' ‘1‘ u ‘ ¢ 21 o (d‘n’¢f¢:‘ .1 . u c I . . ' ' .' 74...! o'c' '0’. or Dcnc‘1-g-c .o- A CROSS» CULTURAL INVESTIGATION OF FACIAL EXPRESSION . Thesis for the Degree of M. A. .. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ‘ LINDA ANN STEVENSON ‘ 1972 ~ A MSTRACT A CROSS-CULTURAL INVESTIGATION OF FACIAL EXPRESSION BY Linda Ann Stevenson Communication is an informational system based on both verbal and non-verbal cues. Recent evidence suggests that animals and humans use non-verbal adaptive mechanisms to recognize and convey various emotional states. Because facial expresSion is one part of the human encoding-decoding communication system by which emotions are displayed, an attempt was made to investigate if cer- tain components of facial expression universally serve as signals of impending threat. Using a facial characteris— tic scale, the following hypotheses were made: 1. That socially defined threatening facial displays (masks) contain more threatening cues* than do non-threatening facial displays (masks) across cultures. 2. Taken individually, each of the separate cues will discriminate between socially defined threat- ening and non-threatening facial displays. *Drawn from research of Aronoff and Barclay, 1971. Linda Ann Stevenson The study included samplings (plastic representa» tions of the face) from the following culture areas: America, Bambara, Bakwele, Bapende, Ceylon, Chinese, Dan" Guere, Gouro, Hawaiian, Kwakiutl, Japanese, Javanese, Middle European, Mortlock Island, Senoufo, Tibet and Tlinget. Masks and puppets were not only chosen for their representations of facial expression and artistic process, but because of their ability to arouse, attract or repel the subject. Often masks are used as a means of social control; and in the traditional, dramatic, and sometimes, religious experience, they are a kind of emotional "agent provocateur." Results indicated that in all cultures examined, the threatening masks contained significantly greater number of threatening cues than did the non-threatening masks, and that some cues were used with greater frequence than others. Furthermore, it was noted that cultures vary in the use of the threatening cues. In conclusion, this investigation supports the theory that all facial expression is not learned, but that there are sub-cortical mechanisms for the primary affects that minimize diffi- culty in interpersonal relations and aid to coordinate social processes. APPROVED: DATE : A CROSS-CULTURAL INVESTIGATION OF FACIAL EXPRESSION BY Linda Ann Stevenson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1972 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Joel Aronoff, my committee chairman, for his advice and his inspiring motto, "SMART, CARE, TERRIFIC." I also want to thank Dr. Lawrence Messé and Dr. Andrew Barclay for their cooperation and assistance. Thanks also goes to Mr. Christopher Legg, my kind guide at the Chicago Field Museum, Mamadou Sy at the Bureau de Tourisme in Bamako, Mali, to my German transla- tor, Martha Kent, and to my photographers, David Schnarch, Christopher Gilbert and Dr. Les Hyman. Finally, I am especially grateful to Cynthia Freed- land and Ilis Tulpan who spent long hours rating the masks. Thank you. ii LIST OF TABLES INTRODUCTION . METHOD . . . . RESULTS. . . . DISCUSSION . . REFERENCES . . APPENDIX A. SCORING B. CULTURE TABLE OF CONTENTS RULES, FACIAL NOTES, SOURCE CHARACTERISTIC SCALE. AND CLASSIFICATION. . iii Page iv 30 35 46 60 71 75 LIST OF TABLES Page Number of Threatening (T) and Non- Threatening (N-T) Masks for Each Culture . . . 32 Inter-Rater Reliability. 0 o o o o o o o o o o 35 Mean Scores of Threatening Characteristics by Culture on Threatening and Non- Threatening Masks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Proportion of Appearance of Single Characteristics in Threatening (T) and Non-Threatening (N-T) Masks Across all Cultures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Proportion of Appearance of Single Characteristics in Threatening (T) and Non-Threatening (N-T) Masks for Each Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 iv INTRODUCTION "The raised eyebrow, frown, smile, laugh and even the ability to speak may have evolved from ancestral reflex actions that were gradually transformed into means of communication." Richard Andrew "Beneath the varying behavior which animals learn lie unvarying motor patterns which they inherit. These behavior traits are as much a characteristic of a species as bodily structure and form." Konrad Lorenz "In peace there's nothing so becomes a man, As modest stillness and humility But when the blast of war blows in our ears, The imitate the action of the tiger: Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, Then lend the eye a terrible aspect; Now set the teeth, and stretch the nostril wide, Hold the breath, and bend up every spirit To his full height! On, on, you noblest English." Henry V act iii Shakespeare Plato referred to the soul as "enshrined in that living tomb which we carry about, now that we are imprisoned in the body like an oyster in his shell.“ The early dualis- tic concept of the psyche and soma has given impetus to the psychosomatic movement and to the recent emphasis on kine- sics: i.e., the emotional processes are manifested and recognized by body movements. This intimate relationship between the body and the psyche, thus, allows for communi- cation outside the verbal or linguistic mode. Through out- of—awareness, but clearly discrete, paralinguistic signals, man knows the directives, prohibitions, encouragements, and warnings which govern his consistent association with other members of the society. Body movements as expressive behavioral cues have been an area of investigation. Birdwhistell (1952, 1970) claims that the human organism uses its full sensory equip- ment in adjusting to the presence and activities of other human beings. Sheflen (1964) proposes that much of this behavior acts in accordance with behavioral programs. Ekman (1957, 1964, 1965, 1969) addresses himself to the repertoire and coding of non-verbal behavior as well as to the differential importance of head and body cues. Recognition accuracy has most recently attracted the at- tention of investigators because of the possible cue value of expressive behavior in clinical situations (Dittman, 1962; Exline and Winters, 1965; Sheflen, 1965; Mahl, 1966; Ekman and Friesen, 1967). Cross-referenced with the verbal message, the non-verbal behavior may be congruent with, in- congruent with, or in anticipation of a particular emotional problem. As affective experiences rely on the release of tension and are not always consciously displayed in the body or the face, they will act as "leakage channels" (functional clues) for the clinical or social interpretation. Other cues that act as indicative gestures in inter- personal relationships are proxemic cues. Territoriality, or personal space, is adaptive as well as functional for regulating interpersonal interaction. Each human being has portable personal space (Little, 1965; Sommer, 1969) which he cares not to have invaded except by his consent. Depending on the intimacy of the interpersonal encounter, the "social distance" changes (Argyle, 1969). "Social dis- tance" maximizes or minimizes social intercourse. For example, one stands back from (if not avoids) an enemy; whereas, the speaking position of two friends includes squaring of the shoulders at a distance of less than twelve inches between the noses (Hall, 1966). However, many of the S-R theorists as well as anthro- pologists LaBarre (1947, 1964) and Birdwhistell (1970) be- lieve that "there is not a 'natural' language of emotional gesture." Other researchers in the study of proxemics have evaluated the unconscious importance and cultural differences in spatial relationships. Hall (1959, 1966) shows that cultural codes reveal that people of different cultures inhabit "different sensory worlds." Not only a potential source of misunderstanding in cross-cultural exchanges, it works to isolate and consolidate subcultural groups (Hall, 1966). Watson and Graves (1966) found differences in spatial orientation between the Arab and American cul- tures and among geographical regions within these cultures. Evidence of Willis (1966) and Aiello and Jones (1971) also supports the differences found in interaction distance for subcultures in the United States. Englebretson and Full- man (1970), too, have indicated the effectiveness of these silent codes among Native-Japanese, Hawaiian-Japanese and American-Caucasian. LaBarre's (1964) lengthy essay does try to survey some paralinguistic aSpects of non-verbal communication across cultures, finding mostly negative correlations be- tween gestures of one culture and another. However, he does admit that some gestures are not learned but have an innate basis--that of smiling, laughing and crying (to moisten the nasal membranes during heavy inhaling and ex- haling) and toe curling during sexual arousal. Bird- whistell, at the beginning of his career, assumed that communication was an elaboration of a panhuman core code emergent for the limited possibilities of physiological response. This assumption, he said, only complicated his work. Although Birdwhistell has coded behavior into units called kines, while LaBarre only spoke of gross movements, both maintain that kinesic behavior is learned, is not innate, and thus has no panhuman basis. Meaningful gestures for animals, however, are not learned (Keenyside, 1955; Tinbergen, 1959; Peiponen, 1960; Lorenz, 1965). After looking at the behavioral processes that occur in the animal world, we cannot help but notice the adaptations to and interactions with the environment that animals make. Charles Darwin (1872), making such Observations, said that independent of the will, the ner- vous system determines our many expressions. As a fore— runner in the field of kinesics, Darwin illustrates that among many animals and man there are non-verbal and in- voluntary movements that convey emotion of anger and ag- gression. For example, such cues are: 1. Dermal appendages erect under excitment of anger or terror. The enraged lion erects his mane. Hens ruffle their feathers. Lizards inflate. This inflating the body is not an acquired power, but is an incidental result of the sensorium being affected. The ears are expressively positioned—-drawn back and pressed to the head. Dogs, horses, hippos and some monkeys do this. Characteristic of the Macacus rhesus angered is his redness. Orangs and chimps protrude their lips; but among others, more often, the lips are retracted to expose the teeth. "Rage,anger and indignation are exhibited in nearly the same manner throughout the world," says Darwin, as he cites examples from Australia, North Dakota, Malay and China. These expressions include neck stretching, faster heart beat, color heightening (even among Negroes), brightening of the eyes, and the wings of the nostrils becoming somewhat raised. The mouth is compressed, the chest expands and the head is erect. The eyes are dilated. And, although the person leans toward the antagonist, his feet are firmly planted on the ground. (The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals pp. 237-46) Lorenz (1963) proposes that there are mechanisms which he calls innate releasing mechanisms (IRMs), that Operate in animals and help them to adapt to each other (intra—specific) and their environment. They are highly specific cues that trigger or elicit a given behavior in a like species. IRMs evolved in the service of coordinating social behavior. For example, animals, in order to communi- cate and interact with others of the species, posture, ges- ture, sing, preen, etc. The concern at hand may be food- getting, food—begging, fighting, submitting, courting, greeting, following, attracting or appeasing. Some ex- amples are as follows: 1. The blue breast feathers of the male bluethroat elicit fighting in another male of the same. (Peiponen, 1960) 2. Upright ears of the European red squirrel indicate defense; its ears back indicate aggression. (Eibl- Elbesfeldt, 1957) 3. Lipsmacking of the baboon elicits friendly re- sponses by other baboons; it is a greeting sign. (Andrew, 1965) Lorenz (1963, 1965) goes on to support Darwin's beliefs on the evolutionary origins of homo sapiens (man, having com— mon origins with the animals, is, in part, subject to the laws of nature). However, he admits that the dynamics of instinctive drives, of phyletically and culturally ritualized behavior patterns, together with the controlling force of responsbiel morality, form a very complicated systematic whole which is not easy to analyze. Whereas Lorenz, in supporting Darwin, only alludes to the possibilities of the IRMs operant in man, Richard Andrew (1965) directly supports Darwin in investigating facial expression: "The raised eyebrow, frown, smile, laugh, and even the ability to speak may all have evolved from ancestral reflex action that were gradually trans- formed into means of communication." As a remarkable in- strument of communication, "the human face, by movements of its mouth, eyes and brows conveys, in a most sensitive way, specific emotions, thoughts or intentions that are universally understood." He confirms the ear-flattening response, not as a sign of aggression, but of protection. However, Lorenz (1963) argues that the ears are erect in most aggressive displays. In higher primates, ear- flattening is less pronounced and less significant be- cause these animals no longer depend so much on their ears to scan the environment; hence, the diminished ability to move their ears implies that ear movement would no longer be considered as a significant signal. As Andrew states: "Ear-flattening and associated facial movements such as scalp retraction gives us a clear indication of the way in which most facial expression originated. They are not innate expression of pleasure, pain, anger, or fear, but arose in the first instance as accompani- ments of functional activities or as reflex responses to stimuli, e.g., ear-flattening was a protective re- sponse to a startling change in the environment. The expressions were perpetuated by natural selection and evolved into exaggerated displays because they had com- municative value. In the course of evolution the ex- pression, particularly in man, came to represent not only intentions, but also emotional states." (Andrew, 1965, p. 89) Andrew explains other facial displays in terms of their evolutionary origins. The human smile probably evolved from the monkey grin, a protective response, and gradually generalized to "interesting" or "amusing" (Andrew, 1963). The baring of the teeth is an expressional element almost always linked with intense vocalization in primitive primates--i.e., stronger excitations states of positive or negative emotions. And, as this vocalization implies another party, such displays are not made alone. The mobility of the lips in the higher primates and man, stem- ming from this vocalization has developed into an important visual signal. Involving vigorous expulsions of air, the rounding of the lips, covering the teeth has become an important signal of impending attack (Andrew, 1965). The evolvement of these survival cues has been explained in three operations by which a habit becomes a species preserving instinct: 1. ritualization of motor patterns; 2. development of the reinforcement mechanism support- ing the ritualized motor pattern; 3. the storing of this information in the genes and chromosomes. (Frank, 1968) Thus, through phylogenetic modification, the successful response becomes permanently blueprinted in the cells of an organism and transmitted hereditarily through time in the genes and chromosomes of the members of that species. The original motivation for response becomes lost (on a conscious level) and the very performance of the behavior is an end in itself. Phylogenetic information is retained in coded chain molecules within the cells of an organism, but how this storing process is achieved is not completely known. It is recognized as being stored in the genes in that specie specific behaviors are transmitted to and displayed in the progeny of a species (even after extended time intervals in which the behavior was not exhibited). The process has developed a comprehensive repertoire that functions for such social behaviors as sex and aggression. The process of phylogenetic ritualization of aggressive signals, for example, can be understood as the result of the combined actions of the sympathetic/parasympathetic and muscular systems acting together to produce signals of fight (threat/ combat) or flight (submission/appeasement). The face as well as the body can signal in a similar manner, if not in a more sensitive and mobile way. Efforts have been made to investigate the importance of the face as the expressor of emotion. Spitz and Wolf (1946), Fantz 10 (1961), Kagan and Lewis (1964) and Wilcox (1969) have argued whether preference for the facial stimulus might not be a "wired-in" response. Certainly the interest in face-form appears early. Bornstein (1969) points out that the human face is the earliest visual stimulus that we learn to attend to. The faces of persons hovering above us may give a primal importance to facial recognition unmatched by any other class of objects. Lending support to this is the fact that a newborn can focus at 18 cms.--the distance from the breast to the mother's face (Hayes, White and Held, 1965). Fantz (1961) has tested babies on form perception. His experiments indicate that man's ability to perceive form, i.e., recognize the facial configuration, is indeed innate. Measurements by fixation or attention (Fantz, 1961) or heart deceleration (Kagan and Lewis, 1964) have shown that infants prefer the abstraction of the normal face. When the abstracted characteristics of the face were distorted, the infant was disturbed. It seems that this interest of young infants in form will later aid in object recognition, social responsiveness, and Spatial orientation. This primitive ability provides a foundation for the vast accumulation of knowledge through experience. At a later stage, he will have a more precise perception of facial pattern. 11 The significant role of the facial expression even remains a more important mode of communication than the verbal message. Mehrabian and Ferris (1967) found that the facial components received one and a half times the weight received by the vocal components of communication. Another study by Mehrabian and Weiner (1967) resulted in emphasizing the importance of facial expression. Attitude was communicated 55% facially, 38% vocally, and 7% verbally. With interest in facial patterns and body movements, Dittman, Parloff and Boomer (1965) studied the differential receptivity of emotional cues of the body and the face. They concluded that facial and bodily expression may differ among themselves in terms of dominance, at least for posi- tive emotions. But, regardless of the emotion, it seems that eye movement cameras consistently indicate that the human head tends to be looked at first and most (Brandt, 1945). The importance of facial cues has led Ekman (1965) to compare their impact as expressors of emotion with body movements. He found that they provide differential in- formation about apparent emotion to the observer; "because the rate of facial expressions usually far exceeds that rate of body acts, perceptions of specific emotions can be more frequently made from head than body cues." (Ekman, 1967, p. 723). The head is more informative about the nature of the emotion (whether the stimulus person feels 12 angry, afraid, sad, etc.), while the body is more informative about the intensity of the emotion. The data were examined further in order to determine whether the difference in agreement between judges of head and judges of bocy cues might have been limited to only one or two of the five stimulus persons shown in the photographs. Detailed in— spection of the results for each stimulus showed that judge agreement was higher for head cues than for body cues for stimuli judged as showing happiness, surprise, fear, con- tempt, while with anger and disgust, the cue version which elicited higher judge agreement varied with the individual stimulus person in the photographs. Results also tended to indicate that action was more indicative of the emotion than position. Obviously, facial recognition studies from stable and static photos do lack some of the realities of mobility and change (Turhan, 1960). The act of distorting, e.g. going from a neutral face to one of anger, was omitted. Although this change would be more difficult to assess ex- perimentally, the study did point out that: l. Movements might be neur0physically linked to emotional arousal. 2. Movements might be adaptive responses to arousal that modulate, enhance, reduce or discharge the emotional arousal. (Ekman, 1967, p. 718) Final conclusions of this study indicate that Ekman's hypothesis of 1965 has been reformulated. Intensity, as well as the nature of emotion, is indeed inferred from l3 facial displays and head tilt, and the importance of this intensity is weighted according to body display or inhibi- tion. Although head cues seem more informative than facial cues, some argue that through socialization, we learn which situation allows or disallows certain facial expressions. Allport (1924) believed that the facial reactions of in- fants to given situations are initially random; but with approval and reward, the baby subsequently connects a given state of affairs with expressions that arouse strik- ing effects in other persons. Such a theory would counter the evidence of Dumas (1932, 1948) who maintained that the expressions of all the discrete emotions could be explained by the general principle of variations in muscle tone. He recognized that joy, sadness, anger and fear are "cerebral states" which affect "mental functions" as well as the motor system. Although he does not address himself to the evolu- tionary origins of facial expression, his study on the congentially blind has been a source of valuable evidence to suggest that facial expression is not learned. Thompson (1941) and Fulcher (1942) also observed and compared the facial expression of blind and seeing children. Thompson concludes that as expressions of joy, sadness, and anger were reliably identifiable in the blind that it must, therefore, be due to some form of maturational processes. Sighted children revealed greater stylization of laughing and smiling, but the differences between the two groups 14 were negligible. The findings of Fulcher also supported the idea that expressions are generally innate, and that both the seeing and the blind show no noticeable changes with age in the patterns of their expressions. But despite whether they are innate or learned, Goffman (1959) would argue that we have learned not "to show" certain socially undesirable emotions; that is, in situations of boredom or anger, our true feelings are not manifest, but masked. It could be argued, however, that split-second manifestation of the true feeling precedes this masking. Haggard and Isaacs (1966) have shown that micro-momentary facial expressions, often not perceived consciously by the naked eye, occur in social interaction in relation to intrapsychic dynamics, frequently signalingr conflict or denial mechanisms. Other supporting evidence is an experiment in which the startle response was still exhibited by gunmen who claimed to be habituated to the shot of a gun. Film analysis, however, revealed that the reaction was displayed, but quickly disguised (Karon, 1971). Then, recognition of aggressive cues would indeed be pre- sented and processed in a like manner. "Putting on a front" is more closely connected with a time element, rather than a complete concealment of the true emotion. Facial Recognition Studies To survey facial expressions of all emotions, Frois- Wittman (1930) developed and used a photogram set of 72 15 pictures. Anger was correctly identified 39% of the time but was often interpreted as hate, contempt, rage, etc.-- all highly potent negative emotions. Woodworth (1940), using the Frois-Wittman photos, tried to specify emotional expression and categorized them into one of six categories: (1) love, happiness, mirth, (2) surprise, (3) fear, suffering, (4) anger, determination, (5) disgust, and (6) contempt. Judgments by different ob— servers of a particular pose showed substantial similarity. The pose for anger was identified by only 31 judges; 28 saw it as fear, and 14 saw it as suffering (total of 73 judges). In any case, it was never seen as a positive emotion. A reason for low agreement between the judges could be that the photos froze the emotion: that is, in everyday life, individuals are accustomed to free and flexible facial expressions, not those of a stagnant quality. Secondly, low agreement among the judges might be the result of not being accustomed to seeing the ex- pression of anger. And, finally judgment might have been impaired due to the repression of identifying a high po- tency negative emotion. Investigating the Frois—Wittman and other sets of stimuli using the Woodworth scale, Schlosberg (1941, 1952) found evidence that the scale was circular, rather than linear, and could be understood through the Operation of two orthogonal dimensions, pleasantness-unpleasantness and l6 attention-rejection. Subsequently, on the basis of evidence other than that directly obtained from the investigation of facial expression, an activation dimension, sleep-tension, was added, and supporting evidence was reported (1954). Thus, a neat circular model, using emotional dimensions, seemed to serve as a descriptive device. Ableson and Sermat (1962) found that the two dimen- sional model, pleasantness-unpleasantness and sleep-tension, was most adequate; the attention-rejection dimension seemed to add only a little more in the prediction. Mordkoff (1967), using the data of Schlosberg, factor analyzed the judgment of emotion from facial expression and supported Schlosberg on the two dimensions, sleep-tension and pleasantness-unpleasantness. However, he was unsuccess- ful in his attempt to add another dimension, that of forceful-submissive. Osgood (1966) produced a three dimensional analysis of facial display (pleasantness, control, intensity); but as it was mediated by verbal labels attached to the poses, the results are not of concern to this investigation. In fact, it has previously been noted that verbalizations are often not as significant an indicator as facial display in conveying an emotional message (Mehrabian and Ferris, 1967; Mehrabian and Weiner, 1967). Tomkins and McCarter (1964), interested in the production of the experience of affect, assumed that facial 17 affective responses are controlled by innate affect pro- grams which are inherited as a subcortical sturcture which can instruct and control a variety of muscles and glands to respond with unique patterns of rate and duration of activity characteristic of a given affect. These innate responses are later transformed in various ways through learning; but, there is always a continuing openness to activation of the innate pattern of responses. They dis- tinguished the following primary affects and facial re- sponse, and feedback which in conscious form, produce the experience of affect: l. Interest—Excitement--eyebrows down, eyes track, look and listen; 2. Enjoyment-Joy--smile, lips widen up and out, smiling eyes (circular wrinkles): 3. Surprise—Startle--eyebrows up, eyes blink; 4. Distress-Anguish--cry, arched brown, mouth down, tears, rhythmic sobbing; 5. Fear-Terror—-eyes frozen open, pale, cold, sweaty, facial trembling, with hair erect; 6. Shame-Humiliation--eyes down, head down; 7. Anger-Rage--frown, clenched jaw, eyes narrowed, red face. (Tomkins and McCarter, 1964, p. 120) Experimental procedure required the identification of the emotions of sixty-nine photos. There was a .86 correlation between the photo and the correct judgment. However, the judgment was highly facilitated by the fact that the judges were given the categories of emotion beforehand. 18 Thompson and Meltzer (1964) essentially studied the communication of emotional intent by facial expression, too, and found that happiness, love, fear, and determina- tion are significantly easier to enact than suffering, disgust, contempt and anger. Again, social propriety may circumscribe enactment of the negative emotions, but not necessarily the immediate interpretation of those emotions. Drag and Shaw (1967) confirmed the findings of Thompson and Meltzer. Happiness was easiest and contempt was most difficult to communicate (expressor and judge agreements were 70% and 30% for happiness and contempt re- spectively). Although this finding seems contrary to the self-preservation instincts, Goffman (1959) reminds us that culture often disallows recognition or expression of "undesirable? emotions. Social situations are often re- strictive. Also, it was found that females were more ef- fective than males in the communication of happiness, love, anger and fear. This seems consistent with the taboos of this society to lessen the degree of male emtotionality. Others would explain the difficulties of consistent (across emotions) facial interpretation due to contextual circumstances. That situational context enhances the per— ception of faces and increases the recognition scores is supported by Landis (1929), Munn (1940), Goldberg (1951) and Cline (1956). Moreover, there is recent evidence that l9 situational cues drastically modify the interpretation of expression (Turhan, 1960; Kirckhoff, 1962; Warries, 1963; Birdwhistell, 1970). More generally, Schachter (1964) explains, "Cogni- tions arising from the immediate situation as interpreted by past experience, provide the framework within which one understands and labels his feelings. It is the cog- nition which determines whether the state of physiological arousal will be labeled 'anger,’ 'joy' or 'whatever'" (p. 51). This concurs with Cannon's theory (1927) of emotion which the perceived situation produces an emotion which prepares the body to take action. However, the emotional process described by James (1884) and Lange (1922) seems more cogent here in the situation of extreme danger/im- pending attack; the perceived situation is followed by a physiological response which is later acknowledged as a specific emotion. A most comprehensive theory within this tradition is that of Arnold (1960). Although she acknowledges man as active, her theory is essentially one of reaction, treating emotion as a response to a stimulus. She speaks of primary emotional experience that results from evaluation of the situation, followed by a secondary emotional experience that follows from the appraisal of bodily changes brought about by the first appraisal. For example, if an individual appraises a situation as 20 dangerous, the emotion which follows will be fear. The fear will result in bodily changes which may also be evaluated as dangerous, and this appraisal will result in a second fear. To explain more specifically, the sequence is as follows: (1) appraisal of sensory impression, (2) experience of liking or disliking and appraisal of object as harmful or beneficial as performed by the limbic region nearest the sensory cortical area, (3) the emotion and action impulse, (4) appraisal for action via memories future consequences, (5) choice of action, (6) visceral- glandular activity of the hippocampal system, (7) emotional expression, and amplication and organiza- tion of impulses for the chosen action, (8) urge to action and appraisal of its suitability carried out by the ventral thalamus and the pre-motor area of the frontal lobe, and (9) directed action. (Arnold, 1960a, 1960b) Schachter probably underestimated the specificity of emotional reactivity; possibly, if observers manage to discriminate between more than just the level of arousal, the subject himself might be able to do as well. There is skeletal as well as visceral reactivity, and in many cases, this is demonstrably as primitive as visceral response (e.g. the startle pattern [Landis and Hunt, 1939]; crying in infants [Bridges, 1932; Goodenough, 1932]). Investigations have begun to discover and code the kinds of behavior, especially the neuromuscular activity of the face. Whereas Birdwhistell (1970) and others (Ken- don and Ex, 1969) have developed minute coding systems, persons such as Hanawalt (1944) have focused on the roles 21 of the upper and lower parts of the face as a basis for judging facial expression. He concurs with Dunlap (1927) that to some extent the lower half of the face furnished better cues for identifying happy expressions; however, the upper half of the face seems superior in conveying surprise and fear. Anger, in his analysis, was identified 73% of the time by the upper half, and only 15% correctly by the lower half of the face. It seems that there is not reliable differences between the upper and lower half of the face in furnishing cues for the judgment of facial expression (in general) in paintings, sculpture, posed or candid photos. Other contributions indicate that it is the eyes which play an important role in facial expression. Frijda (1956) emphasizes the importance of the eyes and the re- gion around the eyes. The importance of eye-contact, whether a glance or a stare,signifies intimacy or lack of it, dominance or submission (Exline, 1963; Argyle and Dean, 1965). Open eyes (versus half-closed or lowered) convey dominance in a dyadic interaction because the personal ego zones of the second party are being penetrated. Even placement of the eyes seems to have some indicative value in social perception. Brunswik and Reiter (1938) used eye, nose and mouth placement as a determinant of a person's likeability, pleasantness and intelligence; for example, eyes close together, a medium nose and a high placed mouth 22 (big chin?) was judged as "ugly, unlikeable, unintelligent." Brooks and Hochberg (1960), in investigating the physio- logical components of judging "cuteness," found that it was a function of eye height; that is physiognomic quali- ties exert a powerful influence on our behavior (the judg- ment of cuteness). Last, in terms of autonomic responses, the discoveries of Hess (1964, 1965) have indicated the eye (pupil) size varies with a certain arousal. The pupil dilates during sexual arousal and problem-solving behavior. As intensity is common to both situations, dilated pupils might be evidenced in other highly emotional situations, such as anger, rage, etc. To study the specific facial components and their importance in non-verbal communication, Harrison (1964) focused on simplified facial pictomorphs. The schematic faces used five types of eyebrows, four types of eyes, three types of mouth, combined in all possible combinations. Subjects indicated on a five point scale the degree to which each adjective on a list was apprOpriate for each face. One result showed that the "medially down-turned eyebrow is a sufficient condition for the response of "angry." This has proved to be of interest to the re- search below. In another study using schematic faces, Counts (1967) showed the effects of pictorial context on semantic differential judgments of motor kinetic lines and expressive 23 facial outlines. He did not particularly try to locate the connotative elements of facial display, yet showed that the influence of context (one of three different lines drawing patterns presented adjacent to the schematic draw- ings) did neutralize the incongruent situations. However, it failed to intensify the interpretation of emotion in the congruent, i.e. when the line pattern complemented the schematic drawing. But Guthrie and Wiener (1966) inves- tigated the role of angularity in person perception and found that angularity in drawings controlled the perception of aggression; the angular drawing without a gun was seen as more aggressive than the same drawing with curved lines and a gun. Behavioral consequences to specific components of facial display was measured by Fleming (1972) in terms of proximity measures. In a simple "walk-up" experiment, sub- jects were asked to approach the graphic representations of isolated features of facial expression and to stop at a self-determined comfort range. He predicted that they would stand farther from the threatening abstract patterns than control patterns of equal stimulus value. Recognition and response to the stimuli was due to the function of in- nate releasing mechanisms. Results indicated that angularity and diagonality in the upper third of the face are signifi- cant to the display of threat: angular eyes, angular brows, angular cheek lines. 24 Cross-Cultural Studies Thus, the growing body of research in ethology, facial recognition studies and development of more compre- hensive theorizing of emotional processes (on the physio- logical level) provide a framework from which the rela- tivist view can be challenged. Would the same facial expressions be recognized across cultures? And, would isolated components of the facial display system, trig- gering off an emotional reaction/interpretation be a universal phenomenon? Secord and Bevan (1956) were interested in cross- cultural comparisons of impression of physiognomy and personality, rather than emotional expression, but found that there was a relative congruence of rating photographs of physiognomic variables by Norwegian and American judges. Although they do not identify the physiognomic traits re- sponsible for the strong impressions yielded, similarities in judgment were pronounced than the differences. In regards to this question of universality, Bird- whistell (1970) poses the following question as relevant for modern ethologists and comparative psychologists: Are there particular sound and expressions and gestures which can be studied in isolation and which are evi- dence of particular, predisposing psychological states regardless of the cultural context of their appearance? (Kinesics and Context, p. 38) His immediate response is that "cross-cultural research suggests that the answer to all of these questions is negative." 25 However, Ekman, Sorenson and Friesen (1969), after observation in both literate and preliterate cultures, found that the pan-cultural elements in facial displays of emotion are the associations between facial muscular movements and discrete primary emotions, although cultures may still differ in what evokes an emotion, in rules for controlling the display of emotion and in behavioral con- sequences. They used the following six affect categories: happy, fear, contempt-disgust, anger, surprise, and sad- ness. Their inVuetigations attempted to contradict the positions reviewed above that propose that: l. Facial displays of emotion are socially learned, and thus, culturally variable. 2. Observers of the face alone do not achieve accuracy in recognizing different emotional states. 3. "The best evidence available, from thirty years of research, seem to indicate there is not invariable pattern, or at least, no innate invariable pattern of expression, accompanying specific emotions." (Bruner and Tagiuri, 1954) The Ekman, Sorenson and Friesen study (1969) was based on Darwin's suggestions and on Tomkin's theory of personality which emphasized the importance of affect and which postu- lated innate subcortical programs linking certain evokers to distinguishable, universal facial displays for each of the primary affects--interest, joy, surprise, anger, fear, distress, disgust-contempt and shame. Ekman and a1. reasoned that past impressions of cultural differences 26 in facial displays of affect may represent a failure to distinguish what is pancultural (the association of facial muscular movements with each primary affect) from what is cultural variable (learned affect evokers, behavioral con- sequences of an affect display, the operation of display rules). Display rules were defined as procedures learned early in life for the management of affect displays and include deintensifying, intensifying, neutralizing or masking an affect display. These rules prescribe what to do about the display of each affect in different social setting; they vary with the social role and demographic characteristics, and should vary across cultures. The study supports the universality of pure disPlay of single affects and their interpretations. Although the New Guineans failed to discriminate between fear and surprise, it was not damaging to the pan— cultural hypothesis, since the latter did not require that cultures differentiate among all of the fundamental emo- tions. Difficulties in methodology such as (1) relating to Caucasian faces, (2) relating to photographs, and (3) translation difficulties in making fear and surprise clearly separate verbal concepts, may have detracted from the overall results. Hypotheses Man is responsive to environmental cues, learned (e.g., a stop light) and unlearned (e.g., pupil dilation 27 at the sight of a sexually arousing stimulus). We are therefore encouraged to recognize the observation of Dar- win, that man has evolutionary origins, and human social behavior, far from being determined by reason and cultural tradition alone, is still subject to the laws prevailing in all phylogenetically adaptive, instinctive behavior. To investigate the possibilities of neurologically organized patterns, this study focuses on threatening cues found in facial expression that elicit fear. Such cues essential to self-preservation would not require readiness, nor a situa- tional or timebound set in order to elicit a reaction. However, given both the phylogenetic continuities in so much of human behavior and the adaptive value of innate sensitivity to threat, it is reasonable to examine whether there may be innate releasing mechanisms that warn us of impending threat and/or danger. To ask the question in a different way, what does the human perceptual mechanism perceive as effective warning stimuli in facial expression, and to what degree may they be widely found, or universal in differing human societies? It would seem that this ability of sign behavior (abstraction of sense data for cognitive/emotional analysis) is likely to be innate--especially serving the functions of self-preservation and preservation of the species. It would follow that threatening cues would be least affected or molded by situational, arousal or attentional factors 28 because the service performed in maintaining social stability. And, if this mechanism is innate, one would suppose that expressing and interpreting emotions such as anger, hate, or threat in facial expressions would be a universal phenomenon. This study will attempt to investigate the pos- sibility that components of threatening facial displays are universal by the survey of the representational plastic arts of several cultures. The methodology of this study avoids such difficulties using photos cross- culturally (Ekman, 1969) in that it uses facial styliza- tions found in the cultural productions of a particular culture. This was the suggestion of Margaret Mead in the preface of the 1955 edition of Darwin's The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. In praising Darwin's preliminary observations, she suggests that one way to confirm that there are pancultural factors in the expres- sion and interpretation of emotion as displayed by the face is to consider the representational art work of a given culture. Thus, masks and puppets have been collected from Ceylon, China, Japan, British Columbia, West Africa, United States, Europe and Oceania. Not only are they products of the artistic process, but as "agents of social control," they are designed with the purpose of arousing, attracting or repelling the on-looker. 29 A facial characteristic scale, listing twenty signs of threat, developed by Aronoff and Barclay (1971) was used to score the components of facial expression in threatening and non-threatening facial displays. (See Ap- pendix A). Although the scale was developed from several samples of American college students, its pan-cultural validity was empirically tested by this study. This investigation suggests that much of facial expression is not learned; that one of the emotional dis- plays that is particularly unmodified by social learning and shaping is that which uses the expressional cues of threat. Anger/rage is a highly potent and toxic emotion whose affectual display demands immediate recognition and reaction for the maintenance of self-preservation. In light of the above, a scoring system based on material from one culture was used to score cues of ag- gression in the emotional display of the masks. The fol- lowing hypotheses were made: 1. That socially defined threatening facial displays (masks)contain more threatening cues than do non—threatening facial displays across-cul- tures. 2. Taken individually, each of the separate cues will discriminate between socially defined threatening and non-threatening facial displays. METHOD Data Collection: Hypotheses were tested by analyz- ing the plastic representations of facial expressions--i.e., those found in masks and puppets of traditional use in seven cultures: Ceylon, China, Dan-Guere, Japan, Java, Kwakiutl and Senoufo. The American sample is composed of a collection of drawings of war and courtship masks drawn by college students at Michigan State University in inter— mediate psychology classes.* Thus, eight cultures are represented in the investigation. The ninth sample is composed of masks collected from a variety of cultures for which there were not enough masks of known function to comprise a complete sample. The mixed group includes masks from the following cultures: Bakwele, Bapende, Bambara, Baule, Gouro, Hawaii, Middle Europe, Mortlock Island, Tibet and Tlinget. The masks and puppets of various cultures were obtained through museum and library resources. The following criteria were used in the selection of the masks to be scored in a sample: *This American sample is not the one on which the scoring system was based. 30 31 1. A given society was included if it traditionally used either masks or puppets. 2. A given society was included if ethnological re- ports of the social function of the masks were de- tailed enough to allow judgment to be made as to whether a particular mask was used in an aggres- sive, frightening manner or in a more neutral sense, e.g., comical, portrait, etc. Survey art books' nominal subtitles were not acceptable as adequate evidence. Adequate ethnologies were sought out in order to find out the social functions of the masks so that they could be classified as "threatening" or "non-threatening." For example, "powerful," "powerful deity," "initiation mask," or "death mask" were labels that were not immediate indica- tors of threat. Further information was needed to elucidate the role of the mask in that particu- lar culture and to understand if it was perceived as malevolent or benevolent. In addition, masks characterizing the aged were eliminated as facial wrinkles confounded the scoring of threatening signs. 3. The masks must be of wood. The reduction of the sample to the use of one medium somewhat equalized craftmanship materials. Thus, masks of stone, brass, barkcloth, and rattan basketry were not in- cluded. These wooden masks were often painted and adorned in various ways, however. 4. Once these criteria were satisfied, the sample had to meet the criterion of ten separate masks in each category. See Table l for the number of threatening and non-threatening masks for each culture. Instruments: A Nikon camera took the photos of the masks and puppets with KPA 135-36 film. A TDC projector pre- sented the slides for scoring. A system for the scoring of threatening facial characteristics was developed by Aronoff and Barclay (1971). It was drawn from samples of drawings of "war" and "court- ship" masks of American college students at one university 32 TABLE 1 Number of Threatening (T) and Non-Threatening (N-T) Masks for Each Culture Culture T N-T Total America 47 47 94 Ceylon 15 16 31 China 10 16 26 Dan-Guere 13 12 25 Japan 11 27 38 Java 30 30 60 Kwakiutl 12 16 28 Senoufo 26 18 44 Mixed sample: Bakwele l l 2 Bambara 0 9 9 Bapende 4 2 6 Baule 4 2 6 Gouro l l 2 Hawaii 1 0 1 Middle EurOpe 13 l 14 Mortlock 0 l 1 Tibet 2 2 4 Tlinget 2 2 4 190 205 395 See Appendix B for listing of the names of the masks, their source and classification. and cross-validated by another sample at a second univer- sity. Modified by this author, it was used by two blind raters trained in its use. See Facial Characteristics Scale and general rules for its use in Appendix A. Scoring procedure: Once the data was collected through library, museum and professional sources, color slides were made of all the masks and puppet heads. Exceptions to this procedure were: 33 1. 8" x 10" black and white photos of Chinese masks; 2. American sample of masks, which were drawn in pencil; 3. Thirty-nine plates from the book, Senoufo by Goldwater. The sample, consisting of 241 unlabeled slides, 60 photos, and 94 drawings, was coded and presented ran- domly, according to culture group. Using a minimum number of rules for each culture group,* two blind raters inde- pendently scored each mask, puppet head, or drawing, giv- ing each mask a point for the appearance of one of its threatening signs. The total number of threatening signs on each mask was tabulated, an average of the two judges' scores was derived, and the mean total of characteristics was taken as indicative of the amount of threat present in each mask. Analysis: The Pearson r was performed to determine the inter-rater reliability. Following the directional hypothesis, a one-tailed t-test was made on each culture group to test the predic- tion that representations of threatening characters had significantly more threatening signs than those figures dealing with non-threatening themes. Chi Square tests were performed on each item of the Facial Characteristic Sclae in the total sample masks *For culture notes, see Appendix B. 34 combined across all cultures) to distinguish which facial cues were significantly more frequent in an aggressive representation. Finally an item analysis was made within each cul— ture. Fisher Exact and Chi Square tests were performed on the frequency of appearance of the threatening signs in the threatening and non-threatening masks to determine which cues were significantly differentiating between the two facial displays for each culture. RESULTS Inter-rater reliability was quite satisfactory and, as seen in Table 2, ranged from .74 to .97. The low- est scores are reported for the Kwakiutl and the Mixed sam- ples. Complexity of the Kwakiutl masks and inconsistent standards in the Mixed sample likely made the rating a more difficult task. The mean of the separate inter-rater reliabilities by culture was computed at .87. Thus, because this re- liability score was high, the mean score of the raters was used to determine the frequency of appearance of threatening cues on threatening and non-threatening masks. TABLE 2 Inter-Rater Reliability Culture Pearson r America .84 Ceylon .90 China .97 Dan-Guere .88 Japan .94 Java .90 Kwakiutl .74 Senoufo .87 Mixed sample .79 .87 = X 35 36 Hypothesis 1: According to hypothesis 1, it was expected that the modified Facial Characteristic Scale would be a useful tool in distinguishing between threat- ening and non-threatening facial displays across cultures. That threatening masks contained more aggressive cues than those masks of a non-threatening theme was confirmed. The t-test performed separately on each cultural group showed that this difference was highly significant for every cul- ture. See Table 3. This result supports the theory that there are some mechanisms of the muscular structure of the face that are universally recognized as eliciting the same emotional response, i.e., presumably fear. TABLE 3 Mean Scores of Threatening Characteristics by Culture on Threatening and Non-Threatening Masks Threatening Non—Threatening df Culture Masks Masks t America 6.26 2.94 92 8.11** Ceylon 4.43 1.69 29 4.50** China 6.80 2.31 24 5.39** Dan-Guere 5.58 2.63 23 4.44** Japan 4.64 1.48 36 5.03** Java 5.97 2.30 58 9.42** Kwakiutl 5.46 3.50 26 2.84* Senoufo 4.71 2.00 42 6.26** Mixed sample 5.17 2.63 47 5.55** *p < .005 **p < .0005 37 Hypothesis 2: Hypothesis 2 predicted that some cues might be more salient or potent than others in the display of threat. Chi Square tests were performed on the frequency of appearance or non-appearance of single char- acteristics in threatening and non-threatening masks across all cultures. Results for each item across all cultures (combined) indicated that all but one item discriminated between threatening and non-threatening facial expressions. The significance of each characteristic by across all cul- tures is represented in Table 4. The significance level for nineteen of the twenty characteristics varies from .05 to .0005. It was noted that of the twenty items, one was not functional in dif- ferentiating between threatening and non-threatening facial displays. "Triangular eyes" (10B) was not a significant threatening cue; it seems that the muscular structure of the face cannot produce effectively a "triangular eye." Also the "pointed chin" (17), thought to increase angu- larity in the face, proved to be poor as a salient cue in a threatening facial display. In fact, the prediction was significantly reversed. Pointed chin is not more frequently found in threatening facial displays. Additional Analyses Because the scale was based on an American popula- tion, and because the American sample accounts for nearly TABLE 4 Proportion of Appearance of Single Characteristics in Threatening (T) and Non-Threatening ULHH Masks Across all Cultures Characteristic T N-T x2 l 31.84 8.54 33.80**** 2 16.05 8.78 4.84** 3 61.05 32.68 31.92**** 4 7.10 3.17 3.18* 5 16.84 9.51 4.67** 6 23.68 11.95 9.36*** 7 56.32 26.34 36.69**** 8 30.79 10.73 24.45**** 9 13.95 4.88 9.68*** 10A 54.74 13.90 73.76**** 10B 2.63 1.22 0.02 11 22.89 13.90 5.25** 12 28.95 13.66 l3.89**** 13 29.47 20.49 4.27** 14 20.53 10.98 6.84*** 15 48.94 9.76 74.16**** 16 20.26 8.05 12.27**** 17 15.26 22.68 3.51* 18 17.63 6.10 12.75**** 19 36.58 3.17 70.83**** * < .10 **p < .05 ***p < .005 ****p < .0005 one-quarter of the total masks scored, it was worthwhile to look at the function of these threatening facial cues in each culture group. A more fine-grained analysis was performed in order to find out if each society, taken in— dividually, will use all of the possible cues, or if that society will select from among the array of possible cues, certain ones which it will use to portray threat. 39 Therefore for each culture, threatening and non-threatening masks were singularly examined in order to see if there was a higher proportion of threatening cues used on threatening as compared to non-threatening masks. analyses by separate culture. TABLE 5 See Table 5 for the PrOportion of Appearance of Single Characteristics in Threatening (T) and Non-Threatening (N-T) Masks for Each Culture America1 Charac- Ceylon2 China teristic T N-T T N-T T N-T 1 39.36 18.08* 6.67 3.12 20.00 0.00 2 29.79 19.15+ 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00* 3 54.26 38.30 66.67 28.12* 65.00 37.50 4 15.96 0.00*** 0.00 3.12 0.00 0.00 5 32.98 20.21 20.00 6.25 10.00 0.00 6 39.36 10.64*** 0.00 3.12 60.00 34.38 7 15.96 9.57 50:00 21.88 75.00 34.38* 8 21.28 15.96 30:00 9.38 10.00 0.00 9 35.11 7.45*** 0.00 0.00 40.00 12.50 10A 23.40 10.64I 70.00 21.88** 55.00 15.62* 10B 10.64 3.19+ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11 52.13 27.66* 13.33 12.50 50.00 18.75 12 35.11 17.02* 23.33 6.25 40.00 21.88 13 11.70 15.96 30.00 12.50 40.00 25.00 14 35.11 4.26*** 0.00 3.12 30.00 18.75 15 48.94 l7.02*** 73.33 12.50*** 45.00 3.12* 16 44.68 27.66I 3.33 0.00 35.00 9.38 17 29.79 17.02 0.00 15.62 0.00 0.00 18 21.28 5.32* 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 19 28.72 6.38*** 56.67 9.38** 70.00 0.00*** +p < .1 l. The American sample is analyzed *p < .05 by the X2 test. **p < .01 ***p < .005 2. The remaining samples are analyzed with the Fisher Exact Test (l-tailed). 40 TABLE 5 (continued) Proportion of Appearance of Single Characteristics in Threatening (T) and Non-Threatening (N-T) Masks for Each Culture Charac- Dan-Guere Japan Java teristic T N-T T N-T T N-T 1 23.08 0.00 31.82 3.70 1.67 0.00 2 30.77 4.17 45.45 7.41* 0.00 0.00 3 38.46 37.50 13.64 0.00 76.67 53.33 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 1.67 5 61.54 20.83* 0.00 1.85 0.00 1.67 6 3.85 4.17 50.00 25.92 21.67 3.33 7 42.31 41.67 50.00 20.37 85.00 16.67*** 8 38.46 4.17* 18.18 0.00 41.67 11.67* 9 0.00 0.00 36.36 12.96 1.67 0.00 10A 73.08 8.33*** 63.64 27.78* 83.33 0.00*** 108 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.33 11 7.69 12.50 0.00 5.56 11.67 18.33 12 19.23 16.67 9.09 7.41 25.00 8.33 13 53.85 25.00 18.18 1.85 76.67 51.67* 14 11.54 8.33 63.64 27.78* 6.67 0.00 15 42.31 29.17 31.82 3.70 60.00 6.67*** 16 7.69 0.00 13.64 0.00 16.67 3.33 17 0.00 37.50* 0.00 1.85 3.33 40.00 18 34.62 12.50 0.00 0.00 50.00 6.67*** 19 69.23 0.00*** 18.18 0.00 35.00 1.67*** Fisher Exact and Chi Square test were performed on the frequency table of appearance or non-appearance of threatening cues for each culture. It should be noted that because of the range of sample size (often as low as 26), this analysis has limited value for cues that do not distinguish between threatening and non-threatening facial displays. 41 TABLE 5 (continued) Proportion of Appearance of Single Characteristics in Threatening (T) and Non-Threatening (N-T) Masks for Each Culture Charac- Kwakiutl Senoufo Mixed teristic T N-T T N-T T N-T 1 29.17 0.00* 53.85 2.78*** 55.77 30.43 2 12.50 34.38 0.00 0.00 11.54 4.35 3 66.67 40.62 67.31 22.22*** 73.08 32.61** 4 4.17 0.00 11.54 2.78 7.69 21.74 5 20.83 9.38 0.00 0.00 7.69 17.39 6 29.17 25.00 1.92 0.00 15.38 4.35 7 75.00 6.25*** 82.69 63.89 67.31 54.35 8 58.33 37.50 26.92 0.00* 36.54 13.04 9 4.17 6.25 0.00 0.00 3.85 0.00 10A 54.17 34.38 53.85 8.33*** 57.69 8.70*** 103 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11 4.17 3.12 17.31 5.56 9.62 2.17 12 25.00 15.62 28.85 22.22 36.54 10.98* 13 25.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 26.92 6.52 14 41.67 31.25 0.00 8.33 13.46 8.70 15 16.67 0.00 51.92 13.89* 46.15 2.17*** 16 20.83 6.25 3.85 0.00 9.62 0.00 17 12.50 15.62 34.62 47.22 13.46 34.78 18 12.50 34.38 0.00 0.00 7.69 4.35 19 33.33 0.00* 36.54 0.00** 21.15 6.52 The results of reviewing the appearance of threat- ening cues in threatening facial displays across cultures are as follows: Characteristic 1. "Horns on the head or pointed head" was significant as a sign of threat in three cul- tures, American, Kwakiutl and Senoufo. Characteristic 2. The use of "wild hair" asa threatening sign was proven significant in two societies, China and Japan. 42 Characteristic 3. Characteristics such as "fore- head lines" representing the intensity of a wrinkled brow, were found to be significantly potent in three samples, Ceylon, Senoufo, and Mixed. Characteristic 4. "Pointed ears" was significant in the American sample only. Characteristic 5. "A flattened head" cuts off the natural round contours, the nature of which is smooth and pleasing. It was a threatening cue for the Dan-Guere only. Characteristic 6. As a threatening cue, "angled eyebrows" was found to be significant for the American sample only. Characteristic 7. "Vertical lines between the brows," or otherwise known as "knit brows," designates intense focusing of threat. The Chinese, Javanese, and Kwakiutl samples used this cue signifcantly more in threat- ening facial displays than non-threatening ones. Characteristic 8. Since Darwin (1873) noted the prevalence of "flared nostrils" during anger, this charac- teristic was tested. It consistently appeared more fre- quently in threatening facial expressions than non- threatening ones, but only in the Dan-Guere, Javanese, and Senoufo was it significant. Characteristic 9. Only in the American sample was "diagonal eyes a functional cue of threat. 43 Characteristic 10A. "Big, protruding eyes" as a cue of threat was consistently used across cultures. In seven out of the nine samples, bulbous eyes were used to communicate threat. Characteristic 103. The characteristic of "tri- angular eyes,‘ as was previously mentioned, was tested but did not appear to be a cue of threat. The human face can- not produce a triangular eye. Characteristic ll. "Diagonal cheek lines, down and toward the mouth and nose," thought to be indicative of the power and tension of threat, proved significant for the American sample only. Characteristic 12. "Diagonal cheek lines, down and away from the mouth" were also thought to be salient cues of threat, but were functionally significant for the American and Mixed samples only. Characteristic 13. The "moustache," an additional angle on the face, was examined for its potential as a threatening cue, but it had significant potency for the Javanese culture only. Characteristic 14. The "downward curve of the mouth" is indeed the Opposite of a smile and intensely negative. It contributed significantly to the threatening facial display for the Japanese as well as the American sample. 44 Characteristic 15. "Mouth open broadly, showing teeth," indicative of power to verbally/physically attack, bite, chew, ingest (incorporate), was interpreted as a threatening cue in six out of the nine groups. The pres- ence of this characteristic is significant for the follow- ing: America, Ceylon, China, Java, Senoufo, and Mixed. Characteristic 16. "More than one line on the chin" was not an effective sign of threat in any culture. Characteristic 17. The "pointed chin" was not potent as a cue of threat in any culture; in fact, for the Dan-Guere and Javanese alike, there was a reversal, leading one to believe that a pointed chin is not a fear-evoking sign, but perhaps a sign of valor or beauty for those cul- tures. Characteristic 18. A "pointed beard” was tested for its potency as a threatening cue. Analyses revealed that a pointed beard was perceived as a threatening cue in the American and Javanese societies. Characteristic 19. Generally, the category 19, threatening symbols, was found more frequently in threat— ening facial displays than in the non-threatening ones. Flames, arrows, death bones occurred less frequently than did facial horns, fangs, and tongue sticking out. By the instrusive quality of the latter three, the category rated statistically significant for the following: America, Ceylon, China, Dan-Guere, Java, Kwakiutl and Senoufo. See Table 6 for the summary. x x x x sex as 45 x x x x x x omsocmm x II x x Hfldflxdspm x x x x x x x m>mh x x x smash x x x x mumswlcoa x x x x x «Geno x x x x coammo x x x x x x N X x x GMOHHOE¢ ma ma ha ma ma va ma NH Ha moa flea m m h m, m w m N a mucuaso oaumflumuomnmnu mHsuHsu comm How mhmammao Hmaomm msflcmummuna OH mowumfluwuomnmno mcficmummusa mo mocmHmmmm< mo HO>OA Damnamacmflm m mqmda DI S CUS S ION If in the beginning, aggression was among the most important factors controlling the survival of the individual, it may be well assumed that man was provided with the ability to use his strength appropriately. Unschooled and unable to control much of his environment, he depended on group living; the societal processes alleviated much of the environmental pressures by providing work teams, security, recreation, and a sense of belonging. To achieve these goals, he must deal effectively with his fellow human beings. Non-verbal communication, as well as later-deveIOped articulated speech, was the tool of cooperation, a necessity for community liv- ing and group solidairty. Some of these various biological signs are satisfying, soothing, pleasurable and are sought by organisms (animals and humans). Others of these signals are, if possible avoided or repelled through flight, bodily coverings, shelter and the like. Usually man is not thought of as having a highly elaborate innate communication system as have the bees or ants. He is believed to be relatively lacking in specialized adaptations ("biological helplessness"). However, for sur- vival purposes, it seems he would have to rely on some rudimentary (innate) form of communication among the 46 47 members of his society. Negative emotions often complicate interpersonal relations, and the cues of attack must be instantly recognized in order to avoid it or counter it. Man is an informational processing mechanism, con- sisting of receptor, processor, memory and effector units. This investigation, though, does not imply that all program- controlled behavior depends on experience, pictographs, or lexical systems; it does investigate the operations of pos- sible servo-mechanisms that mediate behavior. Since not all communication is verbal, this investigation sought to appraise the proprioceptive discharges of discrete emotions, namely that of threat-anger, and the perceptual process that evaluates the sign behavior therein. The judgments of the perceptual system to salient structural features produces a reaction; man, at certain levels, then does not intellectualize, but reacts, and his reaction is "released" as a result of specific cues. In considering the operations of sign behavior, it has been hypothesized that there are social cues that play an important role in interpersonal encounters. For example, instinctual self-preservation calls for the recognition of high potency warnings. Because of (a) the superiority of the visual mechanism as a receptor/adaptor apparatus in interpersonal physiology, and (b) the immediacy and focus on the face, this study suggested that the high potency warnings would be displayed in the face. Thus, high 48 potency stimuli enter the perceptual process, and then the limbic system mediates by appraising the object as good and liked, or bad and disliked (Arnold, 1960). It is this sys- tem, according to McLean (1958,1959) that is most fundamental to self-preservation of the species. Since the recognition of threatening cues seems fundamental and adaptive, it would follow that they would be least affected or molded by situational, arousal or at- tentional factors. If indeed this process is fundamental, it was judged that expressing and interpreting emotions such as anger, threat, hate, in facial expressions would be a universal phenomenon and worthy of investigation. Using Aronoff's and Barclay's Facial Characteristic Scale (1971) of threatening facial cues, 395 masks socially defined as threatening or non-threatening were scored. Re- sults clearly indicated that within each culture group, threatening masks scored significantly higher than the masks of non-threatening themes. The presence of these cues, then, discriminates between threatening and non- threatening facial displays. Twenty characteristics or facial features were thought to be salient as high potency warnings--as cues of threat. It was thought that structural angularity creates tension, that an obliquely oriented object is charged with potential energy and is distinguished from the stillness of any parallel plane. For this reason, 49 the diagonality of eyebrows, eyes, cheeks, and the pointed- ness of the head, beard, chin, horns and ears were tested for their potential as threatening cues. Results indicate that the intensity of threat bring on physiognomic changes which increase angularity in the face. All cues tested were interpreted as threatening cues, with the exception of triangular eyes (10B) and pointed chin (17). The physi- ological structure of the face makes it impossible to truly produce triangular eyes. Pointed chin was clearly not used as an indicator of threat either; perhaps it is because Opening the mouth broadly, exposing the teeth (15) is con- trary to the vertical muscle pull needed to elongate (point) the chin. In fact, contrary to what was predicted, the pointed chin was significantly present in the non-threatening facial displays. These results suggest that Aronoff and Barclay (1971) should exclude these two characteristics (103,17) from their Facial Characteristic Scale. Based on the Facial Characteristic Scale a more fine-grained analysis was made. Although the limitations of such an analysis were previously stated, a clearer exami- nation of the use of these cues in each culture was made. Because the eyebrows are facile in level change, the power of diagonaltiy was tested in the eyebrows (6). Results supported Harrison's (1964) findings that medially down-turned eyebrows are a sufficient condition for the response "angry." Diagonal eyebrows were seen as a 50 threatening sign by the American sample, a finding which was supported by the directional trends of the Japanese and Javanese. Eyes oriented diagonally, down and toward the nose (9) were tested for their threat potential. Although facial mobility is limited, angled orientation of the eye is a genetic characteristic for Orientals. For the Ameri- can sample, diagonal eyes were used significantly more frequently in threatening facial displays than non- threatening ones; however, it must be mentioned that American war history may have somewhat influenced this result. Angularity of the cheeks (11,12) was thought to be effective as a cue of threat; in lowering the jaw (open- ing the mouth), the skin draws tight over the cheek bones. This diagonality, abstracted on the masks, was interpreted by Americans a threatening. Perhaps the stereotypic images of Indian face paint and early American history have in- creased the likelihood that American interpreted facial paint (diagonal on cheeks) as necessarily "war-like" or threatening. It is known that in many culture (Kwakiutl, Japanese, Kibuki Threater, Maori, Nigerians) facial paint- ing or scarification is a sign of beauty, a totem or a class. But in spite of these cultural differences, in- creased angularity of/on the Cheek is viewed as a threaten- ing sign across cultures. 51 Pointed head (1), beard (18) and chin (l7) deviate from the normal round contours as well as contribute to the angularity of facial display. It seems that round contours are related to "cuteness"; Hfickstedt (1965) demonstrated experimentally that the round forehead and relatively large brain case are important characteristics of "cuteness," a descriptive term that in no way implies threat/anger/ A! aggression. In fact, as he sees it, this roundness is I exaggerated by doll manufacturers and the movie industry alike. Results of this investigation show that increased angularity imposed by the above cues (with the exception of pointed chin (17)) signals threat. Pointed horns (1) and ears (4) were also seen not only as changing the round contour of the face and increas- ing angularity, but intrusive and foreboding. Tested for significance, horns or pointed head was used as a threaten- ing sign in three cultures, and supported by trends in at least four others. Whereas pointed ears was significant on the overall, it was recognized most strongly by the Ameri- cans as a sign of threat. In that it is a characteristic of an aggressive stance for many animals, Americans may have learned this sign through being socialized by T.V. animal cartoons. For, in‘faét? man does not have pointed ears; the density of the American sample weights this significant finding for the overall analysis. 52 However, facial lines (3,7,16) tend to be evident in the human face in extreme states of emotion. Forehead lines and "knit brows" demonstrate intensity of focus and emotion. Both the levels of significance attained and the supportive trends attest to the importance of these cues in facial displays of threat. Other characteristics of facial display thought to be salient to threat were flared nostrils (8), open mouth, broadly and exposing teeth (15) and bulbous eyes (10A). Dominance implies incorporation in which all three of the above are engaged. Before the attack, information is in- gested by visual and olfactory senses. The mouth, a power- ful tool of incorporation, Opens in readiness and warning. Tests revealed that all three characteristics above are clearly interpreted as threatening signs by both reported significance levels and supportive trends. Hair was also considered as possible adding to the threatening display. Wild, unkempt hair (2) and the pres- ence of the moustache (13) on the overall indicated that both play a significant role in the facial displays of threat. And lastly, both the mouth in a downward position (14) and symbols and signs of category 19 which are highly associated with negative emotions were scored. On the overall, their potency is reported as significant. 53 Theoretical Speculations and Extensions to Further Research Further research suggests considering the differ- ences between the cultures in their creation of masks. For instance, the large, aggressive mouth is found in the following societies--Bambara, Senoufo, Kwakiutl, Sepik and Iatmul (the latter two, although not in the investi- r- gation, are in New Guinea). The open and aggressive mouths on the masks from Ceylon, Java, Dan-Guere, China and Japan - are not intrusive, but of an incorporative nature. The I United States sample is exempt from such categorization as the drawings were only two dimensional. Further in- vestigation of the habits of these cultures might lend substantial evidence to theorizing. Perhaps, in the societies where the masks have large and intrusive mouths, there has been more abrupt weaning practices, thus more tension and discomfort associated with the loss of both the breast and the mother's reassuring and lasting pres- ence. Of course, the society, such as Bambara or Senoufo does provide other women that can be depended upon to sound and feel like mother; however, under most favorable circumstances, this stage seems to introduce into the psychic life a sense of division. One way to evaluate this hypothesis would be to compare the statistics of the incidence of kwashiorkor as well as documented descriptions of the weaning practices 54 of the various cultures. Evidence might substantiate that the societies which had the larger and intrusive mouths on the masks have very abrupt weaning patterns. To "make up" for the trauma suffered during the oral stage, some socie— ties have exaggerated the mouth, making it forcefully in- trusive. A second investigation that might be generated is a study of the mask structures in relation to the housing and marriage traditions of the societies. If young children, particularly boys, established very close emotional ties with the mother, augmented by housing and sleep arrangements, it would be undoubtedly in these societies that male initiation rites are most fearful. Boys, tested for their manhood, very possible suffer castration anxiety. If intrusive- mouthed masks belonged to these societies, it suggests that the intrusive design of the mask might be at once remines- cent of the phallus and revengeful. Other cross-cultural research might investigate overt aggression in societies that only have aggressive masks and those that have only non-aggressive masks. Representing the former category are the Sepik River cul- tures, Hawaii, Maya and Austria. 'New Ireland and New Caledonia seems to have only non-aggressive characters portrayed in the masks. Further speculation on aggres- sion and its displacement might show that the society with aggressive folkloric or religious characters may be those 55 very societies in which aggression is not overt. That is, although this study suggests that there are genetic blue- prints common to all men, there will be some cultural adaptations. Theorists, in raising the "innate versus learned" question, believed that they are mutually ex- clusive. They are not. Just as inborn qualities limit or enhance the learned aspects of behavior, the environ- 5’ mental influences limit or enhance inborn qualities. In terms of threat displays and response, activity is neces- i sary to prevent the atrophy or disintegration of the physiological mechanisms involved. The lack of use of such primary mechanisms could possibly be explained in terms of a belief system that culturally sanctions the dis- charge of hostility. Spiro (1952) found that Ifaluk of Micronesia showed very little overt aggression. Circum- stances necessitated the smooth Operation of social pro- cesses. Aggression was not manifest between disagreeing neighbors; hostility was directed at the culpable "alus," spirits responsible for misfortune, anger, etc. Alternative theorizing suggests that because the tonus level of the cues varies from culture to culture, men in different cultures have different arousal thresholds. For example, does a Senoufo need fewer/weaker cues than an American in order for a reaction to be elicited? Does ex- perience and socialization modify the thresholds? How much arousal potential of a particular kind an individual will 56 tolerate depends not only on the level of arousal tonus, but also on how promptly and easily he has been able to assuage the aroused individual in similar past conditions. Genetic codes are modified by experience, forming engrams which regulate response patterns and appropriate timing, GtC. Conclusions This study, in surveying the masks, puppets, and drawings, found that salient features of facial expressions underly the developmental blueprints of behavior. There are significantly more threatening signs in threatening facial displays than in non-threatening ones across cul- tures. Although statistical significance was not attained for all twenty items on the Facial Characteristic Scale, results seem to indicate that eighteen of those are func- tioning quite consistently across cultures. These findings do not concur in all respects with Tomkins and McCarter's (1964) description of anger-rage, the most aggressive of the eight primary affects. They describe eyes as narrowed, the jaw as clenched, etc. This study suggests that although these two emotions, anger and rage, are highly negative, rage should be considered more extreme and diffuse. If the two are to be differentiated, it would explain why the affect display of anger has been described as narrowed eyes (Tomkins and McCarter, 1964), 57 constricted pupils (Dekert, after Plutchik, 1972), and that rage seems to be the contrary. In any case, this study is consistent with Tomkins and McCarter (1964) in premise: that facial affective responses are controlled by innate affect programs which are inherited as sub- cortical structures which can instruct and control a variety of muscles and glands to respond with unique pat- terns of rate and duration of the given affect. As these interpretations of cues for threat were found cross-culturally, the belief of Ekman, Sorenson and Friesen (1969) was supported; facial expression is not entirely learned, but that, pan-culturally, there is an association between facial muscular movements and dis— crete primary emotions. In the case of threat (aggressive displays), it seems that instinctive patterns are highly appropriate and advantageous to the species. For example, that the facial display system uses eyes to convey domi- nance/threat/anger is consistent with animal studies of mutual eye gaze as highly arousing (Chance, 1962), with "culture specific" expressions in Chinese literature (Klineberg, 1938), and with the findings of social inter— action theorists, Argyle and Dean (1965). Perhaps, bul- bous eyes, like the other designated facial characteris- tics, are mechanisms, like territoriality, that seem to be one of the primary means of stabilizing social be- havior. 58 The results of this study are clear: rooted in the homeostatic cycles of societal behavior are some mechanisms which respond in the form fixed action patterns. It seems that all facial expression is not learned, and, certainly those of the most toxic nature, playing a significant role in self-preservation, are least likely to be modified by socialization. Threat/anger/rage is displayed by some un- varying cues, some of which are more potent than others. These innate releasers seem highly appropriate and prag- i , matic to man in terms of self-preservation. To be aware of and substantiated by research that these non-verbal pat— terns are panhuman and not culture-bound contributes to our knowledge of communication, especially that of disput- ing people/nations. Diplomacy might profit from basin it- self on non-verbal cues as well as on the verbal or written word. Thus, the hypotheses that eXpressive movements, especially those of the primary emotions, are learned and, therefore, culture-bound tends to lose ground. The input cues for threat seem to be fixed, unvarying patterns, which have evolved in the service of coordinating social behavior. These inborn skills are the essence of man's survival tech- niques. Motivation and action, in many cases, then, are evoked by a sensory motor arrangement based on a reflex mechanism. 59 "Every act of seeing is a visual judgment. Human beings, with information-processing mechanisms, perceive patterns, locations; the tension of it has magnitude and direc- tion. Man acts or reacts accordingly; it is obligatory adaptive information. And, its visual analysis does not always or fully transfer into verbal analysis, by reactive emotions, pleasant or unpleasant." Rudolf Arnheim REFERENCES REFERENCES Ableson, R. & Sermat, V. Multidimensional Scaling of Facial Expression. Journal of Experimental Psye chology, 63:546-54, 1962. Aiello, J. & Jones, S. Field Study of the Proxemic Behavior of Young School Children in Three Subcultural Groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19: 351-56, 1971. Allport, F. Social Psychology, Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1924. Ando, T. Bunraku. New York: Walker-Weatherhill Co., 1970. Andrew, R. Origins of Facial ExpressiOn, Scientific Ameri- can, 213(4):88-94, 1965. Argyle, M. Social Interaction. New York: Atherton Co., 1969. Argyle, M. & Dean, J. Eye contact, Distance and Affilia- tion. Sociometry, 28:289-304, 1965. Arnheim, R. Art and Visual Perception. Berkeley: Univer- sity of California Press, 1954. Arnold, M. B. Emotion and Personality, Vol. 1. Ps cho- logical Aspects. New York: Columbia Un1vers1ty Press, 19601a). . Emotion and Personality, Vol. II. Neurological and Phy§io16gical Aspects. New York: Columbia UnIVersity Press, 1960(bI. Aronoff, J. & Barclay, A. A Scale for Scoring Sign Stimulus Characteristics in the Representation of Threatening Facial Expressions. Technical Report, Dept. of Psychology, Michigan State University, 1971. Bascom, W. West African Art. Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Co., 1953. 60 61 Bornstein, B. Prosopagnosia. In Lipman & Halpern (Eds.) Problems of Dynamic Neurology. Jerusalem, Israel: Hebrew University, Hadassah Medical School, 1969. Blackstone, T. B. Collection of Chinese Masks of the Ching Dynasty, 1660-17. Chicago Field Museum, Chicago, Ill. Boas, F. The Kwakiutl Indian, U.S. National Museum Annual Re ort, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1895, pp. 311-738. Bodrogi, T. L'Art en Afrique, Budapest: Editions Corvina, 1969. Boring, E. & Titchner, E. A Model for the Demonstration of Facial Expression. American Journal of Psy- chology, 34:471-85, 1923. I Brandt, H. F. The Psychology of Seeing, New York: Philosophical Library, 1945. Bridges, K. Emotional Development in Early Infancy, Child Development, 3:324—41, 1932. Brooks, V. & Hochberg, J. A Psycho-physiological Study of Cuteness. Perception and Motor Skills, 11:205- 208, 1960. Bruner, J. & Tagiuri, R. The Perception of People. In G. Lindzey (Ed.) Handbook of Social Psychology, II. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley Co., 634-654, 1954. Brunswik, E. & Reiter, L. Eindruckscharaktere Schema— tisierter Gesichter. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie, 142:67-134, 1938. Cannon, W. B. The James—Lange Theory of Emotion: A Criti- cal Examination and an Alternative Theory. Ameri- can Journal of Psychology, 39:106—24, 1927. Carpenter, C. R. Territoriality: A Review of Concepts and Problems. In Roe and Simpson (Eds.) Behavior and Evolution, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1958. Chance, M. R. A. The Interpretation of Some Antagonistic Postures: The Role of "cut off" acts and postures' gimp. 2°01. SOC. Land. I 8’ 71-89, 19620 Chicago Art Institute, Primitive Art, 1965. 62 Child, I. & Siroto, L. Bakwelé and American Esthetic Evaluations Compared. Ethnology, Vol. 4, No. 4: 349-60, 1965. Cline, M. The Influence of Social Context on the Percep- tion of Faces. Journal of Personality, 25:142—58, 1956. Counts, W. Effects of Various Pictoral Contexts on Seman- tic Differential Judgments of Motor—Kinetic Lines and Expressive Facial Outlines. Dissertation, Indiana University, 1967. Darwin, C. The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. London: Murray, 1872. Delange, J. Arts et Peuples de l'Afrique Noire. Paris: Editions Gallimard, 1967. Dekert, G. A Primer on Emotions for Doctor-Patient Rela- tionships. University of Oklahoma Medical School, 1972. Dittman, A". Parloff,bm & Boomer, D. Facial and Bodily Expression: A Study of Receptivity of Emotional Cues. Psychiatry, 28:239-44, 1965. Docstader, F. Indian Art in America. Greenwich: New York Graphic SocIety,’l966. Drag, R. & Shaw, M. Factors Influencing the Communication of Emotional Intent in Facial Expressions. Ps - chosomatic Science, 8(4):137—138, 1967. Dumas, G. La Mimique des Aveugles. Bulletin de L'Académie de Medecine, Paris, Vol. 107:607-610, 1932. . La Vie Affective. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1948. Dunlap, K. The Role of the Eye Muscles and Mouth Muscles in the Expression of Emotion. Genetic Psychological Monographs, 2:195-233, 1927. Eibl-Elbesfeldt, I. Ausdrucksformen der Saugetiere, in Kukenthal, Handb. d. 2001., 8(6):l-26, 1957. . Ethnology, The Biology of Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970. Ekman, P. Body Position, Facial Expression and Verbal Be- havior During Interviews. Journal of Abn. Soc. Psych. 68:295—301, 1964. 63 Ekman, P. Differential Communication of Affect by Head and Body Cues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2(5):726-35, 1965. Ekman, P. & Friesen, W. Head and Body Cues in the Judg- ment of Emotion: A reformulation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 24:711-724, 1967. . Nonverbal Behavior in Psychotherapy Research. In J. Schlien (Ed.) Research in Psychotherapy, Vol. 3. Washington: American PsychologicaI’ Association, 1967. Ekman, P., Friesen, W. & Sorenson, G. Pan-Cultural Ele— ments in Facial Displays of Emotion. Science, 164 (April 4), 1969. Englebretson & Fullman. Cross-Cultural Differences in Ter- ritoriality Interaction Distances of Native Japa- nese, Hawaiian Japanese and American Caucasians. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, September, pp. 261-9, 1970. Erikson, E. Identity, Youth and Crisis. New York: Norton and Co., 1968. Exline, R. & Winters, L. Affective Relations and Mutual Glances in Dyads. In S. Tomkins C. Izard (Eds.), 1965. Fagg, W. African Sculpture. London: Studio Vista, 1964. Fantz, R. The Origin of Form Perception. Scientific American, 204:66-72, 1961. Fleming, G. The Behavioral Consequences of Abstract Pat- terns Derived from Threatening Sign-Stimulus Pat- terns Derived from Threatening Sign-Stimulus Dis- plays in Humans. Unpublished Masters Thesis sub— mitted to Dept. of Psychology, Michigan State University, 1972. Fraser, D. Many Faces of Primitive Art. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice—Hall, 1966. Frijda, N. Recognition of Emotion. In L. Berkowitz, (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 4, New York: Academic Press, 1969. Frijda, N. & Philipszoon, E. Dimensions of Recognition of Emotion, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66:45—51, 1963. 64 Frois-Wittman, J. Judgment of Facial Expression. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13:113-151, 1930. Fulcher, A. M. Voluntary Facial Expressions in Blind and Seeing Children. Archives Psychology, No. 272, 1942. Gabus, J. Art Negre. Neuchatel: des Editions de la Baconniere, 1967. Gerbrands, A. Art as an Element of Culture. In C. Otten (Ed.) Anthropology and Art. Garden City: Natural History Press, 1971. Goffman, E. Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday, 1959. Goldberg, H. D. The Role of "Cutting" in the Perception of Motion Pictures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35:70-71, 1951. Goldwater, R. Bambara. New York: University Press, 1960(8). . Senoufo Sculpture of West Africa. Greenwich: New York Graphic Socity, 1964(b). Goodenough, F. The Expression of Emotion in Infancy. Child Development, 2:96-101, 1931. Gunther, E. Northwest Coast Indian Art. In C. Otten (Ed.) Anthrgpology and Art. Garden City: Natural History Press, 1971. Guthrie, G. & Wiener, M. Subliminal Perception or Perception of Partial Cue with Pictorial Stimuli. J. of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 3:619-628, I966. Haggard, E. & Isaacs, F. Micromomentary Facial Expressions as Indicators of Ego Mechanisms in Psychotherapy. In L. Gottschalk & A. Averback (Eds.) Methods of Research in Psychotherapy. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts. pp. 154-155, 1966. Hall, E. The Silent Language. New York: Doubleday, 1959. . A System for the Notation of Proxemic Behavior. American-Anthropologist, 65(5):1003-1026, 1963. . The Hidden Dimension. Garden City: Doubleday, 1966. 65 Hanawalt, N. Role of the Upper and Lower Parts of the Face as a Basis for Judging Facial Expression in Posed and Candid Camera Pictures. Journal of General Psychology, 31:23-36, 1944. Harrison, R. Pictic Analysis: Toward A Vocabulary and Syntax for the Pictorial Code - With Research on Facial Communication. Ph.D. Thesis submitted to M.S.U. Communications Dept., 1964. Hawthorn, A. Art of the Kwakiutl. Seattle: U. of Washing- ton Press, 1967. Haynes, H., White, B. & Held, R. Visual Accommodation in Human Infants. Science, 14:528-30, 1965. Herold, E. Tribal Masks. London: Paul Hamlyn, 1967. Hess, E. Attitude and Pupil Size. Scientific American, (April), 1965. Himmelheber, H. Negerkunst und Negerkunstler. Brunwsik: Klinhardt and Bierman, 1960. Himmelheber, H. Article in Z.f. Ethnolggie, 38(2):216-33. Huber, E. Evolution of Facial Musculature and Cutaneous Field of Trigeminus. QuarterlysReview of Biology, 5:133-88, 389, 437, 1930. . Evolution of Facial Musculature and Facial Expression. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1931. Huckstedt, B. Experimentelle Untersuchungen zum 'Kindchen- schema. Z. Exptl. Angew. Psychol. 12:421-450, 1965. Hulin/Katz. The Frois-Wittman Pictures of Facial Expression. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1935. Inverarity, R. Art of the Northwest Coast Indian. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967. Javanese Mask Collection, Chicago Field Museum. Kagan, J. & Lewis, M. Studies in Attention in the Human Infant. Unpublished Manuscript, Fels Research Institute, Yellow Springs, Ohio, 1964. Karon, B. Personal Communiqué, Spring, 1971. 66 Kennyside, M. H. A. Some Aspects of Schooling in Fish. Kendon, A. & Ex, J. A Notation for Facial Postures and Bodily Positions, In M. Argyle, Social Interaction. New York: Atherton Press, 1969. Kepes, G. Sign, Image, and Symbol. New York: George Braziller Co., 1962. Kirckhoff, R. Die Umfelder des Pathognomischen Ausdrucks. Jahrbuch fur Psychologie, Psychotherapie und Medi- zinische Anthropologie, 9:42-55, 1962. Kjersmeier, C. Centres de Style de la Sculpture Negre Africaine, Paris: Albert Morance, 1935. Klineberg, O. Emotional Expression in Chinese Literature. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 33: 517—520, 1938. LaBarre, W. Cultural Basis of Emotions and Gestures. Journal of Personality, 16:49-68, 1947. . Paralinguistics,Kinesics and Cultural Anthro- pology. In T. A. Sebeck, A. S. Hayes and C. Bate- son (Eds.) Approaches to Semiotics (transactions of the Indiana Conference ifi Paralinguistics and Kinesics). The Hague: Mouton and Co., 1964. Landis, C. & Hunt, W. The Startle Pattern. New York: Rarrar and Rinehart, 1939. Laufer, B. Oriental Theatricals. Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History, 1923. Leuzinger, E. Africa. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960. Little, K. B. Personal Space. Journal of Social Psychology, 1:237-247, 1965. Lorenz, K. On Aggression. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Co., 1963. . Evolution and Modification of Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965. Lucas, H. Ceylon-Masken. Kassel: Im Erich ROth—Verlag, 1958(a). . Lamaistische Masken. Kassel: Im Erich ROth- Verlag, 1962(b). 67 MacGowan, K. Masks and Demons. New York: Harcourt- Brace, 1923. MacLean, P. The Limbic System with Respect to Self- Preservation and the Preservation of the Species. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 127, No. 1, pp. 1-11, 1958. . Phylogenesis. In P. Knapp (Ed.) Expression of the Emotions in Mss. New York: International Universities Press, 1963. Mahl, G. Gestures and Body Movement in Interviews. In Schlien (Ed.). Research in Psychotherapy. Vol. 3:295-346, 1967. Malreau,.A., & Salles, G. The Art of Mankind: The Arts of the South Pacific. Paris: Editions Gallimard. Mehrabian, A. & Ferris, S. Inference of Attitudes from Nonverbal Communication in Two Channels. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31:248-52, 1967. Mehrabian, A. & Wiener, M. Decoding of Inconsistent Com— munication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6:108-1147 1967. Monti, F. African Masks. London: Hamlyn Co., 1969. Mordkoff, A. M. A Factor Analysis of the Judgment of Emotion from Facial Expression. Journal of Ex— perimental Research in Personality, 5:80-85, 1967. Morris, C. Signs, Language, and Behavior. New York: Prentice Hall, 1946. Munn, M. L. The Effect of Knowledge of the Situation upon Judgment of Emotion from Facial Expressions. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 35: 324-38, 1940. Museum of Primitive Art, Traditional Art of the African Nations. Museum Rietberg. African Sculpture. Zurich. National Gallery. First International Congress on African Sculpture. Salisbury, 1962. Osgood, C. E. Dimensionality of the Semantic Space for Communication via Facial Expressions. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 7:1-30, 1966. 68 Peiponen, V. A. Verhaltensstudien am Blaukehlchen. Ornis Fernica, 37:178-191, 1960. Plass, M. African Tribal Sculpture. Philadelphia: Univer- sity Museum, 1956. Plato. In R. Demos (Ed.) Selections. New York: Scribners. Pp. 290-295, 1927. Riley, 0. Masks and Magic. New York: Studio Publications and Crowell Co., 1955. Royce, J. Psychology and the Symbol. New York: Random House, 1965. Ruckmick, C. A Preliminary Study of Facial Expression. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 29:497-510, 1941. Ruesch, J. & Kees, W. Nonverbal Communication: Notes on Visual Percsption of Human Relations. BerkeIey: Ufiiversity of California Press, 1956. Sadler, M. Arts of West Africa. Oxford: Oxford Univer- sity Press, 1935. Sannes, G. African Primitives: Form and Function. Lon- don: Faber and Faber, 1968. Schacter, S. The Interaction of Cognitive and Physiological Determinants of Emotional State. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 1, New York: Academic Press, pp. 49-80, 1964. Scheflen, A. Communication Systems Such as Psychotherapy. In. J. H. Masserman (Ed.) Current Psychiatric Therapies. New York: Grune and Stratton, pp. 33-41, 1965. Schlosberg, H. The Description of Facial Expressions in Terms of Two Dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44:229-237, 1952. Schmidt, L. Masken in Mitteleuropa. Wien: Kommissionrerlag Ferdinand'Berger, 1955. Secord, P. & Beran, W. Personalities in Faces III. A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Impressions of Phy- siognomy and Personality in Faces. Journal of Social Psychology, 43:283-88, 1956. 69 Seiber, R. Masks as Agents of Social Control. In D. Fraser (Ed.) Many Faces of Primitive Art. Engle- wood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1966. Siebert, E. & Forman, W. North American Indian Art. Artia Czechoslovakia, 1967. Sommer, R. Personal Space. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- Hall, 1969. Spitz, R. & Wolf, K. The Smiling Response: A contribution to the ontogensis of social relations. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 34:57-125, 1946. Stevenson, L. Private collection. . Field Notes au Museé a Bamako, Mali, 1970 (August). Terrisse, A. L'Afrique de 1'Ouest, Berceau de L'Art Negre, Paris: Fernana Nathan, 1965. Thompson, J. Development of Facial Expression of Emotion in Blind and Seeing Children. Archives of Psy- chology, 264:5-47, 1941. Tinbergen, N. Comparative Studies of the Behavior of Gulls (Laridae). Behavior, 15:1-70, 1959. Tomkins, S. Affect, Imagery, Consciousness. Vol. II. New York: T Co., 1963. Tomkins, S. & McCarter, R. What and Where are the Primary Affects? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 18(1):ll9- 58, 1964. Triande, T. Premier Festival Cultural Pan-Africain, Alger. Ouagadougou: Musée NatiOnale, 1969. Trowell, M. Classical African Sculpture. New York: Praeger Co., 1964. Trowell, M. & Neverman, H. African and Oceanic Art. New York: Abrams, Inc., 1968. Turhan, B. M. Uber die Bedeutung des Gesichtsausdrucks. Psych. Beitr. 5:440-454, 1960. Utzinger, R. Masken. Berlin: Verlag Ernstwasmuth. Vandenhoute, P. J. Classification Stylistique du Masqse Dan et Guere, Leiden, Netherlands: E. Brill., 1948. 70 Van Hooff, J. Facial Expression in Higher Primates. Symp. Zod. Soc. London. 8:97-125, 1962. . Facial Displays of the Catarrhine Monkeys and Apes. In D. Morris (Ed.) Primate Ethology. Garden City: Doubleday Co., 1969. Wagner, F. A. Art of the World: Indonesia. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959. Waite, D. Kwakiutl Transformation Masks. In D. Fraser (Ed.) The Many Faces of Primitive Art. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, pp. 266-95, 1966. Warries, E. Situatie en Expressie. M.A. Thesis, Amster- dam University, 1963. Whiting, J. & Whiting, B. Contribution of anthropology to the methods of child rearing. In P. Mussen (Ed.) Handbook of Research Methods in Child Development. New York: Wiley, pp. 918-944, 1960. Wilcox, B. M. Visual Preferences of Human-Infants for Rep- resentations of the Human Face. Journal of Experi- mental Child Psychology, 7:10-20, 1969. Willet, F. African Art. London: Thomas and Hudson, 1971. Willis, F. N. Initial Speaking Distance as a Function of the Speakers Relationship. Psychonomic Science, 5:221-222, 1966. Wingert, P. Primitive Art, New York: Oxford University Press, 1962. Woodworth, R. S. Judgments of Posed Facial Expression. Psychology. New York: Holt and Co. p. 421, 1940. World of Man, Volume I. Chicago: Creative World Publica- tions, 1969. Yamamoto, K. Stimulus Mode and Sense Modality. Record, 70:513-21, 1969. APPENDICES APPENDIX A SCORING RULES FACIAL CHARACTERISTIC SCALE APPENDIX A SCORING RULES Procedure: Masks will be presented by culture group and randomiied within that particular culture group. You will quickly view the masks of each society before the scoring begins. Also, there will be a few culture notes accompany- ing each society. Please read them carefully and aquaint yourself with the guidelines for that particular culture. As a word of caution--be careful not to confuse the guide- lines for the different cultures. Scoring: When scoring, there will be an intermediate or grey zone, so consider orientations. When in real doubt, PASS and DON'T SCORE. To see the slides well, turn off the lights and use the tensor lamp; often the tensor should be turned off to make the judging accurate. When you can see only the side view, assume that the same is present on the other side of the face and score accordingly. There will be some marks that don't fit into a category and are not scoreable. To account for "wear over time," make careful ob- servations and score accordingly; for example, if there are holes in the mouth because the teeth fell out, score for teeth. If the paint is chipped on the cheek, don't score for lines on the cheek. In reference to the "line on cheek" categories (#11 and #12), remember that the word "line" does not necessarily mean "straight." Again, consider orientation. To avoid underscoring (omission) and overscoring, don't score when tired and don't score the micro-mini lines. Score the facial characteristic only in one cate- gory. For example, a line between the brows and extending on the forehead should only be scored in one category, either #3 or #7, but not both. Example: .5 .3- However, if the line between the brows breaks off into a different design, then it gets scored for both categories, #3 and #7. 71 72 In each first presentation, please try and pay close attention to the cultural norms for eyes, nose, hair and mouth. To understand or to acquaint yourself with the "norm," ask yourself, "What is big? What is small?" FACIAL CHARACTERISTIC SCALE Characteristic present l. Horns or pointed head; can include protrusions but not adornment. No strict rule that horns are on top if the heid and eafis on the side. 2. Wild hair. Does not conform to normal head contour or contribute to establishing the shape of the head. If hair is stringly, etc., unlike people of that culture group, score it. 3. Forehead lines that are not part of eyebrow configuration. If there is bump on forehead, score it in this category. 4. Both ears pointed. Usually ears on side of head, but often both ears and horns on tOp of head. If animal, ears on top; then note if they are pointed. 5. Top of the head flat. A horizontal line that cuts off normal round contour. Not a hat line. If horizontal incision cuts across head but tOp is still there, score. J 6. Eyebrows at any other angle than horizontal straight or horizontal curved, Note if they are skewed or angled, then score: /7C\ /"\ 7. Vertical line(s) between eyebrows. Can in- clude ends of the eyebrows or top of nose up between eyebrows. M >( ‘1' m 'U’ score score score score score 1V? 71‘ don't score don't score 73 8. Triangular nose; flare nostrils. Judge on basis of nose proportions and width of mouth. Consider exaggeration from the norm for any particular race. Score if nostrils are ex- pressly showing and nose is flared. A Split nose is not a flared one. On animals, nos- trils should be exaggerated in order to score. 9. Eyes oriented diagonally, not horizontal. If eyes are mostly horizontal or the norm is a gentle tilt, don't score. 10A. Protruding or penetrating eyes; wide and Open. If eyes are bulbous, conical, raised or like a bull's eye, score. If protrudes, but is slit, score. 10B. Triangular eyes. 11. Diagonal cheek lines down and in toward mouth and nose. Score planes as well as pointed or carved lines. No smudges, cir— cles, indistinct groups of lines or dimple lines should be scored. Don't score if line is horizontal Don't score smile lines ((--)) ' 12. Diagonal lines between cheeks and mouth, down and away from mouth. Again, consider the general orientation and planes or painted or carved lines. Score exaggerated lines for there is a normal line from nose to mouth that does not get scored. Lines for animals get scored when they fit into the category clearly. Full cheeks don't get scored, but jowls do get scored. 13. Moustache between nose andLmouth. If through time, it was lost and you can see paste marks, or holes, score. 14. Mouth in downward curve. Look at corner of mouth to determine.... 15. Mouth open and showing teeth a) slight to normal b) broad, wide 16. More than one line on chin l7. l8. 19. 74 Pointed chin or multiple pointed chin. Score if very wide at temple compared with a proportionally small chin. If head is long and curves in gentle roundness at chin, don't score. Pointed beard. or Aggressive symbols on picture or mask; flames, arrows, death bones, tongue sticking straight out, horns, etc. Adornment on face, earrings, nosebones, not scored. Score fangs. APPENDIX B CULTURE NOTES, SOURCE AND CLASSIFICATION APPENDIX B CULTURE NOTES FOR SCORING THE AMERICAN DRAWINGS 1. Read all of the scoring categories carefully, especially the following: #8, #11, #14, #1, #9, #5. 2. As these are drawings, there is not a third dimension, making judgments somewhat more difficult. To know whether a line is scoreable (or not), judge it by noting contrasts within the picture. That is, dif- ferent strengths were used in the drawings, and by noting deliberate heavy lines, you can judge what is just shaded or lightly drawn in order to help you understand the difference between deliberate lines and lines drawn for perspective. AMERICAN MASKS: SOURCE AND CLASSIFICATION* Number Classification Number~ 'Classification 1 N-T 22 T 40 T 16 T 38 T 14 T 35 T 37 N-T l3 N-T 46 T 10 T 28 T 49 T 21 N-T 47 N-T 25 T 44 T 45 N-T 39 N-T 43 N-T 33 T 34 N-T 30 T 15 N-T 27 N—T 20 T 11 N-T 50 N-T 2 T 18 T 9 N-T 23 N-T 5 N—T 36 N-T 32 N-T 6 T 42 T 4 T 26 N-T 48 T 3 N-T 41 N-T 29 N-T 24 T 31 T 7 N-T 19 N-T 12 T 17 N-T 8 T 75 76 28A T 59A T 44A T 54 T 53 N-T 52 T 67 N-T 22A N-T 15A T 13A T 45A N-T 38A T 43A N-T 14A N-T 9A N-T 42A T 33A N-T 32A T 39A N-T 2A N-T 51 T 55 N-T 65 T 66 N-T 63 N-T 62 T 64 T 61 N-T 60 N-T 10A T 16A N-T 70 N-T 69 T 71 T 5A N-T 72 N-T 25A N-T 59 N-T 4A T 24A T 68 T 56 N-T 57 T 58 T *Threatening (T) and non-threatening (N-T)masks are listed in the order of presentation. They are drawings of students of intermediate psychology courses at Michigan State Univer- sity who were asked to draw "courship" and "war" masks. CULTURE NOTES FOR SCORING MASKS OF CEYLON The dark line under the eyes is characteristic for these masks. Note general scoring rule: "In each first presentation, please try and pay close attention to the cultural norms for eyes, nose, hair and mouth. To understand or ac- quaint yourself with the 'norm,' ask yourself, 'What is big? What is small?‘" In this case, pay attention to the eyes. If it is an animal, do not score naturalistic represen- tation of whiskers as diagonal cheek lines. Review characteristic #1 on the scale: headdress is not included, and horns can be on side of head. 5. To score for characteristic #9, do note slight (diagonal) 77 variation for the clear horizontal. 6. Slide #220--nose is split, not flared. Slide #237--bird's beak is cut off. The face is round, so beak does not get counted as diagonal cheek lines. Number 215 238 225 222 241 244A 211 226 223 240 227 243 218 236 239 219 237 244 224 233 212 213 220 232 214 242 235 217 210 234 216 MASKS OF CEYLON: Name Kumara Simha Demala Hetti(ya) Kora Sanniya Naja King of Gr.Br. Vadda Raja Arracci Moon Demon Woman Peasant Amuku Sanniya Woman Demon Eagle Purnaka Yaka Rakdeviya Gurula Demon Marakkalaya Naga Dumara(ya) Death DevilaDancing Hevaya Naga Kanya(va) King of Gr.Bt. Demon Archer Snake Demon Unhandsome Woman Raja, King Snake Demon SOURCE AND CLASSIF Source Lucas Lucas Lucas Lucas Lucas (a), p.43 (a), p.109 (a), p.67 (a), p.61 (a), p.181 MacGowan, Lucas Lucas Lucas Lucas Lucas Lucas Lucas Lucas Lucas Lucas Lucas Lucas Lucas Lucas Lucas Riley, Lucas Lucas Lucas Lucas Lucas Lucas Lucas Lucas Unhandsome Princess Lucas (a), p.27 (a), p.71 (a), p.63 (a), p.124 (a), p.77 (a), p.184 (a), p.48 (a), p.101 (a), p.120 (a), p.51 (a), p.103 (a), p.191 (a), p.65 (a), p.93 (a), p.193 p.112 (a), p.53 (a), p.91 (3) I p' 35 (a), p.183 (a), p.97 (a), p.47 (a), p.25 (a), p.96 (a), p.45 ICATION* Classification T N-T T I H I-J *3 ll Ail-68 ZHZ?HHZZZBHZZHZBHZBH 80-3 I #3 *Threatening (T) and non-threatening (N-T) masks are listed in the order of presentation. CULTURE NOTE FOR SCORING MASKS OF 78 CHINA 1. Check mouth which is somewhat hidden by moustache. Also if there are other features that are somewhat obscured by facial structure, scoring should be done carefully. 2. As this is an oriental culture, gentle tilt of the eyes is normal. 3. Eyes will be considered on the diagonal if painting around them is on diagonal. 4. Slide #80: hair is represented by many lines. Slide #91: sockets. MASKS OF CHINA: a monkey whose nose is realistic and whose there are arms which extend from the eye Do not score. SOURCE AND CLASSIFICATION* Number Name Source Classification 83 Dog #120553 N-T 80 Monkey 120612 N-T 85 Assistent 120431 T 86 Judge, Hell 5 120406 T 88 Small Devil 120418 T 90 Small Devil 120419 T 78 Bailiff 120410 T 93 Blue Lion 12579 T 92 Nui Kin Nin 120542 N-T 91 Yang Jen N-T 95 Ninth Arhat 120493 N-T 98 Judge, Hell 7 120430 N-T 79 Third Patriarch 120507 N-T 96 Girl 120427 N-T 89 Dragon King 120506 T 97 Judge, Hell 6 120420 N-T 87 Kang Kin Lung 120537 T 82 Dog 120549 N-T 81 Taoist Hermit 120614 N-T 94 20th Patriarch 120526 N-T 73 Little Girl MacGowan, p.127 N-T 77 Nature Goddess MacGowan, p.133 N-T 99 Devil Lictor MacGowan, p.126 T 75 Dragon King MacGowan, p.131 N-T 76 Magician Laufer, p.14 N-T 74 Judge MacGowan, p.129 T *Threatening (T) and non-threatening (N-T) masks are listed in the order of presentation. With the exception of the last six, all masks are from the Blackstone collection at the Chicago Field Museum, Chicago, Illinois. 79 CULTURE NOTES FOR SCORING THE DAN-GUERE MASKS 1. Due to perspective of the photo, often features are obscured; for example, sometimes there are horns on the face that extend outwards. 2. The stylized cheek > is a triangular shape and should be scored as planes on the cheek. 3. Score characteristic #12 when slightly present. 4. Hair should get scored if it is not smooth or braided (characteristic #2). 5. A few masks have outlines faces; as these marks are not on the face, it will not be scored as cheek lines (characteristic #11 or #12). 6. Slide #296 was photographed on a textured cloth, which ' gives the appearance that the mask has teeth; it has none. Slide #301 is of two masks; both are to be scored. MASKS OF THE DAN-GUERE: SOURCE AND CLASSIFICATION* Number Name Source Classification 310 Forest Spirit Leuzinger, fig.39 T 297 Judge Himmelheber, p.113 T 311 "homme mal." Vahdenhoute, fig.l7 T 302 "gentle.." Himmelheber, p.191 N-T 308 Wart Hog Trowell,Neverman,p.66 T 301a Fire Mask Detroit Art Inst. N-T 301b Fire Mask Detroit Art Inst. N-T 299 Mother Mask Terrisse, N-T 300 Fire Demon Himmelheber, N-T 315 Wart Hog Trowell,Neverman,p.69 T 307 "Bienveillant" Vandenhoute, fig.27 N-T 312 Forest Spirit Terrisse, T 313 Wart Hog Himmelheber, p.193 T 298 Young Girl Trowell,Neverman,p.33 N-T 309 Wart Hog Detroit Art Inst. T 303 Chimp Herald Himmelheber, p.151 N-T 316 Mahogui Bodrogi, plate 55 N-T 317A Wart Hog Detroit Art Inst. T 295 Mother Mask Leuzinger, plate 16 N-T 296 Fire Mask Himmelheber, p.19067 N-T 304 Crocodile Himmelheber, p.149 N-T 317 314 305 306 Kagle Mask Wart Hog Wart Hog Wart Hog 80 Bodrogi, plate 59 Trowell,Neverman,p.67 Stevenson Stevenson 8888 *Threatening (T) and non-threatening (N-T) masks are listed in the order of presentation. 1. In this culture, CULTURE NOTES FOR SCORING KWAKIUTL MASKS there is a snake motif, "sisiutl," which should be scored as a threatening symbol (#19) when it is present. It is on slides #291 and #271. 2. There is often double or triple masks; score the inside as it probably represents the "inner self" of the char- acter. By the same principle, "wild hair" (#2) which is the rafia should not be scored because it is attached to the outer masks. 3. Please disregard the "masking effect" altogether; a special motif. it is 4. If it is an animal mask, turn it "upright" in order to score it as a face. 5. Please note variance in eyes of masks. Number 266A 277 250 268 280 253 269 283 252 256 254 286 271 KWAKIUTL MASKS: Name Noohlmahl Bullhedd... Spruce Tree Bookwus Ia'kim Door Numal Thunderbird Sneezer Speaker Sleeper Eagle-Human Sisiutl Source Hawthorn, fig.118,left Waite, p.271 Hawthorn, gif.l34 Hawthorn, fig.413,1eft Waite, p.274 Hawthorn, fig.141 Inverarity,plate 92 Waite, p.277 Hawthorn, fig.142,top Hawthorn, fig.427 Hawthorn, fig.144,top Waite, p.280 Hawthorn, fig.128 SOURCE AND CLASSIFICATION* Classification l 8 8 I I l I 88888 8 8222228288228 260 292 249 259 262 267 263 288 273 257 289 279 248 265 291 *Thr 81 Squirrel Hawthorn, fig.368,right N-T Earthquake Dockstader,plate 90 ' T Tree Stump Hawthorn, fig.133 N-T Echo Hawthorn, fig.409 N-T NoNlemgila Boas, -N-T Earthquake Hawthorn, fig.406 T Komokwa Hawthorn,p1ate XX N-T Bookwus Hawthorn, fig.412 T Tsonqukwa Hawthorn, fig.145 T Speaker Hawthorn, fig.430,right N-T Deer Waite, p.282 T "Born to be.." Waite, p.273 N-T Buffoon Hawthorn, fig.131 N-T Sisiutl Hawthorn, fig.126(b.1.) T Thunderbird Waite, p.283 T eatening (T) and non-threatening (N-T) masks are listed in the order of presentation. CULTURE NOTES FOR SCORING JAPANESE PUPPET HEADS Slides #188 and 208 have moveable mouth pieces. Slide #169 is very worn; score only the standard things that were there before. Note the standard eye; a tilted eye (#9) is scored when a deliberate attempt has been made to put the eyes on the diagonal. Slide #165: score puppet, not man in picture. Note conventional hairdo; variation from this is stringly, wild. If "do" is not conventional and is such that it gives the "functional equivalent" of a horn, score in characteristic #1. Also, there are two children whose hair is not in the fashionable "do" (slides #205, 206); they should not be scored as having wild hair. 82 PUPPET HEADS OF THE JAPANESE BUNRAKU THEATER: SOURCE AND CLASSIFICATION* Number Name Classification 208 Comic Male N-T 183 Evil Young Male N-T 186 Male Clown N-T 174 Kintoki N-T 200 Gabu T 205 Male Child N-T 163 Osono N-T 178 Young Female N-T 177 Bunshichi N-T 165 Yashio, villainess N-T 181 Young Male N-T 201 Lady Stage of Gabu N-T 196 Beautiful Courtesian N-T 184 Komei head; middle age male N-T 206 Female Child N-T 182 Young Male N-T 187 Evil Young Male T 207 Comic Male Servant N-T 185 Young Male N-T 170 Ibaragi Doji T 167 Abe Muneto T 175 Wakaotoko N-T 180 Waka-otoko Young Male N-T 199 Ofuku Female Clown N-T 209 Comic Nun N-T 168 Mitsuhide T 179 Evil Middle Aged Male T 195 Middle Age Female N-T 203 Female N-T 173 Oadi N-T 202 Kagekiyo T 197 Evil Middle Aged Female T 204 Male N-T 162 Bunshichi N-T 166 Abe Sadato T 164 Yugiri N-T 176 Kaminari T 169 Ghana N-T *Threatening (T) and non-threatening (N-T) puppet heads are listed in order of presentation. All are from Bunraku, by T. Ando. 83 CULTURE NOTES FOR THE MASKS OF JAVA 1. Gentle tilt of the eyes is characteristic and does not get scored. 2. Do not score string by which mask #159 hangs as a horn. 3. Do not score characteristic squiggles on ends of eye- brows. 4. Take note that chipped paint is not scored for lines on forehead or cheek (Characteristic #3, 11 or 12). 5. Often it is evident that a mask has lost its moustache; there are marks or holes by which the moustache was attached. If there are such marks, score for moustache, for it was originally present. 6. Beards are often portrayed as small triangular designs on chin. JAVANESE MASKS: SOURCE AND CLASSIFICATION* Number Name Classification 137 Uchaningrat Prepuwan N-T 140 Dewi Kili Suchi N-T 142 Poroyogi N-T 118 Boma T 125 Buta T 127 Demon T 117 Mandura T 146 Rondasembadel N-T 139 Resopati N-T 101 Arjuna N-T 107 Basu Dewa N-T 126 Botohakel T 121 Jugi T 150 Braja Nata T 131 Panjii N-T 108 Semar N-T 103 Beta N—T 109 Prabu N-T 154 Botomachan T 123 Rotoden Nawa T 136 Samba N-T 157 Botochawet T 147 Derwati N-T 148 Klonomodo T 156 Botogede T 84 129 Gunungsan N-T 158 Demon T 135 Batu Singusari N-T 110 Aradara T 134 Kochorantunan N-T 160 Demon T 138 Resobagu N-T 155 Kechek T 122 Togog , T 151 Tumemgguna Jaksanegasa T 124 Rakshasa T 111 Anta Raja T 141 Ratu Kediri N-T 152 Sembung Langu T 115 Dorna T 102 Abimanyu N-T 149 Klonochowa T 119 Javajatra T 120 Juwaliti T 161 Lojuna N-T 105 Derma Kusuma N-T 145 Sekarachachi N-T 113 Prabu Ngastina Duryudana T 143 Legagang N—T 132 Serak N-T 100 Ketek Anoman T 130 Ragil Kuning N-T 116 Sengkuni T 159 noble character N-T 106 Awangga N-T 128 Gunung San N—T 112 Gatutkacha T 104 Gambiraninom Raja N-T 153 Ajar T 133 Ragil Kuning N-T *Threatening (T) and non-threatening (N-T) masks are listed in order of presentation. With four exceptions, all masks are from a collection of the Chicago Field Museum, Chicago, Illinois. The exceptions are as fol- lows: #158 -Ri1ey, 159 -Wagner, p. 169-73 160 -Wagner, p. 169-73 161 -Utzinger, 85 CULTURE NOTES FOR SCORING SENOUFO MASKS 1. This characteristic design on the sides of many masks shall be ignored for scoring purposes. 2. There is a top-knot that can be mistaken for a orn; it is not a horn, but a female hairdo d commonly used in female representations. 3. Reminder: According to the scoring rules, diagonal lines on the cheeks should have a diagonal orientation. don't score do score 4. In female representations there is a 1abaret in the bottom lip; it is not a beard, nor could it be con- sidered as chin lines. 5. To score for horns (#1), the horns must come out of head, not be a part of the cap or headgear. 6. Angle of many of the photo is often misleading. Score carefully. 7. Of the sample, only the first five are slides; the rest are from R. Goldwater's Senoufo. The scoring is, then, in large part from the book. SENOUFO MASKS: SOURCE AND CLASSIFICATION* Number Name Classification 374 Kagba T 373 Fertility mask N-T Plate 80 Deguele T 371 Kagba T 361 erlie T Plate 26 erlie T Plate 27 erlie T Plate 23 erlie T Plate 25 erlie T Plate 29 erlie T Plate 31 erlie T Plate 39 erlie T Plate 42 erlie T Plate 48 erlie T 86 Plate 50 erlie T Plate 51 Firespitter T Plate 52 Firespitter T Plate 53 Firespitter T Plate 54 Firespitter T Plate 55 Korbula T Plate 56a Korbula T Plate 58 Firespitter T Plate 59 Firespitter T Plate 61 Korbula T Plate 62 Korbula T Plate 68a Firespitter T Plate 81 Deguele T Plate 85 Female Rhythm Pounder N-T Plate 86a Female Rhythm Pounder N-T Plate 88a Female Rhythm Pounder N-T Plate 92 Female Rhythm Pounder N‘T Plate 134a Seated Female N-T Plate 185 Seated Female N-T Plate 182a Standing Female N-T Plate 182b , Standing Female N-T Plate 182c ( Standing Female N-T Plate 49 Z erlie T Plate 93 Standing Female N-T Plate 93a Female Rhythm Pounder N-T Plate 97 Seated Female N-T Plate 111 Standing Female N-T Plate 122 Standing Female N-T Plate 166 Female Head N-T *Threatening (T) and non-threatening (N-T) masks are listed in order of presentation. Total sample is taken from Senoufo by R. Goldwater. CULTURE NOTES FOR SCORING MASKS OF THE MIXED SAMPLE Bakwelé none Bambara 1. Slide #359 is old and worn. Slide #351 has no teeth. 87 Bapendé 1. Do not score rafia as "wild hair" (#2). Many of the masks you score use rafia as part of the sotume; how- ever, it was not uniformly presented. 2. Slides #403 and 402 are wearing hats. Slides #402 and 404 have a long dotted part under the chin that ethnographic reports describe as a beard. White lines outline this design and are not cheek lines. Gouro 1. Slide #400 has a top-knot of hair. Hawaii none Middle Europe 1. Slide #417 contains two masks; score the left one then the right one. Slide #418 has a raised plane for a cheek; score it by the right side, as the left is obscured. Slide #432: consider the forehead lines behind the horns. Slide #433 is an old mask, so bristles should be scored as wild hair. Tibet 1. In reivew, note differences between large and small eyes. 2. Slide #435 has a hair motif around the mouth which is the same as the raised texture of the eyebrows. Con: sider it a moustache. Same for slide #437. ' Tlinget none MIXED SAMPLE OF MASKS: SOURCE AND CLASSIFICATION* Number Name Source Classification Bakwelé 413 "fierce" Mus.Prim.Art,plate 71a T 416 "play" Trowell,Neverman,p.46 N-T Bambara 352 Koteba 349 Koré 355 Koré Monkey 354 Koré 359 N'Tomo 353 Koteba 357 N'Tomo 351 Koré 356 Koteba Bapendé 402 pumbu 403 vieille coquette 404 mbuyu 405 epileptique 406 antelope 407 antelope Baulé 380 goli 383 woman 381 goli 384 woman 378 spirit of dead 377 spirit of dead Gouro 400 ancestor 401A zlan (war) Hawaii 409 Ku Middle Europe 417a devil 417b devil 418 devil 419 tax collect. 420 tax collect. 421 tax collect. 422 tax collect. 423 tax collect. 425 tax collect. 426 fertility 430 demon 431 demon 432 demon 433 demon 88 Musée a Bamako Musée Nationale des AfriCains et Oceaniens Musée a Bamako Musée a Bamako Musée a Bamako Musée a Bamako Musée a Bamako Leuzinger, plate 4b Musee a Bamako Bodrogi, p.158 Delange, fig. 143 Delange, fig. 145 Delange, fig. 144 Himmelheber, p.254 Himmelheber, p.253 Trowell,Neverman, p.43 Sadler, plate XV Trowell, Neverman, p.43 Delange, plate 60 Det. Art Instit. Leuzinger, plate 18 Himmelheber, p.225 Himmelheber, p.200 Malraux,Sa11es,plate 392 Schmidt, plate I Schmidt, plate I Schmidt, fig. 3 Schmidt, fig. 21 Schmidt, fig. 22 Schmidt, fig. 23 Schmidt, fig. 27 Schmidt, fig. 28 Schmidt, fig. 30 Schmidt, fig. 32 MacGowan, p.71 World of Man, p.28 World of Man, p.30 MacGowan, p.73 ZZZZ?ZZ ZZ habit-388606 F38 rat-agape '6 *3 F32." filial-3626888693886 89 Mortlock 412 "benevolent" Trowell,Neverman, p.244 N-T Tibet 434 God of Wealth Lucas (b), plate 41 N—T 435 God of War Lucas (b), plate 50 T 436 Teacher Lucas (b), plate 5 N-T 437 Tschamaske Lucas (b), plate 25 N-T Tlinget 388 portrait Inverarity N—T 386 shaman's Inverarity T 390 war MacGowan T 389 dead man Inverarity N-T *Threatening (T) and non-threatening (N-T) masks are listed in the order of presentation. HICHIGRN STATE UNIV. LIBRQRIES ll!” 8 31293102703 ll 1 0