Researchers have wondered how the brain creates emotions since the early days of psychological science. With a surge of studies in affective neuroscience in recent decades, scientists are poised to answer this question. In this target article, we present a meta-analytic summary of the neuroimaging literature on human emotion. We compare the locationist approach (i.e., the hypothesis that discrete emotion categories consistently and specifically correspond to distinct brain regions) with the psychological constructionist approach (i.e., the hypothesis that discrete emotion categories are constructed of more general brain networks not specific to those categories) to better understand the brain basis of emotion. We review both locationist and psychological constructionist hypotheses of brain-emotion correspondence and report meta-analytic findings bearing on these hypotheses. Overall, we found little evidence that discrete emotion categories can be consistently and specifically localized to distinct brain regions. Instead, we found evidence that is consistent with a psychological constructionist approach to the mind: A set of interacting brain regions commonly involved in basic psychological operations of both an emotional and non-emotional nature are active during emotion experience and perception across a range of discrete emotion categories.

/pdf/the-brain-basis-of-emotion-a-meta-analytic-review-32zzrbb78z.pdf

The brain basis of emotion: A meta-analytic review

Laypeople and scientists alike believe that they know anger, or sadness, or fear, when they see it. These emotions and a few others are presumed to have specific causal mechanisms in the brain and properties that are observable (on the face, in the voice, in the body, or in experience)-that is, they are assumed to be natural kinds. If a given emotion is a natural kind and can be identified objectively, then it is possible to make discoveries about that emotion. Indeed, the scientific study of emotion is founded on this assumption. In this article, I review the accumulating empirical evidence that is inconsistent with the view that there are kinds of emotion with boundaries that are carved in nature. I then consider what moving beyond a natural-kind view might mean for the scientific understanding of emotion. Language: en

/pdf/are-emotions-natural-kinds-49nlvwtgl7.pdf

Are Emotions Natural Kinds

Research on emotion flourishes in many disciplines and specialties, yet experts cannot agree on its definition. Theorists and researchers use the term emotion in ways that imply different processes and meanings. Debate continues about the nature of emotions, their functions, their relations to broad affective dimensions, the processes that activate them, and their role in our daily activities and pursuits. I will address these issues here, specifically in terms of basic emotions as natural kinds, the nature of emotion schemas, the development of emotion—cognition relations that lead to emotion schemas, and discrete emotions in relation to affective dimensions. Finally, I propose a new paradigm that assumes continual emotion as a factor in organizing consciousness and as an influence on mind and behavior. The evidence reviewed suggests that a theory that builds on concepts of both basic emotions and emotion schemas provides a viable research tool and is compatible with more holistic or dimensional approaches.

Basic emotions, natural kinds, emotion schemas, and a new paradigm.

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.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1529100619832930

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

Emotion expression is an important feature of healthy child development that has been found to show gender differences. However, there has been no empirical review of the literature on gender and facial, vocal, and behavioral expressions of different types of emotions in children. The present study constitutes a comprehensive meta-analytic review of gender differences and moderators of differences in emotion expression from infancy through adolescence. We analyzed 555 effect sizes from 166 studies with a total of 21,709 participants. Significant but very small gender differences were found overall, with girls showing more positive emotions (g –.08) and internalizing emotions (e.g., sadness, anxiety, sympathy; g –.10) than boys, and boys showing more externalizing emotions (e.g., anger; g .09) than girls. Notably, gender differences were moderated by age, interpersonal context, and task valence, underscoring the importance of contextual factors in gender differences. Gender differences in positive emotions were more pronounced with increasing age, with girls showing more positive emotions than boys in middle childhood (g –.20) and adolescence (g –.28). Boys showed more externalizing emotions than girls at toddler/preschool age (g .17) and middle childhood (g .13) and fewer externalizing emotions than girls in adolescence (g –.27). Gender differences were less pronounced with parents and were more pronounced with unfamiliar adults (for positive emotions) and with peers/when alone (for externalizing emotions). Our findings of gender differences in emotion expression in specific contexts have important implications for gender differences in children’s healthy and maladaptive development.

/pdf/gender-differences-in-emotion-expression-in-children-a-meta-49uxwcsj33.pdf

Gender Differences in Emotion Expression in Children: A Meta-Analytic Review

European American, Japanese, and Chinese 11-month-olds participated in emotion-inducing laboratory procedures. Facial responses were scored with BabyFACS, an anatomically based coding system. Overall, Chinese infants were less expressive than European American and Japanese infants. On measures of smiling and crying, Chinese infants scored lower than European American infants, whereas Japanese infants were similar to the European American infants or fell between the two other groups. Results suggest that differences in expressivity between European American and Chinese infants are more robust than those between European American and Japanese infants and that Chinese and Japanese infants can differ significantly. Cross-cultural differences were also found for some specific brow, cheek, and midface facial actions (e.g., brows lowered). These are discussed in terms of current controversies about infant affective facial expressions.

Production of emotional facial expressions in European American, Japanese, and Chinese infants.

Eleven-month-old European-American, Japanese, and Chinese infants (ns = 23, 21, and 15, respectively) were videotaped during baseline and stimulus episodes of a covert toy-switch procedure. Infants looked longer at the object during the expectancy-violating event (stimulus episode) but did not produce more surprise-related facial expressions. American and Japanese infants produced more bodily stilling during stimulus than baseline, and American infants also produced more facial sobering. Naive raters viewing both episodes could correctly identify the expectancy-violating event. Rater judgments of surprise were significantly related to infants' bodily stilling and facial sobering. Judgments of interest were related to cessation of fussing. Thus, observer judgments of infant emotions can be systematically related to behaviors other than prototypic emotional facial expressions.

Observing emotion in infants: facial expression, body behavior, and rater judgments of responses to an expectancy-violating event.

Do infants show distinct negative facial expressions for different negative emotions? To address this question, European American, Chinese, and Japanese 11-month-olds were videotaped during procedures designed to elicit mild anger or frustration and fear. Facial behavior was coded using Baby FACS, an anatomically based scoring system. Infants’ nonfacial behavior differed across procedures, suggesting that the target emotions were successfully elicited. However evidence for distinct emotion-specific facial configurations corresponding to fear versus anger was not obtained. Although facial responses were largely similar across cultures, some differences also were observed. Results are discussed in terms of functionalist and dynamical systems approaches to emotion and emotional expression.

Do Infants Show Distinct Negative Facial Expressions for Fear and Anger? Emotional Expression in 11-Month-Old European American, Chinese, and Japanese Infants

/pdf/the-organizational-function-of-emotion-on-cognitive-task-4jtmewwplp.pdf

Zhaolan Meng

Papers

Production of emotional facial expressions in European American, Japanese, and Chinese infants.

Observing emotion in infants: facial expression, body behavior, and rater judgments of responses to an expectancy-violating event.

Do Infants Show Distinct Negative Facial Expressions for Fear and Anger? Emotional Expression in 11-Month-Old European American, Chinese, and Japanese Infants

The organizational function of emotion on cognitive task performance in infancy