CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE GERMAN IlEXPRESSION PSYCHOLOGY TO NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH

~ART I THEORIES AND CONCEPTS

Jens Asendorpf Harald G Wallbott

~

tJ~~~~~rfr~~tR~n~~~i~~i~~~)lrsi~~Y~Ol~~~i~~~mls first part oumlf a senesof arttcr~stbther f1~hW~cq~e research on

faCial expression bridyiMtivementantfspetdfYattd v6iC~ fJkebfiasillld oOlncepts middotof thfsneacrlyankhokwn llgtranon ef psyttho1ogy ~rtr~Viiewed illitd QJ~lt$Sedi TQpjcs jd~de theQ~tur~ Qf e~pessjve bemiddotbszligv~9r t~~ lelptj~1il

middot ~etweel statesft~aits and expres~~M~ b~haviQr anj thfep~~~epti~n Qf ~xpre$Slve behavlor

~ ~ bull ~ gt

I

we should now concentrateOumln searching for ~ewavenu~s ()f i apprOumlaotitdpalictlitady iauml vhaj S(ioyf) hornaf1so~iateom

municationlwithoumllllt W0myiRgiOOomuthaboutrigid~~onbull011mJtty lvHhjtia~~cfjhon$o$mepszligJtlgnta4 fQspodfahHUY lWeaecdmote

1q~$ ~tQl~~Ptjme~~Yn()~~tiv~ti~QViWAumlttIdJj)emiddot preferable to the inductive cqUecting oJ~ja~dAi~~~tMs become our respectabJe habit (lsraet ampiajfel 1972 p 4)

1

~ 1 middotfi gt bull

middot Jhis~lh1~lbnb h5tftttOmiddot~Ottfttl)9v(bm9RV1n7~~~NI i1flt)ft~e5 middotti0nohv~roumlnt~t)ttUTf~ttgftt1oumlh ~~lirtJiW f1itt~lflt~$eWiflg tt16middot lt ~ )f ~h)X~rszligi~~j r LQit1middotqh(IJ l~~amphj ~rH hgt]i )r~1~

~ ~~fliiNi li~d111JRgti~~f~-~tm1M ~J1W1rJ~ t~Pfhimiddot~t~i(QJDttft(t~ b~~~~oflt1p ~QUrn~(f ~ur~tJ$ri~~IOW tlV ~f~W~lh~WW)II)sectl r lt 10t~w~lde kDownmiddotl~Amnjlcar1p~Y~hotijMfs(s ~ouml ent~Jnl(r(9litrit)dtldns ahouumlt (Ie~ afcw(oltccl ~ Jetis~ll9rid6fpn jA1I1fi 8ld Clmiddotmiddot Wil~iotiitr~ witnUll1)rlivciilt~middotltiHtUe5s(h VeW ~~r~muw~ fjo~111q~~IPr~pr~middotfho~d J aqwesfe~t~ HftrfotbG it)aNbottiJtl5tusUebttrf

n middot 1i1~rIIltl Qt)mf~ptt~fIlliw~)vfti51~ll ~ bull

0191-5811gt111 JfltHI JJfJlli ) 1981 Uiltjl~tnSdrtumiddot ttu

~~iVT~$middot~~~middot~~r~~t~i(j~~iPmiddottfqoGi~ls~~~c~t~r~VifUi

101NAt Of NONVlRB BlIIAVIOI

past fifty or sixty ycars of res~anh in the area we in Germany seem to be in an extraordinary position what is called nonverbal comshymunication research here or anywhere else in Europe (for a current review sec EIIgring 1980) is influenced almost exclusively by American psychology or linguistics From Darwins time until about 1960 it seems that little happened in turopean psychology This is espedally strange in Germany because tllere was much interesting psychological research pertinent to nonverbal communication Expression Psychology (Ausdruckspsychologie) which culminashyted in the thirties of this century

Since Expression Psychology was increasingly transformed into a radst ideology under the Nazi regime most German emigrants ~topped working in the field (eg Kurt Lewin did some interesting research before he had to emigrate) Two examples of the sparse work done by these emigrants are Wolff (1943) and Arnheim (1949) In the fifties there was a brief renaissance of Expression Psychology in GerrnafJY bllt it ~as s()Qn criticized for its oHen very speculative

tmiddot l Y ( -

~h~lraltt~~ ~fSt It ~J~dr~lpEt QH1tkly andquietJy at the end pf tbe lSi~ties jiJ$t bef()r~ GeJtllan nOAverbat cqenOltunication resear(h Wq$

Uoriginafjed~middotbv a new generation oJ psychologists Tbis new linemiddot(lf researchdeveloped in GeTm~nv aSeverywher~ elsealmost totaUy unaffected oy Expressioh PsVthdhJgy q

Having this in mind the purpose of the present series of four articles is twofold~

~ -

Topr~eBtaconQiserev1ew Qf Expressiot)PsYQh0iogV asfar as it ICOflCerns nOlilverba I ltQmmllJnicamiddotttonreseuumlrch To enablerion-German speaking researchefZsin paliticuJar to pr()fiitlfr6mdleitheorles(Oflcept~ arid eKJjetimental results of ExP~sM(itfmiddotP~Vcho1ogtmiddot ~

~ gt

Regarding the second purpose we have tried to presentan f1JmQampt cpmpJeter~yiEtwltmiddot()fiGrmQnntefatttfszlig a~9ut expedrhental ~9fk ~Qflfhb~h~~M19~ (l1ldllQOO~ f ar a$ d$ts i pertillsntlto facial

(~cutll of the serl3~) bodllv(P~rttll) and vocaJexpression (PartiV) oE affec~s crfldperstmaUty~ral~l8ind ais()~(Jsk-etchtfhemahljJfdeas

Shdconcemiddotts olmiddotmiddotlVhtei~sloumlmiddotmiddotmiddotflmiddotcpgvchofb ~(x~middotJrt~f in thesmiddot~middot nili~ ~tj Ul ~rM middotmiddotg8middot e QO

VA~aJ cbaon~lsW-e iwfU~tlOf~ dticUI$povsiognqmic eues of erS()na~1ty ot fade~et~H~~f~~ftheir ~~IJi~f~i~ed i vaumlluef~r nonverbal cornmunicaliortittuumlWe wU1 ofuftaJ( J the reeafths () on the expressiv~ vaJu~ 9f~~artfjltts SUCA8shandwriUntl oraflt

Produc~s rI~1~2 it~~ r~ I

101NAt Of NONVlRB BlIIAVIOI

past fifty or sixty ycars of res~anh in the area we in Germany seem to be in an extraordinary position what is called nonverbal comshymunication research here or anywhere else in Europe (for a current review sec EIIgring 1980) is influenced almost exclusively by American psychology or linguistics From Darwins time until about 1960 it seems that little happened in turopean psychology This is espedally strange in Germany because tllere was much interesting psychological research pertinent to nonverbal communication Expression Psychology (Ausdruckspsychologie) which culminashyted in the thirties of this century

Since Expression Psychology was increasingly transformed into a radst ideology under the Nazi regime most German emigrants ~topped working in the field (eg Kurt Lewin did some interesting research before he had to emigrate) Two examples of the sparse work done by these emigrants are Wolff (1943) and Arnheim (1949) In the fifties there was a brief renaissance of Expression Psychology in GerrnafJY bllt it ~as s()Qn criticized for its oHen very speculative

tmiddot l Y ( -

~h~lraltt~~ ~fSt It ~J~dr~lpEt QH1tkly andquietJy at the end pf tbe lSi~ties jiJ$t bef()r~ GeJtllan nOAverbat cqenOltunication resear(h Wq$

Uoriginafjed~middotbv a new generation oJ psychologists Tbis new linemiddot(lf researchdeveloped in GeTm~nv aSeverywher~ elsealmost totaUy unaffected oy Expressioh PsVthdhJgy q

Having this in mind the purpose of the present series of four articles is twofold~

~ -

Topr~eBtaconQiserev1ew Qf Expressiot)PsYQh0iogV asfar as it ICOflCerns nOlilverba I ltQmmllJnicamiddotttonreseuumlrch To enablerion-German speaking researchefZsin paliticuJar to pr()fiitlfr6mdleitheorles(Oflcept~ arid eKJjetimental results of ExP~sM(itfmiddotP~Vcho1ogtmiddot ~

~ gt

Regarding the second purpose we have tried to presentan f1JmQampt cpmpJeter~yiEtwltmiddot()fiGrmQnntefatttfszlig a~9ut expedrhental ~9fk ~Qflfhb~h~~M19~ (l1ldllQOO~ f ar a$ d$ts i pertillsntlto facial

(~cutll of the serl3~) bodllv(P~rttll) and vocaJexpression (PartiV) oE affec~s crfldperstmaUty~ral~l8ind ais()~(Jsk-etchtfhemahljJfdeas

Shdconcemiddotts olmiddotmiddotlVhtei~sloumlmiddotmiddotmiddotflmiddotcpgvchofb ~(x~middotJrt~f in thesmiddot~middot nili~ ~tj Ul ~rM middotmiddotg8middot e QO

VA~aJ cbaon~lsW-e iwfU~tlOf~ dticUI$povsiognqmic eues of erS()na~1ty ot fade~et~H~~f~~ftheir ~~IJi~f~i~ed i vaumlluef~r nonverbal cornmunicaliortittuumlWe wU1 ofuftaJ( J the reeafths () on the expressiv~ vaJu~ 9f~~artfjltts SUCA8shandwriUntl oraflt

Produc~s rI~1~2 it~~ r~ I

l

I I

137

JENS ASrNDORPf HARALD WAllUOT r

Regarding the first purpose we have chosen a non-historical systema tic approach in order to provide clarity and a rapid orientation for the reader Therefore we will not discuss the course of theoretical reasoning as it developed from 1920 to 1960 but structure our overview by discussing three basic questions with which Expression Psychology was concerned

Although there have been several different approaches all theories of Expression Psychology share one common belief there is some Usubject of expression (Ausdruckssubiekt) Le an emotion mood attitude or disposition which is expressed as an expression (Ausdruck) in some medium of expression ((usdrUCKSJnedium cf Kirchhoff 1965) In thiscontext three basic questions can be asked

1 What constitutes an expression 2 What relationship exists between the subject of expression

and the expression itself 3 How is expression erceivedl

What is express-ion

middotOnefeature typicaloumlf ~UiiheoriEs()fExpression PsychologV is hat they are tnoteciiPc~roed wth exp~s~J(i)1i1 aso it appears in

ObSfvable behavio than with tfe yndedyiAgmiddotSGfbJject of expression One reasQn Jllig~t b~ that most Expf~sion ~PsvchoJogists were Rredoniinanily jftltcre$teQ in devetf)ping

diagnostil tbdls Therefdre the sJ~rting(PQint Qfmosttheodes was notthesubject oumlf eXpr~ssi()nb~ihe ~xpression itself acndsutlJiects ofie~pres~fdn were seldoiouml carefully investigated Subjectswere

generallyc9nsidere~ ~() b~lJ~fmln~n~Q(ttr(UJll~nt psvcwkstate$i SlI(J~ ~~~ffe~tiv~sl~l~SU f)~r~onalitYcfltraed5ticsi su~tt as l(t~MpeJamttnts(Tef1nerament)f and rarel~s()cial tattltUdes Sbme nblisttc theorjes cJfltM~d tb~~ iti$ alwavsthe~hole pet~~r1al~ity tfl~t is acfualized Jn a gj(en moment end thafitis thetefarEtimposstble to decQouml)PQsepersszlignalf~Y intE) distinct fdaits or stilatSl

Starting with adefinition of expression these lheories tried to separate expreSs9(t allR8ctiQn by i~QlfttJg certahiacfs or charalterisficsof attswitij iexpressJve ~~~tll~~EAusdruckswert There were qUite different~lpproaches to this problem

JOURNAl 01 NONVrRBAI nnIAVIOI~

Tracing back to Piderit (1867) and Darwin (1872) attempts were made to isolate special aets having only an expressive function Genuine expressive movements (reine Ausdrucksbewegungen) were differentiated from goalshydirected movements (Zweckbewegungen) above all by Klages (1926) and Buytendijk (1956) These attempts of definitionmiddot were often criticized because obviousJy goal-directed

movements also may have expressive value at times Buumlhler (1933) conceived the concepts of expressiveness and goalshydirectedness as just two aspects of the same phenomenon (Le an action) and lersch (1955) spoke of varying degrees of

bullexpressiveness and goal-diretedness for a given act - Another approach was to differentiategenuine expressions

from arbitrary movements(Willkuumlrbewegungen eg Klages 1926) or more specificaUy trom presentations

(Darstellungen)Whiie goal-di)ec~jedmovements can be

defined functionaHy without necessarily trating thern back to intentions arbitrary movements reltluire just that and $0 this definition of expression is from the very beginning entangled with the delicate problem of intentionality This is also true of the differentiation from presentations the latter includeany modifications of genuine expressions by- attempts ofserfshy

presentation deception and so on A more sophJsticated middot~Jlpproach was Gottschaldts (1958) assUrnpti90 o(~dim~nsion

bullmiddot bullmiddotmiddotmiddotof voluntary coAtr-tilWithllrhaumlilifestations (ADsserungen) and Iexpressiofls (AtsdrucR) as extremesGot~chaldtCOtlcejfed maf1ifestaUonsasimrl1~dipte m~ihIV$pb~orticaUYtQfltoIJed

ltaffeeurotive movemehts ar va~laquo)fno~()ri~ resPQn~e~~nd ()xpre5sions as mainty (ortic~~lycQntroUed middotmg~ements

referHng to tfte whele socialsituatlcgtrJ 4Slt Is percelv~d by the actor

~IltAI1 hlterestlngand(asfaTS weknoWlneVtn recQj)sidect)d ld~a

middotmiddotmiddot~au~L+h~I~t~~~Ut1if~~~~~~~k~n~19~1~1=~ 4I1andlunB$initlallenrarepartitulaumlf1ylikely t()shQ~ e~p~szlig$t4Yszlig ivaluemiddotmiddot middotKafk8t~id rfulrkd stf~$S OpQn Initjal~x~ejmiddotiv~

PO$itIQOStRida~emiddot Auumlstllitkshsltungenlt that is themiddot PQ$iuuml~Ofl trom which811 actmiddot isltartea bull i~~~tf~t~~i~J~~1~l~1~igtmiddot bull ~Ilmiddot of these apprti~hjbfl~efllni~ltp~ressloh are$fmll~tmiddot 1(1 J

twOlesPszligcb FJflSt tb~jatlhYe)~tbi1ceptol~genuirie expresslQndeg - ~~~~~ middotmiddot~rmiddotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~lt~~tmiddotImiddotmiddotlti~~- -~ ~~ ~ ~lt

j I II

t

bull H bullbull__ -_ _ -~ bull ~~

JOURNAl 01 NONVrRBAI nnIAVIOI~

Tracing back to Piderit (1867) and Darwin (1872) attempts were made to isolate special aets having only an expressive function Genuine expressive movements (reine Ausdrucksbewegungen) were differentiated from goalshydirected movements (Zweckbewegungen) above all by Klages (1926) and Buytendijk (1956) These attempts of definitionmiddot were often criticized because obviousJy goal-directed

movements also may have expressive value at times Buumlhler (1933) conceived the concepts of expressiveness and goalshydirectedness as just two aspects of the same phenomenon (Le an action) and lersch (1955) spoke of varying degrees of

bullexpressiveness and goal-diretedness for a given act - Another approach was to differentiategenuine expressions

from arbitrary movements(Willkuumlrbewegungen eg Klages 1926) or more specificaUy trom presentations

(Darstellungen)Whiie goal-di)ec~jedmovements can be

defined functionaHy without necessarily trating thern back to intentions arbitrary movements reltluire just that and $0 this definition of expression is from the very beginning entangled with the delicate problem of intentionality This is also true of the differentiation from presentations the latter includeany modifications of genuine expressions by- attempts ofserfshy

presentation deception and so on A more sophJsticated middot~Jlpproach was Gottschaldts (1958) assUrnpti90 o(~dim~nsion

bullmiddot bullmiddotmiddotmiddotof voluntary coAtr-tilWithllrhaumlilifestations (ADsserungen) and Iexpressiofls (AtsdrucR) as extremesGot~chaldtCOtlcejfed maf1ifestaUonsasimrl1~dipte m~ihIV$pb~orticaUYtQfltoIJed

ltaffeeurotive movemehts ar va~laquo)fno~()ri~ resPQn~e~~nd ()xpre5sions as mainty (ortic~~lycQntroUed middotmg~ements

referHng to tfte whele socialsituatlcgtrJ 4Slt Is percelv~d by the actor

~IltAI1 hlterestlngand(asfaTS weknoWlneVtn recQj)sidect)d ld~a

middotmiddotmiddot~au~L+h~I~t~~~Ut1if~~~~~~~k~n~19~1~1=~ 4I1andlunB$initlallenrarepartitulaumlf1ylikely t()shQ~ e~p~szlig$t4Yszlig ivaluemiddotmiddot middotKafk8t~id rfulrkd stf~$S OpQn Initjal~x~ejmiddotiv~

PO$itIQOStRida~emiddot Auumlstllitkshsltungenlt that is themiddot PQ$iuuml~Ofl trom which811 actmiddot isltartea bull i~~~tf~t~~i~J~~1~l~1~igtmiddot bull ~Ilmiddot of these apprti~hjbfl~efllni~ltp~ressloh are$fmll~tmiddot 1(1 J

twOlesPszligcb FJflSt tb~jatlhYe)~tbi1ceptol~genuirie expresslQndeg - ~~~~~ middotmiddot~rmiddotmiddot~middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot~lt~~tmiddotImiddotmiddotlti~~- -~ ~~ ~ ~lt

j I II

t

bull H bullbull__ -_ _ -~ bull ~~

139

IfNS ASfNDORPF ARAlD WAllszligOT r

in mind Le totally spontaneous expressions as it were unspoiled by any demands of thc sodal situation This concept has been fatal for Expression Psychology because most researchers were pushed to look for genuine expressions neglecting the wide spectrum of othcr expressive movements or (even worse) to take obvious presentations for genuine expressions (leonhard 1949 Strchle 1954) Consequences for application of Expression Psychology in psychodiagnostics have been disastrous

Furthermore all approaches tackle the definition of expression in a fairly analytic way by trying to identify distinet acts having expressive vatue and with afairly statie concept of an expressjve act either the aet isan expression or it has certain static expressive features middotWith the rise of Gestalt Psychology in

Getmanyboth the analytic approach and the staticconception of an expressive act was criticized Arnheim (1928 see part 11 of this

serie~) showed that parts of faciatexpressions change their expressive quaHty depending on the tontext of other partsof the expression Flach (192(1 seepartJ 11) found that professionalmiddot daneers representspecifk contents not always bysp~dfic ge~tures hut byspecifk dynamic mov~ment patterns WOumlrner (1940 see Part Jl)came to analoumlgous results by detailed analyses of rheso~ moumlnkeys chatterlng and anger expressions The lattszligf twoauthors UkewfseemphasitecJfhe ideathat BlOSt mov~ment$ gein middottheir eXJ)ressivequalities by thejr frow charac~eris~ics(4blatlfmerk rinde) and cannofbe described compl~tely by staUlt char8cteristics ahlne

bull The conceptsoumlf expre~sion we h~ve discussechup tonowaU r-e-gard expression rn~inJYCls an ext~to~n~ati~nof~innerstates

(lAd tralts somethnes rnod_fied inorderto fit the demandsof an ongoinsmiddotsoumlcial interactlqp That tle tHpre~~h)nof asefldeijlsoften expHCIlyorent~ted toward a~ r~ce(v~rJ)il$ at best onfyhnplitHlytaken tntouml aCCoullt )

Buumlhler1933 1~34)~ one 01 theleadinglanguage psychologists oumlf his time was oneof the few vvll$ 1Qokemiddotdat Hxpretsion PsychoJogy from altQmrnunicalipovi(wpoint He de$~rib~dcthree main fUl1ctions of communicativebehavior r~pr~s~nt~tjon (Darstelluog) expre$sion~ (Austflrtick) aod iappeal (Appell) He argued that any communicative Iehavior ls hoth an~ppeaJ(tp the receiver~ andmiddot an expression dr represenlaticirfbf the semi)ers stait~~ He tberefofe proposed tomiddotstart frorn tljereceiverSPOlnLQf vlewmiddotmiddot antimiddot to focus ~tU~ntionOA the iresohance (Re$onanz) middot~Jf the

~

tu I w ~~~~- ~~~ ~~i~~ laquo

1-1U

JOURNAl Of NONVI RBAI BlIIAVIOI

receiver lo the sender Howcver he did not furt her elaborate this rather unusual approach with respect to nonverbal comillunication

What relationship cxists Jctwecm sugtjecl of expression and expression

Expression Psychology was developed chiefly for diagnostic reasons Consequently the relationship between expression and its

subject was essential for all theories The rather naive assumption of a constant relationship a rem~inder of physiognomists suchas tavater (1775-1778) can neverthetess be faund in theories of expression (cf Klages 1926 Strehle 1954 Lersch 1955) These theorists thooght that it shoumluld be possibte to estabiish a kindof Jexicon bfexpressioumlns which assigns a meaning to each expressimiddoton in terms of sUbjects of expression uumlf course more than one meaning wasmiddot usyally f04nd for an expressive act and tOflsequently esch expression was explained by a halo of

meaning(DeutungshofN~vertheless the rela tionship betwee~ anexpression andits halo of meaning was cqn~eived asa const3Qt

Olle Often theoriststried tosUbstantiate empiriltaJly the meaning

an e~pressionrea1lyhadBurmiddotmpstly theymiddotwemiddoti~ s~ducedbv semantic ahaogitiS b~tween descrJptions ofexRre~si~ns and suttszligcts of expressioh tuniihgthiis aHaumllogy on a destriptive leVCilI

into a kind of inference rule fot example an lIerraticcharacter (srunghafter~ ()natflder) was asshciatetf withi~ogutar pody mQvements(etkigegiewegtJngeh) t)y ltrscl (195$)Qf sub~jampsiQIil was assGoialed tO~0wered eyes ~t Klage~(1 ~i6j HQJzkamp(1965) hi)~ j ttermedi suthatternpb~jfaumlnaoQistic-~~tamppbRri~ str~te8ies gt

T~~~stf8tegiescatlbemiddot cthfracleUzeH bY theif use QUo the JQgicaJ sense false or dubious) syllogisl11s such cas t~t fpUowirlg

~ ~

~ ~t gt - - t

Q sH~ cfmiddot ha-s asofffate (Q) Ste$emblesQ (f a soft ~l1atacteftS) r~semHIes() soft face (Q)

- ~

COhdusi~n Sm~vbef cl 1 rnay have a softch~uacter (5) i

The ptoblemdbvi9VslvU~switijin thesszligcondpremise and he cOritlusionmiddot(tawh Prem~eamp aod concJusioos~ of this sort contributedrhlJ~ll~p ihenotfbnthat EXpression ~s~chology was unscientific Secause such rnterference-by~analogy conclusipns

1-1U

JOURNAl Of NONVI RBAI BlIIAVIOI

receiver lo the sender Howcver he did not furt her elaborate this rather unusual approach with respect to nonverbal comillunication

What relationship cxists Jctwecm sugtjecl of expression and expression

Expression Psychology was developed chiefly for diagnostic reasons Consequently the relationship between expression and its

subject was essential for all theories The rather naive assumption of a constant relationship a rem~inder of physiognomists suchas tavater (1775-1778) can neverthetess be faund in theories of expression (cf Klages 1926 Strehle 1954 Lersch 1955) These theorists thooght that it shoumluld be possibte to estabiish a kindof Jexicon bfexpressioumlns which assigns a meaning to each expressimiddoton in terms of sUbjects of expression uumlf course more than one meaning wasmiddot usyally f04nd for an expressive act and tOflsequently esch expression was explained by a halo of

meaning(DeutungshofN~vertheless the rela tionship betwee~ anexpression andits halo of meaning was cqn~eived asa const3Qt

Olle Often theoriststried tosUbstantiate empiriltaJly the meaning

an e~pressionrea1lyhadBurmiddotmpstly theymiddotwemiddoti~ s~ducedbv semantic ahaogitiS b~tween descrJptions ofexRre~si~ns and suttszligcts of expressioh tuniihgthiis aHaumllogy on a destriptive leVCilI

into a kind of inference rule fot example an lIerraticcharacter (srunghafter~ ()natflder) was asshciatetf withi~ogutar pody mQvements(etkigegiewegtJngeh) t)y ltrscl (195$)Qf sub~jampsiQIil was assGoialed tO~0wered eyes ~t Klage~(1 ~i6j HQJzkamp(1965) hi)~ j ttermedi suthatternpb~jfaumlnaoQistic-~~tamppbRri~ str~te8ies gt

T~~~stf8tegiescatlbemiddot cthfracleUzeH bY theif use QUo the JQgicaJ sense false or dubious) syllogisl11s such cas t~t fpUowirlg

~ ~

~ ~t gt - - t

Q sH~ cfmiddot ha-s asofffate (Q) Ste$emblesQ (f a soft ~l1atacteftS) r~semHIes() soft face (Q)

- ~

COhdusi~n Sm~vbef cl 1 rnay have a softch~uacter (5) i

The ptoblemdbvi9VslvU~switijin thesszligcondpremise and he cOritlusionmiddot(tawh Prem~eamp aod concJusioos~ of this sort contributedrhlJ~ll~p ihenotfbnthat EXpression ~s~chology was unscientific Secause such rnterference-by~analogy conclusipns

141

IENS ASENDORPf UARAU) WAltnOTl

were qu ite common Holzkamp (1965) further distinguished among three types of con1monly used analogies

Analogies of course (VerlaufsanaJogien) using criteria such as dlrectlon form and succession In tirne of expressive l11ov~ments (cf Engel 176586 Klages 19~6 Lersch 1957) Analogies by quali~y (as in almost all physiognomie literature) Analogies of space using criteria such as ideal spatial proportions the synlbolic meaning of spatial directions and so on

i i I f

i 1 Strehte(1954 and Lersch (1957) were representatives of a i I special f9rmof this inference-bymiddotanalogy branch They stated that I cert~in actions have both a function (in fuliHing a goal) as weil as J ian exprltessive value This value ie the meanhig oumlf expressionis i I

i~ derived byanalogyJrom thefunction of the respective action An I alten dted example is the middotmiddotmiddotonementioned by Lersch (19~7)PJaffowing the middoteyes b~ m~ans middotof tJPper ltind lower lids hastfJe I middotfurlction0fsnarpentng cQnteurs of perceived obje~tsBy anaJqy 1I dt followsthiaumlta person witll ncurowed_eyesshould have a soumlb~l I lf$alsing attitud~ bull

1 middotmiddotrSiOlHaumlr tethe hala-ofmeaning approach is W6rners (1940) ~oncept of IIlimited determination (RahttfenbestJmmtheit)ofan

bullbull szligKpression Accotdlng to thisvh~w expressiorrisdcterminedhy t~~ bull suDject o e)(J)r~ssiorr only wtthifl Celttain HtTiits on the otherhaumlQQ

itrmay vafYampmongAntlividuumlats beca(Jsebt tllfferehtidiosyn~raii~ expressons Furthermore the samemiddot ov~r( expressiofamay be bull related to quite different subjects of expression within ltJifferent f)erS0nsmiddot W(jri1er cites someexanipl~s from ~tholog~ ~s supporting

lUumlniJatter uumld presents hts ()Vrr~~earch middotv~icha~Q support$ hisyew vmiddotmiddot

bullbull Theptobfemmiddotof situatiOumlriifirr(Juent~smiddotbnthe t~Ia~iQnship middotmiddotbetween sttJbjeCt1ofexpresltbn arid exr1res~i9J1was)firstdisciJssed

middotmiddotlwH~ewil (19127)IBy SA ana~siS 01 crYlng I~middotgoin~~~~fmiddotdf ~q~ iieJd (Au$ dem Felde geherj) and startle respon~~f9f chHoumlteri hesbpwed thJlt~aflexpresston maVHave dff~ent meariiHi~ dep~li(fihs on

ii both the internal state and the external situaHQn of ariindfvldual ~h~ middothemiddotmiddotcHticizedJthecJfissificatiofl apPT8~d~6f tbearfYmiddotmiddotmiddot

E_ress1dnPsothol()gy whichccitegorizeSexptessldn onlYJhJ~rms ofits most frequent occurence allouml therefore eilaumls up withfalse interpretations inindividu~1 iristances Lewin states that expression

142

tOURNAI O NONVI RBA IIIIltVIOI

like any other behavaumlor belongs to different psychic levels (seelische Schichten) expression is characterized by an interaction bctween different interlockcd psychic systerns (ineinshyandergeschachtelte seelische Systeme) Therefore expression can be understood only by taking into consideration all the different goa Is motives and apprehensions of the individua I Unfortunately lewin did not elaborate his view further and his influence on Expression PsychoJogy seems to have been quite limited Similar ideas can be found much later in the work of Frijda (1953 1969) or Gottschardt (1958) Frijda related hunlan expressions to the positionality (~ositionalitaumlt) of the actor Le the persons spccificposition towards the actual situation ThisD4tch psychologist obviously stands in the tradition of Expression P~ychologyand did infhJcnce its tater development strongly (cf FrU(f~ 1965) His concept ()f positionaUty is discijssed in two EngJisl1atides(Frijda 195319(9)

Cottschaldt (1958 lookaquiteshnilaumlr approach For hlm express[ons depend on the perceptionofmiddot tle actualsQdal situation ha sodal int~raction~hey aumlremiddothE~viJ~inHuencszligd bvthe

demands to bringQne~ lnHuenc~ toliear (GetfJlilgs~und ~~rkung~aospruchlfnh(s senseexpr~ssipnJs d~t~rm~nd by both the sender and the posslble recelver ancJthe rela~~Qnshpbetweeh

sJbl~ct()fe~preSSQIliJnq~Cpression ismQJetated bYtbeaenders middotpetceptionoumlfthe rec~ivermiddot bull i bullbull 7

Th~~intrjltater~Jtionship betwe~subjeeuroJc)f eXPFesslon ~xpr~ssiqn~f1d impfeSSfQnofmiddot the rectaivrasmiddota~Hclrgt~tedmiddotmiddot byJbe sender s~lso t~centuat~dlgtvKirchJu)jf (19f)5)whodi8tiogtJishes

between f9U~nyalu~sQf ~xPf~ssion~j ~ ~~~~~

- I~Expr~ssiv~ valu~middotI~tPwhaldeafee da ~xpressi~hs middotcontribumiddotte to th~ reaUz~HQf1middotQl a$szligndelsua(lual

positionaUty (Aktlls(posltlonalltatlmiddotwhereby posltiongfU middotmiddotrt1ean~ theW~~Jf~~~~tt9nJqf~~e~Ati~tb~lm81ntheybtfd~ bullmiddot

_ ICom~r1I~aix(~y~~~Xltet Jlcraquoe8middot~tiJOumlel) reteiVerlt~Qf bull 11 e)(pt$sioq 8et(~ljemiddot(mRt$SIOb 91 bull baMtn8~ understoo(f the sen()est~testt~tit$feflI~t)I$i tgt bull R~ac~Jy~yal~_~~~i~eigttpmiddotlwhatdear~e eils thegtreteiver

rl$pO(J ~~~middotfmiddotj~~Y~middot~S~middotJ ) 1 I -- [jis(oveOJJt~~~tJrr ~ what4taumlr~e is thirdperson

(nel(h~r$~o~~f~~~~~tfmiddotmiddotmiddot ~te t~~~~f~QllQbJSiiohsfr()mtllemiddot I isenders ~~pr~~$Jy~~~p

- bull bullbull~~ l~Yi~fmiddot Pi C bull t

t bull I

14

JI NS ASfmiddotNDOHPI IAHAU) WAlUIOI I

These distinctions show some interesting analogies to modern nonverbal communicalion research especially to Ekman and Friesens (1969) distinction of informative interactive and cornmunicative behavior whereby informative behavior may be relatcd to expressive value and discovery value interactive behavior resembles Kirchhoffs reactive value and communicative behavior resembles to some degree communicative value of

bull expressiont

i i i

I ~ How is expression perceivedl I

I middotAlthough this question has become important middotn todayst research Expressioumln Psychologywas sefdom explidtly Coocelned

with that point It pften was stated that the unity of expression and meaning cannat be discussed separately trom impression (szligf Husar 1973) Le that expression and hnpressioll can only be

understodas agestaltiAseparableirltb distinct part~ Therefore thacof1cepts ofanaumlfogyuumls~d( to Understand the prpcess ()f

(l~pressiC)~i alsQplay Ei majotpartJn thetheoriesonitUJ~ressi()n formation Besidesl~eralfierObsiur~ con~IUsipnsbvanalo8V middotthete alwiloseJltisted aihtgttherlfriedf r~asofliiuicenteted ~round the ~QAcef)t of ~im1tat~~nfauml~ll~htnUraquoR) i~phi1~tY tg~tle ani)loIolt

appraacat6( expJIGt theotieswere JroPQseq tll~t treq tq ~e5crile theeJ(presSionltl1presSioprot~ssmiddotMosfQfmiddotfhese hnita~ionttleories ofmiddotimpression canbe fo~halizelJ i~l ~ siriiihlrWi1yOn th~J~veJ C1f mQoJf~stalticm the folto~irygt~aihi~bYPfhesizedAP~r~nh~sah ~perence raquo TheJ1etsonsho~t ~~pres$ht~ b~~~l(lQfraquo A At~middotmiddot

Ilereeiver ltrecoumlgires fhisszligettav1r (gt~l~e petct1iv~8~tributes ~lI11e subject of expre5~io~ t~jth~ 5~rid~r fri the~rQc~$~hJeN(flitfds chajncollsists of~hree relaumltionaf (ooceptsExpression raquo p(~r(er)tion raquo attribution bull After illt this basiS t~szligo~y J~ n9-t y~ryfarlliartfrQm themiddot BfJJhswJkiailJelIS ~~~~~~~th~t~~t~~(tRmiddotJh~JIlJ~tV y~ a$pf hlbQfnation has bec01J1e middotNA tmpor~fi~r~searqi t~qli b0Q~Y (t~Jlri 1969middot Scherer 197szlig) 8Y~~P~aumlCf~~ s~n1~~~~~Wl~ t~~ AmlIN~lt~f~~~tomes obvMlUS 0 tnelevel ofmiddot mltnifesfalIQOS Tral1stamiddotteltraquo ~lJttlJmiddotcues raquo proxirtfil~cUesraquoaf-ttibutto~~i~)lt~s on J~Po~~$Sr-h~yel ExternHlatbngtgtrperteptlon ~gtfh~~~~~p~ gt bullbull

The differenc~middotmiddot b~twe~~ middott~r~s~9pi~$V~hpf~g~ ~ppr~(l~hes aAd the use of the

1 leAsemdqel i(i toumldaumly-s researc JiEsprintariJy in the conceptuaHzation oumlf percgtepfiohand fnferenceattribution

i

loH

)( HJHNAI ()I N( )NVIIWAI HIIIAVIlt)I

processes While the Idtter btlse conclusions only on measurable aspects of perception accuracy nonverbal sensitivity and weltshydefined cognitive inference models thc former have dcveloped some more or less obscurc modds to cxplain llw underlying processes

Imitation theorists I)OSlulitmt thnt thtl P(~Iltt~ivf~r should hllve some t~tldcncy lo Imltat(~ pvrlteivml buumlhaviol This imitation in turn should Induce an expericnce or a feeling wHhin the receiver which then is attributed to the person perceived (Hinausverlegen) This vew was stressed particularly by lipps (1907) and Klages (1950) Both authors claim that some iimitation drive (Nachahmungstrieb) exists that makes possible the understanding of others or empathy (Einfuumlhlung) The proble~m lies in the fact

thalt tliis drive ot tendency to imitate an other persons behavior has never been verified The poly proQf often was to invite the

middotreader to look athisown behavior and by that to realize the truth of the argumenl(forinstance peQple vawning)ogetherl) middotmiddotSome a(it~Qrs reali~~d the shQfU=ornings lipps(1907) Uied to

telaboratethe concept bYPQ~tulatingqnempathy principJe stathlg tnlH middotfjefs9tiSha(e ~earned via se~fp~rceftioA thatcertaih middotmiddotmiddotoumlxpfessiolls ar refaumlieq~ to ce~t~il1 f~~l~ing6 iand wil when percei~irlg aumlrle)(pr~s~U)n rn~R~ ~~e of th~tknowledge This

eflJatgemeHt of dje imitatiOh(~pq~ep~ QfdoQt fl~p)mUGflin further - ennif1lafioriCon~~qUumle1~fV t~eqrpinpu$ teflQampOcrsometimes

middotmiddottermed lI1tend~h(Y fot ideomotOFlcil~tiQnsmiddot lRphracRer 1963) bull~ eurolied 9Ui~tly a~tet ~~r~f4~~n~lysisw~sJn~ertiJk~~tamp uflderstan~ thepflet1oumlmenoQ~ fhchtEr (1951L~latedlJ1at th~~~ ISOO suchentity

lt 8lainirtati~n drive ibuumli it1~l~gme phefl~rn~naeXtst that were~ raumllher Uflj~$lifiably 7 ~~Jgt~41t~d ader middotthls term PIe

di$tlngtJishes between five typesJgtf ui~~oJjszligot()rk processes(1957)

~( 0rthotropi5m~u1~~i~~~~blqt~kifJ~uj~U~f)focesses thaf ~djreQt~th~Re~(~ptp~~~rgCotJ9Wf9Wf~Pti~li~r~lliao~

~~ Odenting J ~~~ctiRn~ l~f Jl~~tszlig8gt ilQQtlefgt person~ n1(Jerrtmiddotehts to linp bu~ aOQJJ tge~~~$Hnsf9r)~jsQrher aCitk)nC( i

~ degMotoumlric inf~tt 1e~~( pheQQnl~naF~4~edby trh~middot irinitatlon ofmiddot jtJsf ttle expftssvem6Yem~nfiA~~p~jonaUylnvolving group ~ I

situations pafti~ul~rJy ih nUumls~Qeh4Yh)r bull - middothEXlfesSi6n~df1~~~6~Yrriic~~~iqe th~identica~ behavior

oumllt(Jifferent persgn~ isc~~s~d hvthe simultaneouslnductjon

11 NS ASI NDOIUf bull IAI~AII) WA no I I

of thc same crnotional ltate parlicularly by situational cue~ IIldcomotoric acti()n~ Le expressive behavior caused by a congruent imagination in different persons

Other Expressive psychologists used concepts nearly as vaguc as the irnitation drive Sonle of these concepts were quite sirnilar to Jungs (1960) ideas about intuitive perception11 This cQncept states that persons perceive other persons unconsciously a form not of irrational but rather of extra-rational perception Relat~d concepts were Krohs (1934) physiognomie perception where meaning is obtained imrnediately without

interfering reflections or conscious processes and Welleks (1943)

complex-qualitative understanding of expression and essence These vague concepts contributedmuch to the viewmiddot of

Expression Psychology as being unscientific Nevertheless the distinction between an itnn)ediate fprm of impression formationmiddot and a less immediate more reflectiveforin makesq~ite senSeas

recent research on hemispherictUfferenes intheperceptioo of middotmiddotemotional facial expression shows (cf Mosc()Iitch ScuUioo amp Chfistie 1976Suberiamp McKeever1977) bull bull gt

middotOne f1nal aspect of impression theories has to be nientiooedmiddotmiddot thatis in particular importantwithin thef~am~wotk of imit~tipnmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot

lheories It was hypothesizedmiddotthatinddcediniitative behaviorin middottornwill ind~ceanemotiQh~l ~xpeiJecemiddot)~the pereeiver~ rhe

rnost reccnt representaHve olthisldeab Rohracer1963r inmiddot hIs ( irudiment theory (Rudimeiltentheorie) FolloWlngCarpenters ideomotork law he middotstate$ that imitaledmovements willindtlte

~xperiences usually connect~dwith these movemerlts(WhtHlWe seeSomeone belr18 sadfor eXc1rriplewe wilfirnitate thesad fadalmiddot ex~r~ssion atJ Ji) tutn will fe~ s~dJQo and--inthatway we-wfil4

bull Nundetstand hirn) This hypothesis mftl1tbe itrekedbalt=kmiddotf9gtthe q~ntfoVeJsy betweenmiddot Ja rneslange- t~eqri~~middot ()f timoliQnand bull Cannon fotlowes c~nc~rning ~~roI9middotoffeedback froniePresstve

bull behavioumlr in cOl~stituting e~otional ex~erience ~hsJro~lem is S~JHmiddot not fuHy resolved tt i$ stlU notcteaumlr yvhether or- nQt mimi~~szligit bull

e)(p~e$5ionsf2a1middot~H~itceftain f~nh8~irecszligntJeSQ~lfcnJas betUritomiddot untahgle thilsprQlImiddotem (cf~ taird1974 T0urilng~atl~rE~bWQrtht ~979) bull )

Thoughmost()fthe i~~as~o~Jcor)cepts oE Expressi~n~ Psycholoumlgy presented hete mayseem rather obscute theywere noneth~leis the basis and frameworkJor sorne inter~sting results

11 NS ASI NDOIUf bull IAI~AII) WA no I I

of thc same crnotional ltate parlicularly by situational cue~ IIldcomotoric acti()n~ Le expressive behavior caused by a congruent imagination in different persons

Other Expressive psychologists used concepts nearly as vaguc as the irnitation drive Sonle of these concepts were quite sirnilar to Jungs (1960) ideas about intuitive perception11 This cQncept states that persons perceive other persons unconsciously a form not of irrational but rather of extra-rational perception Relat~d concepts were Krohs (1934) physiognomie perception where meaning is obtained imrnediately without

interfering reflections or conscious processes and Welleks (1943)

complex-qualitative understanding of expression and essence These vague concepts contributedmuch to the viewmiddot of

Expression Psychology as being unscientific Nevertheless the distinction between an itnn)ediate fprm of impression formationmiddot and a less immediate more reflectiveforin makesq~ite senSeas

recent research on hemispherictUfferenes intheperceptioo of middotmiddotemotional facial expression shows (cf Mosc()Iitch ScuUioo amp Chfistie 1976Suberiamp McKeever1977) bull bull gt

middotOne f1nal aspect of impression theories has to be nientiooedmiddotmiddot thatis in particular importantwithin thef~am~wotk of imit~tipnmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot

lheories It was hypothesizedmiddotthatinddcediniitative behaviorin middottornwill ind~ceanemotiQh~l ~xpeiJecemiddot)~the pereeiver~ rhe

rnost reccnt representaHve olthisldeab Rohracer1963r inmiddot hIs ( irudiment theory (Rudimeiltentheorie) FolloWlngCarpenters ideomotork law he middotstate$ that imitaledmovements willindtlte

~xperiences usually connect~dwith these movemerlts(WhtHlWe seeSomeone belr18 sadfor eXc1rriplewe wilfirnitate thesad fadalmiddot ex~r~ssion atJ Ji) tutn will fe~ s~dJQo and--inthatway we-wfil4

bull Nundetstand hirn) This hypothesis mftl1tbe itrekedbalt=kmiddotf9gtthe q~ntfoVeJsy betweenmiddot Ja rneslange- t~eqri~~middot ()f timoliQnand bull Cannon fotlowes c~nc~rning ~~roI9middotoffeedback froniePresstve

bull behavioumlr in cOl~stituting e~otional ex~erience ~hsJro~lem is S~JHmiddot not fuHy resolved tt i$ stlU notcteaumlr yvhether or- nQt mimi~~szligit bull

e)(p~e$5ionsf2a1middot~H~itceftain f~nh8~irecszligntJeSQ~lfcnJas betUritomiddot untahgle thilsprQlImiddotem (cf~ taird1974 T0urilng~atl~rE~bWQrtht ~979) bull )

Thoughmost()fthe i~~as~o~Jcor)cepts oE Expressi~n~ Psycholoumlgy presented hete mayseem rather obscute theywere noneth~leis the basis and frameworkJor sorne inter~sting results

14b

HHJHNAI 01 NONVI WAI 111 IIAVIOlt

on facial expression voice and body movement to be reported in the following parts of the series Apart from sorne strangemiddotlooking terms Expression Psychology has contributed some important results lo our understanding of nonverbal behavior and thef(~ are at least some themes where theories of Expression Psychology and nonverbal communication research are not far ilpart from each other I t 15 our opinion that this connection has not bocn sufficiently recognized in present research One reason may be the language barrier To Jower this barrier somewhat is one aim of this series Another aim may be more ambitious we will try to demonstrate that not all of Expression Psychology was pure metaphysks Or just nonsense

REFERENCESmiddot

middot Arnheim R Experimentell-psychologische Untersuchungen tum Ausdrucksproblem Psymiddot middot chQ8she forschung 1926 11 2432 bull

Arnheim~ R The gestalt theory of expression PsychoogicslReview1949 56 150171Imiddot bull

bullBuumlhler K Ausdwcfuthealie Jena G flsther 1933 ~uumlhtertlt S)facbpsychologie Jena C Fiscaer 1934

Buser R Ausdruckspsychooge MUflchen E Reinh~rdt1971 Buytendijk F J J AligemeneTheoi~ dermenschlichen HaiWng md Bewegung Berlln

Spfin8~rI19S6~ bull bull [)arwif1~ Tllee~p$~iqn pi theemotJoos iaman and animaso loiidon J Murray 1672 ~kman -J t Fre$~f1 W V Thefep~rtolre 01Q~mverbalbebaion Categories oriBtns

usaumlse-andtOdlrJa Semiorca19~ 1 4g9~t bull bullbull j

middot~t11iiJl8J1JNob~~tbaumllcommunictiao Getm~nlournal qfPsychology 1981 5~8-64 JOlleI JJ bull Ideen ~4u~r Mimik BedinA Myliu5 171fS186 bull c

middottlach Amiddot Oumlie P$ycfOlosieder AU$(lru~sbewe8ung A(civluumltd~esamte PsychOlogie middotmiddot1~2ii5 435~Sjt lt gt

~ bullbullbull j- - bull

middotmiddotfdida~ H~ JheuttdetJtandlng offadlexpressions 01 emotlonA~ta Psycholosica 195 middot9l9+362

~ffQda NH~ Refql~ttlon ofe~QtlOp lfl Lbuller~QwltJ (EfJ~)t)yaI1F~$ In experlment~hoclaJ bull p$ychQ1OSyvol middot NewVbr~ ~cadernlc ltos969 p~167~2~~middotmiddot bull G(ItJsfhfl1dtILHndfuna UndAusdruck In d~r Psvcholbale deltpetsonllchkeltletsehrllt fur

c ~~I~f~Q~~~~3tSt 162~ IOf2J~ i bull Lmiddot I)

ff~fzkamfJ tce bulltmiddot~rA~SdtY~kstmiddotb e ) ~~IlCbt~Jln4d ~~~te01bull tl oreo 11 R KIC hh9ff(~a bull t Hanilhucf8erPtychqlpIt vor ~~ C~tIonHq8rtfq ~65 pplmiddot113 middotmiddotlf(~t ~lt rffel fl(Eds)t fmiddotTheconJextmiddot ooumlcl psythiJlo~ ~ora~~n Academl~Pr~$s bull 1922~middot h f ~ )

gt (tMB C ~~sYcholo~the rYAeqth~~middot9riS~ R~~~her19~ fkal(lCtunasifFliches iurAu~(lru~fltsp~i~9Igie~ 1~~~ lY1chp~()~cCJ1~~1 3bull 27~rn+middot I

~i~chboff~middot(t C(unWtagen der Ausdrudc5plycfolosJe middoth)middotlttltI~hhoff (Ed1 Handbu~h d~r ~fchQo~pl5 G bull etln8~h~ H08rete 1965~ ppi11219middotmiddot bull I

I IKtaaes 1middot Crunillaen der Charakterkunde leipzig A Barth 1926

Klases L Cund~Bcm8 der Wssenchalfvom A$druck f)Qnn 8ouvir i9PP bull ~middotr(lh O J)Js~hysf08ri()rritsche ~irstetih In seitler atigerneiopsycboloumlslschen QetleutUI)8f NeuftPSycho(oische sruqJen 193412 23~i bull

147

ItNS ASLNlJORPl HARAlD WAUBOI T

laird J D S(Ifmiddotttrlbution of emotion The effects of eKpreuive behavlor on the quality of emotional cxperience Journal 01 Iersonality aod Sodal PsychooBY 1974 29475-486

lavatcr J c Pllysognomsche fragmente zur 8eoumlrderung der Menschenkenntnis und Menschenliebe leipzig Weidmann amp Reich 1715middot1778

Leonhard K Ausdruckssprache der Seele Berlln Haug 1949 lersch P Gesicht und Seele Muumlnchen E Relnhardt 1955 Lersch P Zur Theorie des mimischen Ausdrucks Zeitschrift tuumlr Experimentelle und

Angewandte Psychologie 1957 4 409middot419 i lewin K Kindlicher Ausdruck Zeitschrift fuumlr Padsgog$che Psychologie 1927 28 510-526 I tipps T Das Wissen von fremden lehen In T Lipps (Ed) Psychologische Untersuchungen I

I leipzig Engelmann 1907 Moscovitch M SculUon 0 ampChristle D Earry vs late stages of processing and their relashy( tion to functional hemlspheric asymmetries In face recognltion Journal of

Experitnental Psychopgy fluman Percepfion and Performance 1976 2401-416 Piderlt T Wissenschaltliches System der Mimik und Physiognomik Detmold Klingenberg

1867 Richter H Zum Problem der ideomotorischen Phanomene Zeitschrift fuumlr Psychologie 1957

161161-254 Rohracher HKleine Charakterkunde (10th ed) Wien Urban amp Schwarzenbers 1963 Schererm K R Inferenee rules in personality attribution from voice quality The loud voice

middotof extraversion ~uropean loumalol Sodal Psychoogy1978 8 467-487 Suberi M ampMcKeever W fOifferential right hemispheric memory storage of emotional

and non-emotional faces Neuropsychoogia 1977 15 757-768 Strehle H Mienen Gesten und Gebaumllden MlJnchen E Reinhardt 1954 Tagiuri RPerson perceplion In G lindzey amp E Aronson Ed The handbook of sodal psyshy

chot08Y vol 3 ReadingAddson-Wesley 1969 pp 395middot449 Tourallgeau R amp Ellsworth P C The role of faeial response in the experience ofemotion

10umaol PersonalityandSocial Psychgy1979 371519-1531 Wellek A HeUpachs Deutsche Physiognomik und die Probleme der Physiognomik ubershy

haupt Zeitschrift fuumlr Angewandte Psychologie und Charakterkunde 1943 66 1-41 Worner R Theoretische und experimentelle Beitraumlge zum Ausdrucksproblem Zeit$chrjft

fuumlr Angewandte Psychologie lind Charakterkunde 194059 257-318 bull Wolf W The expression 01 personality NeW York Harper 1943