Facial expressions of emotion are not
culturally universal
Rachael E. Jacka,b,1
, Oliver G. B. Garrodb
, Hui Yub
, Roberto Caldarac
, and Philippe G. Schynsb
a
School of Psychology, University of Glasgow, Scotland G12 8QB; b
Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology, University of Glasgow, Scotland G12 8QB, United
Kingdom; and c
Department of Psychology, University of Fribourg, Fribourg 1700, Switzerland
Edited by James L. McClelland, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, and approved March 19, 2012 (received for review January 5, 2012)
Since Darwin’s seminal works, the universality of facial expressions
of emotion has remained one of the longest standing debates in
the biological and social sciences. Briefly stated, the universality
hypothesis claims that all humans communicate six basic internal
emotional states (happy, surprise, fear, disgust, anger, and sad)
using the same facial movements by virtue of their biological
and evolutionary origins [Susskind JM, et al. (2008) Nat Neurosci
11:843–850]. Here, we refute this assumed universality. Using a
unique computer graphics platform that combines generative
grammars [Chomsky N (1965) MIT Press, Cambridge, MA] with
visual perception, we accessed the mind’s eye of 30 Western and
Eastern culture individuals and reconstructed their mental representations
of the six basic facial expressions of emotion. Crosscultural
comparisons of the mental representations challenge
universality on two separate counts. First, whereas Westerners
represent each of the six basic emotions with a distinct set of facial
movements common to the group, Easterners do not. Second,
Easterners represent emotional intensity with distinctive dynamic
eye activity. By refuting the long-standing universality hypothesis,
our data highlight the powerful influence of culture on shaping
basic behaviors once considered biologically hardwired. Consequently,
our data open a unique nature–nurture debate across
broad fields from evolutionary psychology and social neuroscience
to social networking via digital avatars.
modeling | reverse correlation | categorical perception |
top-down processing | cultural specificity
As first noted by Darwin in The Expression of the Emotions in
Man and Animals (1), some basic facial expressions originally
served an adaptive, biological function such as regulating sensory
exposure (2). By virtue of their biological origins (1–3), facial
expressions have long been considered the universal language to
signal internal emotional states, recognized across all cultures.
Specifically, the universality hypothesis proposes 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 (4–7), supporting universal recognition. However,
consistent cross-cultural disagreement about the emotion (8–13)
and intensity (8–10, 14–16) conveyed by gold standard universal
facial expressions (17) now questions the universality hypothesis.
To test the universality hypothesis directly, we used a unique
computer graphics platform (18) that combines the power of
generative grammars (19, 20) with the subjectivity of visual perception
to genuinely reconstruct the mental representations of
basic facial expressions in individual observers (see also refs. 21,
22). Mental representations reflect the past visual experiences
and the future expectations of the individual observer. A crosscultural
comparison of the mental representations of the six basic
expressions therefore provides a direct test of their universality.
Fig. 1 illustrates our unique computer graphics platform (see
Materials and Methods, Stimuli and Materials and Methods, Procedure
for full details). Like a generative grammar (19, 20), we
randomly generated all possible three-dimensional facial movements
(see Movie S1 for an example). Observers only categorized
these random facial animations as expressive when the
random facial movements correlated with their subjective mental
representations—i.e., when they perceive an emotion. Thus, we
can capture the subsets of facial movements that correlate with
the subjective, culture-specific representations of the six basic
emotions in individual observers and compare them.
Fifteen Western Caucasian (WC) and 15 East Asian (EA)
observers (Materials and Methods, Observers) each categorized
4,800 such animations (evenly split between same and other-race
face stimuli) by emotion (i.e., one of the six basic emotions or
“don’t know”) and intensity (on a five-point scale ranging from
“very low” to “very high”).
To model the mental representation of each facial expression,
we reverse correlated (23) the random facial movements with the
emotion response (e.g., happy) that these random facial movements
elicited (Materials and Methods, Model Fitting) (18). In
total, we computed 180 models of facial expression representations
per culture (15 observers × 6 emotions × 2 race of face).
Each model comprised a 41-dimensional vector coding a composition
of facial muscles—one dimension per muscle group,
with six parameters coding its temporal dynamics and a set of
intensity gradients coding how these dynamics change with perceived
intensity (Materials and Methods, Model Fitting).
The universality hypothesis predicts that, in each culture, these
mental models will form six distinct clusters—one per basic
emotion, because each emotion is expressed using a specific
combination of facial movements common to all humans. In
addition, the mental models should also represent similar signaling
of emotional intensity across cultures. Our data demonstrate
cultural divergence on both counts.
Results
Six Basic Emotions Are Not Universal. We clustered the 41-dimensional
models of expression representation in each culture
independently (Materials and Methods, Clustering Analysis and
Mutual Information and Fig. S1). As predicted (24), WC models
form six distinct and emotionally homogeneous clusters. However,
EA models overlap considerably between emotion categories,
demonstrating a different, culture-specific, and therefore
not universal, representation of the basic emotions. Fig. 2 summarizes
the results for each culture (WC, Left; EA, Right).
Representation of Emotional Intensity Varies Across Cultures. To
identify where and when in the face each culture represents emotional
intensity, we compared the models of expression representation
according to how facial movements covaried with perceived
Author contributions: R.E.J., O.G.B.G., R.C., and P.G.S. designed research; R.E.J., O.G.B.G.,
and H.Y. performed research; O.G.B.G., H.Y., and P.G.S. contributed new reagents/analytic
tools; R.E.J., O.G.B.G., H.Y., and P.G.S. analyzed data; and R.E.J., R.C., and P.G.S. wrote
the paper.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
Freely available online through the PNAS open access option.
1
To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: rachael.jack@glasgow.ac.uk.
This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.
1073/pnas.1200155109/-/DCSupplemental.
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1200155109 PNAS | May 8, 2012 | vol. 109 | no. 19 | 7241–7244
PSYCHOLOGICALAND
COGNITIVESCIENCES
emotional intensity across time (Materials and Methods, Model
Fitting). Fig. 3 summarizes the results (blue, WC; red, EA; P <
0.05). The temporal dynamics of the models revealed culture-specific
representation of emotional intensity, as mirrored by popular
culture EA emoticons: In EA, (^.^) is happy and (>.<) is angry
(see also Movie S2 for examples of culture-specific use of the eyes
and mouth). The red face regions in Fig. 3 show that EA models
represent emotion intensity primarily with early movements of the
eyes in happy, fear, disgust, and anger, whereas WC models represent
emotional intensity with other parts of the face.
Discussion
Using a FACS-based random facial expression generator and
reverse correlation, we reconstructed 3D dynamic models of the
six basic facial expressions of emotion in Western Caucasian and
East Asian cultures. Analysis of the models revealed clear cultural
specificity both in the groups of facial muscles and the temporal
dynamics representing basic emotions. Specifically, cluster analysis
showed that Western Caucasians represent the six basic
emotions each with a distinct set of facial muscles. In contrast, the
East Asian models showed less distinction, characterized by
considerable overlap between emotion categories, particularly for
surprise, fear, disgust, and anger. Cross-cultural analysis of the
temporal dynamics of the models showed cultural specificity
where (in the face) and when facial expressions convey emotional
intensity. Together, our results show that facial expressions of
emotion are culture specific, refuting the notion that human
emotion is universally represented by the same set of six distinct
facial expression signals.
To understand the implications of our results, it is important
to first highlight the fundamental relationship between the perception
and production of facial expressions. Specifically, 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. That is, one would question the logic and adaptive
value of an expressive signal that the receiver could not or does
not perceive. Thus, the models reconstructed here reflect the
experiences of individual observers interacting with their social
environment and provide predictive information to guide cognition
and behavior. These dynamic mental representations,
therefore, reflect both the past experiences and future expectations
of basic facial expressions in each culture.
Cultural specificity in the facial expression models therefore
likely reflects differences in the facial expression signals transmitted
and encountered by observers in their social environment.
For example, cultural differences in the communication of
emotional intensity could reflect the operation of culture-specific
display rules (25) on the transmission (and subsequent experience)
of facial expressions in each cultural context. For example,
East Asian models of fear, disgust, and anger show characteristic
early signs of emotional intensity with the eyes, which are under
less voluntary control than the mouth (26), reflecting restrained
facial behaviors as predicted by the literature (27). Similarly,
culture-specific dialects (28) or accents (29) would diversify basic
facial expression signals across cultures, giving rise to cultural
hallmarks of facial behavior. For example, consider the “happy”
models in Fig. 3—East Asian models show an early increased
activation of the orbicularis oculi muscle, pars lateralis (action unit
6) which typifies “genuine” smiles (26, 30).
Are the six basic emotions universal? We show that six clusters
are optimal to characterize the Western Caucasian facial expression
models, thus supporting the view that human emotion is composed
of six basic categories (24, 31–33). However, our data show that this
organization of emotions does not extend to East Asians, questioning
the notion that these six basic emotion categories are universal.
Rather, our data reflect that the six basic emotions (i.e.,
happy, surprise, fear, disgust, anger, and sad) are inadequate to
accurately represent the conceptual space of emotions in East
Asian culture and likely neglect fundamental emotions such as
shame (34), pride (35), or guilt (36). Although beyond the scope of
the current paper, such questions can now be addressed with our
platform by constructing a more diverse range of facial expression
models that accurately reflect social communication in different
cultures beyond the six basic categories reported in the literature.
In sum, our data directly show that across cultures, emotions
are expressed using culture-specific facial signals. Although some
basic facial expressions such as fear and disgust (2) originally
served as an adaptive function when humans “existed in a much
lower and animal-like condition” (ref. 1, p. 19), facial expression
signals have since evolved and diversified to serve the primary
role of emotion communication during social interaction. As a
result, these once biologically hardwired and universal signals
have been molded by the diverse social ideologies and practices
of the cultural groups who use them for social communication.
Materials and Methods
Observers. We screened and recruited 15 Western Caucasian (European, six
males, mean age 21.3 y, SD 1.2 y) and 15 East Asian (Chinese, seven males,
mean age 22.9 y, SD 1.3 y). All EA observers had newly arrived in a Western
country (mean residence 5.2 mo, SD 0.94 mo) with International English
Language Testing System score ≥6.0 (competent user). All observers had
minimal experience of other cultures (as assessed by questionnaire; SI Observer
Questionnaire), normal or corrected-to-normal vision, gave written
informed consent, and were paid £6/h in an ethically approved experiment.
Fig. 1. Random generative grammar of facial movements and the perceptual
categorization of emotions. (Stimulus) On each experimental trial, the
facial movement generator randomly selected a subset of facial movements,
called action units (AUs) (here, AU9 color coded in red, AU10 Left in green,
and AU17 in blue) and values specifying the AU temporal parameters (see
color-coded temporal curves). On the basis of these parameters, the generator
rendered a three-dimensional facial animation of random facial
movements, illustrated here with four snapshots. The color-coded vector
Below represents the 3 (of 41) randomly selected AUs comprising the stimulus
on this illustrative experimental trial. (Mental representations) Observers
categorized each random facial animation according to the six basic
emotion categories (plus “don’t know”) and rated the emotional intensity
on a five-point scale. Observers will interpret the random facial animation as
a meaningful facial expression (here, “disgust,” “medium intensity”) when
the facial movements correspond to the observer’s mental representation
of that facial expression. Each observer (15 Western Caucasian and 15
East Asian) categorized 4,800 such facial animations of same and otherrace
faces.
7242 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1200155109 Jack et al.
Stimuli. On each experimental trial, a 4D photorealistic facial animation generator
(18) randomly selected, from 41 core action units (AUs) (37), a subsample
of AUs from a binomial distribution (n = 5, P = 0.6, median = 3). For each AU,
the generator selected random values for each of the six temporal parameters
(onset/peak/offset latency, peak amplitude, acceleration, and deceleration)
from a uniform distribution. We generated time courses for each AU using
a cubic Hermite spline interpolation (five control points, 30 time frames). To
generate unique identities on each trial, we first obtained eight neutral expression
identities per race (white WC: four female, mean age 23 y, SD 4.1 y;
Chinese EA: four female, mean age 22.1 y, SD 0.99 y) under the same conditions
of illumination (2,600 lx) and recoding distance (143 cm; Dimensional
Imaging) (38). Before recording, posers removed any makeup, facial hair, visible
jewelry, and/or glasses, and removed the visibility of head hair using a cap.
We then created, for each race of face, two independent “identity spaces”
for each sex using the correspondent subset of base identities and the shape
and Red-Green-Blue (RGB) texture alignment procedures (18). We defined all
points in the identity space by a [4 identities × 1] unit vector, where each entry
corresponded to the weights assigned to each individual identity in a linear
mixture. We then randomly selected each unit vector from a uniform distribution
and constructed the neutral base shape and RGB texture accordingly.
Finally, we retargeted the selected temporal dynamic parameters for each AU
onto the identity created and rendered all facial animations using 3ds Max.
Procedure. Observers viewed stimuli on a black background displayed on a 19inch
flat panel Dell monitor with a refresh rate of 60 Hz and resolution of
1,024 × 1,280. Stimuli appeared in the central visual field and remained
visible until the observer responded. A chin rest ensured a constant viewing
distance of 68 cm, with images subtending 14.25° (vertical) and 10.08°
(horizontal) of visual angle, reflecting the average size of a human face (39)
during natural social interaction (40). We randomized trials within each
block and counterbalanced (race of face) blocks across observers in each
cultural group. Before the experiment, we established familiarity with the
emotion categories by asking observers to provide correct synonyms and
descriptions of each emotion category. We controlled stimulus presentation
using Matlab 2009b.
Model Fitting. To construct the facial expression models for each observer,
emotion, and intensity level, we followed established model fitting procedures
(18). First, we performed a Pearson correlation between the binary
activation parameter of each AU and the binary response variable for each
of the observers’ emotion responses, thus producing a 41-dimensional vector
detailing the composition of facial muscles. To model the dynamic component
of the models, we then performed a linear regression between each of
the binary emotion response variables and the six temporal parameters for
Fig. 2. Cluster analysis and dissimilarity matrices of the Western Caucasian and East Asian models of facial expressions. In each panel, vertical color-coded bars show
the k means (k = 6) cluster membership of each model. Each 41-dimensional model (n = 180per culture) corresponds to the emotion category labeled Above (30 models
per emotion). The underlying gray-scale dissimilarity matrices represent the Euclidean distances between each pair of models, used as inputs to k-means clustering.
Note that, in the Western Caucasian group, the lighter squares along the diagonal indicate higher model similarity within each of the six emotion categories compared
with the East Asian models. Correspondingly, k-means cluster analysis shows that the Western Caucasian models form six emotionally homogenous clusters (e.g., all 30
“happy” models belong to the same cluster, color-coded in purple). In contrast, the East Asian models show considerable model dissimilarity within each emotion
category and overlap between categories, particularly for “surprise,” “fear,” “disgust,” “anger,” and “sad” (note the heterogeneous color coding of these models).
Fig. 3. Spatiotemporal location of emotional intensity representation in
Western Caucasian and East Asian culture. In each row, color-coded faces show
the culture-specific spatiotemporal location of expressive features representing
emotional intensity, for each of the six basic emotions. Color coding is as follows:
blue, Western Caucasian; red, East Asian, where values reflect the t statistic. All
color-coded regions show a significant (P < 0.05) cultural difference as indicated
by asterisks labeled on the color bar. Note for the EA models (i.e., red face
regions), emotional intensity is represented with characteristic early activations.
Jack et al. PNAS | May 8, 2012 | vol. 109 | no. 19 | 7243
PSYCHOLOGICALAND
COGNITIVESCIENCES
each AU. To calculate the intensity gradients, we fitted a linear regression
model of each AU’s temporal parameters to the observer’s intensity ratings.
Finally, to generate movies of the dynamic models, we combined the significantly
correlated AUs with the temporal parameters derived from the
regression coefficients.
Clustering Analysis and Mutual Information. To ascertain the optimal number
of clusters required to map the distribution of the models in each culture, we
applied k-means clustering analysis (41) (k = 2–40 inclusive) to the 180 WC
and 180 EA models independently and calculated mutual information (41)
(MI) for each value of k as follows. We randomly selected 90 models (15 per
emotion) and applied k-means clustering analysis (Euclidian distance; 1,000
repetitions). Using the resulting k centroids, we then assigned the remaining
90 models to clusters on the basis of shortest Euclidean distance, and calculated
MI, i.e., (model emotion label; cluster). We repeated the computation
100 times, averaged the 100 MI values, and normalized by an ideal MI
(i.e., perfect association between cluster and emotion label). Fig. S1 shows
the averaged MI for each culture (WC, blue line; EA, red line).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. The Economic and Social Research Council and
Medical Research Council (United Kingdom; ESRC/MRC-060-25-0010) and
the British Academy (SG113332) supported this work.
1. Darwin C (1999) The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (Fontana Press,
London), 3rd Ed.
2. Susskind JM, et al. (2008) Expressing fear enhances sensory acquisition. Nat Neurosci
11:843–850.
3. Andrew RJ (1963) Evolution of facial expression. Science 142:1034–1041.
4. Ekman P, Sorenson ER, Friesen WV (1969) Pan-cultural elements in facial displays of
emotion. Science 164:86–88.
5. Tomkins SS (1962) Affect, Imagery, and Consciousness (Springer, New York).
6. Tomkins SS (1963) Affect, Imagery, and Consciousness (Springer, New York).
7. Ekman P, Friesen W, Hagar JC, eds (1978) Facial Action Coding System Investigators
Guide (Research Nexus, Salt Lake City, UT).
8. Biehl M, et al. (1997) Matsumoto and Ekman’s Japanese and Caucasian facial expressions
of emotion (JACFEE): Reliability data and cross-national differences.
J Nonverbal Behav 21:3–21.
9. Ekman P, et al. (1987) Universals and cultural differences in the judgments of facial
expressions of emotion. J Pers Soc Psychol 53:712–717.
10. Matsumoto D, et al. (2002) American-Japanese cultural differences in judgements of
emotional expressions of different intensities. Cogn Emotion 16:721–747.
11. Matsumoto D (1989) Cultural influences on the perception of emotion. J Cross Cult
Psychol 20:92–105.
12. Jack RE, Blais C, Scheepers C, Schyns PG, Caldara R (2009) Cultural confusions show
that facial expressions are not universal. Curr Biol 19:1543–1548.
13. Moriguchi Y, et al. (2005) Specific brain activation in Japanese and Caucasian people
to fearful faces. Neuroreport 16:133–136.
14. Yrizarry N, Matsumoto D, Wilson-Cohn C (1998) American-Japanese Differences in
multiscalar intensity ratings of universal facial expressions of emotion. Motiv Emot 22:
315–327.
15. Matsumoto D, Ekman P (1989) American-Japanese cultural differences in intensity
ratings of facial expressions of emotion. Motiv Emot 13:143–157.
16. Matsumoto D (1990) Cultural similarities and differences in display rules. Motiv Emot
14:195–214.
17. Matsumoto D, Ekman P (1988) Japanese and Caucasian Facial Expressions of Emotion
(JACFEE) and Neutral Faces (JACNeuF). Slides (San Francisco State University, San
Francisco).
18. Yu H, Garrod OGB, Schyns PG (2012) Perception-driven facial expression synthesis.
Comput Graph 36(3):152–162.
19. Chomsky N (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
20. Grenander U, Miller M (2007) Pattern Theory: From Representation to Inference
(Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, UK).
21. Jack RE, Caldara R, Schyns PG (2011) Internal representations reveal cultural diversity
in expectations of facial expressions of emotion. J Exp Psychol Gen 141:19–25.
22. Dotsch R, Wigboldus DH, Langner O, van Knippenberg A (2008) Ethnic out-group
faces are biased in the prejudiced mind. Psychol Sci 19:978–980.
23. Ahumada A, Lovell J (1971) Stimulus features in signal detection. J Acoust Soc Am 49:
1751–1756.
24. Levenson RW (2011) Basic emotion questions. Emotion Review 3:379–386.
25. Ekman P (1972) Universals and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotion, in
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, ed Cole J (Univ of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE).
26. Duchenne GB (1862–1990) The mechanisms of human facial expression or an electrophysiological
analysis of the expression of the emotions, ed Cuthebertson R (Cambridge
Univ Press, New York).
27. Matsumoto D, Takeuchi S, Andayani S, Kouznetsova N, Krupp D (1998) The contribution
of individualism vs. collectivism to cross-national differences in display rules.
Asian J Soc Psychol 1:147–165.
28. Elfenbein HA, Beaupré M, Lévesque M, Hess U (2007) Toward a dialect theory: Cultural
differences in the expression and recognition of posed facial expressions.
Emotion 7:131–146.
29. Marsh AA, Elfenbein HA, Ambady N (2003) Nonverbal “accents”: Cultural differences
in facial expressions of emotion. Psychol Sci 14:373–376.
30. Niedenthal PM, Mermillod M, Maringer M, Hess U (2010) The simulation of smiles
(SIMS) model: Embodied simulation and the meaning of facial expression. Behav
Brain Sci 33:417–433, discussion 433–480.
31. Ekman P (1992) An argument for basic emotions. Cogn Emotion 6:169–200.
32. Ekman P (1992) Are there basic emotions? Psychol Rev 99:550–553.
33. Ekman P, Cordaro D (2011) What is meant by calling emotions basic. Emotion Review
3:364–370.
34. Li J, Wang L, Fischer K (2004) The organisation of Chinese shame concepts? Cogn
Emotion 18:767–797.
35. Tracy JL, Robins RW (2004) Show your pride: Evidence for a discrete emotion expression.
Psychol Sci 15:194–197.
36. Bedford O, Hwang K-K (2003) Guilt and shame in Chinese culture: A cross-cultural
framework from the perspective of morality and identity. J Theory Soc Behav 33:
127–144.
37. Ekman P, Friesen W (1978) Facial Action Coding System: A Technique for the Measurement
of Facial Movement (Consulting Psychologists Press, Washington, DC).
38. Urquhart CW, Green DS, Borland ED (2006) 4D Capture using passive stereo photogrammetry.
Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Visual Media Production
(Institution of Electrical Engineers, Edison, NJ), p 196.
39. Ibrahimagic-Seper L, Celebic A, Petricevic N, Selimovic E (2006) Anthropometric differences
between males and females in face dimensions and dimensions of central
maxillary incisors. Med Glas 3:58–62.
40. Hall E (1966) The Hidden Dimension (Doubleday, Garden City, NY).
41. MacQueen J (1967) Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations.
Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics
and Probability (Univ of California Press, Berkeley, CA) 1:281–297.
42. Magri C, Whittingstall K, Singh V, Logothetis NK, Panzeri S (2009) A toolbox for the
fast information analysis of multiple-site LFP, EEG and spike train recordings.
BMC Neurosci 10:81.
7244 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1200155109 Jack et al.