticism or trait emotionality. Dimensional personality research and categorical approaches to clinical disorder then drifted apart from each other, from neuropsychology, and from non-human data. Recently, the conceptualizations of both healthy personality and psychopathology have moved towards a common hierarchical trait perspective. Indeed, the proposed two sets of trait dimensions appear similar and may even be eventually the same. We provide, here, an introduction to this special issue of Personality Neuroscience, where the authors provide overviews of detailed areas where non-human data inform human personality and its psychopathology or provide explicit models for translation to human neuroscience. Once all the papers in the issue have appeared, we will also provide a concluding summary of them.

Emotional Expressions Reconsidered: Challenges to Inferring Emotion From Human Facial Movements

It is commonly assumed that a person's emotional state can be readily inferred from his or her facial movements, typically called emotional expressions or facial expressions. This assumption influences legal judgments, policy decisions, national security protocols, and educational practices; guides the diagnosis and treatment of psychiatric illness, as well as the development of commercial applications; and pervades everyday social interactions as well as research in other scientific fields such as artificial intelligence, neuroscience, and computer vision. In this article, we survey examples of this widespread assumption, which we refer to as the common view, and we then examine the scientific evidence that tests this view, focusing on the six most popular emotion categories used by consumers of emotion research: anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise. The available scientific evidence suggests that people do sometimes smile when happy, frown when sad, scowl when angry, and so on, as proposed by the common view, more than what would be expected by chance. Yet how people communicate anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise varies substantially across cultures, situations, and even across people within a single situation. Furthermore, similar configurations of facial movements variably express instances of more than one emotion category. In fact, a given configuration of facial movements, such as a scowl, often communicates something other than an emotional state. Scientists agree that facial movements convey a range of information and are important for social communication, emotional or otherwise. But our review suggests an urgent need for research that examines how people actually move their faces to express emotions and other social information in the variety of contexts that make up everyday life, as well as careful study of the mechanisms by which people perceive instances of emotion in one another. We make specific research recommendations that will yield a more valid picture of how people move their faces to express emotions and how they infer emotional meaning from facial movements in situations of everyday life. This research is crucial to provide consumers of emotion research with the translational information they require.