- Email: [email protected]
Commentary by Ross Buck
J. Social
Biol.
Sfruct.
1988
11, 201-211
Commentaries on ‘Effector patterns of-basic emotions’ by S. Bloch, P. Orthous and G. Santibafiez-H
Commentary by Ross Buck
This paper makes a significant contribution toward formally and explicitly relating research on emotional expression to the phenomenon of acting. George Bums once remarked that the secret to being a good actor is honesty: ‘If you can fake that’, he said, ‘you’ve got it made’. The ease with which humans and other animals can convincingly fake emotional expression is remarkable. There is evidence for specific neural mechanisms allowing monkeys to voluntarily initiate (without apparent affect) calls that are identical on the sound spectrograph to spontaneous emotional calls (see Jurgens, 1979; Ploog, 1981). Such a ‘built-in’ ability for affective lying is probably necessary for the maintenance of orderly social relations. Acting builds upon this ability, but this paper makes it clear that the convincing expression of emotion in a dramatic context requires much more. One of the important theoretical points raised by this paper involves the question of the relationship between emotional expression and experience, for the question of the role of peripheral feedback in emotional experience continues to evoke controversy. One can argue that any peripheral response can become able to alter emotional experience through proprioceptive and interoceptive conditioning (Buck, 1980). One of the implications of this view is that through extinction or counter-conditioning, the experience should become decoupled from the expression. This may be what happened when the actors repeatedly ‘stepped out’ of the emotional pattern, and it could conceivably result in a protective bypassing of subjective involvement, as the authors suggest. One question that must be asked of this, as well as any method of training or altering emotional expression, concerns the specificity of effect. Does the technique work because of the specific effects of the training or because of more general placebo effects, relaxation effects, and/or eduction of attention to internal bodily processes? Studies of biofeedback suggest that expected gains may often be due to non-specific effects (see Andrasik & Holroyd, 1983). In any event, the approach taken by this paper is valuable in that it seeks systematically to describe emotional expression in a way which recognizes the simultaneous importance of body movement, breathing, and vocalization as well as facial expression. The criterion of success-the ability convincingly to express complex emotion in a dramatic context-is unique, and the possibility of a notation system based on this system is intriguing. Ol40-1750/88/020201+1
I SO3.00/0
0 1988 Academic Press Limited
202
P. Ekman
References Andrasik, F. & Holroyd, K. A. (1983). J. consulfing din. Psychol. 51, 634-636. Buck, R. (1980). J. Personaliry sot. Psychol. 38, 81 l-824. Jurgens, U. (1979). In (H. Steklis & M. J. Raleigh, Eds): Neurobiology of Social Communicarion in Primates. New York: Academic Press. Ploog, D. (1981). Brain Res. Rev. 3, 35-61. R. Buck University of Connecticut, Department of Communication Sciences, Box U-85, 8.50 Bolton Road, Storrs, CT 06268, USA
Commentary by Paul Ekman
This is a very interesting report of what appears to be a very promising training technique for acting. In general, the findings are consistent with our [Ekman, Levenson & Friesen (1983) report cited by Bloch et al.] studies of how voluntarily making certain facial expressions generates emotion-specific autonomic nervous system activity. I was particularly interested in their use of respiration instructions to generate emotions, and their observation that expression then fell into place. In recent unpublished experiments, we have found that when subjects make facial expressions respiration falls into place. I agree with their contention that facial, respiratory, and postural activities are all patterned for emotions, and that it should be possible to generate emotion by means of any one of them, and probably more robustly by using more than one at a time. The research evidence, however, is so far limited to the face. My disagreements are in regard to their choice of emotions and the specification of the particular facial expressions which characterize each emotion. The authors do not explain their basis for either of these matters. Few emotion theorists or researchers characterize eroticism and tenderness as emotions, although emotions may become involved in either. We have studied emotions for which there is evidence of universal, distinctive patterns of expressive behavior, as well as evidence of these same expressions in other animals (see reviews in Ekman, 1973 and Ekman & Oster, 1979). I do not believe there is such evidence for eroticism and tenderness. Even for those emotions about which we agree-happiness, anger, fear, and sadness-the authors seem to confuse matters by what they include in their parenthetical definitions of each emotion, failing to consider the differences between emotions, moods, emotional traits, emotional attitudes, and emotional disorders (see Ekman, 1984, for a discussion of these distinctions). Another disagreement is about the specific facial muscular movements the authors say characterize each emotion. Again, they fail to explain where their specification comes from. By describing facial movements with such vague terms as ‘frown’ they introduce unnecessary ambiguity. It would be preferable to describe movements in terms of the specific muscular actions involved. Much of what they claim to be the facial muscular actions involved in happiness, anger, fear, and sadness disagrees with the published findings from dozens of investigations. Perhaps that is why it took them so long to train their actors. With no training time whatsoever, we have found that both actors and non-actors generate robust autonomic nervous system activity when they attempt to make on their face the particular muscular patterns which have been universally found to signal specific emotions.
Biol.
Sfruct.
1988
11, 201-211
Commentaries on ‘Effector patterns of-basic emotions’ by S. Bloch, P. Orthous and G. Santibafiez-H
Commentary by Ross Buck
This paper makes a significant contribution toward formally and explicitly relating research on emotional expression to the phenomenon of acting. George Bums once remarked that the secret to being a good actor is honesty: ‘If you can fake that’, he said, ‘you’ve got it made’. The ease with which humans and other animals can convincingly fake emotional expression is remarkable. There is evidence for specific neural mechanisms allowing monkeys to voluntarily initiate (without apparent affect) calls that are identical on the sound spectrograph to spontaneous emotional calls (see Jurgens, 1979; Ploog, 1981). Such a ‘built-in’ ability for affective lying is probably necessary for the maintenance of orderly social relations. Acting builds upon this ability, but this paper makes it clear that the convincing expression of emotion in a dramatic context requires much more. One of the important theoretical points raised by this paper involves the question of the relationship between emotional expression and experience, for the question of the role of peripheral feedback in emotional experience continues to evoke controversy. One can argue that any peripheral response can become able to alter emotional experience through proprioceptive and interoceptive conditioning (Buck, 1980). One of the implications of this view is that through extinction or counter-conditioning, the experience should become decoupled from the expression. This may be what happened when the actors repeatedly ‘stepped out’ of the emotional pattern, and it could conceivably result in a protective bypassing of subjective involvement, as the authors suggest. One question that must be asked of this, as well as any method of training or altering emotional expression, concerns the specificity of effect. Does the technique work because of the specific effects of the training or because of more general placebo effects, relaxation effects, and/or eduction of attention to internal bodily processes? Studies of biofeedback suggest that expected gains may often be due to non-specific effects (see Andrasik & Holroyd, 1983). In any event, the approach taken by this paper is valuable in that it seeks systematically to describe emotional expression in a way which recognizes the simultaneous importance of body movement, breathing, and vocalization as well as facial expression. The criterion of success-the ability convincingly to express complex emotion in a dramatic context-is unique, and the possibility of a notation system based on this system is intriguing. Ol40-1750/88/020201+1
I SO3.00/0
0 1988 Academic Press Limited
202
P. Ekman
References Andrasik, F. & Holroyd, K. A. (1983). J. consulfing din. Psychol. 51, 634-636. Buck, R. (1980). J. Personaliry sot. Psychol. 38, 81 l-824. Jurgens, U. (1979). In (H. Steklis & M. J. Raleigh, Eds): Neurobiology of Social Communicarion in Primates. New York: Academic Press. Ploog, D. (1981). Brain Res. Rev. 3, 35-61. R. Buck University of Connecticut, Department of Communication Sciences, Box U-85, 8.50 Bolton Road, Storrs, CT 06268, USA
Commentary by Paul Ekman
This is a very interesting report of what appears to be a very promising training technique for acting. In general, the findings are consistent with our [Ekman, Levenson & Friesen (1983) report cited by Bloch et al.] studies of how voluntarily making certain facial expressions generates emotion-specific autonomic nervous system activity. I was particularly interested in their use of respiration instructions to generate emotions, and their observation that expression then fell into place. In recent unpublished experiments, we have found that when subjects make facial expressions respiration falls into place. I agree with their contention that facial, respiratory, and postural activities are all patterned for emotions, and that it should be possible to generate emotion by means of any one of them, and probably more robustly by using more than one at a time. The research evidence, however, is so far limited to the face. My disagreements are in regard to their choice of emotions and the specification of the particular facial expressions which characterize each emotion. The authors do not explain their basis for either of these matters. Few emotion theorists or researchers characterize eroticism and tenderness as emotions, although emotions may become involved in either. We have studied emotions for which there is evidence of universal, distinctive patterns of expressive behavior, as well as evidence of these same expressions in other animals (see reviews in Ekman, 1973 and Ekman & Oster, 1979). I do not believe there is such evidence for eroticism and tenderness. Even for those emotions about which we agree-happiness, anger, fear, and sadness-the authors seem to confuse matters by what they include in their parenthetical definitions of each emotion, failing to consider the differences between emotions, moods, emotional traits, emotional attitudes, and emotional disorders (see Ekman, 1984, for a discussion of these distinctions). Another disagreement is about the specific facial muscular movements the authors say characterize each emotion. Again, they fail to explain where their specification comes from. By describing facial movements with such vague terms as ‘frown’ they introduce unnecessary ambiguity. It would be preferable to describe movements in terms of the specific muscular actions involved. Much of what they claim to be the facial muscular actions involved in happiness, anger, fear, and sadness disagrees with the published findings from dozens of investigations. Perhaps that is why it took them so long to train their actors. With no training time whatsoever, we have found that both actors and non-actors generate robust autonomic nervous system activity when they attempt to make on their face the particular muscular patterns which have been universally found to signal specific emotions.