This article was downloaded by: [Belinda Campos] On: 21 June 2012, At: 08:50 Publisher: Psychology Press Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Cognition & Emotion Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pcem20 What is shared, what is different? Core relational themes and expressive displays of eight positive emotions Belinda Campos a , Michelle N. Shiota b , Dacher Keltner c , Gian C. Gonzaga d & Jennifer L. Goetz e a Department of Chicano/Latino Studies, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA b Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA c Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA d eHarmony Labs, Santa Monica, CA, USA e Department of Psychology, Centre College, Danville, KY, USA Available online: 21 Jun 2012
To cite this article: Belinda Campos, Michelle N. Shiota, Dacher Keltner, Gian C. Gonzaga & Jennifer L. Goetz (2012): What is shared, what is different? Core relational themes and expressive displays of eight positive emotions, Cognition & Emotion, DOI:10.1080/02699931.2012.683852 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2012.683852
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded by [Belinda Campos] at 08:50 21 June 2012 COGNITION AND EMOTION 2012, 1 16, iFirst
What is shared, what is different? Core relational themes and expressive displays of eight positive emotions
Belinda Campos1, Michelle N. Shiota2, Dacher Keltner3, Gian C. Gonzaga4, and Jennifer L. Goetz5 1Department of Chicano/Latino Studies, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA 2Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA 3Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA 4eHarmony Labs, Santa Monica, CA, USA 5Department of Psychology, Centre College, Danville, KY, USA
Understanding positive emotions’ shared and differentiating features can yield valuable insight into the structure of positive emotion space and identify emotion states, or aspects of emotion states, that are most relevant for particular psychological processes and outcomes. We report two studies that examined core relational themes (Study 1) and expressive displays (Study 2) for eight positive emotion constructs*amusement, awe, contentment, gratitude, interest, joy, love, and pride. Across studies, all eight emotions shared one quality: high positive valence. Distinctive core relational theme and expressive display patterns were found for four emotions*amusement, awe, interest, and pride. Gratitude was associated with a distinct core relational theme but not an expressive display. Joy and love were each associated with a distinct expressive display but their core relational themes also characterised pride and gratitude, respectively. Contentment was associated with a distinct expressive display but not a core relational theme. The implications of this work for the study of positive emotion are discussed.
Keywords: Positive emotion; Appraisal; Core relational theme; Expressive display; Differentiation.
Positive emotions influence a wide array of 2000; Gable, Reis, Impett, & Asher, 2004; psychological phenomena spanning cognitive ten- Pressman & Cohen, 2005; Tugade, Fredrickson,
Downloaded by [Belinda Campos] at 08:50 21 June 2012 dencies, relationship processes, and health and & Barrett, 2004). As a class of emotion, positive well-being outcomes (e.g., Folkman & Moskowitz, emotions centre around pursuit of opportunities
Correspondence should be addressed to: Belinda Campos, Department of Chicano/Latino Studies, 3151 Social Science Plaza A, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-5100, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Portions of this work were completed while Belinda Campos was a graduate student at UC Berkeley supported by an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship and a UC Berkeley Graduate Opportunity Fellowship and a postdoctoral scholar at UCLA supported by NIMH training grant MH15750 and the UCLA Center for the Everyday Lives of Families. Portions of this research were presented at a 2003 conference at the New York Academy of Sciences. The first two authors contributed equally to this work. We are thankful to our UC Berkeley and UCLA teams of undergraduate research assistants for their assistance in data collection for Studies 1 and 2 and narrative coding for Study 1.
# 2012 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business 1 http://www.psypress.com/cogemotion http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2012.683852 CAMPOS ET AL.
and rewards (e.g., Fredrickson, 1998; Lazarus, tional responding with the goal of providing a rich 1991; Morgan & Heise, 1988; Shiota, Campos, description of the similarities and differences in Keltner, & Hertenstein, 2004), building resources subjective experience and behaviour displays asso- by modulating cognitive processes, increa- ciated with these emotions. Study 1 used a sing approach motivation, and enhancing rela- narrative method to examine core relational tional bonds (e.g., Fiedler, 2001; Forgas, 2008; themes, a highly subjective aspect of emotion. Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005; Gonzaga, Keltner, Study 2 used a posed display task to examine Londahl, & Smith, 2001; Harmon-Jones, 2003; expressive display patterns, one of the most McCullough, Kilpatrick, Emmons, & Larson, objective aspects of emotional responding (i.e., 2001). The common features among positive observable muscle movements). These aspects of emotions have led to a suggestion that they are emotion have been studied extensively in research less categorically differentiated than negative emo- on negative emotions, generating evidence of tions (e.g., de Rivera, Possel, Verette, & Weiner, differentiation among several distinct constructs 1989; Ekman, 1992; Ellsworth & Smith, 1988). (e.g., Ekman et al., 1987; Lazarus, 1991). In the However, emotions such as awe, contentment, present research, however, we expanded tradi- interest, love, and pride also have been shown to tional definitions of core relational themes and have distinctive phenomenological, cognitive, phy- expressive displays to better capture the likely siological, and behavioural features that may reflect features of positive emotions. Core relational particular functions (e.g., Fehr & Russell, 1991; themes of negative emotions typically emphasise Gonzaga, Turner, Keltner, Campos, & Altemus, intrapersonal functions (Levenson, 1999), espe- 2006; Griskevicius, Shiota, & Nowlis, 2010; cially threats to individual well-being (Lazarus, Sauter, 2010; Shiota, Neufeld, Yeung, Moser, & 1991). However, functional analyses of positive Perea, 2011; Silvia, 2005; Tracy & Robins, 2007). emotions often emphasise social functions, or ways Despite great advances in research on indivi- in which emotions support the interdependent dual positive emotion states, few studies have relationships on which humans depend for survi- explicitly compared positive emotions on any val and reproductive success (e.g., Keltner, Haidt, aspect of emotional responding. Ellsworth and & Shiota, 2006; Shiota et al., 2004). Similarly, Smith (1988) found that interest, hope, challenge, research on expressive displays of negative emo- tranquillity, playfulness and love were charac- tions has focused on the face (e.g., Ekman et al., terised by distinct appraisal patterns. Shiota and 1987; Izard, 1977) but positive emotion displays colleagues (2011) documented qualitatively dif- have been found to extend to posture and touch ferent profiles of autonomic nervous system (e.g., Gonzaga et al., 2001; Hertenstein, Keltner, reactivity to stimuli eliciting five positive emo- App, Bulleit, & Jaskolka, 2006; Tracy & Robins, tions. Mortillaro, Mehu, and Scherer (2011) 2007). Downloaded by [Belinda Campos] at 08:50 21 June 2012 reported differences in actors’ dynamic poses for We selected the eight emotions for our two facial expressions of interest, joy, pride and studies based upon the middle-level categories pleasure. Their work suggests important differ- that emerged from a pilot lexical analysis entiation among positive emotions. In our view, of positive emotion word free-sorts (Campos, systematic comparisons of overlap and difference Gonzaga, Shin, & Keltner, 2002) and published among multiple positive emotions on key aspects theoretical analyses and empirical data on positive of responding can generate a better understanding emotion constructs, preferably from multiple labs of the structure of emotion and identify specific (e.g., Algoe, Haidt, & Gable, 2008; Berenbaum, emotion states, or aspects of emotion states, that 2002; de Rivera et al., 1989; Fredrickson, 1998; are most relevant for particular psychosocial Gonzaga et al., 2001; Lazarus, 1991; McCullough processes and outcomes. et al., 2001; Morgan & Heise, 1988; Shaver, We report two studies that examined eight Schwartz, Kirson, & O’Connor, 1987; Silvia, positive emotions on two core features of emo- 2005; Tracy & Robins, 2007): amusement, awe,
2 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2012, iFirst POSITIVE EMOTION DIFFERENTIATION
contentment, gratitude, interest, joy, love, and Method pride.1,2 Importantly, this list included closely Participants related constructs (e.g., gratitude and love, awe Two hundred and forty-two participants took part and interest) as well as more clearly distinct ones in a study of positive emotion at UC Berkeley in (e.g., love and pride), which allowed us to examine exchange for course credit. Participant mean age both broad categories of positive emotion and was 20.24 years (SD 5.43). Due to a logistical more subtle distinctions. error, demographic information was only collected from 19% of participants. This 19% included 37 women and nine men who self-identified as STUDY 1: CORE RELATIONAL European American (20%), Asian American THEMES OF EIGHT POSITIVE (66%), Latino (12%), and African American (2%). EMOTIONS
Core relational themes (CRTs) capture the proto- Procedure typical ‘‘script’’ associated with an emotion experi- Participants arrived in groups of 10 15. One of ence (Lazarus, 1991). The distinct elements of three experimenters seated each participant and CRTs*elicitors, appraisals, and tendencies to distributed a study packet containing the open- act*reflect an organised response to the potential ended narrative task. Participants were asked to harm or benefit associated with an emotion- write about a recent personal experience with one of the following positive emotion words: amusement evoking event. Unification of these elements into (n 30), awe (n 30), contentment (n 31), a coherent script theoretically links objective fea- gratitude (n 31), interest (n 30), joy (n 30), tures of the environment to more subjective love (n 30), and pride (n 30). perceptions of relevance to the self and functional behaviours. For the purposes of Study 1, we asked Narrative reports of emotion experience. Participants whether the specific CRTs suggested by recent answered four open-ended questions derived from theoretical analyses of our eight positive emotions previous research (e.g., Roseman, Spindel, & Jose, (see Table 1 for CRT item description) captured 1990; Shaver et al., 1987). Participants were given meaningful similarities and differences in open- one page to answer each of the first two questions, ended narratives of emotional experience. and a half page to answer each of the last two Although subject to memory biases, open-ended questions: narratives are effective for capturing themes em-
bedded in naturalistic descriptions of experience Describe in as much detail as possible what (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1995; Shaver happened to cause you to feel [emotion]. Downloaded by [Belinda Campos] at 08:50 21 June 2012 et al., 1987). A between-subjects design was used to Describe in as much detail as possible what reduce the likelihood that comparisons among it was like while you were actually experien- positive emotions would exaggerate their simila- cing [emotion], not what it was like either rities or differences. Analyses assessed whether the before or after the emotional experience. theorised CRT differentiated each target emotion This should include: What were you were from each of the seven comparison emotions. feeling or what was going through your
1 We considered including happiness because it is the only positive emotion on many basic emotion lists (Ekman & Davidson, 1994). However, the term ‘‘happiness’’ is also used to refer to a general sense of well-being and life satisfaction (e.g., Diener & Diener, 1996), or to a cognitive tendency to engage in downward social comparison (Lyubomirsky, 2001). Instead, joy was chosen to represent the emotion component of the broader term happiness. 2 The emotions studied originally also included sympathy and desire. Both had a significantly less positive valence than the other emotions in Study 1 (sympathy: M 1.00, SD 2.70; desire: M 1.45, SD 3.24). Further, in Study 2, the sympathy display was similar to the established display for sadness (Ekman, 1972). Thus, both were dropped from this final report.
COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2012, 00 (00) 3 CAMPOS ET AL.
mind? What physical signs of [emotion] you items. This minimised the likelihood that coders showed (i.e., what happened to your body)? would be influenced by a narrative subset to see What you said, how you said it, and to more or less differentiation across emotions. To whom you said it? What you did/how you assess inter-rater reliability, we used the intraclass acted? How you expressed your feelings of correlation (ICC) for multiple coders whose [emotion]? Describe everything about the ratings are averaged together (ICCaverage). The experience that you can remember. 16 items and their ICCs are described below. Did your experience of [emotion] change you in any way (e.g., did it lead to any long- Amusement. Amusement has been concep- lasting changes in your relationship with tualised as a response associated with play people or in how you view the world)? that facilitates cognitive and behavioural Can you add anything that would help skills (Griskevicius, Shiota, & Neufeld, describe your experience more fully? 2010; Pellegrini & Smith, 2005; Wyer & Collins, 1992). A similar construct has been studied under the labels ‘‘exhilaration’’ and Emotion experience check. Following the narrative ‘‘joy’’ (Panksepp, 1998; Ruch, 1993). Given prompts, participants used Likert scales to self- our young adult sample, the items tapping report on the following characteristics of their amusement emphasised cognitive rather emotion experience: valence, salience, recency, than physical play. Judges rated the extent duration, and intensity. For valence, participants to which a participant (a) was aware of reported on the pleasantness of their emotion incongruity in a situation (e.g., realising one experience ( 5 Unpleasant;5 Pleasant). For meaning was really another; ICC .70), and salience, participants reported how much of the (b) playful with others in the environment emotion they felt while writing about the experi- (ICC .88). ence (0 None;8 A great deal). For recency, Awe. Awe has been conceptualised as a participants reported on how long ago the elicit- response elicited by novel, complex stimuli ing situation had occurred (1 Days ago; that require cognitive accommodation 4 Years). For duration and intensity, participants (Keltner & Haidt, 2003; Shiota, Keltner, & rated the duration (1 A few seconds;5 A day or Mossman, 2007). Judges rated the extent to more) and intensity (1 Not very intense;4 Very which a participant (a) felt the situation intense) of their emotion experience. challenged their worldview (e.g., seeing something not thought possible; ICC .69), Core relational themes. The coding of CRTs .69), and (b) felt small relative to the occurred in two phases. In the first phase, a environment or others (e.g., overwhelmed Downloaded by [Belinda Campos] at 08:50 21 June 2012 team of trained research assistants read the by beauty or achievement; ICC .80). narratives and retained those about a specific Contentment. Contentment has been concep- emotional experience rather than a diffuse one tualised as a response derived from the satiety (e.g., philosophising on the nature of emotion). of basic physical needs such as food, warmth, All narratives met this criterion and were retained or companionship (e.g., Ellsworth & Smith, for analyses. All narratives were then edited to 1988; Fredrickson, 1998). Judges rated the remove any emotion-identifying references (e.g., extent to which a participant (a) appreciated ‘‘love’’, ‘‘pride’’). In the second phase, a separate present circumstances (ICC .88), and (b) team of five coders used 5-point Likert scales felt satisfied and secure (e.g., all needs met; (1 Not at all;5 Very much) to rate the extent to ICC .79). which each emotion narrative referenced 16 items Gratitude. Gratitude has been conceptua- that tapped the possible CRTs. Each emotion lised as a response to being benefited narrative was coded by all five coders for all 16 by another’s intentional action (e.g., Algoe
4 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2012, iFirst POSITIVE EMOTION DIFFERENTIATION
et al., 2008; McCullough et al., 2001). ward through effort; overcome obstacles; Judges rated the extent to which a partici- ICC .95), and (b) able to take on new pant (a) was benefited by another’s action challenges (e.g., more confident; able to rely (e.g., receiving an unsolicited gift or favour; on self or other; ICC .81). ICC .90), and (b) wanted to give back (e.g., reciprocate or benefit another; ICC .80). Results and discussion Interest. Interest has been conceptualised as a response to novel information that fits Data analysis approach Analyses occurred in two steps. First, we checked existing schema, motivating learning and ratings to assess whether the narrative task tapped exploration (Silvia, 2005). Judges rated the salient, positive valence emotion experience. Sec- extent to which a participant (a) was ond, coder ratings per item were averaged and a absorbed by novelty (e.g., engrossed in series of one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) something new; ICC .76), and (b) felt were conducted on the averaged item ratings. they could explore (e.g., focused on taking in Significant omnibus effects were followed with something new; ICC .82). Dunnett pairwise tests comparing the target Joy. Joy has been conceptualised as a high- emotion for each CRT item with each of the arousal response to obtaining a reward (e.g., other seven positive emotions. This allowed us to Lazarus, 1991; Shaver et al., 1987). Our use assess the extent to which a core relational theme of ‘‘joy’’ includes the meaning of ‘‘happiness’’ item was specific to the target emotion or shared as an emotion state, and the associated more broadly among other positive emotions. empirical research, but does not extend to general feelings of well-being (Lyubomirsky, 2001). Judges rated the extent to which a Emotion experience check participant (a) experienced an improvement Ratings of the eight positive emotions did not in resources (e.g., receiving a reward or differ significantly with respect to valence, sal- something of value; ICC .81), and (b) felt ience, recency, or intensity (all omnibus F-test an increase in positive energy (e.g., wanting ps .05). All positive emotions were characterised to jump up and down; ICC .80). by highly positive valence (M 4.13, SD 1.44, Love. Love has been conceptualised as a where the highest possible rating was five). Mean response that promotes commitment to ratings for salience (the amount of emotion felt relationships essential to survival and repro- while writing) were above the midpoint of the duction (e.g., Fehr & Russell, 1991; 9-point scale across all eight emotions (M 5.25, Gonzaga et al., 2001; Sternberg & Grajek, SD 1.88), and also for each individual emotion. Downloaded by [Belinda Campos] at 08:50 21 June 2012 1984). Judges rated the extent to which a Emotion experiences had occurred within the participant (a) made him/herself vulnerable previous few months (M 2.86, SD 1.13) and to another (e.g., sharing intimate informa- were felt quite intensely (M 3.07, SD 0.78). tion; ICC .67), and (b) felt increased The eight emotions did differ significantly with commitment (e.g., more certain that another respect to duration, F(7, 228) 5.15, pB.001. can be counted on; ICC .74). The overall mean indicated a duration of several Pride. Pride has been conceptualised as a hours (M 4.15, SD 1.10), but amusement was response to personal or collective accom- of shorter duration than gratitude, joy, love, and plishment and is linked to increases in social pride (Scheffe ranges of 1.23 to 1.03, pB.05). status (e.g., Tracy & Robins, 2007; Williams & DeSteno, 2009). Judges rated the extent Core relational themes to which a participant felt (a) they had Table 1 presents the means and standard devia- accomplished something (e.g., obtained re- tions for core relational theme items for each of
COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2012, 00 (00) 5 CAMPOS ET AL.
the eight positive emotion narratives. Subscript only differed significantly from amusement, notations indicate that a core relational theme awe, interest, and gratitude (Dunnett t-range item significantly differentiated the target emo- of 1.15 to 0.67, pB.05). In sum, there tion from a comparison emotion. For ease of was little evidence that these core relational presentation, results of the Dunnett tests are theme items were specific to contentment; reported in ranges in the text below. they were more broadly characteristic of the eight positive emotions. Amusement. Mean ratings for references to Gratitude. The eight emotion conditions ‘‘awareness of incongruity in a situation’’, differed significantly overall, with gratitude F(7, 234) 3.69, pB.001 (Dunnett t-range receiving significantly higher ratings than all of 0.39 to 0.27, pB.02) and feeling other positive emotions, on the items ‘‘bene- ‘‘playful with others in the environment’’, fited by another’s action’’, F(7, 234) 41.13, F(7, 234) 12.44, pB.001 (Dunnett t-range pB.001 (Dunnett t-range of 3.17 to of 1.33 to 0.72, pB.001) differed 1.58, pB.001), and ‘‘wanting to give across emotion conditions. Both were sig- back’’, F(7, 234) 37.49, pB.001 (Dunnett nificantly higher in amusement narratives t-range of 1.59 to 1.23, pB.001). than in all other positive emotion narratives. Interest. Ratings of ‘‘absorbed by novelty’’ Awe. Mean ratings for references to ‘‘feeling differed significantly across emotion condi- small relative to environment/others’’ dif- tions, F(7, 234) 25.76, pB.001, and inter- fered significantly across emotion condi- est received significantly higher ratings on tions, F(7, 234) 21.55, pB.001, and awe this item than all comparison emotions except narratives had significantly higher ratings on awe in Dunnett tests (Dunnett this item than all other positive emotions t-range of 1.80 to 0.99, pB.001). Rat- (Dunnett t-range of 1.46 to 1.19, ings of ‘‘could explore’’ also differed signifi- pB.001). The omnibus effect of emotion cantly across emotions, F(7, 234) 27.25, for ‘‘situation challenged worldview’’ was pB.001, and interest narratives had higher also significant, F(7, 234) 4.50, pB.001, mean ratings on this item than all other with awe narratives receiving the highest positive emotions (Dunnett t-range of mean ratings, but awe differed significantly 1.86 to 0.99, pB.001). only from amusement, contentment, and Joy. Ratings of ‘‘improvement in resources’’ pride in Dunnett tests (Dunnett t-range of differed significantly across the eight emo- 0.67 to 0.46, pB.05). This may have tions, F(7, 234) 13.49, pB.001, and joy been due to a floor effect; explicit reference narratives received higher ratings on this to this item was infrequent. item than all comparison emotions except Downloaded by [Belinda Campos] at 08:50 21 June 2012 Contentment. The omnibus effect of emotion gratitude and pride, which received direc- on ‘‘appreciation of present circumstances’’ tionally higher ratings than joy (Dunnett t- was significant, F(7, 234) 4.59, pB.001, range of 1.15 to 0.62, pB.03). Ratings and contentment narratives had higher mean of ‘‘increase in positive energy’’ also differed ratings for this item than all other emotions across emotions, F(7, 234) 10.87, pB.001, except pride and joy, but Dunnett tests found and joy received significantly higher ratings that contentment only differed significantly than all comparison emotions except pride from interest on this item (Dunnett (Dunnett t-range of 1.57 to 0.78, t 0.74, pB.002). Our analysis of feeling pB.01). Thus, the core relational themes ‘‘satisfied and secure’’ was also significant, for joy also strongly characterised pride. F(7, 234) 11.36, pB.001, and contentment Love. Love narratives had higher mean rat- had higher mean ratings on this item than all ings for references to vulnerability and com- other positive emotions, but contentment mitment than all other emotion narratives
6 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2012, iFirst Table 1. Study 1: Means and standard deviations for references to core relational theme items in positive emotion narratives
Amusement Awe Contentment Gratitude Interest Joy Love Pride (n 30) (n 30) (n 31) (n 31) (n 30) (n 30) (n 30) (n 30) Core relational theme items M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Amusement Aware of incongruity 1.41a (0.52) 1.14b (0.47) 1.10b (0.44) 1.07b (0.18) 1.08b (0.24) 1.05b (0.26) 1.12b (0.37) 1.02b (0.01) Playful with others 2.42a (1.28) 1.20b (0.31) 1.37b (0.83) 1.09b (0.21) 1.24b (0.39) 1.70b (0.87) 1.33b (0.50) 1.17b (0.29) Awe Situation challenged worldview 1.29b (0.49) 1.97a (0.86) 1.51b (0.65) 1.80a (0.61) 1.61a (0.66) 1.63a (0.64) 1.93a (0.67) 1.37b (0.44) Felt small relative to other 1.24b (0.51) 2.60a (1.18) 1.26b (0.39) 1.14b (0.25) 1.41b (0.57) 1.19b (0.41) 1.20b (0.28) 1.39b (0.41) Contentment Appreciate present circumstances 3.75a (0.90) 3.91a (1.02) 4.23a (0.84) 3.97a (0.61) 3.49b (0.97) 4.40a (0.50) 3.89a (0.87) 4.35a (0.46) Feeling satisfied and secure 2.77b (0.67) 2.84b (0.71) 3.81a (0.80) 3.14b (0.54) 2.65b (0.65) 3.51a (0.65) 3.57a (0.88) 3.37a (0.53) Gratitude Felt benefited by another’s action 1.77b (0.75) 2.04b (1.05) 1.53b (0.79) 4.70a (0.55) 2.05b (0.94) 1.41b (0.76) 3.12 b (1.19) 1.71b (0.74) Wanting to give back 1.00b (0.00) 1.01b (0.04) 1.10b (0.30) 2.59a (1.13) 1.08b (0.26) 1.24b (0.36) 1.37b (0.31) 1.15b (0.39) Interest Attention absorbed by novelty 2.73b (0.81) 3.67a (0.86) 1.95b (0.98) 1.92b (0.73) 3.72a (0.78) 2.26b (0.71) 2.12b (0.74) 2.41b (0.61) Felt they could explore 1.43b (0.75) 1.96b (0.76) 1.25b (0.35) 1.09b (0.18) 2.95a (1.24) 1.46b (0.55) 1.20b (0.25) 1.28b (0.41) Joy ONTO N MTO,21,0 (00) 00 2012, EMOTION, AND COGNITION Improvement in resources 1.25b (0.54) 1.41b (0.83) 1.79b (0.89) 2.63a (1.12) 1.29b (0.50) 2.41a (1.12) 1.59b (0.53) 2.55a (1.07) Increase in positive energy 2.99b (0.98) 2.62b (0.93) 2.99b (0.78) 2.42b (0.83) 2.20b (0.81) 3.77a (0.68) 2.68b (0.90) 3.27a (0.72) Love OIIEEOINDIFFERENTIATION EMOTION POSITIVE Made self vulnerable to another 1.12b (0.29) 1.11b (0.28) 1.06b (0.19) 2.02a (0.69) 1.22b (0.35) 1.44b (0.62) 1.86a (0.73) 1.15b (0.26) Increased level of commitment 1.41b (0.54) 1.25b (0.43) 1.46b (0.61) 2.35a (0.84) 1.24b (0.50) 1.96b (0.85) 2.56a (0.61) 1.25b (0.35) Pride Accomplished something 1.40b (0.94) 1.57b (1.26) 2.88b (1.56) 1.33b (0.86) 1.41b (0.76) 2.55b (1.71) 1.15b (0.29) 4.27a (1.17) Able to take on new challenges 1.26b (0.74) 1.48b (0.82) 1.63b (0.83) 1.19b (0.36) 1.70b (0.90) 1.80a (0.92) 1.08b (0.19) 2.29a (0.81) Downloaded by [Belinda Campos] at 08:50 21 June 2012 June 2012 21 at 08:50 Campos] by [Belinda Downloaded Notes: N 242; Ratings on 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Very much) scale. Means and standard deviations for core relational theme items are bolded in the target emotion column. Means in the same row that do not share subscripts differed at the pB.05 level in Dunnett tests. 7 CAMPOS ET AL.
except gratitude. Omnibus effects of emotion theme was shared with gratitude. Awe and were significant for ‘‘vulnerable to another’’, interest, two emotions that might have been F(7, 234) 18.98, pB.001, and feeling ‘‘in- expected to overlap, showed quite distinct core creased commitment’’, F(7, 234) 22.55, relational themes. Only interest appears to pro- pB.001. Moreover, love narratives received mote exploration of novel stimuli and only awe significantly higher ratings for ‘‘vulnerable’’ was associated with feelings of smallness. In sum, (Dunnett t-range was 0.81 to 0.43, the eight emotions shared positive valence but also pB.001) and ‘‘commitment’’ (Dunnett t- showed substantial, theory-consistent, differentia- range was 1.32 to 0.60, pB.05) than tion in core relational themes. all other positive emotions except gratitude. Thus, the core relational themes for love also strongly characterised gratitude. STUDY 2: EXPRESSIVE DISPLAYS OF Pride. Pride narratives had higher mean EIGHT POSITIVE EMOTIONS ratings for references to accomplishment and feeling able to take on new challenges Expressive displays serve to coordinate social than all other emotion narratives. Our ana- interaction by signalling social intentions and lysis of ‘‘accomplishment’’, F(7, 234) 26.75, likely actions. Distinct and reliable signals of pB.001 (Dunnett t-range of 3.11 to emotion have long been of interest to researchers 1.39, pB.001) showed that pride differed (e.g., Darwin, 1872/1998; Ekman, 1972). The significantly from all comparison emotions. Duchenne smile, which involves the simultaneous Our analysis of ‘‘able to take on new chal- lifting of the lip corners and contraction of the lenges’’, F(7, 234) 8.51, pB.001 (Dunnett orbicularis oculi muscles around the eyes, is t-range of 1.21 to 0.59, pB.01) showed regarded as the key behavioural marker of ‘‘happi- that pride differed significantly from ness’’, the global term for displayed positive all comparison emotions except joy emotion (e.g., Ekman & Friesen, 1978; Ekman (t 0.49, p .06). et al., 1987). Displays that may be distinct to more specific positive emotion experiences such as love (Gonzaga et al., 2001), pride (Tracy & Robins, What is shared, what is different? 2007), interest (Izard, 1977), and amusement Our examination of core relational themes for (Dickson, Walker, & Fogel, 1997) have also eight positive emotions revealed both shared and been documented. To date, however, no study differentiating elements. All eight shared strong has systematically compared display behaviour positive valence. All but interest also shared an across these eight positive emotions. appreciation for present circumstances, a finding For Study 2, we used a within subjects design Downloaded by [Belinda Campos] at 08:50 21 June 2012 consistent with previous work suggesting that and a videotaped emotion pose task that asked positive emotions tend to occur in contexts of participants to recall and describe an experience safety and reward (e.g., Fredrickson, 1998). Con- corresponding to each of the eight positive emo- tentment was least differentiated, with its tions, and then to pose the display. Drawing from theorised core relational theme*appreciation for the existing literature on positive emotion displays circumstances and satisfaction and security* we expected that the Duchenne smile would be widely characteristic of the other positive emo- widely shared among many, if not all, of the eight tions as well. In line with previous research, joy’s positive emotions (e.g., Mortillaro et al., 2011). hypothesised core relational theme was shared Beyond this, however, we refrained from making with pride (Ellsworth & Smith, 1988). Newly more specific predictions. Whereas analyses of documented, but consistent with the strong ties of negative emotion displays have emphasised the love and gratitude to relationship building (Algoe face, movements such as head nods and postural et al., 2008), love’s hypothesised core relational changes have been found to distinguish a number
8 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2012, iFirst POSITIVE EMOTION DIFFERENTIATION
of positive emotion signals (e.g., Gonzaga et al., another non-verbally’’. Participants were cautioned 2001; Keltner, 1995; Tracy & Robins, 2007). that some emotions might be more difficult to Thus, to tailor our observational analysis to express than others, but they should just do their positive emotion displays, we developed a coding best and ‘‘be as natural as possible’’. system that combined the Facial Action Coding The participant was then given a set of 3 5 System (FACS; Ekman & Friesen, 1978), a cards, each printed with an emotion word. The recognised system for quantifying facial muscle cards contained each of the eight positive emotion movements that may be associated with felt words*amusement, awe, contentment, interest, emotion experience, with a rich set of upper body gratitude, joy, love, and pride. One negative movements. emotion word*anger*was also included because the elements of the prototypical anger expression Method are well established (e.g., Ekman et al., 1987). Thus, anger poses were useful for assessing the Participants validity of our task. The cards were randomly Ninety-four participants (47 females, 47 males) ordered with one exception; anger always went first attending UC Berkeley participated in a study of to ease the participant into the task. The experi- emotion expression in exchange for partial course menter used a sample card (enthusiasm) to demon- credit. Participants’ mean age was 19.84 years strate and ensure that the task was understood. The (SD 1.68) and the sample included participants experimenter then left the room and instructed the who self-identified as European American (42%), participant to complete the task at his/her own pace Asian (42%), Latino (11%), and African Amer- via intercom. Due to equipment error, data from ican (5%). five participants could not be used. Two were not recorded and three were recorded without sound. Procedure Study procedures consisted of two phases. First, in one room, participants completed a set of ques- Expressive display coding tionnaires that included demographic measures. The coding system consisted of all FACS action Participants were then taken to a private room and units (Ekman & Friesen, 1978) and a set of codes seated in a comfortable chair behind a large table, for upper body movements that was developed for facing a video camera mounted on a nearby the present research.3 Two FACS-certified bookshelf behind a plexiglass barrier. The experi- coders*the second (MNS) and fifth (JLG) menter explained that the emotion display task authors*coded the posed displays. The first would involve recalling and briefly talking about coder (MNS) coded all displays as primary coder, times when ‘‘you felt a specific emotion, and trying with the second coder (JLG) serving as the
Downloaded by [Belinda Campos] at 08:50 21 June 2012 to show how you would express that emotion to reliability coder.
3 FACS includes all possible facial muscle movements, eye movements, and head movements intense enough to be captured by the video recording. The upper body movement codes documented the following 24 possible arm, torso, and complex head movements observed in the full data set of poses: (a) Nod*head nodding sharply, once or repeatedly; (b) Laughter*visible staccato exhalation; (c) Sigh*visible long, unpunctuated exhalation; (d) Shrug of the shoulders; (e) Shoulders Back, to expose the chest; (f) Slump forward, with upper back curved; (g) Sitting Up straight from a previously relaxed posture; (h) Arch of the back; (i) Forward Lean in the torso; (j) Side Lean in the torso; (k) Twist of the torso; (l) Slide, with rear end moving forward in the chair and body moving down; (m) Bounce, with head and body bouncing fluidly and repeatedly up and down; (n) Sway, with head and body swaying fluidly back and forth; (o) Arms Forward, reaching toward camera; (p) Arms Up, reaching toward ceiling; (q) Arms Wide, reaching out at 90 degree angles to torso; (r) Arms Crossed over chest; (s) Self Hug, wrapping arms around own chest without crossing; (t) Linking Hands behind head, with elbows out; (u) Face Touch, with fingers touching but not covering face; (v) Face Conceal, with the hands used to cover the mouth, eyes, or nose; and (w) Chin Rest, with one or both elbows on the table, and the chin resting in the cup of the hand. Of the 24, only Nod, Shrug, Shoulders Back, Forward Lean, Bounce, Arms Forward, Self Hug, and Chin Rest movements appeared in at least 10% of the poses of any positive emotion and were retained for analyses.
COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2012, 00 (00) 9 CAMPOS ET AL.
To select the exact epoch for coding, research of scorable poses were regarded as moderately assistants supervised by the first author (BC) associated, and actions appearing in at least 75% listened to the verbal description of each emo- of scorable poses were regarded as strongly tional experience and then noted the time in associated. Table 2 presents photos and descrip- milliseconds when the participant said ‘‘and it tions of the FACS action units and upper body looked like ... ’’ or a similar phrase, stopped movements that met our association criteria for talking, or physically began a distinct pose.4 each emotion except gratitude. A complete table Research assistants created soundless edited tapes of frequencies and percentages of scorable poses is showing all participants during these moments of available from the authors upon request. posed display in response to a particular word We first assessed the validity of our task and prompt. Sound was removed to avoid the possi- coding system by examining anger displays. As bility that participants’ talk would influence cod- expected, the results for anger validated our task, ing. A set of soundless, edited, and unmarked coding system, and association criteria. The three videotapes were used for coding so the coders FACS action units most distinctively associated would be blind to emotion label. The two FACS with anger displays in previous research*AU4, coders each used their judgement to identify the AU7, and AU23*appeared most frequently in exact onset of the intended pose and recorded any participants’ anger poses. Frequencies appeared to action units (AUs) displayed during the pose. reflect the prototypicality of the action as well as the For each pose, a ‘‘1’’ was entered if an AU was difficulty of voluntarily enacting a movement. AU4 present and a ‘‘0’’ if it was absent. If an AU was (brow contraction), an easy voluntary movement, not reliably scorable in a given pose (e.g., mouth appeared in 68% of scorable anger poses. AU7 open codes during speech, head turn or face touch (lower lid tighten) and AU23 (lip tighten), which concealing facial movements), data for that AU are difficult to enact voluntarily, appeared in 33.3% were treated as missing. If coders could not and 28.3% of anger poses, respectively. Impor- identify a clear pose, the epoch was considered tantly, our criteria would have identified all three unscorable and data for all codes were treated as elements as at least weakly distinctive of anger. missing. This occurred in 15 20 cases per emo- As Table 2 shows, distinctive positive emotion tion for all emotion labels except gratitude. For displays were observed with at least the same gratitude, unscorable poses occurred at consider- frequency, and often higher frequencies, as anger ably higher rates. Thus, gratitude poses were not displays. As expected, many positive emotion coded and are not included in these analyses. poses were associated with Duchenne smiles. At Eighty-two poses were coded by both coders. least 75% of the scorable poses for amusement, Percent agreement*a highly conservative mea- contentment, joy, love, and pride contained raised sure of intercoder reliability that gives ‘‘credit’’ for lip corners (AU12), and 56 85% of the poses of Downloaded by [Belinda Campos] at 08:50 21 June 2012 agreement on the presence but not the absence of these emotions also included contraction of the a code*was 71%. orbicularis oculi (AU6). In contrast, smiling rarely appeared in the posed displays of awe (23%) and interest (21%). Amusement displays typically Results and discussion included a strong Duchenne smile, but also the Drawing from previous emotion display research head bounce and dropped jaw reported in prior criteria (Ekman, 1994; Haidt & Keltner, 1999), studies of infant and primate ‘‘play’’ expressions actions appearing in at least 25% of scorable poses (e.g., Dickson et al., 1997; Sarra & Otta, 2001), as were regarded as weakly associated with that well as lower-frequency inner eyebrow raises and emotion label, actions appearing in at least 50% head tilts. Awe displays typically included parted
4 Notably, participants commonly flashed a mild version of the expression they ultimately posed during the recalling and talking portion of the task.
10 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2012, iFirst Table 2. Expressive displays of amusement, awe, contentment, interest, joy, love, and pride. (Photographic credit: David Lundberg-Kenrick)
Amusement Awe Contentment Interest Joy Love Pride
Moderate to strong association ( 50%) AU6*85% AU25*86% AU6*56% AU1*58% AU6*79% AU6*69% AU6*70% Cheek raiser Lips apart Cheek raiser Inner brow raise Cheek raiser Cheek raiser Cheek raiser AU12*95% AU26/27*80% AU12*85% AU4*56% AU12*97% AU12*84% AU12*80% Lip corner puller Jaw drop/mouth Lip corner puller Brow lowerer Lip corner puller Lip corner Lip corner stretch puller puller AU25*81% AU1*78% AU24*60% AU25*50% AU25*54% 55% Lips apart Inner brow raise Lip pressor Lips apart Lips apart Sit up AU 26/27*68% AU5*61% AU24*60% Jaw drop/mouth Upper lid raiser Lip pressor stretch
ONTO N MTO,21,0 (00) 00 2012, EMOTION, AND COGNITION Weak association (25 49%) 49% AU57*27% 38% AU24*38% 34% AU55/56*49% 45% Head bounce Head forward Head nod Lip pressor Bounce Head tilt Shoulders back AU55/56*34% AU25*26% AU2*37% AU26/27*31% AU43*26% AU53*38% OIIEEOINDIFFERENTIATION EMOTION POSITIVE Head tilt Lips apart Outer brow raise Jaw drop/mouth Eyes closed Head up stretch AU1*25% AU55/56*37% Inner brow raise Head tilt 37%
Downloaded by [Belinda Campos] at 08:50 21 June 2012 June 2012 21 at 08:50 Campos] by [Belinda Downloaded Forward lean AU57*33% Head forward
Note:AU FACS action unit. 11 CAMPOS ET AL.
lips, dropped jaw, raised inner eyebrows, raised analysis of anger poses suggests that participants’ eyelids, and head movement forward. Content- poses reasonably approximated actual displays. ment displays were associated with a low-intensity We are also mindful that the observed displays Duchenne smile as well as compressed lips, a small may reflect either holistically meaningful sets of nod, and (at lower frequency) parted lips. Interest actions or co-occurring combinations of psycho- displays were associated with raised and con- logically meaningful elements (e.g., Scherer, 1994). tracted brows, lip presses, head tilts, head move- For example, relaxed signals such as head tilts and ment forward, and forward leans that resembled head bounces may communicate vulnerability and expressions of sympathy or concerned attention in submissiveness whereas expanded posture may prior research (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 1989). Joy reflect power and status. Similarly, the particular displays commonly included an open-mouthed pattern observed here suggests that Duchenne Duchenne smile; head bounces and dropped jaws smiles do not uniformly reflect positive valence were observed at lower frequencies. Love displays emotion but may reflect the type of reward also commonly included an open-mouthed Duch- associated with particular positive emotions. enne smile, but with head tilts, and closed eyes as While Study 2 cannot tease these possibilities other associated elements. Pride displays com- apart, these findings provide direction for future monly included a slight Duchenne smile along research. For example, pride displays can be with lip presses and postural expansion (sitting up experimentally manipulated to include open straight, pulling the shoulders back, and raising mouth Duchenne smiles or love displays to the head) that have been previously documented include expanded posture to tease apart the (Tracy & Robbins, 2007). contribution of these particular elements to emo- tion communication. What is shared, what is different? Study 2 found that seven of the eight positive emotions were associated with a distinct expressive GENERAL DISCUSSION display. Consistent with previous research on ‘‘happiness’’, joy displays were strong, prototypical Our examination of core relational themes and Duchenne smiles with parted lips. Amusement, expressive displays across eight positive emotions contentment, love, and pride typically included add substantially to the field’s understanding of some version of the Duchenne smile, but the similarity and differentiation within the positive smiles varied in intensity across emotions, and each was accompanied by more distinctive elements. emotion domain. Positive emotions are generally Awe and interest expressions did not include thought to be less differentiated than negative smiles (either Duchenne or non-Duchenne), and emotions, but the only similarity shared across all Downloaded by [Belinda Campos] at 08:50 21 June 2012 were also quite distinct from each other. Although eight of our emotions was strong positive valence. gratitude has been found to be reliably commu- Distinctive core relational themes and expressive nicated with touch (Hertenstein et al., 2006), we displays were found for four emotions*amuse- did not find that this emotion showed a consis- ment, awe, interest, and pride. Key differences and tently scorable expressive display. Overall, these similarities were found for joy and love, such that findings indicate considerable differentiation in each was associated with subtly distinct expressive the expressive displays of positive emotions. An displays but their core relational themes also important next step in establishing the validity of characterised pride and gratitude, respectively. these displays will be to examine if they are Finally, contentment was associated with a dis- accurately decoded by others within US society tinct expressive display but not a core relational and by members of other cultures. theme whereas gratitude was associated with We are mindful that people vary in their ability a distinct core relational theme but not an to accurately pose emotion displays. However, our expressive display.
12 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2012, iFirst POSITIVE EMOTION DIFFERENTIATION
The present studies examined a particular set of ent aspects of expression), or another aspect of points in positive emotion space that were chosen emotion responding may have yielded different based on a convergence of prior theory and patterns of findings. Our studies relied on English- research. While the structure of positive emotion language words as stimuli. These same studies, if space remains controversial and unclear, our data conducted in other languages or cultures, may have suggest areas of overlap, important distinctions, also yielded different patterns of findings. and gaps that should be accounted for by emotion Overall, however, these findings provide a scholars in future theories and research. Far more trove of information for better understanding research is clearly needed. One interpretation of the defining features, possible structure, key these findings is that they suggest a hierarchical signals, physiological signals, and intrapersonal structure that may correspond to discrete states or and interpersonal consequences of positive emo- meaningful components of states. For example, tion experience that can be studied from a variety the features of contentment, and to a lesser extent, of theoretical perspectives. Researchers from a joy, were widely shared among the eight positive dimensional perspective can examine whether emotions. These emotions*or aspects of their variation among multiple positive emotions is core relational themes and expressive displays* most parsimoniously described by a particular may comprise the highest-order of positive emo- dimensional continuum. For example, awe and tion space that captures the most shared features interest may be best explained as gradations in of the domain. Alternatively, one could interpret intensity of feeling evoked by cognitive stimuli these findings in terms of motivational systems of whose novelty is increasingly difficult to incorpo- positive emotion space, such as affiliation systems rate into existing knowledge structures. Research- and consummated reward systems, or appraisal- ers from a discrete emotion perspective can driven systems with certainty and power/control develop functional analyses for positive emotions as possible continuums. Either way, the present and focus on spontaneous display, recognition, studies offer valuable data for emotion scholars to physiology, and cross-cultural validation. For work with as they test possibilities that account for example, an analysis of gratitude that focuses on shared positive valence as well as systematic relationship building may account for why some differentiation within positive emotion space. The present work had a number of strengths. signals (e.g., touch), but not others (e.g., Duch- First, we compared eight widely studied con- enne smiles), communicate gratitude. From all structs that capture broad positive emotion space perspectives, however, research on positive emo- but have not been systematically studied together. tion should continue to expand traditional para- Second, we used multiple methods that focused digms of emotion research. In our work, on two important, but very different, aspects of extending the definition of core relational themes Downloaded by [Belinda Campos] at 08:50 21 June 2012 emotion. Third, the findings of this work* to include interpersonal concerns, and our analysis generated via labour-intensive coding of narratives of display to the upper body, allowed us to detect and expressive displays*yielded new data that differentiating features that would have been capture important variation among the eight concealed by traditional approaches. Most impor- positive emotions studied. tant, these findings highlight the utility of We are also mindful of the limitations of the comparing several positive emotion states, and present research. We could not study all points in including closely related as well as more obviously positive emotion space and do not suggest that the distinct constructs, in any single study of emo- eight constructs in these studies capture all possible tional responding. We look forward to seeing (or even all important) variants of positive emo- future research that benefits from these findings tion. Another set of emotions, another set of and yields a better understanding of positive indicators (different core relational themes, differ- emotion than can be currently envisioned.
COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2012, 00 (00) 13 CAMPOS ET AL.
Manuscript received 27 May 2011 Ekman, P., & Davidson, R. J. (Eds.). (1994). The Revised manuscript received 20 January 2012 Manuscript accepted 7 February 2012 nature of emotion: Fundamental questions. New York: First published online 21 June 2012 Oxford University Press. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1978). Facial Action Coding System. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychol- REFERENCES ogists Press. Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., O’Sullivan, M., Chan, A., Algoe, S. B., Haidt, J., & Gable, S. L. (2008). Beyond Diacoyanni-Tarlatzis, I., Heider, K., et al. (1987). reciprocity: Gratitude and relationships in everyday Universals and cultural differences in the judgments life. Emotion, 8, 425 429. of facial expressions of emotion. Journal of Person- Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. ality and Social Psychology, 53, 712 717. (1995). Personal narratives about guilt: Role in action Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, C. A. (1988). Shades of joy: control and interpersonal relationships. Basic and Patterns of appraisal differentiating pleasant emo- Applied Social Psychology, 17, 173 198. tions. Cognition and Emotion, 2, 301 331. Berenbaum, H. (2002). Varieties of joy-related pleasur- Fehr, B., & Russell, J. A. (1991). The concept of love able activities and feelings. Cognition and Emotion, viewed from a prototype perspective. Journal of 16, 473 494. Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 425 438. Campos, B., Gonzaga, G. C., Shin, M., & Keltner, D. Fiedler, K. (2001). Affective states trigger processes of (2002). Positive emotions: New evidence of distinc- assimilation and accommodation. In L. L. Martin & tions. Poster presented at the 3rd annual meetings of G. L. Clore (Eds.), Theories of mood and cognition: A the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, user’s guidebook (pp. 85 98). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Savannah, Georgia. Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Darwin, C. (Ed.). (1998). The expression of the emotions Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2000). Stress, in man and animals. New York, NY: Oxford positive emotion, and coping. Current Directions in University Press. (Work originally published 1872) Psychological Science, 9, 115 118. de Rivera, J., Possel, L., Verette, J. A., & Weiner, B. Forgas, J. P. (2008). Affect and cognition. Perspectives (1989). Distinguishing elation, gladness and joy. on Psychological Science, 3,94 101. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive 1015 1023. emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2, 300 319. Dickson, K. L., Walker, H., & Fogel, A. (1997). The Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive relationship between smile type and play type during emotions broaden the scope of attention and build parent infant play. Developmental Psychology, 33, thought-action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion, 925 933. 19, 313 332. Diener, E., & Diener, C. (1996). Most people are Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Impett, E. A., & Asher, E. R. happy. Psychological Science, 7, 181 185. (2004). What do you do when things go right? The Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Miller, P. A., Fultz, J., intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing
Downloaded by [Belinda Campos] at 08:50 21 June 2012 Shell, R., Mathy, R. M., et al. (1989). Relation of positive events. Journal of Personality and Social sympathy and distress to prosocial behavior: A Psychology, 87, 228 245. multimethod study. Journal of Personality and Social Gonzaga, G. C., Keltner, D., Londahl, E. A., & Psychology, 57,55 66. Smith, M. D. (2001). Love and the commitment Ekman, P. (1972). Universals and cultural differences in problem in romantic relations and friendship. Journal facial expressions of emotion. In J. Cole (Ed.), of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 247 262. Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1971 (pp. 207 Gonzaga, G. C., Turner, R. A., Keltner, D., Campos, B., 283). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. & Altemus, M. (2006). Love and desire in close Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. relationships. Emotion, 6, 163 179. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 169 200. Griskevicius, V., Shiota, M. N., & Neufeld, S. L. Ekman, P. (1994). Strong evidence for universals in (2010). Influence of different positive emotions on facial expressions: A reply to Russell’s mistaken persuasion processing: A functional evolutionary critique. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 268 287. approach. Emotion, 10, 190 206.
14 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2012, iFirst POSITIVE EMOTION DIFFERENTIATION
Griskevicius, V., Shiota, M. N., & Nowlis, S. M. Pellegrini, A. D., & Smith, P. K. (2005). The nature of (2010). The many shades of rose-colored glasses: An play: Great apes and humans. New York, NY: evolutionary approach to the influence of different Guilford Press. positive emotions. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, Pressman, S. D., & Cohen, S. (2005). Does positive 238 250. affect influence health? Psychological Bulletin, 131, Haidt, J., & Keltner, D. (1999). Culture and facial 925 971. expression: Open-ended methods find more expres- Roseman, I. J., Spindel, M. S., & Jose, P. E. (1990). sions and a gradient of recognition. Cognition and Appraisals of emotion-eliciting events: Testing a Emotion, 13, 225 266. theory of discrete emotions. Journal of Personality Harmon-Jones, E. (2003). Clarifying the emotive and Social Psychology, 59, 899 915. functions of asymmetrical frontal cortical activity. Ruch, W. (1993). Exhilaration and humor. In Psychophysiology, 40, 838 848. M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of Hertenstein, M. J., Keltner, D., App, B., Bulleit, B. A., emotions (pp. 605 616). New York, NY: Guilford & Jaskolka, A. R. (2006). Touch communicates Press. distinct emotions. Emotion, 6, 528 533. Sarra, S., & Otta, E. (2001). Different types of smiles Izard, C. E. (1977). Human emotions. New York, NY: Plenum Press. and laughter in preschool children. Psychological Keltner, D. (1995). Signs of appeasement: Evidence Reports, 89, 547 558. for the distinct displays of embarrassment, amuse- Sauter, D. (2010). More than happy: The need for ment and shame. Journal of Personality and Social disentangling positive emotions. Current Directions Psychology, 68, 441 454. in Psychological Science, 19,36 40. Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe: A Scherer, K. R. (1994). Toward a concept of ‘‘modal moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion. Cognition emotions. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), and Emotion, 17, 297 314. The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions Keltner, D., Haidt, J., & Shiota, L. (2006). Social (pp. 25 31). New York, NY/Oxford, UK: Oxford functionalism and the evolution of emotions. In University Press. M. Schaller, D. Kenrick, & J. Simpson (Eds.), Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O’Connor, C. Evolution and social psychology (pp. 115 142). New (1987). Emotion knowledge: Further exploration of York, NY: Psychology Press. a prototype approach. Journal of Personality and Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New Social Psychology, 52, 1061 1086. York, NY: Oxford University Press. Shiota, M. N., Campos, B., Keltner, D., & Levenson, R. W. (1999). The intrapersonal functions of Hertenstein, M. J. (2004). Positive emotion and emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 13, 481 504. the regulation of interpersonal relationships. In Lyubomirsky, S. (2001). Why are some people happier P. Philippot & R. S. Feldman (Eds.), The regulation than others? The role of cognitive and motivational of emotion (pp. 127 155). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence processes in well-being. American Psychologist, 56, Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Downloaded by [Belinda Campos] at 08:50 21 June 2012 239 249. Shiota, M. N., Keltner, D., & Mossman, A. (2007). The McCullough, M. E., Kilpatrick, S. D., Emmons, R. A., nature of awe: Elicitors, appraisals, and effects on & Larson, D. B. (2001). Is gratitude a moral affect? Psychological Bulletin, 127, 249 266. self-concept. Cognition and Emotion, 21, 944 963. Morgan, R. L., & Heise, D. (1988). Structure of Shiota, M. N., Neufeld, S. L., Yeung, W. H., emotions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51,19 31. Moser, S. E., & Perea, E. F. (2011). Feeling good: Mortillaro, M., Mehu, M., & Scherer, K. R. (2011). Autonomic nervous system responding in five positive Subtly different positive emotions can be emotions. Emotion, 11, 1368 1378. distinguished by their facial expressions. Social Silvia, P. J. (2005). What is interesting? Exploring the Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 262 271. appraisal structure of interest. Emotion, 5,89 102. Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience: The founda- Sternberg, R., & Grajek, S. (1984). The nature of tions of human and animal emotions. New York, NY: love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, Oxford University Press. 312 329.
COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2012, 00 (00) 15 CAMPOS ET AL.
Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007). The prototypical positive emotions in coping and health. Journal of pride expression: Development of a nonverbal Personality, 72, 1161 1190. Williams, L. A., & DeSteno, D. (2009). Pride: behavior coding system. Emotion, 7, 789 801. Adaptive social emotion or seventh sin? Psychological Tugade, M. M., Fredrickson, B. L., & Barrett, L. F. Science, 20, 284 288. (2004). Psychological resilience and positive Wyer, R. S., & Collins, J. E. (1992). A theory of humor emotional granularity: Examining the benefits of elicitation. Psychological Review, 99, 663 688. Downloaded by [Belinda Campos] at 08:50 21 June 2012
16 COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2012, iFirst