LABELING AND RECOGNITION OF IZARD’S FACIAL EXPRESSIONS BY THREE AGE GROUPS : Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D. I - MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ' MARGARET ZERBA l 1977 {IIIIISIINIIIIIHIIJIfifn‘ir'v , n 3141' U.- ".:r5’~‘e- I ' ' ‘ ‘ mun-1:.- m“. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I “ r: R y 293 10451 6178 :.£ ., . . l -- ' 1 State ‘ . 11 L“ " ”C I .41 ff l..’~" .o-4_.‘-.-_. L! _ -.._ ‘-< This is to certify that the thesis entitled Labeling and Recognition of Izards' Facial Expressions by Three Age Groups presented by Margaret Zerba has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D . degree in Education In. W»? Major professor Date May 20, 1977 0-7639 ABSTRACT LABELING AND RECOGNITION OF IZARD'S FACIAL EXPRESSIONS BY THREE AGE GROUPS By Margaret Zerba The purpose of this study was twofold: to compare the emotion recognition and labeling behaviors of three age groups, 18-35, 55~60, and 60+, and genders within these age groups to Izard's (1971) 52 photographs of facial expression; and to compare the attitudes of these age groups to the eight emotion categories depicted in these photo- graphs. The eight categories were: interest-excitement, enjoyment—joy, surprise-startle, distress-anguish, disgust- contempt, anger-rage, shame-humiliation, and fear-terror. Modifications of Izard's Emotion labeling Ekperiment, Emotion Eboognition Ekperiment, and Emotion Attitude Questionnaire were administered individually to subjects within the same one~and~one~half-hour sitting. The Hoyt (1941) Homogeneity Reliability was performed to assess the homogeneity of the four photographs/items with- in each of the eight categories. A coefficient of .40 was the lowest acceptable homogeneity coefficient. The shame— humiliation items on the Recognition Test received the highest coefficient, and the distress-anguish items on the Labeling Test received the lowest coefficient (indeterminate). Margaret Zerba A discrepancy between a low coefficient for the four enjoyment-joy items on the Recognition Test and high mean scores for the same items on this test resulted in a decision to perform additional assessments for the reliability of items within categories. Percentage of subject agreement for categories and items within categories, as well as patterns of correct and incorrect score combinations for items within each category, were explored. Items within the interest-excitement and enjoyment-joy categories re- ceived the highest percentage of correct responses for both tests. A factor analysis with no assumptions about expected factor structure and factor analyses preset to eight, three, and two factors were performed for both tests; The results of the factor analyses did not reflect the eight a priori categories nor did they reflect the three and two factor classifications. A multivariate analysis of variance was performed for an age group main effect with planned comparisons for a gen- der within age group effect for the Labeling and Recognition Tests. Hypotheses were tested at a .05 alpha level. Scheffé Post—Hoe Comparisons with alpha set at .00625 were performed to assess age group mean score differences resulting from the MANOVA and univariate analyses on both tests. The three age group mean scores were found to be significantly dif— ferent on the distress—anguish variable for both tests. The 18~55 group received the highest mean scores, and the 60+ group received the lowest mean scores. The MANOVA with Margaret Zerba planned comparisons resulted in no significant gender within age group differences for all three age groups on both tests. A Chi~Square Test of Independence with alpha set at .05 was performed to assess whether age and emotion were independent for each of the 10 questions on the Emotion Attitude Ques— tionnaire. Significant age group differences occurred for Question 10: How well do you understand yourself, your own personality? The 60+ group reported that they understood themselves and their own personalities to a lesser degree than the other two groups. The 18-35 group reported to understand themselves to a greater degree than the other two groups. A Chi-Square Test of Independence was performed with alpha set at .05 to assess age group distributions between "emotion experienced most frequently" as reported on the Emotion Attitude Questionnaire and emotion category with the highest in the Emotion Recognition Test. A Chi- Square Test of Independence was performed with the same alpha level to assess age group distributions between "emotion experienced least frequently" as reported on the Emotion Attitude Questionnaire and emotion categories with lowest score on the Emotion Recognition Test. No signifi- cant age group differences were found for the latter two Chi-Square Tests. LABELING AND RECOGNITION OF IZARD'S FACIAL EXPRESSIONS BY THREE AGE GROUPS Bv U Margaret Zerba A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Personnel Services and Educational Psychology ”I 977 © Copyright by MARGARET ZERBA 4977 To my sister, Debbie. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The following people were available, supportive, and understanding when I needed them the most: Bill Clephane, Bob Wilson, Judith Taylor, Bill Hinds, Imogen Bowers, Judith Carmen, Margaret Parsons, the Test Administrators, and the Labeling Test Raters. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter LIST OF TABLES .................................. I. THE PROBLEM ................................ Introduction ............................... Need . ...................................... Problem Statement ........................ Purpose .... .......................... . ... Rationale ................................. General Hypotheses- ........................ Definition of Terms . . . .................. Delimitations . . ......................... Summary ........ ........................... II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . ................. Historical DeveIOpment of Use of Photographs and Labels .................. The Universal Theory of Emotion . ........... Studies on Recognition of Facial Expression by Blind and Sighted Subjects . ......... Age and Developmental Studies . ............. Sex Differences in Perceiving Facial Expressions of Emotion .................. Personality Characteristics Related to the Perception of Facial Expression ..... III. DESIGN.AND METHODOLOGY ..................... Hypotheses ................................. Selection and Description of the Sample Procedures for Testing ................... Procedures for Rating Subject Responses to the Labeling Test . .............. Assessment of the Instrument ............... Reliability.Analysis .................. Factor Analysis ....................... iv _\ -A\00Tfl\nvnfi\N_> _\ .s TU Chapter of Independence ......................... Summary ... ................................ V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND DISCUSSION . ..... Summary ................................. . Assessment of the Instrument ............... Analysis of the Data ......... .......... Conclusions ..... . ...................... Discussion .. .............................. BIBLIOGRAPHY ....... . ........................... APPENDIX A: SUBJECT i'hfii PACICE‘T ............... APPENDIX B: SCORING MATERIALS FOR RATERS ...... APPENDIX C: FACTOR ANALISIS CHARTS ............. Design of the Study ........................ Analysis Procedures ..................... Controls and Limitations ................... Controls .............................. Limitations ... .............. .. ..... Summary ... ... .......................... ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ....................... Hypotheses Tested by a Multivariate Test .... Hypotheses Tested by a Chi-Square Test Facial Affect Study Consent Form ........... Questionnaire ............................. Emotion Labeling Experiment ................ Emotion Recognition Experiment ............. An Emotion Attitude Questionnaire .......... Master List for Correct Responses .......... Scoring Criteria ........................... APPENDIX D: CELL MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS, CHI-SQUARE TABLES, AND COMBINED GROUP MEANS FOR BOTH TESTS . ........ APPENDIX E: 52 X 52 INTER-ITEM CORRELATION CHARTS ............................. APPENDIX F: LABELING AND RECOGNITION RESPONSES FOR SIGNIFICANT AGE GROUP DIFFER- ENCES ON DISTRESS-ANGUISH CATEGORY .. V 86 86 89 89 90 Q1 1 93 93 101 107 110 110 112 117 120 122 124 130 150 131 152 156, 158 140 140 141 142 146 149 152 LIST OF TABLES Table No. 2.1 Percentage of Agreement Across Five Literate Cultures for Six Emotion Categories ............................. 2.2 Eight Emotion Categories and Their A Priori Definitions .. ................. 2.5 The Facial Features and Movements Involved in Each of the Nine Fundamental’ Emotions ............................... 2.4 Classification of Facial Expressions of Emotions: Recognition Scores (,6) in Modal Categories ....................... 2.5 "Correct" Free-Response Labels for the Series I Photos of Fundamental Emotions ............................... 2.6 Percentage of Subjects Giving "Correct" Response on Emotion Labeling Task Percentage Using Label . ................ 2.7 Distribution of Responses (Percentages) of Seven Cultural Samples for Question: Which Emotion Do You Prefer to Experience? ............................ 5.1 Demographic Data for 60 Subjects .......... 5.2 Hoyt Reliability Coefficients for the Emotion Labeling and the Emotion Recognition Tests . .................. ... 5.5 Spearman Rank Order Correlation for Reliability Coefficients and Ranked Variances for Categories within Recognition Test ...................... 5.4 Percentage of Correct Responses for Items Within Categories for Labeling and Recognition Tests for Sixty Subjects vi Page 2O 23 24 5O 52 33 54 SO 57 61 Table No. 3-5 5.6 3.7 5.8 3-9 3.10. 5.11 5.12 3-13 5.14 3-15 EH16 Percentage of Correct Responses for Categories within the Labeling and Recognition Tests .................. .... Percentage of Sixty Subjects Responding with Sixteen Possible Patterns of Correct and Incorrect Responses ........ ........ Inter~Category Correlations for Emotion Labeling and Emotion Recognition Tests .. InterwItem Correlations Between Emotion Labeling and Emotion Recognition Tests . Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix Yielding 12 Factors with a Minimum Eigen Value at 1.00 for the Emotion Recognition Measure . .............................. Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix Yielding 14 Factors with a Minimum Eigen Value at 1.00 for the Emotion Labeling Test ..... Contingency Table for 12 Recognition Factors Determined at Eigen Value 1.00 and A Priori Emotion Categories . ...... Contingency Table for 14 Labeling Factors Determined at Eigen Value 1.00 and 8 A Priori Emotion Categories ............ Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix Setting the Number of Factors to Eight for the Emotion Recognition Test ., ..................... Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix Setting the Number of Factors at Eight for the Emotion Labeling Test ..................... Contingency Table for Comparing Ei ht Factors with Eight A Priori Categories or the Emotion Recognition Test ............... Contingency Table for Comparing Eight Factors with Eight A Priori Categories for the Emotion Labeling Test .................. Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix Setting the Number of Factors to Three for the Emotion Recognition Test ............... vii Page 62 64 66 67 71 72 73 73 75 76 77 77 80 Table No. 5.18 'Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix Setting the Number of Factors to Three for the Emotion Labeling Test .................. 5.19 Contingency Table for Comparing Three Factors 3.20 3.21 with Eight A Priori Categories for the Emotion Recognition Test ............... Contingency Table for Comparing Three Factors with Eight A Priori Categories for the Emotion Labeling Test .................. Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix Setting the Number of Factors to Two for the Emotion Recognition Test ............... Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix Setting the Number of Factors to Two for the Emotion Labeling Test .................. Contingency Table for Comparing Two Factors with Eight A Priori Categories for the Emotion Recognition Test ............... Contingency Table for Comparing Two Factors with Eight A Priori Categories for the Emotion Labeling Test . ................ Design of the Study ....................... Univariate Analyses for Age'Group Differences on the BLT ................. Scheffé Post~Hoc Mean Score Differences for Age Groups on the BLT .................. Multivariate Tests for Age and Sex within Age Group Differences on the BLT ....... Univariate Analyses for Age Group Differences on the ERT ................. Scheffé Post—Hoc Mean Score Differences for Age Groups on the ERT .................. Multivariate Test for Age and Sex Within Age Group Differences on the ERT ....... Chi—Square Table for Hypothesis 9 ......... viii Page 8C 81 82 83 84 85 85 87 95 97 98 99 101 105 Table No. 4.8 Distribution of Responses for Three Age Groups on EAQ Question 10 .............. 4.9 Age Group Distributions for Agreement Between ERT and EAQ for Ho,10 ........... 4.10 Age Group Distributions for Agreement Between ERT and EAQ for H011 ........... ix Ce n'est pas un bestseller, mais ce qui ressemble le plus au "rock and roll." Chapter I THE PROBLEM Introduction Izard (1971) defines facial patterning 0r facial expression in the following manner: . . it may be helpful at the outset to say something about the meaning of the term facial patterning or facial expression as used in this bodk. It does not mean merely something that happens as a pesult of the subjective experience or an emotion; a is, it is not merely expressive behavior. Rather, it is a pattern of neuromuscular activity that constitutes a com- ponent of emotion. Like all activity patterns, it has specific meaning and relationships with particular antecedents and consequents. It is expression, mainly in the sense that it communi— cates something both intra—psychically and socially. Descriptions of facial expressions depicting certain affects dates back as early as 1667 when the painter LeBrun published "Conferences," a work containing some remarks describing the facial expression of fright. Camper (1792),\ Bell (1806, 1844), Piderit (1859), and Burgess (1859) followed LeBrun with detailed descriptions of the movements of the facial muscles which accompany different affects. Duchenne (1862) was the first to publish photographs of the intricate movements of facial muscles. Darwin (1872) reports that he showed several of Duchenne's photographs to more than 20 males and females of different ages, asking them to label any emotions which they saw in the photos. Darwin found discrepancies among his subjects in terms of the labels which they used to describe the pictures. Darwin's labeling experiment could be considered an un- sophisticated forerunner of the Emotion Labeling Experiment developed by Izard (1971). Izard used an Emotion Labeling Experiment and an Emotion Recognition Experiment to cross- culturally validate 52 photographs of facial expression for eight emotion categories. The eight emotion categories were interest-excitement, enjoyment-joy, surprise—startle, distress—anguish, disgust-contempt, anger-rage, shame— humiliation, and fear-terror (Izard and Tomkins, 1966; Tomkins, 1962). Subjects generated their own emotion labels for the photographs during the Emotion Labeling Experiment, while the Emotion Recognition Experiment consisted of subjects matching one of the eight given labels with each of the 52 photographs. In addition to responding to the labeling and recognition experiments, subjects answered questions regarding their attitudes toward the eight emotion categories (Emotion Attitide Questionnaire). Izard's cross- cultural recognition experiments resulted in a better than chance agreement among subjects for the 52 photographs and the eight categories. He found less agreement among sub- jects for responses to the Emotion Labeling Experiment, and the answers to the Emotion Attitude Questionnaire produced the least percentage of agreement among subjects. Izard also investigated male-female differences in terms of percentage of agreement for the labeling experiment. Females across cultures were in greater agreement for labels used to describe the photographs than males. Need Although Izard's cross—cultural studies indicate that females scored slightly higher than males for the labeling of facial expression, research on sex differences and the identification of facial expression has not produced' consistent and conclusive results. Most research within this area has either resulted in no sex differences (Black, 1969; Allport, 1924; Guilford, 1929) or sex differences favoring females as more accurate than males in identifying certain affects (Kozel, 1969). Exploring the attitudes and personal experiences of perceivers of facial expression and how their attitudes relate to their perceptions is a relatively new area of study. Izard used an Emotion Attitude Questionnaire to assess cross—cultural attitudes toward the eight categories (Izard, 1971). However, he did not study the relationship between attitudes of individual subjects and their per- formance in identifying the photographs. Schiffenbauer (1974) found that the emotional state of the perceiver of facial expression influenced his judgments of the photo— graphs of facial expression. Izard's subjects for the cross—cultural studies ranged in age from 18-50; he did not investigate age as a factor influencing responses to the photographs. Most researchers who have investigated age differences as a factor in the labeling and recognition of facial expression have been concerned primarily with developmental dif- ferences among children and adolescents. Developmental studies with children and adolescents indicate that accuracy of labeling and recognition increases with age (Izard, 1971; Kwint, 1954; Gates, 1925). The present study examined how the age, sex, and attitudes of a perceiver affect perceptions of emotion in facial expressions. The population of interest was divided into three age groups: 18—55, 55—60, and 60+ (Havighurst, 1956) for the purpose of the present study. Havighurst's model of deve10pmental tasks focuses on the intellectual, physical, and social tasks associated with six stages of growth from infancy to later life. Izard's cross cultural validation studies for the photographs and emotion categories used in the present study included subjects from 18—50 years of age. Havighurst's model provides a comparison group for Izard's study and supple- ments his research in terms of age range. Problem Statement At present, research regarding how sex differences affect the perception of facial expression of emotion is conflictual, whereas research investigating adult age group differences is nonexistent. Exploring attitude differences is relatively new in the area of perception of facial expression of emotion. In addition to the need for more information regarding factors which affect the perception of facial expression of emotion, there appears to be a need also to discover a viable tool for assessing these differences and similarities. Purpose The purpose of this study was twofold: to compare the emotion recognition and labeling behaviors of three age groups, 18~55, 55~60, and 60+, and genders within these age groups to photographs of facial expressions; and to compare the attitudes of these age groups toward the eight emotion categories depicted in those photographs. Rationale Researchers who have been active in the develOpment and classification of photographs of facial expression have also contributed to a theory of emotion. Tomkins (1962; 1965) contends that facial expression and emotion are synonymous (Tomkins, 1962; 1965). Izard advocates that facial expression is a component of the emotion process and that facial muscles are most important in the differen— tiation and communication of emotion (Izard, 1971). If one accepts the assumption that facial expression of emotion is universal, as well as an important aspect of the communication process, further research will contribute to the understanding of the emotion process and will assist in the communication of that process interpersonally. Information derived from investigating age as a factor in identifying facial expressions will be useful within the context of a helping relationship where individuals of different ages learn various ways of recognizing their own and others' feelings. Exploring the attitudes and personal experiences related to the identification of facial expression will provide information on how personality differences affect the perception of facial expression. Examination of sex as a factor related to the perception of facial expression may clarify the contradictory and in- conclusive results which have already been obtained in this area. Hopefully, the present study will provide further insight into how age, sex, and attitudes of the perceiver affect and reflect the perception of facial expression and emotion. General Hypotheses There will be no differences between the three age groups for responses to the Emotion Labeling Test. Females within all three age groups will score a higher number of correct responses on the Emotion Labeling Test than will males within all three age groups. There will be no differences between the three age groups for responses to the Emotion Recognition Test. Females within all three age groups will score a higher number of correct responses on the Emotion Recognition Test than will males within all three age groups. There will be no differences between the three age groups for responses to the Emotion Attitude Questionnaire. There will be no differences between the three age groups for agreement between emotion reported to be experienced most frequently and emotion category with the highest score on the Emotion Recognition Test. There will be no differences between the three age groups for agreement between emotion reported to be experienced least frequently and emotion category with the lowest score on the Emotion Recognition Test. this Definition of Terms The following terms are defined for their use in study. 1. Facial expression - a pattern of neuromuscular activity that constitutes a component of the emotion process (Izard, 1971). Emotion category — one of eight emotion categories defined by Tomkins (1962; 1965) and Izard (1971): Interest—Excitement (IE), Enjoyment- Joy (EJ), Surprise—Startle (SS), Distress-Anguish (DA), DisgustcContempt (DC), Anger-Rage (AR), Shame—Humiliation (SH), and Fear-Terror (FT). Photpgraphs of facial expression - a set of 52 posed photographs of facial expression which have been cross—culturally matched with eight emotion categories; there are four photographs depicting each of the 8 emotion categories. Slides of facial expression - 52 numbered slides made from the 52 photographs of facial expression. Emotion Labelinngest (ELT) - a test devised by Izard (1971) to survey the emotion labels generated 'by subjects to describe the 52 photographs of facial expression. Emotion Recognition Test (ERT) - a test devised by Izard (1971) to study the emotion labels chosen by subjects (from a set of categories tn. “ CI provided) to describe the 52 photographs of facial expression. 7. Emotion Attitude Questionnaire (EAQ) - a ques- tionnaire created by Izard (1971) to study the attitudes of subjects toward the eight emotion categories. 8. Emotion labeling behavior — free response labeling of phot0graphs of facial expression. 9. Emotion recpgnition behavior - selecting from a set of eight emotion categories a label which matches each photo of facial expression. 10. Emotion attitudes - answers to questions regarding personal experiences and attitudes regarding the eight emotion categories. Delimitations Izard's Emotion Labeling Experiment, Emotion Recog- nition EXperiment, and Emotion Attitude Questionnaire were modified for the purposes of the present study. The format and wording of the directions for the labeling and recog- nition tests were changed to clarify the nature of the tasks. A maximum of 60 seconds for viewing and responding to each slide was added to the procedures for the labeling test. All subjects were given 60 seconds. This was done to insure that subjects from the 60+ group would have adequate time to respond to the slides, without allowing them more time than the other two groups. 10 Only six of Izard's original questions were used on the Emotion Attitude Questionnaire included in this study. The originalquestions which were omitted were: "Which is your 5rd most preferred emotion?” "Which is your 4th most preferred emotion?" "Which negative emotion do you experience most frequently?" "Which negative emotion do you experience least frequently?” "Which emotion do you understand the best?" and "Which emotion do you understand the least?" Four questions were added to the six remaining original questions: "Which emotion do you assume others see you experience most frequently?” "Which emotion do you assume others see you experience least frequently?” "Which emotion do you experience most frequently?” and "Which emotion do you experience least frequently?" Izard's cross—cultural findings were based on data collected from subjects who were tested in groups. The present study involved individual testing of subjects. Photographs used in this study were photographs of Caucasians, and they were posed, not spontaneous. The categorization of emotions used in this study is only one of several popular contemporary categorizations; labeling and recognition of emotion is confined to Izard's eight emotions only. The majority of subjects who participated in this study were single, not working, college graduates, with a gross family income of more than $15,000. Subjects 11 representing all three age groups were not typical of most individuals within these age groups in the United States, especially the 60+ age group. All findings in this study must be interpreted within the confines of the above delimitations. Summary In Chapter II the literature pertinent to the area of facial expressions and emotions will be reviewed. In Chapter III the design and analysis of the data will be described, including selection of the sample, testing of the sample, analysis of the measures used, and specific hypotheses to be tested. In Chapter IV the analysis of the data will be presented, and in Chapter V the results of the study will be discussed and the conclusions will be reviewed along with considerations for future research. Chapter II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The review of the literature will be organized in the following manner: a summary of the historical deve10pment of photographs and labels of facial expression; research supporting the universal theory of emotion; blind and sighted studies; age and developmental studies; age and sex differences in perceiving facial expressions of emotion; and personality characteristics related to the perception of facial expression. Historical Development of Use of Photographs and Labels Duchenne published the first photographs of facial expression in 1862 (Darwin, 1872). Duchenne's photographs were posed by one subject. Darwin used these photographs to conduct the first emotion labeling experiment. In addition to his own experiments and observations, Darwin collected observations of facial expression made by correspondents from around the world. Darwin categorized facial expression with the labels: love, mirth, happiness, surprise, fear, suffering, anger, determination, disgust, 12 13 and contempt. Feleky (1914) conducted the first systematic study of the emotion recognition of facial expression. Feleky posed for several hundred photographs, attempting to portray specific emotions. Subjects were presented with 86 numbered photographs and a list of over 100 names of emotions. Subjects were asked to select the emotion names and numbers which fit with the photographs. Most of her subjects were not in agreement on the labels they selected. Langfeld (1918) studied interpretations of 105 of the Rudolph (1905) pictures, sketches made from photo- graphs of an actor posing. Langfeld showed the pictures to six judges, four men and two women, on three different occasions. For the first two showings, Langfeld asked judges to write an explanation of the emotions portrayed. For the third administration, Langfeld showed the same pictures accompanied by the name of the emotion depicted in the sketches. Judges were allowed to either choose the emotions intended by the artist who made the sketches or to retain their original impressions. The judges were more consistent on the first two administrations and frequently did not discriminate their own judgments from judgments of other judges on the third. With the excep- tion of contempt and disdain sketches, Langfeld's results indicated that judges tended to be consistent. Langfeld's study gives an account of the process which judges reported 14 to experience while viewing the sketches: imagining situations which might have elicited the emotions, facial imitation of the sketches, and association with personal experiences. In another study, Ruckmick (1921) employed the posed photographs of one female actress to conduct the first study involving judgments of the t0p and bottom halves of the face. He considered the emotions posed as primary emotions, viz., love, hate, joy, and sorrow, or secondary emotions (surprise, distrust, repulsiveness, and defiance). Although he was one of the first researchers to distinguish between two major categories of emotion, his research is better known for evidence indicating that the mouth/bottom half of the face is superior to the top half in terms of providing information about the facial expression to the observer. The manipulation of the environment for the develop— ment of photographs of facial expression was first attempted by Landis (1924a,b). Landis presented a series of con- trolled stimuli to subjects in order to photograph their reactive facial expressions. He concluded that (1) there was no relationship between stimuli and facial expressions displayed, and (2) that there were no distinct facial patterns or expressions characteristic of particular feelings. Landis' statistical procedures and conclusions were later discredited (Davis, 1954), rendering another 15 study by Landis (1929), which included some of those photographs, invalid. Until Frois—Wittman's research, it appeared that results from most research involving the identification of facial expression was confounded by the stimuli and method— ology used by the researcher. Some form of categorization of emotion labels was also needed. Frois—Wittman (1950) compared judgments of the whole face with those of the top of the face and the mouth by asking 165 observers to judge 227 stimuli with the use of 45 emotion terms. The stimuli were posed photographs and drawings of the researcher's facial expressions. Thirty-two emotion terms used most frequently by Observers: hate-anger, disappointment- sadness, disgust-contempt, and horror-fear, were terms which were used concurrently and interchangeably most often by observers. Frois Wittman's contributions included: empirical data indicating correspondence between muscle movements and emotion labels used by observers; a classi- fication system for judging facial expressions; and the importance of the relativity of particular muscular move- ments to the whole muscular pattern in the display of facial affect. Woodworth (1958) addressed the problem of judging facial expression by presenting a six—step linear scale for the classification of facial expression: (1) love, happiness, mirth; (2) surprise; (5) fear, suffering; 16 (4) anger, determination; (5) disgust; and (6) contempt. He found high correlations between photographs and judgments made by observers for data collected by Feleky (1914), Ruckmick (1921) and Gates (1927). Schlosberg (1941) studied Frois-Wittman's (1950) photographs and Woodworth's (1958) six«step scale;he derived two underlying variables for the classification of photographs: pleasantness— unpleasantness and attention-rejection. He concluded that the 6-step scale by Woodworth existed on a continuum for those two variables. The development of categories and classification systems for photographs resulted in: improved quality of muscle distinctions portrayed in photographs; and the discovery of theoretical constructs which could be investigated. Major categorizations of emotion since Schlosberg employed in research today are those of Plutchick ( 962), Tomkins (1962, 1965), Izard (1971) and Ekman (1972). Plutchick distinguishes between primary or pure emotions and secondary or mixed emotions. He considers the primary emotions to be: acceptance, disgust, anger, fear, joy, sorrow, startle, expectation or curiosity. Tomkins con— siders three categories: positive, negative, and resetting. The positive emotions are enjoyment—joy and interest- excitement; the negative are distress-anguish, disgust- contempt, anger-rage, shame—humiliation, and fear-terror. 17 The third emotion, surprise-startle, is considered a resetting emotion. Izard's (1971) research focuses on eight distinct and discrete emotion categories from Tomkins (1962, 1965). He has also developed 52 photographs which have been cross-culturally matched for those eight categories. A more detailed description of Izard's assumptions and methods is presented in.the next section. Ekman's (1972) literate and preliterate studies are based on six emotions: surprise, fear, sadness, disgust, anger, and happiness. Ekman (1972) and I7ard (1971) have conducted research which has produced the most empirical results supporting the universality of various facial affects. The Universal Theory of Emotion Researchers usually emphasize one of three different viewpoints when studying the relationship between facial expression and emotion: the universal theory, the culture— specific theory, or some combination of both. Most universalists contend that the same facial muscular movement is associated with the same emotion in all races of mankind through inheritance. Culture-specific theorists maintain that facial expression of emotion is akin to language and learned within each culture, having meaning only within the culture in which it is learned. ”Neuro-cultural,” a term coined by Ekman and his associates, is used to describe a viewpoint which explains facial expression as having both universal and specific cultural determinants (Ekman, 1971). 18 Darwin's research and acquisition of observations of facial expression from correspondents around the world constituted the first attempt to study the cross-cultural similarities in facial expression among peoples. Darwin accepted the idea that facial expression of emotion was universal and inferred that it was also inherited. During the last 10 years, the bulk of research on the relationship between facial expression and emotion has been directed toward supporting or disproving the universal theory of the facial expression of emotion. Cross-cultural studies by Izard (1971) and studies of preliterate cultures by Ekman (1972) lend support to the universal theory of emotion. The major distinctions between Ekman's and Izard's research are as follows: Ekman's research includes six instead of eight emotions: surprise, fear, sadness, dis— gust, anger, and happiness. Ekman's research methods include primarily the use of a recognition or matching of labels with photographs task. Ekman's theory includes details on cultural determinants of facial expression as well as universal determinants. Ekman's Literate and Prelitprate Studies Ekman's theory is referred to as ”neuro-cultural” (Ekman, 1972). ”'Neuro' refers to the facial affect program-~the relationships between particular emotions and a particular pattern of facial muscles. 'Cultural' refers to the other set of determinants--most of the events which 19 elicit emotion, the rules about controlling the appearance of emotion, and most of the consequences of the emotion" (Ekman, 1972, p. 5). According to Ekman, certain elicitors, either personal or non~personal, activate the feelings and associated facial muscles which are then regulated by display rules which alter the way in which feelings are expressed facially (Ekman, 1972). Ekman studied the cross—cultural similarities in identification of facial expression by showing photographs of facial expression to students in five literate cultures-- Japan, United States, Brazil, Chile, and Argentina. The six emotions studied were happiness, sadness, anger, fear, surprise, and disgust. Ekman's purpose in studying responses to the photographs was to show that the same facial emotions can be identified with a high percentage of agreement cross—culturally. The photographs used by Ekman were both posed and spontaneous, and of children and adults. The sources for the photographs were photo— graphs used in studies of facial expression from 1950 to 1966, including the Frois—Wittman (1950) photographs, photographs of mental patients (Ekman and Friesen, 1968), and others (Engen, Levy and Schlosberg, 1957; Tomkins and McCarter, 1964). Particular care was taken to exclude photographs which depicted blends of emotion categories. Results for the five sets of cultural responses were supportive of the universal theory. Percentage of agreement 20 for recognizing responses is found in Table 2.1. Subjects responded to the photographs by matching words provided in their language with the photographs. Table 2.1 Percentage of Agreement Across Five Literate Cultures for Six Emotion Categories Category, U.S. Brazil Chile Argentina Japan N—99 N-40 N-119 N—168 N-29 Happiness 97 95 95 98 100 Disgust 92 97 92 92 90 Surprise .95 87 95 95 100 Sadness 84 59 88 78 62 Anger 67 90 94 90 90 Fear 85 67 68 54 66 In addition to studies involving literate cultures, Ekman and associates conducted four experiments with pre- literate cultures. For the first experiment in New Guinea and Borneo, subjects were given several photographs and listened to stories told by the experimenter (Ekman, Sorenson, and Friesen, 1969). Subjects were expected to pick a photograph which matched a story about an emotion. The second culture study involved subjects from New Guinea, the Tore, who were given several photographs and asked to pick a photograph which depicted the emotion associated 21 with the story (Ekman and Friesen, 1971a). For the third ex- periment, New Guineans who did not participate in the previous experiment were asked to pose an expression imagined on the basis of a story told to them. The pictures posed by the New Guineans were shown to American college students unfamiliar with the culture, and all were judged with a high degree of accuracy. This study with the New Guinean posed photographs illustrated that they were equally able to pose and identify the six emotions, with the exception of fear, which is closely associated with surprise for this culture. The fourth experiment was conducted with another pre— literate group inhabiting New Guinea, the Danis. Ekman trained a couple, who worked with the Dani, to present photo- graphs and stories to them to study how well they matched the stories with the photographs. The results of the fourth and previous experiments were consistent: preliterate culture groups selected on the basis of their minimal contact with Caucasians and Western civilization were in agreement with judgments of literate subjects at least 79 percent of the time for five of the emotions. Lowest agreement was for the fear category, which was often associated with surprise. Izard's Categories, Photographsp_and Cross-Cultural Studies This section includes a summary of the deve10pment of the a priori definitions for the eight emotion categories and the 52 photographs of facial affect by Izard. A brief description of how Izard used the categories and photographs in conjunc— tion with the three tests used in this research is also included. 22 A Priori Definitions for the Eight Categories The eight emotion categories--interest-excitement, enjoyment-joy, surprise-startle, distress—anguish, disgust- contempt, anger-rage, shame—humiliation, and fear-terror—- were defined by Tomkins (1962; 1965) and Izard (1971). These categories were supplemented by additional defini- tional terms through the following process. Three judges selected terms which fit into the eight categories by using the Allport and Odbert (1956) lexicon. Terms selected were then submitted to judges familiar with the eight categories. Words agreed upon by 8 out of 10 judges were used for a pilot study with photographs developed by Tomkins (Tomkins and McCarter, 1964). On the basis of this pilot study, ambiguous or difficult terms were eliminated. Some new terms were added from free responses given by judges during a second pilot study with the same photographs. Terms derived from both pilot studies were presented to five judges familiar with the categories. Terms agreed upon unanimously by the judges were retained and are reported in Table 2.2. Photographs of Facial Expression The process of selecting four Caucasian photographs to represent each of the eight emotions was influenced initially by a compilation of descriptions of nine emotional expressions: interest—excitement, enjoyment-joy, surprise-startle, distress- anguish, disgust-revulsion, contempt-scorn, anger-rage, 23 Table 2.2 Eight Emotion Categories and Their A Priori Definitions Category A Priori Definitions Interest-Excitement Concentrating, attending, attracted, curious Enjoyment-Joy Glad, merry, delighted, joyful Surprise-Startle Sudden reaction to something un- expected, astonished Distress—Anguish Sad, unhappy, feels like crying Disgust-Contempt Sneering, scornful, disdainful, revulsion Anger-Rage Angry, hostile, furious, enraged Shame-Humiliation Shy, embarrassed, ashamed, guilty Fear-Terror Scared, afraid, terrified, panicked shame-humiliation, and fear-terror. The categories disgust- revulsion and contempt-scorn were later combined by Izard to construct the disgust—contempt category. Izard's compilation is presented in Table 2.5. Graduate and undergraduate students who participated in a previous study posed six of the Woodworth emotion categories (Woodworth, 195%0. The 1,000 posed photos were presented to three judges for goodness of fit with the categories. Those photos agreed upon by two out of three judges were later categorized by 50 new subjects, yielding 16 photographs. The 16 photographs were further categorized 4 2 .Hmommm mos moaxsfles ones so .emmmp 6cm mpmmmoao op Homage he: omoz .Hopmoep 6cm sophomm aoom oomm msexms .eflfiohm HoSoa as wmfinmmm .Uomflmm mxomso .ewmmmm mobooem Hmepmaommz .ommmp we QHH poems “Bonn gnome .ms was 3089 coaadm meoseoo .Hopmmsma Ge ”Sodomo hapgmfiam no pomoao on has mmefiflam aH .UoBMHH memmeoo memo: .meoseoo nopzo me poaeom moaxcflez . wcflnmzma me popmeommmxo meoev pomoao haflmflpem .pmwwem momm .onoSm ham>flpwaoe wwomoeow .poeosoa mapmweam msoeposm sowipmoSSOWQm .mfipnwflam Someone on Sea sonnopcs moopewg on awe weed spec: .mzoom Hmsmfle somemsm op ammomp mm womflme on ems moeaokm emsog .popmxflw can comomo haempmemmwmxo on he: moem doeosoa hfipnwflam so oopMfiH kapmweflm msoepomm pflofimpaoxmipmoeopsH psoao>oz so Commemom ohfipmom soepoam mmOflpoam Hopsoamwmsm ocflz map mo £08m as po>ao>aH mpdofioeoz 6cm moHSpmom Hmflowm one m.m manna 25 .msflodepoem hapnweam on has .eemseow ooeoa oanOp “Romp one szoo names meosmOo .pmmfime @HH Hogmb .Uemsms c3896 mason omom mo pHSmoe .Uomoao haamflpemm op.%mz .erosoa Mapgweflm on he: .poaeow memos op omoa some Seesaw ”passed pogmsm emsoa mo Hopdoo “emcee .csoc Sesame was me mswep meoseoo .oomoao mfiamflpmme mason memo .Uopowepdoo mpflaohm .meoneoo Honda mmozpop Mommas moaxmflez Hwoepeo> .mapnmflam poeosoa so confine on mos memnHoo HocmH .eonpomOp ozoepomo wmeaadm .oopomepdoo moaomsz .popmchHo meme emzoa mo moaomsa “Momam .moaxsees omeoe instep mmflpmoeo .oopowepnoo haampGONfleon moaomsz :.o: am Show op coccaoe was memo SHHmSmD .mmfixcfiap no copedoe 6mm Como owe: Hompfio on km: .mapswflam donosoa so Amoho ammo Spflsv confine on be: fine: mohm mzoepomm memo: mohm pwofloeog one msoepohm Ssh whosoeom memos mokm msoepohm GoemHS>mmipmSmmflm nmesmcsimmoepmflm mapempmiomflemesm pmmao>oz no soapflmom Aeesqfleeov m. m eases oedemom new poem 26 .ooeosoq doom .mpoop dmozpop ooxoSp on no .mapsmflam owsepoem Hompflo was mea emzoq .pommoemow meomeoo .dfl asses mmflq memo: .wcflonmaw Ho .poeosog mmhm .dsop GSmec on has meoneoo emde mzoepohm .haomemsmmmmp so SHHmOpro> poaxsflez on he: pmozmeom soapmflaflssmioammm .cflmfle one Somewepm moaomdz xooz .oopcwpmflp mHHepmoz omoz .mpomp omomxo op #089 names on has so .wmmmmemaoo mapmmep on Sea mafia .3mn can ease to spaenmam .afipewap eeseceae seesaw: seems ghee: .Uopowapmoo maflmsm .oosooeoe oaooon he: .copwxflm .opfis oosomo moem .smospop moaxsfles Hwoflpeob wmflmswo .csop 6cm Hospomop gamma msompohm owmmaeowmg Acossflpdoov .coaxsfies .95 Gamma omoz mommas>mmipmdmmfim pcoaoeoz Ho soapflmom oedpmom Homeosm fleesewpeoov msw eases 27 .esme :.aeapoam we wees: .m Haoeewo .pemNH ”meadow .oemSpSo Seesaw on has maflepmoz omoz .xomp CBOpr on he: poem .mpSOE mo panameoa hp n30© newem mxmopo .eoosm m up confine op has spa homes mo oppm omo .msHUSHpoeg mapsmflam .pomeme QHH Hosea .oommommop whomeoo spec: .woSOHemm popsoeom momm .pompo opp camp Mommas Sappmpam comets op has ego msoepoem spoomtpmaopcoo .ompmam mapepmoz omoz .mpSOS mo noppom op one .xowp 6mm msop asses mpemm eosog mxoomo .pommoemop one Romp ashes meoseoo .oewfle .soeo Spec: .Uopmawpo mapmsm .wmpempm .somo haodp3 mohm .womfimm mzoepmhm .haompo>mmwep poaxmfipz emopoeom someoeiemom pco8o>oz Ho doepemom oedpwom doaposm newsmapcoov m.m apnea 28 with a criterion of 70 percent agreement by 10 or more American subjects. A goal to have a different person in each photo further eliminated some photos (Izard, 1971). The remaining set of photos was supplemented by photos posed by 25~50 Parisian university students. This new group of pictures was again screened by judges for goodness of fit with the remaining photos placed in a given category by 70 percent or more agreement of a group of at least 10 American subjects. The last set of photos developed were posed by 15 American actors and actresses studying in Paris. This set of photos was screened by judges and then submitted to a group of 10 or more American subjects for 70 percent agree- ment. The 70 percent agreement criterion was met for all photos except for a distress-anguish photo (50 percent agreement), a disgust photo (60 percent agreement), two shame photos (65 percent agreement) and a fear photo (about 60 percent agreement) (Izard, 1971).' Cross—Cultural Studies with Photographs, Emotion Categories and A Priori Definitions The Emotion Recognition Test and the Emotion Labeling Test were administered cross-culturally with the assumption that facial expressions are universal for the eight emotion categories. The Emotion Attitude Questionnaire was adminis- tered cross—culturally to explore intra and inter—cultural attitudes toward the eight emotion categories. The Emotion 29 Recognition Test required that subjects match pictures (presen- ted one at a time) with one of the eight emotion categories. The Emotion Labeling task required that subjects view pictures of facial expression and generate their own des- criptive labels for the pictures. Izard postulated that cross—cultural responses to the Emotion Labelling Test would result in less agreement than responses to the Emotion Recognition Tests. Izard considered performance on the Labeling Test to be more dependent on cognition and personality than performance on the Recognition Test. Emotion Recognition Studies University students from nine literate cultures ranging in age from 18~50 were tested in groups by test administrators of the same nationality and native tongue as the subjects. The average agreement across all nine cultures for placing the 52 photos in the appropriate cate- gories was 78 percent-—a chance agreement would have been 12.5 percent. The results for these 592 subjects are presented in Table 2.4. Emotion Labeling Studies The Emotion Labeling Test was administered to 268 of the subjects who participated in the Emotion Recognition Test. The subjects were tested in the same sitting and within groups by test administrators of the same nationality and native tongue. "Free response labels" (Izard, 1971) given by the subjects were judged by 15 raters who categorized .rpwr :.SOppoBm mo 000%: .m HHoapmo .ppmkH “woesom .momhawcw map mo pmoa 809m coUSHoxo 090 000 ommswcwa o>pp0a upmmp mp Mmmp 0gp o>fioooe pom 0H0 mawoflnmd mafia. .mpoonpnm poapa cmopnoa< map 00080 pcoaoonwm pcoonog 00.ru sownmppeo Hmopnpmso opp 000 mCoppmeoopmcoo Hmopponomcp prosom campeoo no 00009 coepooaom npflz .pcomoeaoe op copomaom 003 Opocm opp meomopmo ceppoao map 003 knowopmo chos one. 0.04 .4.00 v.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 ewepepa 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 000000.0000 0.04 0.e4 0.e0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.e0 0.00 0.00 eepeepppe40-eaeem 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.e0 0.e0 0.00 0.00 0.e0 0.00 ememueewea 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 peeepeooupmsmmpa 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.e0 0.00 0.40 0.40 nepswc4tmeeupmpn 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.e0 0.00 0.e0 0.00 eppnepmneepngnsm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sesueeeaaonem 0.e0 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 peeaepAOAMIpmenean 00 00 00 00 00 e4 00v 00 00 "2 "V U4 )000. S 3 WV I. Ld .d M D u a 0 O B nu S J 8 a on I e n.u i n e p. i T. I. u .A e a I. u I. w I. 0 t O S 8 S 3 S B S 8 t (a “M. S U; U1 U U; u amopw AH0Q00pmzv awedpfiso .mophowopmo H000: up Aomv monoom compenmoomm "mCOpposm mo mGOHmmohgxm Hwfiowm mo noppmofiMpmmmHo d.m oHDmB 51 responses in accordance with the eight emotion categories. Labels considered appr0priate for the eight emotion cate- gories are reported in Table 2.5. Average agreement for females across emotions was 56 percent; the average agree- ment for males was 50 percent. Percentages of responses judged to be correct are recorded in Table 2.6. Cross— cultural agreement was considerably less for this task than for the recognition task. Izard accounts for this difference by stating that performance on the labeling task involves more interaction with the cognitive subsystem of personality (Izard, 1971). Emotion Attitude Questionnaire Studies Five hundred thirty—three subjects who participated in the Emotion Labeling and Recognition experiments responded to the Attitude Questionnaire as well. Izard found the most prominent intercultural differences with the Emotion Attitude Questionnaire. Izard presented subject responses for only one of the questions used in the present study: "Which emotion do you most prefer to experience?" Data for cross—cultural responses to this question are reported in Table 2.7. In summary, preliterate studies and cross—cultural studies with literate cultures have resulted in findings which are supportive of the universal viewpoint. Studies comparing Na268 - 89 Americans, 62 British, 67 French, 50 Greeks 52 Table 2.5 "CORRECT" FREE-RESPONSE LABELS FOR THE SERIES I PHOTOS OF FUNDAMENTAL EMOTIONS (A Priori Definitions of Emotion Categories are Centered, Followed by Correct Transcultural Free-Response Labels in Columns.) INTEREST-EXCITEMENT Concentrating, attending, attracted, curious attentive concentration concern‘ contemplation‘ curiosity deliberating excitement" expectation‘ fervor“ questioning amusement gratitude“ inquisitive - reflection‘ bliss‘ happiness interest religious fervor“ clowning humor‘ observation“ seriousness contentment jovial pensive somber reflection delight‘ joy pondering thoughtfulness ecstasy laugh puzzlement wonder elation merry enjoyment“ mystical gaiety ecstasy glee‘ optimism SURPRISE—STARTLE ENJOYMENT-JOY Glad, merry, delighted, joyful Sudden reaction to something unexpected, astonished amazed amused surprise“ astonishment fearful astonishment joyful surprise DISTRESS~ANGUISH Sad, unhappy, feels like crying pleasant astonishment pleasant surprise“ shock startle‘ surprise surprise, fear surprise, joy surprise with fear DISGUST-CONTEMPT playful pleasantness pleasure rapture satisfaction sees something pleasant self- satisfaction‘ serenity‘ smile Sneering, scornful, disdainful, revulsion about to cry‘ grief sad aversion“ dislike scorn anguish hurt sorrow contempt distaste skepticism bad news loneliness suffering‘ cynical insolence“ smirk‘ crying melancholy“ troubled‘ derision mockery‘ smug“ dejected misery‘ uneasiness disapproval repugnance‘ sneer dejection not going well unhappy disdain repulsion superiority depression pain‘ unloved‘ disgust sarcasm despair pathetic upset‘ disappointment pity“ .worry distress ANGER-RAGE SHAME-HUMILIATION Angry, hostile, furious, enraged Shy, embarrassed, ashamed, guilty aggressive furious revenge‘ ashamed ‘ guilt shame anger fury spite bashful“ penitent shyness bitterness“ mad vengeful‘ embarrassment repentance“ timidity enmity‘ rage vexation“ ferocity‘ FEAR-TERROR Scared, afraid, terrified, panicked anxious fright scared apprehension horror terror fear panic‘ ‘Words unique to females Source: Izard, Carroll E. "The Face of Emotion," 1971. “Uords unique to males 33 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.e0 4.40 v.00 4.00 080000-4000 4.04 0.00 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.44 4.0 nopeepppesmueseem 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0000100004 0.00 v.04 0.04 4.00 0.04 0.44 0.00 4.04 0090000010040000 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.40 4.00 0.00 0004044100040000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 espeepmuemenmesm 4.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.40 0.e0 0.00 0.00 0001040000000 0.00 0.00 4.40 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.40 paeseppeAMIpmeeepee noppoam A00uzv Ammuzv .wmmnmw A4euzv mmmnmw A00uzv .mmmmmw A00uzv 0H080m 0H0: mamaom 0H0: mamaom 0H0: oflmaom 0H0: Romeo mmmmmm mmmwmmw smoflpms< Hopmg mmpmb ommpamopom #006 msflaopmq Copposm no ommommom :pooneooz mne>po mpoompsm Mo ommpcooeom w . N 0.3.08 54 .rbar :.m00poam mo 000m: .m Haoeemo .psmeH “moHSow .mofleowopmo 000p 0p0000se mmmfla moxoem .ommflaeops: 090 mmfleommpmo H000: 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0400000 immflemesm 000.00.00.00 00.0.0. 0.0.0... 0000.. 3.0.0.0. 0.0.0.0. see upcoshohcm psoemppoxm 00 e0 44 00 00 e0 00 .mm. 04 40 00 00 04 0e 00 -000nepep 0e 04 00 40 40 4e 00 0e 00 00 04 00 04 04 z 0 z 0 z 0 z m z 0 z 0 z 0 : omodmmmb Moose museum flmppozm mmaeow mmpamsm swofleoa< woodoeeomxm op emmmem 50% on doaposm poflflz "noppmodd Hop moamamm ameSpHdo s0>0m mo Amommpeooaomv momsommom Mo noepSQHHpmHm 0.0 00000 35 the facial expressions of emotion in blind and sighted children also demonstrate the universal and innate aspects of facial affect. Studies on Recognition of Facial Expression by Blind and Sighted Subjects Fulcher (1942) photographed and compared the facial expressions of 118 sighted subjects ranging in age from 4 to 16 with 50 blind subjects from 6 to 21 years of age. Both groups of subjects were asked to pose happy, sad, angry, and afraid feelings. Fulcher's findings indicate that sighted children exhibit more facial activity while expressing emotions upon request; however, both groups exhibited enough facial activity to portray the four emotions. Fulcher concluded that sight is an important factor in the ability to form appropriate expressions; however, visual imitation is only one way of acquiring that ability. Although Fulcher's instructions and pro— cedures for photographing his subjects may have interfered with his findings, his findings, Which indicate that blind children are capable of expressing facial emotion, have been supported by Thompson (1941), Goodenough (1932), Charlesworth (1970), and Eible-Eibesfeldt (1970). Charlesworth (1970) filmed surprise responses in facial expressions of the blind and sighted, noting no significant differences in facial patterns and facial activity between \ 4 UN both. His subjects were sighted and congenitally blind, ranging in age from 6 to 14 years. Thompson (1941) studied children ranging in age from 7 weeks to 15 years of age; 28 were blind and 29 were sighted. Subjects were photo- graphed in natural settings involving the expression of emotion. Judges defined the photographs in terms of a checklist of 10 expressions describing physical charac- teristics of the face. It was found that expressions of joy, sadness, and anger occur in the blind, but not as uniformly as in the sighted. She speculated that matura— tional processes were responsible for the demonstration of facial affect in blind children. Age and deve10pmental studies tend to support her findings. Age and Developmental Studies Odom and Lamond (1972) presented Izard's 52 photo— graphs of facial expression to two different age groups comprising a total of 64 child subjects—-52 boys and girls from the 5-8 years age group and 52 boys and girls from the 7-10 years age group. Izard's eight categories were also employed. For a discrimination task, children were expected to point to one of the 32 pictures upon hearing a test administrator read stories or situations depicting one of the photographs. The second task for subjects involved asking them to imitate faces on the photographs on the basis of hearing situational stories depicting the 37 eight emotions. The faces posed during the imitation task were filmed. Five raters were trained to rate the imitations according to appropriateness for each of the eight categories. Performance on the discrimination of photographs increased with age, with the exception of identification of the interest-excitement pictures, which was equally difficult for both age groups. Imitation of Izard's photographs did not improve with age as consis— tently as the discrimination performance did. However, for both tasks, the older children were more accurate with their matching and imitating behaviors. Izard studied responses to the emotion recognition and labeling tests by French and American children from ages 2 1/2 through 9 years. The recognition and labeling tasks were adapted for use with the verbal skills presented by the subjects. For the recognition task, children were presented with 56 sets of three photographs and asked to select the one which depicts one of the eight categories. For the labeling task, children were asked to describe verbally how the person in each of the 18 photographs was feeling. Agreement among the children on both tasks in— creased with age. Honkavaara (1961) investigated the differences among subjects of various ages from 5 to 80. She studied subjects' responses to concrete forms, colors, and photo- graphs depicting happy, miserable, and neutral emotions. 38 The youngest children subjects tended to respond to concrete aspects of photographs, e.g., clothing; their ability to label facial expression was found to increase with age. Accuracy of identification of photographs for adults was found to decrease for those subjects from 50 to 80 years of age who had limited formal education. Photographs and sketches used by Honkavaara included face only and full body representations. Her sources for the photographs were pictures from periodicals. Honkavaara's research findings were limited because she used various types of stimuli and provided few categories. Sex Differences in Perceiving Facial Expressions of Emotion Westbrook (1974) examined sex differences on several dimensions of the perception of emotion: accuracy of judgment of the emotion, attention paid to emotional cues, and type of error made when incorrectly judging emotions in relationship to emotions being expressed and sex of the expressor. Photographs of several peOple interacting were selected from magazines and were made into nine slides. One hundred subjects were given one point for every feeling word and any word modifying a feeling word. Hypothesized sex differences for accuracy in judging emotions were not supported. Westbrook's task did not include any categoriz- ation of feelings and her photographs did not focus on facial expression. n I 39 No differences were found between males and females in terms of perception of emotion portrayed in seven emotions: anger, happiness, surprise, fear, disgust, pain, and sadness, by Black (1969). The photographs were posed by Black and Caucasian actors. The 160 undergraduate student subjects representing both races were tested individually; they were provided with seven slips of paper, each with the name of one emotion and asked to match the slips with the photographs. Gitter, Black, and Mostofsky (1972) used the same emotion categories and testing procedures as Black (1969) to study race of perceiver, sex of perceiver, sex of expresser, and race of expresser. Their findings included no sex differences for sex of perceiver when subjects were asked to match one of the seven categories with photographs shown. Buzby (1924) utilized Boring and Tichener's (1925) descriptions of facial expressions and photographs to study the labeling and sex differences of 716 students. The expressions used were anger, dismayed, horrified, dis- dainful, disgusted, and bewildered. Subjects selected a feeling name provided to label the photographs. Women made a greater number of correct judgments than men, overall. Allport (1924), Guilford (1929), and Coleman (1949) utilizing the Rudolph pictures found no differences between males and females for the judgment of facial expressions of emotion. 4O Females representing four different cultures in Izard's cross~cu1tural study received a higher percentage of correct responses than males. The percentage of correct responses for females was 56 percent, for males, 50 percent. However, most of the literature indicates no sex dif- ferences in the labeling and recognitidn of emotion or slightly better scores for females. Rosenthal, Archer, DiMatteo, Koivumaki, and Rogers (1974) developed a Profile of Nonverbal Sensitivity (PONS) which measures a person's ability to understand nonverbal cues. The test consists of a 45—minute film which presents the viewer with a series of facial expression scenes, a few spoken audible sounds or scenes of various body postures and movements. Subjects describe scenes by making one of two choices provided on a test form, e.g., two possible answers for a portion of the film are "expressing jealous anger" or "talking about one's divorce." Females from 81 of 98 sample groups with both sexes included received higher scores on 11 aspects of nonverbal communication, including facial expression. "A Study of the Specificity of Meaning in Facial Expression" by Dusenbury and Knower (1938) resulted in females responding to photographs and films depicting a male and female facial expression more accurately than males. Eleven emotion categories, each including three synonyms, were provided for subjects to match the facial expressions 41 of the expressions in the films. In 4,004 judgments made by males and 4,552 judgments made by females, the differences in judgment between the sexes was estimated at a critical ration of 10.00 in favor of the females. Kozel (1969) studied race of expressor, sex of per- ceiver, and mode of presentation by using 70 still photo— graphs posed by five Caucasian and five Black actresses depicting seven emotions: anger, happiness, surprise, fear, disgust, pain, and sadness. Subjects judged the photo- graphs by using a list of the seven emotions provided. 0f the seven emotions, women were superior to men in accuracy of judgments for the happiness, fear, disgust, and sadness photographs. Personality Characteristics Related to the Perception of Facial Expression A number of researchers have attempted to correlate personality variables with the labeling and posing of photographs of facial expression. An ”Emotional Projection Test" by Glad and Shearn (1956) was developed as a diag- nostic tool for the study of affect responses of psycho— therapy patients. The test contains 30 pictures of facial expression, e.g., surprise, distress, disgust, which are assumed to reflect personality characteristics of the respondents. A comparison of major groupings of responses given by non—clinical and clinical subjects indicated that psychotics, neurotics, and adult normals differ in response to photographs depicting a variety of negative and positive emotions. The test has been used to assess client progress during psychotherapy. Schiffenbauer (1974) found that subjects viewing slides of facial expression were influenced by their own emotional state. Schiffenbauer induced various states of arousal by presenting different noises to the raters during the presentation of the slides. "The Emotion Projection Test" and Schiffenbauer's testing conditions suggest that the immediate emotional state of the perceiver can influence the labels used. Dougherty, Bartlett, and Izard (1969) found that normals were significantly more accurate than schizo- phrenics in identifying facial expression of emotion. Shannon (1971) discovered differences in the recognition of specific emotional states but no overall differences between normals and depressives and schizophrenics. Tomkins and McCarter (1964) showed photographs of eight affects to subjects assuming that a subject's pattern of errors in identification reflected his "Affect Sensi— tivity Contour." Conclusions drawn regarding a relation- ship between subject responses and identification errors are not definite. Izard's Emotion Attitude Questionnaire had been developed for the purpose of investigating attitudes toward 45 the eight emotions used in the Labeling and Recognition Tests. Further research with attitude inventories and other means of assessing how perceivers of facial expression make their judgments will provide useful information regarding the communication of emotion in clinical and non-clinical settings. Chapter III DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The purpose of this study was twofold: to compare the emotion recognition and labeling behaviors of three age groups, 18~35, 35~60, and 60+ and genders within the age groups, to photographs of facial affect; and to compare the attitudes of these age groups to the eight emotion categories depicted in these photographs. In order to test the hypotheses related to this purpose, the following design and procedures were formulated. H01: H02: Ho Ho Hypotheses No differences will be found between age group mean scores on the Emotion Labeling Test. The mean score for females within age group 18—55 will not exceed the mean score for males within age group 18-35 on the Emotion Labeling Test. The mean score for females within age group 35-60 will not exceed the mean score for males within age group 35-60 on the Emotion Labeling Test. The mean score for females within age group 60+ will not exceed the mean score for males within age group 60+ on the Emotion Labeling Test. 44 H05: H06: H07: HOB: H09: H010: H011: 45 No differences will be found between age group mean scores for the Emotion Recognition Test. The mean score for females within age group 18-35 will not exceed the mean score for males within age group 18—55 on the Emotion Recognition Test. The mean score for females within age group 35~6O will not exceed the mean score for males within age group 55-60 on the Emotion Recognition Test. The mean score for females within age group 60+. will not exceed the mean score for males within age group 60+ on the Emotion Recognitibn Test. No differences will be found between age group distributions of reSponses for any of the 10 questions on the Emotion Attitude Questionnaire. No differences will be found between age group distributions for agreement between "emotion ex- perienced most frequently" reported on the Emotion Attitude Questionnaire and emotion category with the highest score on the Emotion Recognition Test. No differences will be found between age group distributions for agreement between "emotion ex- perienced least frequently" reported on the Emotion Attitude Questionnaire and emotion category with the lowest score on the Emotion Recognition Test. All hypotheses were tested at the .05 level of significance. 46 Selection and Description of the Sample Subjects who participated in this study consisted of 60 individuals representing three age groups: 18-55, 55- 60'and-60+. The 18-55 group consisted of 10 graduate and 10 undergraduate students enrolled at Michigan State University during Winter and Spring terms, 1976. The graduate students resided in the graduate dormitory on campus. The undergraduate students resided in one of the undergraduate dormitories on campus. The Director of Residence Halls approved the selection and testing of resi- dents from those dormitories, as well as the use of rooms within both dormitories for the testing of subjects. A list of residents from the graduate dormitory was compiled; foreign students were excluded from this list. Each of the remaining 741 residents was assigned a number from 1 to 741. A list of residents from the undergraduate dormitory was provided. Each of the 1,287 residents was assigned a number from 1 to 1,287. A table of random numbers was used to select 50 residents, 25 males and 25 females, from each of the two dormitories. Memos were sent to these 100 students to explain how and why they were-selected; the memos also indicated that they would be contacted in person regarding their interest in participating in this study. Students were contacted in order of their random selection until five males and five females from each dormitory agreed to participate. 47 Seventy-two graduate and undergraduate students were con- tacted. Twenty-eight percent of those contacted agreed to participate. Students who refused to participate gave reasons of scheduling conflicts and lack of time. The 20 subjects in the 55-60 group were randomly selected from a list of Michigan State Faculty and Staff ranging in age from 55-60. This list was provided by the Office for Institutional Research, Michigan State University Office of the Provost. Each person on this list of 2,254 was assigned a number from 1 to 2,254. A table of random numbers was used to select 65 males and 65 females. These 126 faculty and staff members were sent letters explaining how and why they were selected. The letters also indicated that they would be contacted in person regarding their interest in participating in this study. They were con- tacted in order of random selection until 10 males and 10 females agreed to participate. One hundred and three faculty and staff members were contacted. Nineteen per- cent of those contacted agreed to participate in this study. Those who refused to participate reported the following reasons: lack of time, scheduling conflicts, and disinterest in the topic or field of psychology. Subjects from the 60+ group resided at a local Retirement Center. Residents of this Retirement Center were 65 years of age or older; most were retired Michigan State University faculty and staff or retired professionals. They had invested in life-leases ranging from $10,000-$50,000. 48 All intended to spend the rest of their lives there. A meeting was arranged with the Director of thie Retirement Center to explain the purposes and procedures of the study. Permission was obtained to select residents for participation and to test residents on the premises. A list of residents was provided. Residents who were either vacationing in Florida or confined to the health care unit of the retirement center were excluded from the selection process. Each of the remaining 85 residents was assigned a number from 1 to 85. A table of random numbers was used to select 20 males and 50 females. Individuals on this list were contacted in order of random selection. The majority of residents contacted initially refused to par- ticipate for reasons of ill health. Since residents con- tacted initially refused to participate for reasons of ill health and the mortality rate for this age group was assumed to be high, a decision was made to contact all 50 people on the list. Twenty-nine (58 percent of those con- tacted) agreed to participate, 18 females and 11 males. The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) vocabulary subtest was administered to these 29 individuals to screen out those who were below average in organizing associations into verbal meanings. All 29 scored average, above-average and superior. The WAIS vocabulary subtests were administered by graduate students at Michigan State University who were enrolled in "Individual Measures I" Winter Term, 1976. Shortly after all the vocabulary tests were administered, 49 one male subject died and another was admitted to the health care unit at the Retirement Center, leaving nine males. One more male subject was needed. Therefore, a random number was assigned to each of the 55 residents (no dupli- cates) who were included within the original list of 85 residents, but who were not included within the original list of the 50 randomly selected residents. The 55 ran— domly numbered residents were rank ordered from highest to lowest number, and the first male whose name appeared was contacted. He agreed to participate and scored above- average on the WAIS vocabulary subtest. He became the tenth male subject. These 10 males and the first 10 females out of the 18 who agreed to participate represented the over 60 group. Those who refused to participate reported reasons of ill health or the ill health of a spouse. Demo- graphic data.further describing the three age groups is presented in Table 5.1. Procedures for Testing Thirteen graduate students enrolled in Counseling Psychology at Michigan State University and professionals working within the field of counseling volunteered to be Table 3.1 Demographic Data for 60 Subjects 54 Education Gross Yearly Family Income Level Employment Status Marital Status Sex A 9 Gran U3IP°H use“ OSOIIOQ area; u uaqq axon 8991109 area; t 3991103 smog paqa1dmoo Ioouos HSFH Ioouos qSIH smog JSAO pue -coc‘§u3 666‘tb 'OOO‘OLS 666‘6 -occ‘¢8 666‘9 -oco‘§s 666‘? -ooo‘28 ooo‘és Japan Sutxaon 30M SWIQ-QJBd Sutxmon BWFQ-Ilnd Suthon paOJOAtq PGHOPIM parade“ atfiuts a1amag 91°” 5K) 22.2 22.0 46.9 45.5 11 12 14 2O 1O 10 18-95 18 11 2O 18 14 2 1O 1O 35-60 74.9 80.5 N 10 10 600’ 51 test administrators for this study. Test administrators participated in a two-hour group training program prior to administering the tests. During the training program, test administrators became familiar with the test materials and participated in a simulation of the test procedures. Test administrators were unaware of the research hypotheses for this study. Assignment of test administrators to subjects was based on corresponding time schedules. Test administrators and subjects met for the first time at the scheduled testing times. Each of the 60 sub- jects was tested on an individual basis by one test administrator. The following test materials were used with each subject: 1. Slide projector 2. Projector screen 5. 56 numbered slides of facial affect 4. Stopwatch 5 Pencils 6. Test packet containing subject consent form, demographic data form, and one c0py of each of the three tests (See Appendix A for copy of test packet) The slide projector and the projector screen were set up by the test administrator prior to scheduled test times. The Emotion Labeling Test, the Emotion Recognition Test, and the Emotion Attitude Questionnaire were administered 52 during the same 1 1/2 hour sitting. Subjects completed a subject consent form and a demographic data form before reading the instructions for the first test. The Emotion Labeling Test was administered first. Subjects were given 60 seconds to view each of the 56 slides and write down what they thought the person in each slide was feeling. When 60 seconds elapsed, the next slide was shown. The Emotion Recognition Test was administered imme- diately after subjects completed the Emotion Labeling Test. During the Emotion Recognition Test, subjects viewed the same 56 slides and in the same order as for the Emotion Labeling Test. Subjects were instructed to write the number of each slide under one of the eight feeling cate- gories and their a priori definitions. Subjects viewed the slides and responded at their own pace--taking 10—50 seconds to view and respond to each slide. The first four slides shown during the Emotion Labeling and Rec0gnition Tests were used to familiarize subjects with the test procedures and were not scored for the analysis of the data. The first four slides were labeled contempt-scorn by Izard (1971). The Emotion Attitude Questionnaire was the last test administered. This test consisted of 10 questions regarding attitudes toward the eight emotion categories and their a priori definitions. Most subjects completed this questionnaire within 10 minutes. 53 Procedures for Rating Subject Responses to the Labelinngest Five raters agreed to score the 60 subjects' responses to the Emotion Labeling Test. Three of the raters were males; two were females. Two raters were between ages 18-55, two were between ages 55-60, and one rater was over 60 years of age. Two of the raters held Ph.D. degrees in Counseling. One rater had a Master's Degree in Counseling, and one rater had a Master's Degree in Social Work. The 60+ rater was a retired Licensed Practical Nurse who had prior training in empathy and listening skills. The five raters participated in an eight-hour training program. The training program included a brief intro- duction to the purposes and procedures for this Study, familiarization with the eight categories of emotion and their synonyms, and experience in using the scoring criteria with several mock-up emotion labeling tests. Prior to the scoring of subject responses, it was decided that four out of five raters must agree on scores for each item before assigning a correct or incorrect score to that item. A criterion of four out of five rater agree- ment was chosen to increase the chances of eliminating scoring errors. Those items agreed on by only three out of five raters were scored incorrect. Plans were made to add five more raters and use a seven out of ten criterion if overall agreement between the first five raters (for the 1,920 items) resulted in less than 80 percent. 54 Raters scored subject responses independently of each other. Scoring materials used by raters included a master list for correct responses which corresponded with test item numbers, and a detailed description of the scoring criteria. The master list of correct responses for each category consisted of the emotion labels derived from Izard's cross-cultural research and the a priori defini- tions (Izard, 1971). Scoring criteria were classified according to two dimensions, i.e., correct and incorrect. Each of these two dimensions was divided into "clear cut" and "use your own judgment.” One of four possible scores was assigned to an item by a rater: (1) correct, "clear cut," (2) correct, "use your own judgment," (5) incorrect, "clear cut," (4) incorrect, "use your own judgment.” Descriptions of the scoring criteria and the master list used by raters are presented in Appendix B. At least four out of five raters agreed on 1,794 of the 1,920 items, yielding 95 percent overall agreement by the raters for 1,920 items. Items 8, 19, and 55 accounted for the greatest proportion of items on which only three out of five raters agreed. Items 8 and 55 were interest- excitement photographs and item 19 was a shame-humiliation photograph. 55 Assessment of the Instrument Reliability Analysis A Homogeneity Reliability was performed for the four items/photographs within each of the eight emotion cate- gories for the Emotion Labeling and the Emotion Recognition Tests. A coefficient of reliability computed by Hoyt's (1941) analysis of variance method gives the percentage of obtained variance in the distribution of scores for the four items within a category that may be regarded as true variance or variance not due to the unreliability of the four items. Homogeneity reliability coefficients are considered coefficients of equivalence which indicate how nearly the four ietms for each category agree or measure the same thing. A homogeneity coefficient of less than zero was considered indeterminate; a coefficient of O-.4O was con- sidered extremely poor; .40—.60 was considered poor; .60-.80 was considered fair—good; and .80-1.00 was con- sidered good—excellent. In other words, high homogeneity coefficients reflect a greater degree of similarity among four items within a category. Items within a category estimated to have a homogeneity coefficient of .40 or less were considered to be lacking in homogeneity. Items within six categories for the Labeling Test received homogeneity coefficients greater than .40; the two categories with coefficients less than .40 were distress-anguish 56 (indeterminate) and shame-humiliation (.07). Items within six categories for the Recognition Test yielded coefficients greater than .40; the two categories with coefficients less than .40 were enjoyment-joy (.50) and distress-anguish (.57). Items within the shame-humiliation category for the Emotion Recognition Test received the highest homogeneity coef- ficient (.65) and were considered to have a greater degree of homogeneity than items for the other categories on both tests. The shame-humiliation items for the Recognition Test were more likely measuring the same construct. Although the homogeneity coefficients for categories within the Recognition Test were higher than homogeneity coefficients for the Labeling Test, coefficients for both tests indicated that the four items within each category on both tests were generally not measuring unidimensional constructs. The Hoyt Homogeneity Reliability Coefficients for both tests are reported in Table 5.2. Since the homogeneity reliability coefficients were remarkably low, a comparison was made between reliability coefficients and the cell means and standard deviations (Appendix D) for categories within both tests. Examination of the three different calculations for specific categories led to the finding that cell means for the enjoyment—joy category were high while the variances were low, indi- cating that subjects were responding in the same way to those items; however, homogeneity coefficients for this 57 Table 5.2 Hoyt Reliability Coefficients for the Emotion Labeling and the Emotion Recognition Tests Category Labeling Test Recognition Test Interest-Excitement .46 .61 Enjoyment—Joy .55 .50 Surprise-Startle .49 .52- Distress-Anguish ** .57 Disgust-Contempt .50 .51 Anger-Rage .50 .57 Shame-Humiliation .07 .65* Fear-Terror .48 .46 * Highest homogeneity coefficient computed ** Indeterminate category were low. It appeared that there was a discrep— ancy between the three sets of results, i.e., although most of the subjects were responding correctly to the enjoyment-joy category on both tests, the homogeneity coefficients for this category indicated that items for this category were not measuring the same construct. A Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient was performed for the homogeneity coefficients and the ranked variances for the Recognition Test. The rank order correlation between the two was estimated at .77. It was determined that the 58 distribution of the reliability coefficients was reflective of distribution of variances among subjects within each category. The relationship between ranked variance and homogeneity coefficients is reported in Table 5.5. Table 5.5 Spearman Rank Order Correlation for Reliability Coefficients and Ranked Variances for Categories within Recognition Test 56 IE ‘ 54 DC SH 32 AR 50 FT 28 A 26 24 22 ss 20 DA 18 16 14 Variance EJ ON~PO\G)O .1 .2 .5 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 Reliability Coefficients IE = Interest-Excitement DC : Disgust-Contempt EJ = Emjoyment-Joy AR = Anger-Rage SS = Surprise-Startle SH = Shame-Humiliation DA = Distress-Anguish- FT = Fear-Terror 59 Given the high correlation (.77) between the homo- geneity reliability coefficients and the ranked variances, the validity of the Hoyt Reliability Coefficients as indicators of the homogeneity of items within a given category was questionable. An alternative indicator of reliability for items within categories was explored. Percentage of agreement for subject responses to specific items within categories and to each of the eight categories was examined for both tests. Within a category, the percentage of correct responses for an item and the percentage of subjects receiving correct responses for an item are the same. There were 60 subjects and 60 possible correct responses. For the Labeling Test, items 25 and 28 within the shame-humiliation category received the lowest percentage of correct responses, i.e., 5 percent; and item 22 within the enjoyment-joy category received the highest percentage of correct respon- ses,-i.e., 96 percent. For the Recognition Test, item 15 within the fear-terror category and item 17 within the disgust-contempt category received the lowest percentages of correct responses, i.e., 41 percent. On the same test, item 10 within the enjoyment-joy category received the highest percentage of correct responses, i.e., 98 percent. Items within the enjoyment-joy category received the highest percentage of correct responses for both tests, while items within the shame-humiliation (Labeling Test) 6O fear~terror and disgust-contempt (Recognition Test) cate- gories yielded the lowest percentages of correct responses. Table 5.4 serves as an illustration of percentage of correct responses/percentage of subjects receiving correct responses for individual items within each of the eight categories for both tests. Percentages of correct responses for all four items (i.e., out of 240 total responses) within each category for both tests were calculated and rated from highest to lowest. Percentage of correct responses for each category on both tests is reported in Table 5.5. Categories within the Labeling and Recognition Tests ranked the same from highest to lowest percentage of correct responses: enjoyment-joy, surprise-startle, anger-rage, interest-excitement, distress- anguish, fear-terror, disgust-contempt, and shame-humiliation. It appeared that subjects responded similarly to categories on both tests, with enjoyment-joy receiving the highest percentage of correct responses and shame-humiliation re- ceiving the lowest percentage of correct responses. The Spearman Rank Order Correlation between the labeling data from this study (Table 5.5) and the labeling data for Americans (Table 5.6) who participated in Izard's cross— cultural studies was estimated to be .82. The Spearman Rank Order Correlation between the recognition data from this study and the recognition data for Americans who participated in Izard's cross-cultural research was estimated to be .95. (51 noaameuammm em amaswn65-6666>6666 6-6 " 6H646H66 66666 66666666-66666H6 6-6 666666H666-66666666 6.6 “666666 46O. 444. O64. OmO. 600. 6O4. 65o. 6-6 654. 664.- 564.- 500. 600. 65o. 646.- 6-6 664. OO4. 64o. 456. 666. 560.- 6-4 656. 50m. 6-6 566. 466. 4-6 656. 556. 6-6 664. 446. 4-6 O64. 444. 6-6 6-6 6-6 6-4 6.6 4-6 6-6 6-6 6-6 66H6666 66666 66H6H666666 66H6666 666 6H66H3 666 mdflawpwfl dofipoam can 666963 mdoapmamssoo knowmmeIaopaH 5 .6 6366.. 6’7 .66666 6609 606 66066660 660 666663 nghmopo£@\a6pfl £66306 666 606 60666466600 8666-6666H 4H .66666 @609 606 msowmpmo 660 66:66: £666m06066\8666 66666 666 606 60666H66600 8666:6666H mH .66666 6609 606 66066660 660 666663 ngmsmopogm\smpfi 660066 666 606 60666566600 8666-6666H I NH .66666 £609 606 66066660 660 666663 Qmmmwopong\smpfl 66666 6:6 606 60666466600 ampflsmmpCH I 6H 660. 654. 646. 406. 466. 546. 666. 466. H6666 664. 644. 646. 466. 665. 66O.- 666. 666. 4H 464. 566. 666. 6O6. 666. 666. 666.- 664. NH 666. 6O6. 66O. 666. 556. 644. 66O.- 646. 6H 666. 664. 444. 566. 4O6. 4O4. 644. 660.- 4H 6696660606M\6866H 6666606666600 606 66666 60666660066.606bosm 666 mafiamnmg soaposm 6663666 660666666600 amlesmeH 6.6 666.66 68 discrepancies between high mean scores and low coefficients for the enjoyment-joy category were discovered for the Recognition Test. A Spearman Rank Order Correlation yielded a .77 correlation between ranked category variances and reliability coefficients. Therefore, percentage of correct responses for categories and items within cate- gories was chosen as an indicator of reliability. Categories for both tests were ranked from highest to lowest percentage of correct responses: enjoyment—joy, surprise-startle, anger-rage, interest-excitement, distress— anguish, fear—terror, disgust-contempt, and shame4 humiliation. The same items within categories for both tests which resulted in highest percentage of correct responses were surprise—startle, item 50; distress—anguish, item 26; anger-rage, item 27; shame-humiliation, item 19; and fear—terror, item 42. Items receiving lowest per- centage of correct responses for both categories were surprise-startle, item 53; distress-anguish, item 5; anger- rage, item 21; shame—humiliation, item 28. There was less variation in percentage of correct responses for items within the interest—excitement and enjoyment—joy categories (both tests) in comparison with the other six categories. The relationships between categories for both tests were determined by performing inter—category correlations. The results indicated that categories for both tests were distinct, with minimal overlap. Inter-item correlations 69 comparing the same item on both tests resulted in low correlations, indicating that items for both tests measured different constructs. In general, there was a higher number of correct responses for items and categories on the Recognition Test. In conclusion, the assessment of the instrument reported thus far indicated that the Labeling and Recog- nition Tests were measuring different constructs and both tests consisted of discrete categories, while items within the interest-excitement and enjoyment-joy categories appeared to be measuring unidimensional constructs to a greater degree thanitems within other categories for bothtests. In order to assess the instrument further, factor analyses were performed to determine whether the correla- tions between the 32 items with each other would result in a reduction or rearrangement of the 52 items to a smaller set of factors or components. Factor Analysis A factor analysis was performed to explore and detect the patterning of relationships among items within each of the two tests, Labeling and Recognition. A two-part process was employed to determine if the factor structure reflected the eight a priori categories: a principal components factor analysis with no assumptions about expected structure was performed, followed by a varimax rotation setting the number of factors to eight. Factors were then cast into a :70 contingency table to indicate degree of match between empirically determined factors and a priori categories. This process was done twice. In the first attempt, the number of factors rotated to varimax criterion was determined by the eigen value threshold set at 1.00. Twelve factors emerged for the Recognition Test, and fourteen factors emerged for the Labeling Test. The factor loadings for factors and items, setting a minimum value for factor loadings at absolute value of .40, are reported in Table 5.9 for the Recognition Test and in Table 5.10 for the Labeling Test. Items are coded by abbreviations for their emotion cate— gories. Items within factors which are asterisked are items which correlated to a greater degree with that factor than with any other factor. The 12 factors for the Recog- nition Test and the 14 factors for the Labeling Test were recorded on separate contingency tables to indicate degree of match between empirically determined factors and a priori categories. The contingency table for the 12 Recognition factors is Table 5.11, and the contingency table for the 14 Labeling factors is Table 5.12. The varimax rotation yielding 12 ReCOgnition factors resulted in the following items with a frequency of at least three items per category: fear-terror, items 12, 15 and 24, as factor two components; interest-excitement, items 8, 51 and 55, as factor three components; all four shame-humiliation items, factor five components; and oo.r| 8. 06. 05. 00. IMVWIW 05. 646-6 .540-6 .fe-. 6.6.0? owho me 04. 66-6 06..| -v---IIIIIIIIIIIIII|v|-.- I-I. . o. -t- .-I-.IIII|IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllyuIIIO 546-6 046-6 664-6 6<-6 466mm wwmum mwnm 646-6 06 .¢ 6wm-6 .u<-6 456-6 rmmtq. NVOIQ urmml< 0+». 466-4 .456-6 646-6 646-6 .646-6 44m-< 556-6 05. MN .446-4 .66<-o .440-n .646-6 eh 66666 325666: m :66: 6606066 64 wc666666 H6666: 606066 copmuom x63666> ®.m oHDmB 7U? 4‘ OO.r| co 0 06. .566-6 .646-6 05. 06. 05. ommmlm wmdna n6-P- o¢.-u 666-6 446-< 646-6 060-6 05. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 666-6 466;. 650. a on.” 0 466-6 5<-n 656-6 566 6 66-6 566-6 66¢-6 540-6 664-6 66¢-6 , 664-6 .666-6 466-6 66<-o 04. 650-6 656-6 666-6 046 6 466 6 .650-6 .666-6 .046-6 .656-6 .466-< 05. §®WIH 06. .666-6 - .5<-6 .646 6 .64m-< . .666 p .440-6 .44m-< 05 eBVOIQ «QMIH ermW9H qDNEId oNNblm OONO'Q {WW-IN iNTBIaH .m—MWIW . Bdln nmmlm ndWhlm «Ommtm Om . . .546-6 .MMWIH 00 . 00.4+ 46 54 .64 44 04 6 6 5 6 .6 4 5 6 4 6668 wc666666 :06605m 6:6 606 0064.66 6:66> 26w6m 8:86:62 6 6663 6606066 #4 ws6c6666 x6666: 606066 ©66660m x68666> 04.6 6366. 73 Table 5.11 Contingency Table for 12 Recognition Factors Determined at Eigen Value 1.00 and Eight A Priori Emotion Categories I-E E—J S—S D-A D-C A-R S-H F-T Table 3.12 Contingency Table for 14 Labeling Factors Determined at Eigen Value 1.00 and Eight A Priori Emotion Categories I-E E-J S-S D-A D-C A-R S-H F—T 1 2j4j6789’1011’12’15’14 211 74 disgust-contempt, items 14, 17 and 52, as factor six com— ponents. The varimax rotation yielding 14 Labeling factors yielded: anger-rage, items 18, 21 and 27, on factor three; all four enjoyment—joy items on factor five; and disgust- contempt, items 17, 20 and 52, for factor 15. A second factor analysis was performed by presetting the number of factors at 8 for both tests. The correla— tions between items and factors, setting a minimum value for the factor loadings at absolute value .40, are presented in Table 5.15 for the Recognition Test and in Table 5.14 for the Labeling Test. Items are coded by abbreviations for their emotion categories. Items within factors which are asterisked are items which correlated to a greater degree with that factor than with any other factor. Con- tingency tables for the eight categories and eight factors are presented in Table 5.15 for the Recognition Test and in Table 5.16 for the Labeling Test. The correlation coefficients between each item and each factor for both tests are presented in Appendix E. The varimax rotation with number of factors set at eight for the Recognition Test yielded the following factor with a frequency of three components: fear4terror, items 12, 15 and 24, for factor two; interest~excitement, items 8, 51 and 55, for factor three, all four shame—humiliation items for factor five; and surprise-startle, items 15, 55 and 56, '75 75 Table 3.15 Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix Setting the Number of Factors to Eight for'the Emotion Recognition Test F1 .F2 F5_ F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 0 1.00 . 90 .80 EJ10‘ IE55‘ IE31‘ AR27* AR18* FT25’ .70 IEB"I 8830‘ SH28‘ DC20* # t 139‘ FT15 SH16 .60 FT24* SH25* * * t * D‘Aeg. * EJ6 8813* AR11 DC17 AR21 8336 .50 FT12* DA7* SH19* EJ34‘ DA7 EJ54 8815 .40 SH19 EJ22‘ AR21 DA26‘ AR18 EJ6 EJ34 FT12 DA5* IE8 SS1} + .50 D014 _DA7 DA26 DC14 $850 AR21 $833 0 -S§3§ _____________________ §H19 ...... - 030 DA29 DA5 .49 DC§2* DC143 .50 $853 .60 -.7O -.80 -.9O Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix 76 Table 5xfl+ Setting the Number of Factors at Eight for the Emotion Labeling Test F1 F2 F5; F4 F5 F6 F2, F8 + 1.00 .90 .80 3830* EJ54* DC17* FT24* .70 5313* DA26* DC14‘ * ‘ * EJ22, IE9 SH28 gggo* FT15. .60 AR11* AR21‘ FT25* SH25‘ 8856‘ SH19* IE8* FT12* '50 AR18* DC20* DA * FT12 IE51* 7 DC 2* D052 '40 ' A23?! ‘ SH19 ARE? IE51 8856 DA29 '+ .30 £529 SHqg SH28 O ................................ 4 .30 DA29* .ao D020 5353' .60 070 .80 DA5* SH16' .90 - 1.00 77 Table 5.15 Contingency Table for Comparing Eight Factors with Eight A Priori Categories for the Emotion Recognition Test _fl 2 ,5 4 «5 6 7 I-E 5 1 E-J 2 S-S 1 1 1 D—H 1 1 2 D—C 2 1 1 A-R 2 S-H 4 F—T 5 Table 5.16 Contingency Table for Comparing Eight Factors with Eight.A Priori Categories for the Emotion Labeling Test 1 2 5 4 5 6 7 I~E 1 2 1 E—J 1 5 S-S 1 D-A 1 2 1 D—C 1 2 A-R 1 5 S—H 1 F-T , 1 1 2 78 for factor eight. The varimax rotation with number of items set at eight for the Labeling Test yielded the following factor components: anger-rage, items 18, 21 and 27, for factor three; disgust—contempt, items 17, 20 and 52, for factor five; and enjoyment4jov, items 6, 10 and 54 for factor six. In general, results for the two factor analyses on both tests indicate that the relationships found between factors and items do not reflect all eight a priori categories used in this study. Therefore, an additional factor analysis was performed for three factors. A varimax rotation setting the number of factors to three for both tests was performed on the basis of Tomkins' (1962; 1965) classification of facial expression of emotion. The three categories are: positive, negative, and resetting. Interest-excitement and enjoyment—joy are classified as positive, with surprise— startle classified as resetting; and distress-anguish, fear— terror, shame—humiliation, disgust-contempt and anger-rage classified as negative affects. The varimax rotation to three factors for the Recogni- tion Test yielded the following item components with a frequency of at least three for each factor: interest- excitement, items 8, 21 and 55, for factor one; distress- anguish, items 7, 26 and 29, for factor one; disgust-contempt, items 14, 17 and 52, for factor one; all four surprise- startle items for factor two; fear-terror, items 12, 15 and 25, for factor two; shame—humiliation, items 16, 19 and 25 79 for factor two. Contingency tables reflected the frequency of items within the categories for the three factors are Table 5.17 for the Recognition Test and Table 5.18 for the Labeling Test. The varimax rotation to three factors did not reflect the three a priori categories by Tomkins (1962; 1963)- This rotation yielded the following factor components with a frequency of at least three components for each fac- tor on the Labeling Test: four surprise—startle items for factor one; interest-excitement, items 8, 51 and 55, for factor two; fear-terror, items 15, 24 and 25, for factor three; and distress-anguish, items 5, 26 and 29, for fac- tor three. Table 5.19 contains the factor loadings for the Recognition Test, and Table 5.20 contains the factor loadings for the Labeling Test. The last factor analysis performed was a varimax rotation for two factors, positive and negative, for both tests. Positive affects defined as interest excitement, enjoyment~joy, and surprise4startle. The negative affects were defined as disgust—contempt, shame—humiliation, fear- terror, distress—anguish, and anger—rage.t Tables 5.21 and 5.22 indicate that the positive and nega- tive items did not comprise separate categories. Contin— gency Tables 5.25 and 5.24 indicate the frequencies of items within categories for each of the two factors. In general, the two-factor rotation yielded the highest number of items within a category comprising both of the two factors. 80 Table 5.17 Contingency Table for Comparing Three Factors with Eight A Priori Categories for the Emotion Recognition Test Category, 1 2 .2 IE 4 EJ 2 2 SS 4 DA 3 1 DC 5 1 AR 1 1 2 SH 1 1 2 FT 1 1 2 Table 5.18 Contingency Table for Comparing Three Factors with Eight A Priori Categories for the Emotion Labeling Test Category_ 1 2 5 IE 5 1 EJ 4 SS DA 1 2 1 DC 2 AR 2 1 1 SH 2 2 FT 1 5 81 Table 5.19 Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix Setting the Number of Factors to Three for the Emotion Recognition Test .F1 F2 F5 -+ 1.00 ' .90 .80 70 IE8* DA29‘ EJ6. AR18‘ .60 IE51‘ EJ10* AR27‘ DC14‘ SH28‘ FT12* SH19* 0017* '50 DC52* ss15* $336, EJ22’ SH25‘ EJ54‘ IRES: ARq’] * .40 AR21‘ ss30* FT12 SS5O DA26* EJ54 AR11 ssaa* SH19 -+ .50 DA7* SH25 DAS‘ “7 DC20* o - -159: ________ 5818*- -F22§*F _ _ _ -883? _ 9017 _____ - .30 FT15 .40 FT15 FT15‘ .50 FT24‘ .60 .70 .80 - 90 -1.00 82 Table 5.20 Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix Setting the Number of Factors to Three for the Emotion Labeling Test F1 F2 F3 + 1.00 .90 .80 .70 8850* 8815* FT24‘ .60 AR11* AR27‘ EJ22* * * '50 AR21‘ 3J6. 5556 DA26 FT AR DA DC 15* 18* 26 14* .40 ‘EJ10* 9*DC52'IE“DA + .50 51 29, EJ1O SS56 FT12* FT IE DA DC 8833* 25* 31‘ 29 3?. o _ -Eg33‘ ......... D27: .................. SH25‘ 1351 8H16* 8H19* 7 '30 8H28* DAS’ .40 IE55* IE8* '50 D017* .60 D020* .70 .80 .90 -1.00 85 Table 5.21 Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix Setting the Number of Factors to Two for the Emotion Recognition Test F1 F2 + 1.00” -90 .80 -7O 168* DA29* .60 * IE31 EJ6* 8850* '50 t # A1318"K SH19 FT12 EJ10* 8815* AR21* 8H25* .40 AR11* D032* 8855* 8856* 8H28* Aqu FT12 SH19 + . . 30 EJ22 D020, AR27‘ FT25* FT15* 8H16* FT24‘ - .50 .40 .50 .60 ~70 .80 -9O - 1.00 84 Table 5.22 Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix Setting the Number of Factors to Two For the Emotion Labeling Test F1 F2 +1.00 .90 .80 .70 .60 50 SS50* AR27* ' EJ22‘ 8856* 8815* IE51‘ D017* D020* .40 EJ10* .DA26* D92... 0 * It It FT” - 5333 SH“) FT25“ IE8“ FT15“ FT24“ o .- 19:64: ._ -A131§* ...... , _ - - -1235? ___________ . 8H28* DA5* DA7* 8H16* - .50 SH25“ AR11 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 -1.00 85 Table 5.23 Contingency Table for Comparing Two Factors with Eight.A Priori Categories for the Emotion Recognition Test Category 1 2 IE 4 EJ 2 2 SS 4 DA 4 DC 3 1 AR 1 5 SH 1 5 FT 2 2 Table 5.24 Contingency Table for Comparing Two Factors with Eight A Priori Categories for the Emotion Labeling Test Category 1 2 IE 4 EJ 4 SS 4 DA 2 2 DC 4 AR 4 SH 2 FT 1 5 86 In summary, the factor analysis with no assumptions about expected structure, as well as the factor analyses preset to eight factors, were not reflective of the eight a priori categories. Additional factor rotations preset to three and two factors did not bear fruit either. Design of the Study The present study employs a multiple measures design for an age group main effect and a sex within age group effect across three measures. A pictorial representation of the design is presented in Table 5.25. Analysis Procedures A two—way multivariate analysis of variance was performed for age group effect with Planned Comparisons for the sex effect nested within each of the three age groups for the Emotion Labeling and Recognition Tests. In the event that Multivariate Analysis of Variance would result in significant differences at the .05 alpha level, a uni- variate analysis of variance for each of the eight emotion categories will be conducted to determine on which category (ies) the age groups and/0r sexes within age group dif— ferences occurred at the .00625 alpha level. A .00625 alpha level for the univariate analyses was determined by distributing the .05 alpha level evenly across the eight categories. In cases where the univariate analyses would 87 wnfimcsofiummdd mnsufipp< nofipoam u r: nonpmelammm : mm cowpwwafiasmooamzm I am owmmihwmc< u on agsmpcoonumsumfin u mm gmfiswcoHcd compomdmwomm maomzl opzuosc amazon mmmcwnrocd endomoaa mmocHduusmsonp hSMLOMLoazm Swanson» mmmcMcmmmmHa cofipomauop uwneom mcwhmmCu mcwpoddru Hrummam mmmcmso«umm cmezm sogpon Emwswpao po>pmu msonHHmk mafia van amaamom Hoowgmxs :ofiuowahmn xpwsm sown paw; magma wcficofipmwzc Emfiowpamxm cwpocpma no”: omeQAjm cwsma ecoEoHuusa Haganoom swam 50m .omwuapdm Hdchow wcwumcnoa :poom HHmB mamom go: Lao; .mmwuapzm ho“ w>wmcoa cofiamxm> Emwopmm hnmmwa mwpahdo wa>0m newua>hompo HaummCo> cowoap>op zaococmaos wooowaxocv hoes: omupmufia mpwdm conazamp mumcfiamcoa usanquom Op mmocwaam: o>prmH=cqfi mwco>op mesmcmdaog pen: sewpomwp Conosm onspwpmpm uo>uwu ommp hpmxoos uofipm magpwom mmam cowpwpowaxw Moshe» hpwcwewp one mucoHOucw mcwmpo wxwa mamoc xoozm cwam acoEouHoxo vmwuwuhou momc55w oHHpmoz oummcmmv mmoppmmn commando vcawmoaq zuowmm wcwpmpwnwamo condom 52m khan oxwamwn pcprcHoaammwv ucwscmHCOSwm ac0550mzw hawmngSO vaOmcda osmnm myodeu amsmmwu pwmgmon pcmmwwam cowumam msowndo cacao oucmacoamp xuwoopmc adccfimomwc conmmpooc mmwpaunm ascAOw mmmpmoo sewpmfimswpcoo hOhkon acoumcwq nommhco cfimvmwv cowuommwu pcmacmMCOQmm copzwfiamv :hwocoo unwmhu zpawsm hpwscm Hm>0Laammwn umpomwou adcpmwd p5MMHmo nofigwhpcoocoo hwwu anjm mmodpmppwn newmwpon mafimpo ucoezmwcovmm pcoEPprcoo wcwpwpacmocoo commCanhqam unmammmppmnsm zpwcw Hmowcho mama nan nocmwcoumm mamcono cmaompopa m:o«xd¢ Hangman nomcm aaampcoo zmmsmcm wmfipapzm cmmsem mmwan wcwccmovo unapuo voEdnmm o>wmmmpmmw Cmego>a ape o» ozone nonEm pcoswmzem w>Hpcmppo popthnhaom coprwHHsjznmsdzw wmmmuummq< pasopcoonpnsmwwo zmwsmcwosfioxo on on pH noufimnoo 20h uno .hpowoaoo goonnoo one nova: uopmwa go: on omcomoon one .m .mficmoe momzooomm Imfi 3 329:8 .5328 no 82% .mawnooa ova ow hpoppnoo nonwmnoo won on do» nowns novuno: o 4 2H emmHm .mm .6» 52. A398: a .3 8:32. B 8:32. .8 5:. 8:358 2 a: 2 mo \npfiu nonwneoo «H who; own» cum who: ownp vco .mhomopoo poonnoo .hnowopoo poonpOo mzoq< mo2eosaoxo on Op nonwoonaso poonpoo one .mnomopoo mayo» monsaocfi omnoamon one .m on nowns shop onp nocHoCOO on mcHwnoHon Show poohuoo on» wnausaoafi .mofinomopoo .noH>onon Hmfloom o no so» nno .oowpomwwmo m onp no one 939 .oowpom mmmzommmm opos Ho ono nu“; msoshnonhm on on pw mnwaooe o you oocopmadonwo and noon: wouown no: oeo nonng nopoo onoE no N no mmHmmm poveonoo so» and moHnomopoo m one no mnwpfiOHHo oanwmoom o no wagon mocsaonw oocoooon one .m noon: oopowa ohm < 2H emmHe ado noon: voamfia won ow omnoamop one .N noweaepoooo m we omnoaoon one .N .mpomoooo nowna mayo» mousaonw mne mH mo .mpomopoo .mowpomopoo e onn no ouonnoo on» nae: w505hnonhm omcoamop one .m mzoq< mozHo>wmsaoxo on Op pH powwonOO .hnomouoo pooppoo mmxeem Emme houwmnoo do» and mowpomopoo m on» no .mnomopmo poonnOo onp noun: so» ono .mnomopoo pooppoo one one pound oopowa wm20dwmm ado goon: copmfia won me omnoamon one .H oopmwa won me omnoamop one .H noon: uopmwa won me oonoaoop one .H ow omnommon one .H mmwmsaoxo on on we poowm mne mH mo .mpomoaoo .mownomowoo e poneo onp no unoo do» #99 “mowpomopoo e ponpo mzoq< woz36 882: Factors 44600 +>o4a O-P O :gégii 1 2 5_ 4 5 6 p7_ 8 IE8 .07 .09 .73 -.01 .06 .12 .37 .20 IE9 .22 -.07 —.01 .14 .03 -.20 .64 .29 IE31 — 18 .07 .78 .09 .06 -.12 .02 .01 IE35 .20 -.01 .80 .07 _.05 .06 -.05 —.12 EJ6 .54 .56 .07 .04 .16 .25 —.07 .19 EJ1O .80 .21 .12 .13 .00 .08 .12 -.05 EJ22 -.13 - 20 08 .44 .11 - 03 21 —.05 EJ34 - 17 - 05 59 .48 .00 O4 - 09 .49 SS15 — 05 50 — 16 24 .42 - 05 05 .55 SS50 .52 10 - 05 72 .09 04 — 07 .01 SS55 .21 -.10 .12 .18 .20 .11 —.51 .39 8836 .32 .09 .03 .08 .01 .22 .01 .56 DA5 .29 —.55 .52 —.11 .56 -.O6 .27 .17 DA7 08 .45 .51 .55 .08 —.11 —.15 -.16 DA26 13 .02 .09 .33 .13 .27 .40 -.08 DA29 — 31 .09 .21 .17 .02 .28 .63 —.04 DC14 — 49 .52 .11 _.01 -.07 .28 .51 .05 0017 _ 1o .16 .25 .20 .56 —.14 .28 .02 DC20 - 16 .07 -.11 .06 .06 .73 -.02 .06 D052 - 42 .19 .29 .12 .55 .25 —.05 .16 AR11 06 .02 .24 .60 .03 .20 .13 .17 AR18 5o .14 .04 .15 .06 .75 ...04 .19 AR21 06 ~ 03 22 .07 43 51 35 —.14 AR27 — 07 - 21 — 16 .73 06 13 16 .05 SH16 - 10 07 — 07 _ 17 .65 01 — 12 -.01 SH19 — O2 40 05 .26 .52 05 32 .05 SH23 .18 - 11 - 01 25 .61 27 — 09 -.05 SH28 .15 — 15 02 .12 .71 10 O3 .19 FT12 18 .48 .14 .59 .10 ...07 .44 .19 FT15 .03 .66 .14 -.08 ~.01 .51 .08 —.05 FT24 12 64 -.01 - 23 -.06 -.01 -.01 .02 FT25 ~ 14 O1 -.05 —.09 O9 - 01 08 .77 co W .1—.PvE.You—. 145 Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix Setting the Number of Factors to Eight for the Emotion Labeling Test 08 . E50 802 Factors ~r-i £200 43 0:42 O-P O ESE 1 2 5 4 5 6 7 . —. . 2< . . . -.2 .21 $3 .13 -2? .65 .83 1% .83 .0 .08 IBM .14 ...g; .49 .34 -.O6 .08 .07 .18 IE35 24 — 52 —.10 .15 -.02 .11 .26_ .15 EJ6 20 — 10 .11 .19 --12 -64 -O1 .17 EJ1O 1 .29 -.13 .09 --24 -61 - O6 -50 EJ22 .65 1o .15 .15 .18 .00 .01 .16 EJ34 .12 — 01 .07 .12 .21 .85 .17 .05 SS13 .75 - 01 .14 .03 —-O6 .09 —.O9 .06 $850 .82 .05 .01 .02 —.15 .08 .OO .06 8855 .08 .26 -.01 12 ~-41 .17 -05 -27 $856 11 .51 .01 .14 —.16 .37 — 14 .11 DA5 .07 .05 -.05 .17 .18 .17 — 80 .15 DA7 .17 .08 .14 .21 .42 .15 .04 .05 DA26 .07 .70 .08 .09 .15 .15 18 -05 DA29 .50 .24 .15 .07 -.52 .11 18 .52 D014 .14 _ 12 .15 .20 .05 .17 07 .66 D017 .07 — 08 .06 .75 -.O9 .10 - 02 .14 D020 .19 - 29 .05 .47 —.55 .00 .12 .14 D052 .04 .15 .46 .40 --05 .19 .21 .22 AR11 .08 .57 -.19 .18 .06 .25 .07 .14 AR18 .15 26 .55 .25 —.21 .20 ‘.10 .19 AR21 .17 16 .65 .10 -.08 .01 _ 07 .05 AR27 .24 .36 .41 .17 —.27 .10 — O6 .09 SH16 .04 - 04 -.05 .11 .03 .06 .05 .77 SH19 .54 50 —.52 .19 —.04 .09 - 04 -17 SH23 .19 10 — 09 .10 .55 .01 _ 07 .01 SH28 .02 _ 14 _ 12 .12 .65 .14 .15 .32 FT12 .16 .48 .10 .15 -56 .05 - 01 .09 FT15 .24 _ 11 .03 .12 .04 .19 .61 .00 FT24 .05 28 -.01 .18 .16 .12 .73 -23 FT25 .06 26 —.04 .59 -.12 .04 .15 ~02 1111¥ oo. oo. ro.- me. no. oo. no. no. oo. oo.- no. no.u mono me. oo.- oe.u re. so. ce.u no. oo.- oo.- ro.- on. oo. omen oe.- mm. oo. eo. no.: mo. no. ro. mo.u or. on. oo.. ween or. oo. re. no.u mm. o». oo.- 66. as. or. em. or. oven Or. .a re. mm. no. mo. or. mn. no. ro. me.u or. ammo eo.- nm. mm. vo. no.. me.. oe.- on. or. no. mo. no. mono oo. oo.- or. o«.. oo. mm. on. me. mm. mo. on. me. memo no.- mo. 64.- oo.- oo. oo.- mo. oo. mo. mo. no. oo.- ovum om. or. or. oo. oo. ne. oo. 6e. on. oo.- nm.- or.. nmm< or. re. ne. mo. em.n mo. mm. mo. oo.- rm. oo.- om. rmm< no. no. me. om. oo. oo.- oo. oo. oo. mo. me. so. oem< oo.- nm. am. ro.- or. oo. oe.u oo. no. no. no. no. erm< no. no. no. oo.- er. oo.- mo. nr. mo. me. ro.n oo. mnoo me. mo. oe.- oo.- me. mo.u me. oo. or. oo.- no. oo.u omoo om. or.- em. oo.- mm. or. o8. nm. oo. me. oo. rm. neon er.- mm. oo. oo. oo.- an. on. nr.- mo.- oo. om. or.t aroo or. om. om. me.u vo.n om. mm. oo.: mo. nv. Or. mr.u mm cooflm asaflofiz a no“: mnopomn me waflofiofl» xflnpoz genome oopopom xoawho> 145 r:.1 on. ro.1 4:. No.1 mm. rr.1 oo. oo.1 no.1 mo. rr. nm. 80.1 mmem oo. :0. mm. no. ro. mm. mo. oo. or. mo. or. no. so. no.1 amen oo.1 no. or.1 or. oo. cr.1 ow.1 mo. so. nr. mo. No.1 nr.1 no.1 mren nr. no.1 or.1 or. mo. mr.1 no.1 no.1 ro.1 mo. mr. oo. on. rr. «rem oo. cr.1 nr.1 om.1 ro. rm.1 nr.1 oo. oo. mo. nr.1 04.1 on. or. ommm oo.1 om.1 no.1 no.1 mo. or. no.1 no.1 No.1 ro.1 no.1 or.1 n». oo. mono no. or. or.1 no. rr.1 oo.1 mr. no.1 or.1 no.1 mo. 0m.1 no. mm. mrmm om.1 no. mo. no.1 or.1 om.1 no.1 mo. rn.1 mo. nr.1 ro. rm. oo. ormo or. No.1 no. no.1 no. no. no. oo.1 oo.1 ro. or. on. oo. mm. nmm< no. ro. no.1 mm. rr. oo.1 mo. mo.1 oo. nr. mm.1 om. oo. oo. rmm< rm.1 no.1 no.1 no.1 mr. ro. no.1 or. om. nr.1 nr.1 mo. r0. :0. orm< mo. om.1 no.1 oo. oo.1 oo.1 No.1 nr. or. no. mn. om. or. oo. rrm< no.1 no. or. om.1 oo. nr.1 mr. ro. nr.1 om. mo. om. mm. ro. mxoo or.1 mn. oo.1 no.1 no. nr.1 oo.1 or. rm. oo. no.1 no.1 mm.1 No.1 omoo or. on. so. on. oo. or. mo. so.1 or.1 rr.1 rr.1 oo.1 nr. or.1 nroo or.1 or. or. or. ro.1 or.1 or. ro. 0r. or.1 nr.1 oo. rr. or.1 :roo or.1 rr.1 ro. nr.1 nr. mm. on.. no.1 rm. mo. No.1 ro.1 or. or. om cowwm 584.5”: 0 n3: mHOpoom or wnfioaoa.» xflppo: nonoom oopouom Koaaho> APPENDIX D CELL MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS AND CHI—SQUARE TABLES 146 +Ow I m @5090 "001mm I m adonw “mmlwr 1 v macho oo. mo. mm.r or.r oo. mo. on. om.r .o.m o.r o.r m.m r.m o.r o.m o.m o.m com: o m mn.r om.r so. no. m4.r mo.r on. oo.r .o.m o.r ¢.r o.m o.r o.r n.m o.m r.m com: 2 oo. or.r mm. oo. mo. oo.r mm. om.r .o.m no no on To no on on 6.6 88: o m om.r ro.r om.r om.r mo.r or.r mm. mo.r .m.m m.m o.r r.m o.m m.m o.m o.m m.m com: 2 no. mo. no. mm.r no. rn. oo. oo. .o.m w.m m.m d.m m.m m.m m.m o.¢ o.m Coo: m r 4o. nr.r om.r ro.r oo. no. oo. oo. .o.m ¢.m 4.m o.m m.m r.m o.w o.m r.m com: : 91o m1m m1< 61o 41o m1m 61m M1H now ooono pmoe doflprdwooom coapoam Hoe mflorpofl>om choonopm duo onooz Haoo 147 +oo 1 m guano moo1mm I N macaw "mmlmr I razoew om.r rn. om.r oo.r no. Sr.r om.r n4.r .o.m .or. 1 m. o.r o.r o.r m.m o.m o.r com: o m m4.r mo. oo. oo. rn. mm. mm. om.r .o.m o.r m. o.m o. o.r o.m o.m o.r noon 2 om.r no. or.r or.r no. 4n. mo. 4o. .o.m n.r o. on n.r no r.m on. ...m .862 n m mm.r mo. or.r mo.r mo. oo.r no. on. .o.m m.m o. o.m o.m o.r o.m m.m o.r com: 2 .mo.r mo. or.r mo.r oo. om.r no. ro.r .m.m o.m o. n.m o.r o.m s.m n.m o.r 66m: o r on. on. on. nm.r mo.r om.r no. mm.r .o.m o.r o. m.m r.r m.m n.m n.m o.r com: 2 91m m1m m1< 61o 41o m1m 61m M1H Mom noono pmoe wnflaopoq morposm Hoe mcoflpoa>om choonopm 6am mnooz HHoo 148 +oo 1 n nacho woo1om 1 m muopw mmwuwr I r gnome o4.m oo.r o¢.m mo.r on.r on.m on.» oo.m m oo.m mm.m mm.m oo.m mo.m oo.m oo.m or.m m om.m oo.m om.m oo.m om.m oo.m oo.m oo.m r 91m m1m m14 61o <1o m1m 61m m1H nacho pmoe doapflnwooom corpoam Hoe mnooz @5096 oonflpaoo oo.r on. om.m om.r mo.r oo.m os.m on.r m oo.m no. oo.m oo.r oo.m oo.m oo.m or.m m oo.r on. mo.m om.r o¢.m oo.m on.m mm.r r 91o m1m m1< 61o «1o m1m woo m1H nacho pooe mmHHoQoQ Corpoam pom mnooz nacho oonflnsoo 149 Contingency Table for Distribution of . Responses*to:Ten QueStions on the EAQ 14E EuJ SrS DrA D—C A-R S—H F-T mocha corp ImoSG 0000 0000 0112 0000 1012 0011 99.227 16 17 . 15 Totals 48 I] 2 1 5 70/62 79212 752/5 1 2/0 2/6 0 1 2 Z/ 0 32/6 0022 6670/ 1 5755 1 6534 1 00.52) 5218 0011 0000 0011 0011 0000 0000 0011 0000 556 Totals 14 12.5 0000 0000 0000 0000 2215 5575 13 15 12 Totals 40 1 /| 2 6 3 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0022 122.. 0090/ 11 2 21.115 6455 1 0101 0212). 0122/ 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 2002 50/6 0 0011 0000 Totals 122/ 10 150 «Nee vmeh «Hem NHeh mmmm mmzm Odnm 0me ede HNm< mHm< HHm< Nmoo 0N00 bHoo «H00 0N<0 0N¢0 n<0 «<0 0mmc Mmmm 0mmm «Ham umwm Noam onm 0mm «mmH HmmH oo.H 0N. «H. 5H. bH.1 N0.1 N0. 00. «0. 00. «0. No.1 HH. NH. Nm. NH. ¢0. NH. nN.1 «0.1 CH. CH. «0.1 00. 00. «0.1 «0. no.1 00.1 00. oo.H mm. vN. 00. 00. Ho. 0H.1 HH. «0. «0. «N. 0H. 00. «c. «H. OH. em. 00. QM.1 No.1 NH. 00. 00.1 v . H0.1 mH. 00.1 ON. HH. oo.H 0H.1 m0. no. no.1 H0.1 «H.1 No.1 00. 00. H0. 0m. 00. 00. OH. 00. 00.1 H«.1 HH.1 00.1 NN.1 H0. mN. 00.1 00.1 00. 00. «0. oo.H 0H. 0H. no. 00. OH. eH. 00.1 «N. «N. 0N.1 «0.1 «0. N0. 0m. NN. «H. N0. NH.1 00. «0. no. 0N. 00. 00. 0H.1 no. oo.H 0m. H0.1 HH.1 mm.1 eH.1 No.1 00.1 «H.1 00.1 «H.1 «N. N0. H0. «H. H0.1 0N.1 0N.1 0H.1 00.1 mo. v0. 00.1 NH.1 00.1 «0. oo.H eH.1 00. NH.1 eH.1 No.1 00.1 «H.1 HN.1 NH.1 00.1 0N.1 bH. H0.1 «H. N0. N0. 0H.1 00.1 00. v0. 00.1 NH.1 00.1 0H.1 oo.H OH. HO. NH.1 0N.1 0m. No.1 H0. 00. 0N.1 00. NH. «0. «0. NN. no.1 «N. 0H. «0. VH. OH. HO. «H.1 HH.1 oo.H v0.1 00. no.1 00.1 0H. 0H.1 «H. 0m.1 0H.1 0H.1 00.1 00.1 N0. 0H.1 0H. 00. v0. 00. 0H.1 mo. H0.1 0H.1 oo.H Nm. cm. mN. 0H. 00.1 0H.1 5H.1 «H. 00. HH. H0. «H. «0. Hm. 0H. H0. mH. 0N. 00. no.1 00. oo.H bN. No.1 0N. 00.1 «H. OH. 4N. NH. N0. No.1 «0. «0. «H. 0H. 00. 0H. «0.1 mm. 0H.1 «H. oo.H 0H. HH. «0. «H.1 0H. 0H. «H. «0.1 mH. H0. 00. 0H.1 n0. NH.1 00. «H. nH.I 0H.1 e0. oo.H H0.1 VN.1 0N.1 H0. 00. HN. «H. «0. «N. 00. No.1 00. 00. «H. «m. Ho. 0H.1 00. oo.H 0N. «N. «0. no. 0H. «0. 0H.1 NN. 00.1 0H. «0. vN. NH. «0. n0. NH. em. oo.H «m. ON. 00.1 0H.1 0N.1 H0. 0H.1 No.1 «0.1 0H.1 00.1 0N.1 «0. 00.1 00. eH. 00.H NH. «0.1 H0.1 H0. H0. «0. «0.1 v0. «H.1 mo. NH.1 NH.1 HN.1 «0. 0H. oo.H NH. 00.1 00.1 Ho. 0H.1 No.1 NH.1 50.1 00.1 0N.1 No.1 5H.1 ON. «0. oo.H HN. 00.1 HN.1 «H. ON. ON. e0. 50.1 «0. NH. «H. No.1 0H. oo.H 0H. NH.1 «v. HN. «0. 0H. «0.1 00. No.1 HH.1 0N.1 HH. 00.H «0.1 00. no.1 vH. H0.1 0H. VH. N0. H0. 00.1 v0.1 00.H mo. 00. «0.1 00. «0. 00.1 OH. 00.1 «H.1 v0.1 oo.H mo. 0N. 0H. «N. «0. ON. «H. 00.1 HH. 00.H ON. 0o. «0. «0. N. 0H. 00.1 40. oo.H 00. N0.1 N0. NN. 0H. «H. «0. oo.H v0.1 0m. 0H. 0H. 0H. 0H. oo.H no.1 4m. «V. «H. 00. oo.H «H. mH. H0.1 N0. oo.H 0N. «0.1 «0.1 00.H no.1 00. oo.H v0. oo.H pooe mnHHopoH COHpoam onp How mnoHpoHoHHoo aopHIHopaH omH 00.1 H0.1 00. 00.1 «0.1 «0.1 VN.1 NH.1 «H. mN. 0H. «H.1 2. H0.1 m0. «0. 00.1 mo. 00. «H. 0H.1 00. «0. 0w. oo.H mmH «N. H0. «0. «0. H0. H0. «0. «0.1 NH.1 «H. 0H.1 00.1 «0.1 00. 0m. 00. N0. 0H.1 «0.1 «N. «0.1 «H.1 HH. mN. N0. MH. oo.H «New «New «Hem NHem mew mmxm onm 0H:m bde HNm< mHm< HHm< Nmoo 0N00 nHoo VHQQ 0N