Social Functionality of Human Emotion

PS63CH11-Niedenthal ARI 31 October 2011 11:51

Paula M. Niedenthal and Markus Brauer

Centre National de la Recherche Scientiﬁque, Paris, France, and Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706; email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012. 63:259–85 Keywords First published online as a Review in Advance on facial expression, vicarious emotion, group emotion, group-based October 10, 2011 emotion, embodied simulation The Annual Review of Psychology is online at psych.annualreviews.org Abstract This article’s doi: Answers to the question “What are human emotions for?” have stimu- 10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131605 lated highly productive programs of research on emotional phenomena Copyright c 2012 by Annual Reviews. in psychology and neuroscience in the past decade. Although a vari- All rights reserved

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org ety of functions have been proposed and examined at different levels 0066-4308/12/0110-0259$20.00 of abstraction, what is undeniable is that when emotional processing Access provided by University of Wisconsin - Madison on 01/17/15. For personal use only. is compromised, most things social go awry. In this review we survey the research findings documenting the functions of emotion and link these to new discoveries about how emotion is accurately processed and transmitted. We focus specifically on emotion processing in dyads and groups, which reflects the current scientific trend. Within dyads, emotional expressions and learning and understanding through vicarious emotion are the phenomena of interest. Behavioral and brain mechanisms supporting their successful occurrence are evaluated. At the group level, group emotions and group-based emotions, two very different phenomena, are discussed, and mechanistic accounts are reviewed.

259 PS63CH11-Niedenthal ARI 31 October 2011 11:51

and replaced by more optimistic programs of Contents research, given significant early boosts from neuropsychological (e.g., Damasio 1989) and INTRODUCTION...... 260 economic (e.g., Frank 1988) analyses and from FUNCTIONAL EMOTION an emerging social psychological consensus PHENOMENA (e.g., Frijda 1986, Oatley 1992, Scherer 1984). INTHEDYAD...... 261 The study of the psychological experience of Facial Expression of Emotion: emotion and of the neural basis of emotion and Behavior Regulators...... 262 its relation to other mental processes is a solid Vicarious Emotion: Learning scientific enterprise (Barrett et al. 2007, Phelps Affective Associations ...... 263 2006) and its importance in complex social in- MECHANISMS SUPPORTING stitutions undeniable (Brief & Weiss 2002). EMOTION PHENOMENA Still, answers to the question “What are INDYADS...... 264 emotions for?” strongly guide the application Simulating Facial Expression ...... 265 of scientific tools to the exploration of emo- Simulating Others’ Emotions ...... 267 tional phenomena. Modern writings on the FUNCTIONAL EMOTION function of emotion within psychology address PHENOMENA IN GROUPS . . . . . 269 the question “What roles do emotions play in Group Emotions: Creation the solution of problems that humans confront and Maintenance of Group in living and surviving with others?” (e.g., Buck Viability ...... 269 1999, Cosmides & Tooby 2000, Frijda 1986, Group-Based Emotions: Sustaining Frijda & Mesquita 1994, Keltner & Gross CollectiveAction...... 271 1999, Johnson-Laird & Oatley 1992, Keltner MECHANISMS SUPPORTING & Haidt 1999, Oatley & Jenkins 1992, Scherer EMOTION PHENOMENA 1994); most of these roles derive from the dual INGROUPS...... 272 needs to cooperate and compete. The scientific Contagion of Emotion Within strategy that has emerged to empirically theGroup...... 272 address this question involves linking specific Self-Stereotyping and emotions to distinct motivations, problems, EmotionNorms...... 274 outcomes, or effects (e.g., Barlett & DeSteno CONCLUSIONS...... 275 2009, Fischer & Roseman 2007, Hooge et al. 2010, Tracy & Robins 2008, Williams & DeSteno 2008). For example, recent research found that when participants posed facial INTRODUCTION expressions of fear, they had subjectively larger

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Can scientists study emotion? And if so, should visual ﬁelds, made more efﬁcient eye move-

Access provided by University of Wisconsin - Madison on 01/17/15. For personal use only. they? And if they should, to what end? For cen- ments when localizing targets, and showed turies the dominant view of emotions within increased nasal volume and air velocity during philosophy and later within psychology was that inspiration. Furthermore, the expression Passions endanger the lofty processes of Reason of disgust was associated with an opposite (Solomon 1976, 1993). For Plato and for the pattern of effects (Susskind et al. 2008). These Stoics such as Zeno de Citium, Epictetus, and findings are consistent with the claim that Marcus Aurelius, and yet again in the Enlight- facial expressions aid in producing the bodily enment period of eighteenth-century Europe, responses required to perform the actions emotions were defined as animalistic impulses taken to respond successfully to emotional that threaten to disrupt the attainment of higher challenges (Darwin 1872). Ethologists have levels of existence. This opposition between also pointed out that smiles (Mehu´ & Dunbar Passion and Reason has finally been abandoned 2008) and facial expressions of aggression

260 Niedenthal · Brauer PS63CH11-Niedenthal ARI 31 October 2011 11:51

(Griskevicius et al. 2009) play roles that relate decision to survey research on the function of to the fundamental social tasks of relationship emotion in social context reflects a clear trend establishment and maintenance, hierarchy, and toward going beyond the individual level of group management. General relations such as analysis, which, starting with Darwin, has been these can be subjected further to a consider- more intensively studied (Oatley & Jenkins ation of the influences of culture on how the 1992, Parrott 2001). We begin the review by problems are construed and the ways in which examining the function of emotion when the emotions facilitate their solutions within a emotion is exchanged between two interacting cultural context (e.g., Mesquita & Ellsworth individuals. In particular, the functional role 2001, Rodriguez Mosquera et al. 2008). of facial expression and vicarious emotion take A survey of the current literature suggests a central role in emotion processing within that it is now possible to evaluate functional- the dyad. We then review recent research ity from a different angle. The present article and theory that illuminate the mechanisms reviews research programs and significant find- by which emotion is transmitted in the dyad. ings that begin from the conclusion drawn from Next we examine new research on the function extensive recent research on emotional process- of emotions in and for the group. The central ing gone awry: What happens when an indi- phenomena here are group emotions (emotions vidual does not express his or her emotions to that occur in collectives) and group-based emo- others (Butler et al. 2003, Gross & John 2003, tions (or emotions on behalf of a group). The Srivastava et al. 2009) or share them with oth- mechanisms by which emotion is transmitted ers (Rime´ 2007, Rime´ et al. 2004)? And what within the group is the final consideration. happens when a person cannot understand the Our analysis of function and mechanism for (typical) emotions expressed by other individ- transmission will not be equally complete uals, as may be caused by the incursion of spe- across all levels of analysis. This is inevitable cific brain lesions (e.g., Adolphs 2002, Adolphs and indeed deliberate. In highlighting the gaps et al. 2005), the development of diseases such as in research, we hope to define, and motivate, Parkinson’s (Wieser et al. 2006), autism (e.g., programs of research for the future. Clark et al. 2008, McIntosh 2006), or early maltreatment (Pollak 2008)? The conclusion is that, as a rule, what happens is not good. Dis- FUNCTIONAL EMOTION ruptions in emotion processes—the abilities to PHENOMENA IN THE DYAD understand, express, and experience emotion— Dyads for this analysis are immediately inter- lead to the loss of social support, disintegration acting partners who have either an established of groups, and failure of economic viability. or emergent interdependency. Emotion pro- Such a conclusion can also be drawn from cesses are required in dyads for the successful

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org research on emotional intelligence (e.g., Mayer pre- and nonverbal communication of emotion

Access provided by University of Wisconsin - Madison on 01/17/15. For personal use only. et al. 2004, Salovey et al. 2003, Salovey & and for the learning of adaptive behavioral re- Mayer 1990). Indeed, the premise of the sponses. Two specific emotional phenomena concept of emotional intelligence is that it is are important to examine at this level. One possible to define the processing of emotion is facial expression of emotion. Through their in self and other as more or less precise, communication of emotion and social motives, consensual, and useful. Therefore, our analysis facial expressions of emotion efficiently sum- of functionality entails a critical review of marize information about what the partners in recent research that provides insights about the dyad are doing and why, who they are to the mechanisms through which emotions are each other, and how the present situation will accurately transmitted (expressed and experi- or should unfold over time (Buck 1983, Buck enced) in social units as a means of effectively et al. 1992, Horstmann 2003, Keltner & Kring pursuing dyadic- and group-level goals. The 1998).

www.annualreviews.org • Functionality of Emotions 261 PS63CH11-Niedenthal ARI 31 October 2011 11:51

A second important phenomenon is vicar- punishments (Blair 1995) that serve to increase ious emotion. In the treatment of vicarious and decrease behaviors, as in operant con- emotion in this section, we are concerned ditioning (for review, see Blair 2003, Gerull with the experience of an emotion with, and & Rappee 2002, Mumme & Fernald 1996). ultimately for, another person. Although early Infants who cannot learn through emotional in development vicarious emotion may neces- transmission of this type are at significant sitate that the observed person is feeling an risk (Field 1982), and maltreated infants may emotion, which is reproduced in the self, over develop strategies that compromise accurate development the ability to feel vicariously for encoding of facial expression (Pollak et al. another individual does not necessitate that the 2000). observed individual is actually feeling an emo- Over development, emotional expressions tion. For example, a mother can feel vicarious communicate more nuanced information shame for a child without the child yet know- about the nature of, or the potential of, any ing that this situation should indeed provoke dyadic relationship (Frijda & Mesquita 1994; shame in the particular culture or value system. Keltner & Haidt 1999, 2003). Recent research findings demonstrate that emotional facial expression, as well as posture and prosody, Facial Expression of Emotion: do an efficient job of conveying information Behavior Regulators about the dimensions of personality (Ames One of the first types of dyadic emotion & Johar 2009, Harker & Keltner 2001) and transmission occurs between infants and their the likelihood of the occurrence of social caretakers through the facial expression of behavior, such as cooperative or prosocial emotion (Campos et al. 2003). Although there action (Anderson & Thompson 2004, Brown may be hardwired emotional responses to et al. 2003). Consistent with the latter idea, particular challenges and opportunities in the Scharlemann and colleagues (2001) showed environment (Mineka & Cook 1993), caretak- that in extensive-form bargaining games, indi- ers must also teach infants, within their cultural viduals who expressed smiles were trusted more context, to have specific emotional reactions than nonsmiling individuals. Facial expressions to (initially) ambiguous objects and events in of emotion can determine the meaning of ver- order to generate in them appropriate and bal communication (Krull et al. 2008) and may effective behavior. Objects that conduct elec- provide critical information in the absence of tricity are an example of an ambiguous stimulus verbal communication (Bonnano et al. 2002). in the sense that they are such a recent techno- Consequently, when perceived accurately, logical development that there is no reason to facial expressions generate appropriate social believe that humans would be hardwired to be intentions in the perceiver. For example, Marsh

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org fearful of them in their current appearance (i.e., and colleagues (2007) tested whether the ac-

Access provided by University of Wisconsin - Madison on 01/17/15. For personal use only. distinct from lightning, for instance). By ex- curacy of fear recognition predicts prosocial pressing explicit and acute fear when a toddler behaviors. In a ﬁrst study, participants were approaches an electrical outlet or an exposed asked to help (with contributions of money or wire, a caretaker can elicit fear in him or her, time) a young woman in a difﬁcult situation. which in typically developing children usually Then their accuracy of recognition of facial ex- results in the appropriate avoidance behavior of pressions of anger, fear, happiness, and sadness transmitters of electricity in the future (Askew was measured. Results showed that fear recog- & Field 2007, Hertenstein & Campos 2004). nition accuracy was the best predictor of their It is in this sense that Campos and colleagues donations. In a second study, participants com- (2003) aptly call facial expressions of emotion pleted an emotion-recognition task and then “behavior regulators”: Facial expressions func- rated the facial attractiveness of photographs of tion as rewards (Matthews & Wells 1999) and target individuals. In the “prosocial” condition,

262 Niedenthal · Brauer PS63CH11-Niedenthal ARI 31 October 2011 11:51

the targets were ostensibly other participants not immediately relevant (i.e., threatening or who would later be told how attractive they beneficial) to the observer (Iglesias 1996). For had been judged to be. In a control condition, instance, people wince in pain when they see the aim of the task was to validate a set of someone else get hurt (Bavelas et al. 1986), and stimuli. As before, participants who could they cringe with embarrassment for someone most accurately identify fear responded the else even when their own personal identity is most prosocially, and this was moderated by not threatened (Miller 1987). condition such that the effect was observed Early in development, vicarious emotions only in the prosocial condition. The third study seem to play a fundamental role in learning, replicated the prosocial condition of the second which complements the role of learning sup- study and included a question that assessed ported specifically by facial expressive cues. As the participant’s desire to behave prosocially noted, facial expressions can serve to increase in this context. Compared to measures of and decrease behaviors, as in operant condi- empathy and mood, and even gender, fear tioning (Blair 2003). In a complementary way, recognition accuracy was the best predictor of vicarious emotion is the supportive mechanism prosocial behavior. Moreover, the willingness of more general observational learning (Olsson to be kind mediated the relationship between & Phelps 2004). Humans and nonhuman fear recognition and prosocial behavior. primates are able to learn about the emotional These and similar findings suggest that implications of objects and events vicariously, the accurate recognition of fearful expressions through observing the emotional reactions of produces prosocial responses in appropriate a conspecific (Ohman & Mineka 2001). Vicar- contexts (Marsh & Ambady 2007). And they ious or observational learning are thus social complement the finding that selective im- means of adaptive response acquisition that do pairments in identifying facial expressions of not require direct experience with the object or fear are observed in populations marked by event about which something must be learned. antisocial behavior and a lack of empathy (e.g., Vaughan & Lanzetta (1980) illustrated this in a Blair et al. 2001, Kropp & Haynes 1987). study in which participants saw videotaped fa- Furthermore, the conclusion is conceptually cial expressions of pain while they worked on a consistent with other findings showing that paired associate learning task. The pain expres- individuals who are dispositionally high in need sions followed a target word of the same word to belong are better than others at identifying category (flower or tree names) and elicited facial expressions and vocal tones of all sorts vicarious emotional responses in the observer (Pickett et al. 2004). that became associated with the word category. In sum, recent research on the processing of Furthermore, Vaughan & Lanzetta (1981) facial expression of emotion not only supports showed that the vicarious emotional responses

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org the idea that facial expression is a primary reg- elicited by observing emotions in others can be

Access provided by University of Wisconsin - Madison on 01/17/15. For personal use only. ulator of social development and social interac- modified by the extent to which the emotion tion, but also that accuracy in facial expression is simulated in the self. Their instructions processing facilitates the efficient operation of to participants to suppress or amplify facial these social processes. expressions during observation of the emotions moderated the vicarious learning effect. Vicarious Emotion: Learning The social analogue to laboratory instruc- Affective Associations tions to enhance or suppress components of a Emotions also occur in dyads when one indi- vicarious emotion is intimacy of the interacting vidual feels an emotion because he or she ob- individuals. That is, familiarity and inter- serves another person experiencing an emotion, dependence also affect vicarious emotional or observes the other person in an emotion- responding (Lickel et al. 2005). This finding ally evocative situation, even if the situation is suggests that vicarious emotion is something

www.annualreviews.org • Functionality of Emotions 263 PS63CH11-Niedenthal ARI 31 October 2011 11:51

distinct from having an emotional reaction to motivations, perhaps as an associative learning an emotional stimulus (e.g., the sight of an indi- process, from the experience of empathy and vidual in pain or distress; Fultz & Nielsen 1993). empathic concern. The distinction is not new The dyadic relationship matters in this process. (see, e.g., Batson et al. 1987), but it further Later in development, vicarious emotion highlights the fact that vicarious emotions, as does not necessitate the expression or experi- well as the motivations and action tendencies ence of emotion in the target of observation; that they produce, are distinct from the vicarious emotion may occur when the ob- cognitive components of empathy. server knows that the target could or should feel the particular emotion, according to a social or cultural rule (Kagan 2007, Tangney MECHANISMS SUPPORTING & Fischer 1995). In other words, the mature EMOTION PHENOMENA observer has learned to associate quite complex IN DYADS social situations with particular emotions and How do facial expressions get interpreted and can now feel a given emotion for a target in emotions get experienced vicariously by per- a situation evocative of a speciﬁc emotion ceivers in such a way that they can be useful regardless of what the target actually feels. For in supporting regulation, communication, and instance, even if a child is feeling discomfort learning? The reproduction of perceived facial rather than pride when receiving a reward or and bodily emotional gestures in the self has successfully performing in public, the parents long been thought to be important in both pro- are likely to feel pride on behalf of the child cesses (Lanzetta & Englis 1989, McIntosh et al. (perhaps in addition to the recognition and 1994, Vaughan & Lanzetta 1980; for discus- empathic experience of discomfort) because in sion, see Levenson 1996), but the details of such their culture, their appraisal of the situation is a claim are only beginning to be worked out. one that is appropriately associated with pride. Within social psychology, this idea is inspired These feelings will then motivate appropriate by an integration of facial feedback theory and behaviors toward the target. affect-as-information theory. According to the In a recent experiment by Stocks and facial feedback theory, the mimicry of a target’s colleagues (2011), participants listened to an facial expression provides the perceiver with af- individual describe an embarrassing situa- ferent feedback that can provide cues to infer tion. Participants were invited to adopt one the internal state of the target (McIntosh 1996, of three perspective-taking sets: to remain Zajonc et al. 1989). And according to the affect- objective, to imagine themselves in the same as-information theory, when perceivers believe situation, or to imagine how the target felt. that their affective state has been caused by the Dependent variables included measures of target of perception, they rely on that state to

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org vicarious embarrassment, empathic concern, make judgments of the target, such as how

Access provided by University of Wisconsin - Madison on 01/17/15. For personal use only. and desires to approach or avoid the target, the target is feeling (Clore & Storbeck 2006). given the opportunity. Results revealed that, In neuroscience, the reproduction of perceived compared with those who took an objective emotional gestures and states has been inter- stance, participants who imagined themselves preted in terms of mirror neurons and mirror in the target’s situation experienced heightened systems and in terms of the idea that brains can vicarious embarrassment, but not heightened resonate with the states of perceived objects, es- empathic concern, and a greater desire to pecially those that are biologically similar (e.g., avoid the target. In contrast, participants who Gallese 2007, Keysers & Gazzola 2007). took the target’s perspective felt empathic These theories and mechanisms come to- concern, but not vicarious embarrassment, and gether to inspire an embodied- or simulated- a desire to approach the target. These results emotion approach to the processing of emotion distinguish vicarious emotion and its associated in social context (e.g., Atkinson 2007; Decety

264 Niedenthal · Brauer PS63CH11-Niedenthal ARI 31 October 2011 11:51

& Chaminade 2003, 2005; Gallese 2003, 2005; concurrent production of an incongruent facial Goldman & Sripada 2005; Keysers & Gazzola expression, such as anger (Lee et al. 2007). 2007; Niedenthal 2007; Niedenthal et al. 2005; Facial mimicry exerts a number of effects Wilson-Mendenhall et al. 2011; Winkielman that together support the idea that it is an et al. 2009). Emotion simulation refers to the important mechanism in the receiving end of idea that in order to understand emotions in emotion transmission. First, mimicry seems others, individuals use their own body and brain to be related to generating a corresponding representational capacities to simulate them- emotional state in the perceiver. In one selves making the same gestures in the same demonstration of this, experimenters injected context. They can then use this simulation to botulinum toxin (Botox) in the forehead mus- infer what the other person is feeling and how cles of experimental participants (Hennenlotter they should or would respond in this situa- et al. 2005). Then, the experimental partici- tion. An embodied-emotion approach has been pants and controls who had not received Botox used to account for both the processing of fa- were invited to mimic angry and sad facial cial expression of emotion and the experience of expressions while their brains were scanned. vicarious emotion. When participants were exposed to the photographs of the angry expressions, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) revealed Simulating Facial Expression that Botox-injected participants had signif- Recently, the behavioral and neural mech- icantly less activation in their brain’s limbic anisms implicated in the accurate encoding system compared to the control participants. of facial expression of emotion have received This same effect was not observed when par- intense empirical scrutiny (Niedenthal et al. ticipants were exposed to sad expressions. Still, 2010). A fundamental mechanism proposed by the ﬁnding for the anger expressions supports embodied-emotion accounts is bodily and facial a causal link between mimicry and emotional mimicry. We focus here on the mimicry of fa- responding because it indicates that inhibiting cial expression of emotion and how it serves to mimicry decreases activation of the brain’s support access to the meaning of the facial ex- emotion centers. A similar ﬁnding was reported pression (see Heberlein & Atkinson 2009 for a by Lee and colleagues (2006), who showed that review of research on perceiving emotions from the more that individuals mimicked facial ex- moving bodies). pressions of happiness (smiles), the greater the Facial mimicry is the visible or nonvisible activation in the reward centers of their brain use of facial musculature by an observer to (see also Schilbach et al. 2006). In addition match the facial gestures in another person’s to playing a role in generating the emotion facial expression (Hess 2009, Niedenthal et al. corresponding to the perceived emotional

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org 2010). Perceivers of expressions often automat- expression, mimicry may also be important

Access provided by University of Wisconsin - Madison on 01/17/15. For personal use only. ically mimic them. Recordings of the electrical in deﬁning what the motor movements that activity of skeletal facial muscles, for instance, constitute the expression “feel like” when the reveal that when individuals view a smile, their emotion is produced (Niedenthal et al. 2010). zygomaticus major muscle contracts, usually The possibility that the production of the within 500 milliseconds after the onset of corresponding state and the feeling of the fa- the stimulus (Dimberg & Thunberg 1998). cial expression grounds interpretation of the Mojzisch et al. (2006) demonstrated that meaning of a facial expression is suggested observers automatically mimicked facial ex- in some studies, although the claim is by no pressions displayed by virtual characters in means clearly supported. Recent research sug- dynamic animations (see also a review in Hess gests a link between the mimicry of facial ex- et al. 1999). Automatically mimicking one pression and performance on tasks that measure expression of emotion also interferes with the recognition and interpretation (Adolphs 2002,

www.annualreviews.org • Functionality of Emotions 265 PS63CH11-Niedenthal ARI 31 October 2011 11:51

Heberlein & Atkinson 2009, McIntosh 2006). expressions. In the second experiment, facial For example, Stel & van Knippenberg (2008) afference was amplified or facilitated in the showed that inhibiting facial mimicry decreased experimental condition. This manipulation in- the speed, although not the accuracy, of evaluat- creased performance on the RMET compared ing facial displays as expressing positive or neg- to the performance of a control group. ative emotion. In a more recent study, Maringer Such research is complemented by brain- and colleagues (2011) presented participants imaging and brain lesion research, which pro- with dynamic displays of smiles determined vides insights about the role of somatosensory in pretests to be “genuine” or “not genuine.” cortices in processing facial expression of emo- Participants were assigned to either a control tion. In a pioneering study in this area, Adolphs condition in which they were free to mimic the and colleagues showed that right-hemisphere smiles (presumably as the pretest participants cortices play an important role in simulating had done) or to an experimental condition in emotional expressions (e.g., Adolphs et al. which facial mimicry was inhibited. All partici- 1996). Adolphs et al. (2000) assessed 108 sub- pants rated the extent to which the smiles were jects with focal brain lesions and found that the “genuine.” Results revealed an effect of condi- right somatosensory cortex was central for rec- tion such that the control participants distin- ognizing the facial expressions associated with guished between the genuine and nongenuine the six basic emotions. Such findings suggest smiles, whereas the experimental participants, that the right somatosensory cortex produces an who could not mimic the smiles, did not distin- “image” of the felt state, that is, a representation guish the genuine from the nongenuine smiles of the afferent feedback, which is used to pro- to the same degree. The important role of duce inferences about how the perceived person mimicry in the deep processing of facial expres- feels (e.g., Adolphs 2002, Atkinson 2007). sion is also suggested by the observation that This interpretation is further supported by individuals who mimic facial expressions auto- recent research using transcranial magnetic matically also show higher levels of empathy stimulation to inhibit processing in brain areas (Sonnby-Borgstrom 2002, Zajonc et al. 1987). responsible for perceptual processing of the face Recent experiments by Neal & Chartrand versus inhibition of the right somatosensory (2011) are consistent with the specific role of cortex. For instance, Pourtois and colleagues afferent feedback in the interpretation of facial selectively interfered with right somatosensory expression of emotion. In the first experiment, cortex activation while participants performed a individuals who had received Botox injections matching task and found significant impairment to the face and members of a control group in the discrimination of different facial expres- who had received a treatment to the face that sions (Pourtois et al. 2004). Selective interfer- does not reduce afferent feedback (a dermal ence with right somatosensory cortex activation

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org ﬁller called Restylane) performed a task that also disrupted performance on a similar task in a

Access provided by University of Wisconsin - Madison on 01/17/15. For personal use only. assesses the encoding of facial emotion. The study by Pitcher and colleagues (2008). Specif- task was the revised Reading the Mind in ically, accuracy on same-different discrimina- the Eyes Test (RMET; Baron-Cohen et al. tion dropped when pulses were delivered to the 2001). The ﬁndings supported a causal role right occipital face area, which is responsible for afferent facial feedback in helping people for visual processing of the face, at 60–100 ms accurately perceive others’ facial expressions. after the onset of the target stimulus and when When afferent signals were dampened by Botox they were delivered to the right somatosensory injections, emotion perception was impaired cortext at 100–140 and 130–170 ms after onset. signiﬁcantly compared to the performance of Such impairments provide evidence in favor of the matched control sample that had received both embodied accounts of expression recog- Restylane injections. The impairment was nition and hierarchical models of face process- observed for both positive and negative facial ing, or the idea that both visual and nonvisual

266 Niedenthal · Brauer PS63CH11-Niedenthal ARI 31 October 2011 11:51

cortices are involved at very early stages of facial In consideration of vicarious emotion, the expression processing. immediate potential application of the general Despite the importance mimicry may have concept of mirror neurons or mirror systems in processing facial expression of emotion, we was for the perception of pain. An early study end this section by noting that recognition of reported that specific pain-related neurons facial expression can also be accomplished by fire when a painful stimulus is applied to an at least two other processes, namely perceptual individual’s own hand and also when he or analysis and the application of preexisting she watches the painful stimulus applied to stereotypes and beliefs. The latter are espe- an another individual’s hand (Hutchison et al. cially useful when the facial expressions are 1999). This finding motivated subsequent prototypical in nature. As Niedenthal and fMRI studies, which documented pain-related colleagues (2010) have outlined in a discussion brain regions (i.e., a “pain matrix”), especially of smiles in particular, recognition of proto- the dorsal anterior cingulated cortex, middle typic facial expressions can be accomplished to anterior insula, and the cerebellum, which by perceptual analysis alone (e.g., Adolphs were activated during the personal experience 2002). For example, high-functioning autistic of pain and during the perception of the same individuals, who do not spontaneously mimic type of pain incurred by one’s partner (e.g., others’ facial expressions (e.g., McIntosh et al. Singer et al. 2004). These areas code specifi- 2006), do classify facial expressions of emotion cally for the affective-motivational rather than as well as typically developed controls do (e.g., sensory aspects of pain (e.g., Lamm et al. 2007). Spezio et al. 2007a). In addition, facial paralysis Such studies also suggested that the extent of seems not to disrupt performance on such tasks activation in overlapping sites was related to (e.g., Calder et al. 2000a,b; Keillor et al. 2002). the participants’ level of empathy, suggesting Still, it is undeniable that inappropriate or that there is moderation of the effect by deficient mimicry is related to behavioral and motivation to stimulate. Similarly, other fMRI attachment disorders (de Wied et al. 2006, studies documented increases in the activation Sonnby-Borgstrom & Jonsson 2004) as well of pain-related regions during observation of as the autism spectrum disorders (Beall et al. a confederate receiving a painful stimulus, but 2008, Hepburn & Stone 2006, Moody & only if the confederate had played fairly in a McIntosh 2006). Future research will be re- previous economic game (Singer et al. 2006). quired to outline the precise effects and con- Vicarious experience of pain, as we sug- tributions of mimicry and corresponding brain gested above, should be distinct from the input into the process of understanding facial broader notion of empathy because we can em- expression of emotion. pathize with dissimilar others and can respond in ways that indicate empathy without dysfunc-

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org tion or distress. How we might do so requires

Access provided by University of Wisconsin - Madison on 01/17/15. For personal use only. consideration of the cognitive components of Simulating Others’ Emotions empathy, which may be said to be unique to A related theoretical account may explain humans and other primates (Decety & Lamm vicarious emotion and even empathy. The in- 2006, de Waal 2008). The cognitive compo- spiration for this analysis from within neuro- nents of empathy include the ability to distin- science was the discovery of mirror neurons and guish between self and other and the operation the subsequent demonstrations that seeing or of executive functions, including controlled hearing actions of others could activate speciﬁc attention to currently relevant ideas as well as neurons in monkeys’ premotor and posterior inhibiting irrelevant ones. The brain’s support parietal cortices, which also ﬁre when those ac- of these processes has been documented in tions are performed by the monkey itself (e.g., recent fMRI studies. In one study by Cheng Gallese et al. 1996). and colleagues (2007), physicians who practice

www.annualreviews.org • Functionality of Emotions 267 PS63CH11-Niedenthal ARI 31 October 2011 11:51

acupuncture and control participants were observational fear-learning recruits neural shown body parts being pricked by needles. mechanisms, including bilateral amygdala Activation of the pain matrix was observed in activation, which is similar to the mechanisms controls but not in the physicians. In the latter, underlying fear conditioning. In other words, activation of dorsolateral and medial prefrontal they expected to find significant overlap in first- cortex, subserving self–other distinction, person and third-person circuitry responsible occurred. In a related study, the perception of for processing first- and second-person expe- stimuli that are normally painful for the self but riences of fear. Indeed, their study showed that clearly not painful for a target (e.g., because bilateral amygdala activation occurred both the inflicted body part was anesthetized) when their participants observed another per- was associated with activation in areas again son enduring an aversive event, knowing that involved in self–other distinction, as well as the same treatment awaited themselves, and prefrontal cortical areas that subserve processes when they were placed in an analog situation. of appraisal (Lamm et al. 2007). It seems thus As with processing facial expression, a final that vicarious emotion and empathy are quite important neural mechanism for simulating distinct in both behavioral and in neural ways. others’ emotions is the somatosensory cortices. In addition to establishing the neural basis Whereas the parts of the insular and cingulated of vicarious pain, research has shown that simi- cortex just mentioned are considered to be part lar circuits support vicarious emotions of other of the somatosensory “system” and support types. It would be very useful to avoid ingesting the affective-motivational responses to seeing substances that are toxic, and so vicarious someone having an emotion, the somatosen- disgust is an important emotion to analyze sory cortices are used to process tactile, from this perspective. Wicker and colleagues proprioceptive, and nociceptive information. (2003) compared the brain systems involved These cortices can support processing the in (first-person) experiences of disgust to those more localized, somatic sensation of pain or involved in the perception of someone else’s the cause of another emotion (for review, see (third-person) experience of disgust. To this Keysers et al. 2010). Taken together, however, end, they scanned the participants’ brains either the somatosensory system seems to be able to while they smelled noxious odors or while they represent, for an individual, what it is like to watched a video of another person smell and feel a stimulus, produce a facial expression, and respond with disgust to the same odors. Similar generate an integrated bodily state, and in this brain areas, including the anterior insula, and way provide extensive emotional information to lesser extent the anterior cingulate cortex, about the state of a perceived individual in a were activated when individuals felt disgust particular emotional situation (Heberlein & and when they perceived it in someone else. Atkinson 2009).

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org The anterior insula receives connections from Whether or not a shared circuits approach

Access provided by University of Wisconsin - Madison on 01/17/15. For personal use only. olfactory and gustatory brain structures as well can provide a full account of constructs as as from anterior sectors of the ventral part of complex as empathy is not clear (e.g., Decety & the superior temporal sulcus. Cells in the latter Lamb 2006), and the relations between these structures of monkey brains have been found to brain areas and their precise involvement in the respond to the sight of faces (Bruce et al. 1986, production of vicarious emotion and associated Perrett et al. 1982). This suggests that the behavior responses will require more research anterior insula links gustatory, olfactory, and (e.g., Niedenthal et al. 2010). Nevertheless, visual input with visceral sensations and the it is clear that deﬁcits in the mechanisms related autonomic and visceromotor responses. known to be involved in vicarious emotion are Recent research also documents the role associated with dysfunction in social relations of the amygdala in vicarious fear learning. and social information processing (Blair 2007, Olsson et al. (2007) tested the hypothesis that Dapretto et al. 2006, Iacoboni & Dapretto

268 Niedenthal · Brauer PS63CH11-Niedenthal ARI 31 October 2011 11:51

2006). Furthermore, it may not be surprising et al. 1994, Le Bon 1895). The question of from an emotion-simulation perspective that whether group emotions are different from vicarious or observational learning largely emotions within the individual has been a relies on the same emotion-processing centers subject of debate (Niedenthal et al. 2006), of the brain as instructed learning (Olsson & and the analysis can be extended to societal Phelps 2004). This suggests that many types groups as well (Bar-Tal et al. 2007). It should of learning within dyads rely on emotion be noted immediately that all emotions that simulation. For instance, eating a spoiled fruit, arise because of cultural prescription are group seeing someone eat spoiled fruit, and hearing emotions, but we do not review the cultural from someone that fruit is spoiled seem to approaches to emotions here. The interested involve reproduction of the experience of reader should refer to Mesquita et al. (2011). disgust within the self (Barthomeuf et al. 2009). The second construct, group-based emo- The capability of the human mind and body tion, involves an individual having an emotion to reproduce an emotion in the self and use it on behalf of a group of which he or she is a in dyadic interaction is clearly extraordinary, member and due to his or her identiﬁcation with and this notion, although quite old, should be this group (Iyer et al. 2004, Leach & Tiedens a leading one in future research. 2004, van Zomeren et al. 2008). Individuals can have emotions on behalf of their group even when they are alone and are not in a situa- FUNCTIONAL EMOTION tion that is the elicitor of the emotion or the PHENOMENA IN GROUPS topic of the emotion. For example, although The dynamics of group processes differ from they had not been involved in any acts against the dynamics of dyadic interaction, and emo- Indigenous Australians themselves, Australian tions play a role in the unfolding of group- participants in a study by McGarty et al. (2005) level phenomena as well. Whether assessed reported feeling guilt on behalf of the coun- within small groups or much larger societal- try, their group of identiﬁcation. Moreover, as based groups, the functionality of emotions at discussed below, these reports of guilt predicted this level of analysis can be abstracted from the level of their support for a formal apology to the dyadic level just considered. For the group, these Indigenous Australians by the Australian emotion processes seem necessary for the cre- government. ation and maintenance of group viability and for Thus, group emotions are the emotions that long-term commitment to actions that achieve arise as a function of being in a collective such as the goals of the group (Chekroun & Brauer a work team or a crowd; they occur in groups. 2002, 2004; Frijda & Mesquita 1994; Haidt Group-based emotions are emotions that are 2003; Keltner & Haidt 1999). An account of elicited in an individual because of his or her

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org group viability and sustained collective action identiﬁcation with a group and knowledge that

Access provided by University of Wisconsin - Madison on 01/17/15. For personal use only. requires recourse to two emotion phenom- the group has caused or been the target of ena: group emotions (or collective emotions) an emotion-inducing event. In the next sec- and group-based emotions (or group-level tions, we review research documenting these emotions). phenomena and their effects. The first construct, group emotion, refers to emotions that occur in and are shared within a collective of interacting individuals Group Emotions: Creation and at a moment in time, as when a small group Maintenance of Group Viability becomes energized with excitement and joy A funeral service is a good place to observe the (Barsade 2002, Bartel & Saavedra 2000, Kelly generation of group emotion. Collective grief & Barsade 2001) or a crowd becomes gripped in this setting emerges as verbal and nonver- by fear or galvanized with anger (Hatfield bal messages provide evidence for the justified

www.annualreviews.org • Functionality of Emotions 269 PS63CH11-Niedenthal ARI 31 October 2011 11:51

experience of sadness. A potent story or a gasp individuals the feeling that the entire set of peo- of unbearable sadness will cause ripples of sobs ple gathered together constitutes an emergent and tears. Group emotion is difficult to de- group that could work together, for instance, fine and study, but its validity is never in ques- to care for the family of the deceased. Notice tion. In an early illustrative study, Totterdell that this group process, with emotion serving et al. (1998) asked community nurses working to mobilize solidarity through perceptions of in teams to fill out daily measures of mood, work enhanced similarity, is the opposite of the pro- hassles, team commitment, and team climate cess of diffusion of responsibility in the areas over a period of three weeks. Analyses of these of helping (e.g., Forsyth et al. 2002, Latane&´ measures showed that a nurse’s mood on one Nida 1981) and social control (e.g., Brauer & day was significantly predicted by the mood of Chekroun 2005, Chekroun & Brauer 2002). teammates on the same day. Furthermore, the If group emotions serve to create groups by relationship was significant even when the ef- increasing perceived similarity, they maintain fect of work hassles was controlled, which shows established groups’ viability through a process that the concordance in mood was not com- of reinforcing group boundaries in intergroup pletely explained by shared problems and ex- contexts (e.g., Wohl et al. 2010). This effect has periences. In a similar way, Totterdell (2000) been known for a long time with regard to the found that the mood of professional cricket joy that is propagated among fans and members players during a match varied as a function of of the winning team at a sporting event. In the mood of their teammates, independent of such an intergroup setting, group emotion the objective features of the match itself. appears to cause particularly strong feelings of In summarizing the writings of Le Bon cohesiveness among the fans (compared to the (1895/1963), McDougall (1923), and Freud opposing team’s fans), who then display explicit (1922/1959), Barsade & Gibson (1998) de- signs of group identification in the form of scribe group emotion as follows: “The diverse team clothing and other insignias (Cialdini emotional tendencies of individuals, then, et al. 1976). Similar group dynamics are also are submerged into a group emotion ... The observed when groups experience collective emotional character thus produced tends to be anxiety (Wohl et al. 2010). In a series of studies, more extreme than the tendencies of individual Wilder & Shapiro (1989) induced high (or low) members” (p. 84). So people grieving in a group levels of anxiety in four-person groups by hav- setting will cry more, and more overtly, than ing them compete (or cooperate) with another they would if they were alone. To what end? group. After working together on a task, the As we have already suggested, the literature members of the group watched another four- indicates that group emotions function, first, person group give them feedback on their own to create groups. That is, the experience of performance through a TV monitor. Although

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org group emotion can be a basis for the formation the “real” group of participants did not know

Access provided by University of Wisconsin - Madison on 01/17/15. For personal use only. of social units per se (Barsade et al. 2000), even it, the second group was composed of confed- if the emotions are negative (Gump & Kulik erates of the experimenter. Three of the four 1997, Schachter 1959). Recent research on members of the ostensible other group gave small groups within organizations has provided negative feedback, whereas one gave positive evidence for this idea, with a focus on positive feedback and was in this sense an atypical group emotion (Spoor & Kelly 2004, Walter & Bruch member. Later, the real participants judged the 2008). Group experiences of ecstasy and awe members of the ostensible evaluating group. can also provide members of groups with a Group anxiety caused the judgments of the heightened sense of group identity (Heise & atypical member to be assimilated toward those O’Brien 1993). Taken together, such research of the other three group members, such that the suggests that the collective experience of high-anxiety participants rated that person sig- grief described above can temporarily create in niﬁcantly more negatively than did low-anxiety

270 Niedenthal · Brauer PS63CH11-Niedenthal ARI 31 October 2011 11:51

participants. Such findings have been replicated and most recently, research has focused on with other manipulations of anxiety as well, opinion-based groups in this regard (McGarty and together they suggest that group emotions et al. 2009, Musgrove & McGarthy 2008). in intergroup settings make the demarcations Smith and colleagues (2007) established that between in-group and out-group more defined group emotions are distinct from individual- and salient. Similar effects have been observed level emotions and that indeed group emotions in individual emotions in intergroup settings depend on the person’s degree of group identi- as well (van Zomeren et al. 2007). fication. Their work showed further that group Group emotions can be negative or positive, emotions contribute to regulating intragroup and claims can be made about whether negative and intergroup attitudes and behavior. To or positive emotions are in general more func- examine this latter idea, the authors measured tional in the sense of inhibiting or facilitating intergroup attitudes on thermometer scales characteristics of group behavior. For instance, and action tendencies (i.e., ingroup support, Barsade (2002) showed that positive emotions ingroup solidarity, outgroup confrontation, were related to greater cooperativeness and less and outgroup avoidance). They found that conflict in small groups. And Duffy & Shaw intergroup attitudes and action tendencies (2000) found that intragroup envy was related were predicted by group emotions (“When you to greater social loafing, less cohesiveness, and think about yourself as an American, to what thus lower productivity. However, consistent extent do you feel ...”) but not by individual with our analysis of emotions in dyads, our point emotions (“When you think about yourself as is that collective emotional processing per se is an individual, to what extent do you feel ...”). necessary for the creation and maintenance of The results further showed that anger at the the group as a social unit (Brief & Weiss 2002). outgroup and positive group emotions were the most powerful predictors across all categories of action tendencies. Group-Based Emotions: Sustaining The important role of group-based emo- Collective Action tions in sustaining collective action has now Intergroup Emotion Theory (Mackie et al. been demonstrated in a number of domains. 2000) holds that when people identify them- Some analyses of group-based guilt, for in- selves as a member of a group, they can stance, suggest that this group-level emotion is experience emotions on behalf of, or from the related to a commitment to the call for apolo- standpoint of, this group (e.g., Branscombe & gies and reparations on the part of governments Doosje 2004). This emotion can of course be and institutions (e.g., Berndsen & McGarthy experienced when the individual is alone, but 2010, Branscombe et al. 2002, Doosje the important difference from other emotion et al. 1998, McGarty et al. 2005, Wohl &

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org phenomena is that the individual experiences Branscombe 2005). Other analyses have linked

Access provided by University of Wisconsin - Madison on 01/17/15. For personal use only. the emotion for the group instead of for himself feelings of moral outrage and of anger to a com- or herself. Thus, when individuals think of mitment to collective action aimed at righting themselves in terms of group membership, social inequalities, including discrimination their reported emotions differ from their re- and prejudice (e.g., Crisp et al. 2007, Leach ported individual emotions, and this difference et al. 2006, Thomas 2005, Wakslak et al. 2007, is stronger to the degree that they identify with van Zomeren et al. 2004; see Sturmer¨ & Simon the group (Bizman et al. 2001, Doosje et al. 2009 for further interpretation and discussion). 1995, Gordijn et al. 2006, Magee & Tiedens Importantly, group-based emotions such as 2006, Miller et al. 2004). The types of groups these have been shown in meta-analyses to be that provide the context for group-based better predictors of collective actions against emotions can be social as well as political social injustice than are perceptions of the (Iyer et al. 2003, 2004; Leach et al. 2006), injustice itself (e.g., van Zomeren et al. 2008).

www.annualreviews.org • Functionality of Emotions 271 PS63CH11-Niedenthal ARI 31 October 2011 11:51

As an example, in a recent study Iyer et al. Recent research has documented acute emo- (2007) assessed the appraisals (i.e., legitimacy, tional climates surrounding terrorist attacks in responsibility, and threat), emotions (i.e., guilt, Spain (e.g., Conejero & Etxebarria 2007) and shame, and anger), and political action inten- genocide in Rwanda (Kanyangara et al. 2007). tions (i.e., compensation to Iraq, confrontation According to Bar-Tal and colleagues (2007), with those responsible, and withdrawal from collective emotions play a “pivotal role both Iraq) of American and British university in shaping the individual and societal responses students in the context of the occupation of to conﬂicting events (i.e., collective and group- Iraq. They also experimentally manipulated based emotions) and in contributing to the perceived threat to group image by having evolution of a social context that maintains participants read a newspaper article in which the collective emotions that have developed” the wrongdoings of the Americans/British were (p. 442). Emotional climate thus seems to play described as either unintentional (low image an important role in signaling the need for and threat) or as due to their corrupt, arrogant motivating collective action as well as gauging mentality (high image threat). Image threat and its success. appraisals had predictable effects on emotions. Of interest was the result that emotions were differentially related to preferred strategies MECHANISMS SUPPORTING for collective action. Anger predicted all three EMOTION PHENOMENA political action intentions. Shame predicted IN GROUPS the intention to support policies advocating The mechanisms for the successful and accu- withdrawal. Guilt was associated with no par- rate transmission of group emotion and group- ticular response and was characterized by these based emotions require the consideration of authors as a “passive” emotion. The complexity quite different processes, with those responsi- of the possible functions of guilt and associated ble for the former more similar to processes behavioral responses has been the subject of dis- discussed in earlier sections on facial expression cussion of research and theory in the context of and vicarious emotion, and the latter relying on individual emotion (e.g., de Hooge et al. 2011). basic group dynamics principles. The notion of collective emotional climate (Bar-Tal et al. 2007) should also be mentioned here. Although in theory emotional climate is Contagion of Emotion Within related to the concept of group emotion, given the Group that it is assumed to involve emotions shared by Emotional contagion has been offered as a group rather than on behalf of one, research a mechanism for the generation of group tends to use the individual self-report methods emotions (e.g., Barsade & Gibson 1998, Sullins

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org of research on group-based emotions. The 1991). It is deﬁned as the tendency for group

Access provided by University of Wisconsin - Madison on 01/17/15. For personal use only. idea of emotional climate is that an accumula- members to come to experience and express tion of repeated group emotional responses to highly similar emotions (Hatﬁeld et al. 1992, societal events or sociopolitical conditions can 1993). Similar to the basic components of produce a general and lasting emotional tone embodied facial expression, the idea is that of the nation or society as well as the likely individuals unintentionally mimic the public emotional responses to events. For instance, displays of emotion of others. Then, afferent de Rivera et al. (2007) have characterized the feedback from facial, postural, and vocal emotional climate of countries in terms of the mimicry serves to produce a similar emotional degree to which individuals feel social trust state, with its corresponding action tendencies as well as social anger and fear. Interestingly, (e.g., Duclos et al. 1989, Neumann & Strack such climates are independent of the degree to 2000, Strack et al. 1988). Contagion of this type which the country endorses a culture of peace. occurs in group conversation, for instance,

272 Niedenthal · Brauer PS63CH11-Niedenthal ARI 31 October 2011 11:51

when members mutually and reciprocally (2006) showed that particularly effective and influence each others’ affect such that all par- charismatic leaders tend to use positive words ticipants take on a similar emotional intensity and expressions and express positive emo- and tone (e.g., Quinn & Dutton 2005). How- tions in facial expressions. Their studies also ever, controlled research on emotion contagion documented emotional contagion such that in- within groups is actually quite sparse. dividuals who were exposed to the charismatic In one careful study of this phenomenon, leader felt more positive than did individuals Barsade (2002) composed groups of two to four exposed to a more neutral-emotion leader. naıve¨ experimental participants and one con- Fredrickson (2003) further argues that lead- federate. Groups were randomly assigned to ers have this effect because of their position one of four conditions that resulted from two in the power hierarchy, and due probably to crossed factors: Pleasantness (pleasant versus their motivation to maintain power, leaders unpleasant) and Energy Level (low versus high). express emotion. Indeed, Anderson et al. (2003) The two factors referred to the confederate’s specifically showed that the convergence in nonverbal emotional behavior during the group the similarity of the emotions experienced by task. Specifically, groups engaged in a leader- individuals in a long-term relationship is most less group discussion that involved making a strongly determined by the person in the po- group decision concerning the way to distribute sition of power. This effect was demonstrated a limited sum of bonus money to employees for groups in a study by Sy et al. (2005), who from different departments. Participants rated manipulated leaders’ mood (using videotapes) their own emotional state before and after the and then had participants engage in a group group discussion. They also evaluated the per- task (erecting a tent while subordinates are formance and the contribution of themselves blindfolded). Results showed that subordinates and of other group members. Groups were were in a better mood when their leader was in also filmed during the group discussion. Find- a positive mood, and this effect was interpreted ings showed a main effect of confederate pleas- in terms of emotional contagion. antness on group members’ emotional states: In summary, we know something about the Participants who were exposed to a pleasant transmission of emotion within an interacting confederate were in a more positive state than group. Group leaders, and those perceived participants who were exposed to an unpleasant as leaders, are usually the focus of attention, confederate, as indicated by self-ratings and by the determinant of situational appraisal, and judges of naıve¨ coders of the video recordings thus the managers of group emotion (e.g., of behavior. Positive state was associated with Pescosolido 2002). Descriptions of emotion greater cooperativeness and less group con- contagion seem to best depict the appearance flict. In the context of group decision-making, of group emotion, and this process probably

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Parkinson & Simmons (2009) recently docu- involves mimicry and the synchronization of

Access provided by University of Wisconsin - Madison on 01/17/15. For personal use only. mented emotional contagion as well. bodies and voices that is grounded in the brain So, emotions can spread among group centers described in the sections above on members, but where does the emotion come vicarious emotion. On the other hand, if group from? Whose emotion causes a group emotion emotion is indeed more intense or involves in interacting groups? As early as 1942, Redl more loss of self than an individual emotion, proposed that group leaders largely determine researchers still have to account for how and the emotion that becomes contagious in groups. why this is so. Too little research examines the Cherulnik et al. (2001) note that observers propagation of emotion in interacting groups, mimic the smiles of especially charismatic lead- no doubt due to the difﬁculty of producing this ers, who are particularly potent in expression phenomenon in the laboratory. On the other and eliciting emotions (Friedman & Riggio hand, the development of virtual environments 1981). And in a series of studies, Bono & Ilies and their use in experimental research should

www.annualreviews.org • Functionality of Emotions 273 PS63CH11-Niedenthal ARI 31 October 2011 11:51

provide a platform for much-needed research action relies on a process of “crafting a soon this topic (Blascovich & Bailenson 2011). cial identity that has a relevant, congruent pattern of norms for action, emotion, and efﬁcacy” (p. 195). Adoption of emotion norms, then, is Self-Stereotyping and Emotion Norms one criterion for being a “good” group mem- The generation of group-based emotion re- ber (Reysen & Branscombe 2008). The way in quires that a convergence in emotional state and which the norms for emotion are established readiness occur across individuals who identify is an importantly distinct emotion process that themselves as group members, and this conver- relies on common ways of appraising situations gence has been understood recently in terms of that are relevant to the group’s goals (Fischer the cognitive processes of self-stereotyping (as et al. 2003). So, for instance, a group emotion members of the group) and in terms of the de- norm that provides the basis of a group-based velopment of emotion norms within the group. emotion of anger would be based on a collec- Smith and colleagues (2007) proposed tive appraisal of the situation (e.g., an injustice) self-stereotyping as an important mechanism as being illegitimate, negative, and controllable in group-based emotion, akin to the role of by the group. self-stereotyping of attitudes, norms, and traits Recent research on emotion norms and col- in producing the internalization and incorpo- lective action has demonstrated that group em- ration of group characteristics as part of the pathy norms can motivate positive changes in self. The idea is that self-stereotyping causes attitudes toward outgroups (e.g., Tarrant et al. group members to experience the emotions 2009). Other researchers have studied the pro- they perceive as currently characteristic of their duction of an outrage norm within the group group. Moons et al. (2009) tested this claim as an important basis for commitment to ac- in studies that documented a pretest-posttest tion. Thomas & McGarty (2009) constructed shift in participants’ ratings of the extent to opinion-based novel groups of interacting in- which they felt a given group-based emotion dividuals (and noninteracting controls) in the after being told that their fellow in-group laboratory. The topic under consideration was members reported high or low levels of that the Water for Life campaign introduced by the emotion. That is, when they categorized United Nations, which strives to reduce the in- themselves as “Americans” (the category under cidence of waterborne diseases in developing study), participants converged toward the countries by providing clean water and sani- emotion stereotype in the group-based, but not tation. Introduced into the groups, of interest individual, emotions that they reported to be for the present treatment, was either a norm feeling. Further work on self-stereotyping of of outrage (i.e., toward the existing conditions) emotion by Leonard et al. (2011) showed that or no particular emotion norm. In comparison

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org knowledge of the anger of women as a group with noninteracting individuals and groups for

Access provided by University of Wisconsin - Madison on 01/17/15. For personal use only. affected female participants’ anger (showing which no emotion norm was primed, groups self-stereotyping), and this in turn pre- with an outrage norm were more outraged at dicted their action tendencies to hypothetical the end of the discussion and were more com- situations of discrimination against women. mitted to the group and its intended action to The process of self-stereotyping of emo- facilitate the Water for Life aims. This study tion is not unrelated to the second mechanism, nicely illustrates the adoption of a group norm the transmission of injunctive group norms for for outrage and its relation to collective action. emotion. Emotion norms are considered as one Self-stereotyping in terms of emotions and of three important norms categories in Thomas self-reports of adherence to group-based emo- and colleagues’ Normative Alignment Model of tion norms are clearly associated with commit- Collective Action (Thomas et al. 2009). These ment to a cause and the likelihood of commit- authors propose that group commitment to ting to collective action in the service of that

274 Niedenthal · Brauer PS63CH11-Niedenthal ARI 31 October 2011 11:51

cause. In other words, taking on the emotions grouped together as similar and/or different of the group as part of the collective self has a is based on the aims of a given program motivating function. Future work will need to of research. When the biological basis of explore the different emotion mechanisms by certain emotions is considered, categories which the transmission of group-based emo- of primary and secondary emotions may be tions, other than claims and social appraisals, employed (Damasio 1994, Leyens et al. 2007). actually occurs, and the extent to which group- When researchers focus on the developmental based emotions are emotional processes or atti- grounding and cognitive achievements that are tudinal ones. The component processes of emo- necessary for the experience of particular emotion other than cognitive-appraisal ones, such tions, then basic emotions are contrasted with as facial expression and physiological and cen- cognition-dependent emotions (Ackerman & tral states of the organism, may be most likely Izard 2004), and labels such as “self-conscious” to be involved when groups are actually formed and “self-evaluative” emotions are proposed and interacting and not when individuals re- (Tracy et al. 2007). When links between ceive consensual information about the state or emotions and specific behavioral outcomes are the norms of the group. In other words, future under study, categories such as “moral” (Haidt research in this area will need to focus on the 2003, Tangney et al. 2007) and “prosocial” emotional processes in addition to self-report (Sturmer¨ et al. 2005) emotions are common. of emotional state. When relevant to structural features of inter- Moreover, comparing online self-reports of personal relationships, words like “powerful” emotion with retrospective or summary reports and “powerless” emotions are used (Timmers is a method that would be very productive in et al. 2003). And when examining culture, this domain. In a now classic study, Barrett researchers may derive categories from cultural and colleagues had participants provide global, models or values and characterize emotions as retrospective ratings of their emotions (Barrett “socially engaged” and “socially disengaged” et al. 1998). Then, over a week-long period (Kitayama et al. 2006). In sum, emotions can these same individuals provided momentary be reasonably defined in terms of neural, ratings of their emotions and the contexts peripheral, expressive, cognitive, linguistic, in which the emotions were experienced. social, literary, historical, cultural, and societal Results revealed gender differences in global processes and behavior; emotions occur in descriptions of emotions but not in the aver- individuals and can have individual-level aged momentary ratings of emotion. This and definitions, and emotions occur in groups of similar findings suggest that when individuals different sizes and have collective definitions. produce global or retrospective self-ratings In the present review we have surveyed re- of emotion, they are more likely to rely on cent literature related to the social functionality

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org stereotypes and expectations than when they of emotion. We propose that facial expression

Access provided by University of Wisconsin - Madison on 01/17/15. For personal use only. produce online emotion ratings. Showing that regulates behavior and social perception in group emotion norms and online reports con- dyads in a dense and efﬁcient way. The ability to verge when participants are in groups would process facial expression of emotion accurately be a fascinating demonstration of the discrete is thus a social necessity. Vicarious emotion effect of emotion norms in group processes. plays a similar though more complex role in learning and social understanding. The brain bases of these two phenomena are slowly be- CONCLUSIONS coming clearer as theory in social and emotions There will never be an integrative theory of psychology is put to the test by techniques and emotion, and no current theory can account for methods in neuroscience. New accounts, such all emotional phenomena. Indeed, the manner as theories of embodied or simulated emotion, in which emotions are deﬁned, labeled, and provide an important impetus for such research.

www.annualreviews.org • Functionality of Emotions 275 PS63CH11-Niedenthal ARI 31 October 2011 11:51

Group emotions and group-based emotions clearly important role in inspiring and main- seem to serve more abstract goals of group taining collective action in the service of evolv- cohesion and collective action. Although ing societies and even smaller groups is now group emotion may rely on many of the clear. A fuller account of the emotional compo- same mechanisms as vicarious emotion, group nents of group-based emotions should be part emotion will certainly never be reduced to of the research agenda in the coming years. independent vicarious emotions of a set of In summary, emotion processing is a re- interacting individuals. The fact that group quirement of successful social living. We feel emotions can be triggered by powerful people that its utility in dyadic and group dynamics and generated in increasing intensity over time has been established in these pages. We hope suggests that accounts of this phenomenon are to have inspired researchers to pursue full ac- still in their infancy. Group-based emotions counts of the mechanisms in the accurate trans- are also an emerging topic of study: Their mission of emotion in these social units.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The authors are unaware of any afﬁliation, funding, or ﬁnancial holdings that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors acknowledge helpful discussions with Gerrod Parrott, extensive feedback from Keith Oatley, and superb technical help from Mary K. Lokken. The effort of the ﬁrst author was supported by a grant (FaceExpress–Blanc CSD9 2006) from L’Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR), France.

LITERATURE CITED Ackerman B, Izard C. 2004. Emotion cognition in children and adolescents: introduction to the special issue. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 89:271–75 Adolphs R. 2002. Recognizing emotion from facial expressions: psychological and neurological mechanisms. Behav. Cogn. Neurosci. Rev. 1:21–62 Adolphs R, Damasio H, Tranel D, Cooper G, Damasio AR. 2000. A role for somatosensory cortices in the visual recognition of emotion as revealed by 3-D lesion mapping. J. Neurosci. 20:2683–90 Adolphs R, Damasio H, Tranel D, Damasio AR. 1996. Cortical systems for the recognition of emotion in

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org facial expressions. J. Neurosci. 16:7678–87 Adolphs R, Gosselin F, Buchanan T, Tranel D, Schyns P, Damasio A. 2005. A mechanism for impaired fear Access provided by University of Wisconsin - Madison on 01/17/15. For personal use only. recognition in amygdala damage. Nature 433:68–72 Ames DR, Johar GV. 2009. I’ll know what you’re like when I see how you feel. Psychol. Sci. 20:586–93 Anderson C, Keltner D, John O. 2003. Emotional convergence between people over time. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 84:1054–68 Anderson C, Thompson LL. 2004. Affect from the top down: how powerful individuals’ positive affect shapes negotiations. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 95:125–39 Askew C, Field AP. 2007. Vicarious learning and the development of fears in childhood. Behav. Res. Ther. 45:2616–27 Atkinson A. 2007. Face processing and empathy. In Empathy in Mental Illness, ed. TFD Farrow, PWR Woodruff, pp. 360–85. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press Barlett MY, DeSteno D. 2009. Gratitude and prosocial behavior: helping when it costs you. Psychol. Sci. 1:320–25

276 Niedenthal · Brauer PS63CH11-Niedenthal ARI 31 October 2011 11:51

Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S, Hill J, Raste Y, Plumb I. 2001. The “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” Test revised version: a study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 42:241–51 Barrett LF, Mesquita B, Ochsner KN, Gross JJ. 2007. The experience of emotion. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 58:373– 403 Barrett LF, Robin L, Pietromonaco PR, Eyssell KM. 1998. Are women the “more emotional sex?” Evidence from emotional experiences in social context. Cogn. Emot. 12:555–78 Barsade SG. 2002. The ripple effect: emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Admin. Sci. Q. 47:644–75 Barsade SG, Gibson DE. 1998. Group emotion: a view from top and bottom. In Research on Managing Groups and Teams, ed. D Gruenfeld, E Mannix, M Neale, pp. 81–102. Stamford, CT: JAI Barsade SG, Ward AJ, Turner JDF, Sonnenfeld JA. 2000. To your heart’s content: the influence of affective diversity in top management teams. Admin. Sci. Q. 45:802–36 Bar-Tal D, Halperin E, de Rivera J. 2007. Collective emotions in conflict situations: societal implications. J. Soc. Issues 63:441–60 Bartel CA, Saavedra R. 2000. The collective construction of work group mood. Admin. Sci. Q. 45:197–231 Barthomeuf L, Droit-Volet S, Rousset S. 2009. Obesity and emotions: differentiation in emotions felt towards food in obese, overweight and normal-weight adolescents. Food Qual. Pref. 20:62–68 Batson DC, Fultz J, Schoenrade PA. 1987. Distinct vicarious emotions with different motivational consequences. J. Personal. 55:19–39 Bavelas JB, Black A, Lemery CR, Mullett J. 1986. “I show how you feel”: motor mimicry as a communicative act. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 50:322–29 Beall PM, Moody EJ, McIntosh DN, Hepburn SL, Reed CL. 2008. Rapid facial reactions to emotional facial expressions in typically developing children and children with autism spectrum disorder. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 101(3):206–23 Berndsen M, McGarty C. 2010. The impact of magnitude of harm and perceived difficulty of making reparations on group-based guilt and reparation towards victims of historical harm. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40:500–13 Bizman A, Yinon Y, Krotman S. 2001. Group-based emotional distress: an extension of self-discrepancy theory. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27:1291–300 Blair RJR. 1995. A cognitive developmental approach to morality: investigating the psychopath. Cognition 57:1–29 Blair RJR. 2003. Facial expressions, their communicatory functions and neuro-cognitive substrates. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 358:561–72 Blair RJR. 2007. The amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex in morality and psychopathy. Trends Cogn. Sci. 11:387–91 Blair RJR, Colledge E, Murray L, Mitchell DGV. 2001. A selective impairment in the processing of sad and fearful expressions in children with psychopathic tendencies. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 29:491–98

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Blascovich J, Bailenson J. 2011. Inﬁnite Reality: Avatars, Eternal Life, New Words, and the Dawn of the Virtual Revolution. New York: Morrow Access provided by University of Wisconsin - Madison on 01/17/15. For personal use only. Bonnano GA, Keltner D, Noll JG, Putnam FW, Trickett PK, et al. 2002. When the face reveals what words do not: facial expressions of emotion, smiling, and the willingness to disclose childhood sexual abuse. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 83:94–110 Bono JE, Ilies R. 2006. Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion. Leadersh. Q. 17:317–34 Branscombe NR, Doosje B, eds. 2004. Collective Guilt: International Perspectives. London: Cambridge Univ. Press Branscombe NR, Doosje B, McGarty C. 2002. Antecedents and consequences of collective guilt. In From Prejudice to Intergroup Emotions: Differentiated Reactions to Social Groups, ed. DM Mackie, ER Smith, pp. 49–66. Philadelphia, PA: Psychol. Press Brauer M, Chekroun P. 2005. The relationship between perceived violation of social norms and social control: situational factors inﬂuencing the reaction to deviance. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 35:1519–39 Brief AP, Weiss HM. 2002. Organizational behavior: affect in the workplace. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 53:279–307

www.annualreviews.org • Functionality of Emotions 277 PS63CH11-Niedenthal ARI 31 October 2011 11:51

Brown WM, Palameta B, Moore C. 2003. Are there nonverbal cues to commitment? An exploratory study using the zero-acquaintance video presentation paradigm. Evol. Psychol. 1:42–69 Bruce C, Desimone R, Gross C. 1986. Both striate cortex and superior colliculus contribute to visual properties of neurons in superior temporal polysensory area of macaque monkey. J. Neurophysiol. 55(5):1057–75 Buck R. 1983. Emotional development and emotional education. In Emotion in Early Development,ed. R Plutchik, H Kellerman, pp. 259–92. New York: Academic Buck R. 1999. The biological affects: a typology. Psychol. Rev. 106:301–36 Buck R, Loslow J, Murphy M, Costanzo P. 1992. Social factors in facial display and communication. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 63:962–68 Butler EA, Egloff B, Wilhelm FW, Smith NC, Erickson EA, Gross JJ. 2003. The social consequences of expressive suppression. Emotion 3:48–67 Calder AJ, Keane J, Cole J, Campbell R, Young AW. 2000a. Facial expression recognition by people with Mobius syndrome. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 17:73–87 Calder AJ, Keane J, Manes F, Antoun N, Young AW. 2000b. Impaired recognition and experience of disgust following brain injury. Nat. Neurosci. 3:1077–78 Campos JJ, Thein S, Owen D. 2003. A Darwinian legacy to understanding human infancy: emotional expressions as behavior regulators. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1000:110–34 Chekroun P, Brauer M. 2002. The bystander effect and social control behavior: the effect of the presence of others on people’s reactions to norm violations. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 32:853–67 Chekroun P, Brauer M. 2004. Controleˆ social et effet spectateur: l’impact de l’implication personnelle [Social control and the spectator effect: the impact of personal implication]. Ann. Psychol. 104:83–102 Cheng Y, Lin CP, Liu HL, Hsu YY, Lim KE, et al. 2007. Expertise modulates the perception of pain in others. Curr. Biol. 17:1708–13 Cherulnik PD, Donley KA, Wiewel TSR, Miller SR. 2001. Charisma is contagious: the effect of leaders’ charisma on observers’ affect. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 31:2149–59 Cialdini RB, Borden RJ, Thorne A, Walker M, Freeman S, Sloan L. 1976. Basking in reflected glory: three (football) field studies. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 34:366–75 Clark TF, Winkielman P, McIntosh DN. 2008. Autism and the extraction of emotion from briefly presented facial expressions: stumbling at the first step of empathy. Emotion 8:803–9 Clore GL, Storbeck J. 2006. Affect as information in social judgments and behaviors. In Hearts and Minds: Affective Influences on Social Thinking and Behavior, ed. JP Forgas. Philadelphia, PA: Psychol. Press Conejero S, Etxebarria I. 2007. The impact of the Madrid bombings on personal emotions, emotional atmo- sphere and emotional climate. J. Soc. Issues 63:273–87 Cosmides L, Tooby J. 2000. Evolutionary psychology and the emotions. In Handbook of Emotions, ed. M Lewis, JM Haviland-Jones, pp. 91–115. New York: Guilford. 2nd ed. Crisp RJ, Heuston S, Farr MJ, Turner RN. 2007. Seeing red or feeling blue: differentiated intergroup emotions and ingroup identification in soccer fans. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 10:9–26 Damasio AR. 1989. Time-locked multiregional retroactivation: a systems-level proposal for the neural substrates of recall and recognition. Cognition 33:25–62 Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Damasio AR. 1994. The brain binds entities and events by multiregional activation from convergence zones.

Access provided by University of Wisconsin - Madison on 01/17/15. For personal use only. In Biology and Computation: A Physicist’s Choice, ed. H Gutfreund, G Toulouse, pp. 749–58. River Edge, NJ: World Sci. Publ. Dapretto M, et al. 2006. Understanding emotions in others: mirror neuron dysfunction in children with autism spectrum disorders. Nat. Neurosci. 9:28–30 Darwin C. 1872/1998. The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. New York/London: Oxford Univ. Press Decety J, Chaminade T. 2003. Neural correlates of feeling sympathy. Neuropsychologia 41:127–38 Decety J, Chaminade T. 2005. The neurophysiology of imitation and intersubjectivity. Perspectives on Imitation: From Neuroscience to Social Science: Vol. 1. Mechanisms of Imitation and Imitation in Animals,ed.SHurley, N Chater, pp. 119–40. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Decety J, Lamm C. 2006. Human empathy through the lense of social neuroscience. Sci. World J. 6:1146–63 de Hooge IE, Nelissen RMA, Breugelmans SM, Zeelenberg M. 2011. What is moral about guilt? Acting “prosocially” at the disadvantage of others. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 100:462–73

278 Niedenthal · Brauer PS63CH11-Niedenthal ARI 31 October 2011 11:51

de Hooge IE, Zeelenberg M, Breugelmans SM. 2010. Restore and protect motivations following shame. Cogn. Emot. 24(1):111–27 de Rivera J, Kurrien R, Olsen N. 2007. The emotional climate of nations and their culture of peace. J. Soc. Issues 63(2):255–71 de Waal FBM. 2008. Putting the altruism back into altruism: the evolution of empathy. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59:279–300 de Wied, van Boxtel A, Zaalberg R, Goudena PP, Matthys W. 2006. Facial EMG responses to dynamic emotional facial expressions in boys with disruptive behavior disorders. J. Psychiatr. Res. 40(2):112–21 Dimberg U, Thunberg M. 1998. Rapid facial reactions to emotional facial expressions. Scand. J. Psychol. 39(1):39–45 Doosje B, Branscombe NR, Spears R, Manstead ASR. 1998. Guilty by association: when one’s group has a negative history. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 75:872–86 Doosje B, Ellemers N, Spears R. 1995. Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 31:410–36 Duclos SE, Laird JD, Schneider E, Sexter M, Stern L, Van Lighten O. 1989. Emotion-specific effects of facial expressions and postures on emotional experience. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 57:100–8 Duffy MK, Shaw JD. 2000. The Salieri syndrome: consequences of envy in groups. Small Group Res. 31:3–23 Field T. 1982. Individual differences in the expressivity of neonates and young infants. In Development of Nonverbal Behavior in Children, ed. R Feldman, pp. 279–98. New York: Springer-Verlag Fischer AH, Manstead ASR, Zaalberg R. 2003. Social influences on the emotion process. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 14:171–201 Fischer AH, Roseman IJ. 2007. Beat them or ban them: the characteristics and social functions of anger and contempt. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 93:103–15 Forsyth DR, Zyzniewski LE, Giammanco CA. 2002. Responsibility diffusion in cooporative collectives. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28:54–65 Frank R. 1988. Passions Within Reason: The Strategic Role of Emotions. New York: Norton Fredrickson BL. 2003. Positive emotions and upward spirals in organizations. In Positive Organizational Schol- arship. Foundations of a New Discipline, ed. KS Cameron, JE Dutton, RE Quinn, pp. 163–75. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Freud S. 1922/1959. Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego. Transl. James Strachey. New York: Norton Friedman HS, Riggio R. 1981. The effect of individual differences in nonverbal expressiveness on transmission of emotion. J. Nonverb. Behav. 6:96–104 Frijda NH. 1986. The Emotions. London: Cambridge Univ. Press Frijda NH, Mesquita B. 1994. The social roles and functions of emotions. In Emotion and Culture: Empirical Studies of Mutual Influence, ed. S Kitayama, HR Markus, pp. 51–87. Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc. Fultz J, Nielsen ME. 1993. Anticipated vicarious affect and willingness to be exposed to another’s suffering. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 14:273–83 Gallese V. 2003. The roots of empathy: the shared manifold hypothesis and the neural basis of intersubjectivity. Psychopathology 36:171–80 Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Gallese V. 2005. Being like me: self-other identity, mirror neurons, and empathy. In Perspectives on Imitation:

Access provided by University of Wisconsin - Madison on 01/17/15. For personal use only. From Neuroscience to Social Science. Vol. 1: Mechanisms of Imitation and Imitation in Animals,ed.SHurley, H Chater, pp. 101–18. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Gallese V. 2007. Before and below “theory of mind”: embodied simulation and the neural correlates of social cognition. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 362:659–69 Gallese V, Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Rizzolatti G. 1996. Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain 119:593– 609 Gerull FC, Rappee RM. 2002. Mother knows best: effects of maternal modeling on the acquisition of fear and avoidance behaviour in toddlers. Behav. Res. Ther. 40:279–87 Goldman A, Sripada C. 2005. Simulationist models of face-based emotion recognition. Cognition 94:193–213 Gordijn E, Yzerbyt VY, Wigboldus D, Dumont M. 2006. Emotional reactions to harmful intergroup behavior: the impact of being associated with the victims or the perpetrators. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 36:15–30 Griskevicius V, Tybur JM, Gangestad SW, Perea EF, Shapiro JR, Kenrick DT. 2009. Aggress to impress: hostility as an evolved context-dependent strategy. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 96:980–94

www.annualreviews.org • Functionality of Emotions 279 PS63CH11-Niedenthal ARI 31 October 2011 11:51

Gross JJ, John OP. 2003. Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 85:348–62 Gump B, Kulik JA. 1997. Stress, affiliation, and emotional contagion. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 72:305–19 Haidt J. 2003. The moral emotions. In Handbook of Affective Sciences, ed. RJ Davidson, KR Scherer, HH Goldsmith, pp. 852–70. London: Oxford Univ. Press Harker L, Keltner D. 2001. Expressions of positive emotion in women’s college yearbook pictures and their relationship to personality and life outcomes across adulthood. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 80:112–24 Hatfield E, Cacioppo JT, Rapson RL. 1992. Primitive emotional contagion. In Emotion and Social Behavior. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, ed. MS Clark, Vol. 14, pp. 151–77. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Hatfield E, Cacioppo JT, Rapson RL. 1993. Emotional contagion. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 3:96–99 Hatfield E, Cacioppo JT, Rapson RL. 1994. Emotional Contagion. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press Heberlein AS, Atkinson AP. 2009. Neuroscientific evidence for simulation and shared substrates in emotion recognition: beyond faces. Emot. Rev. 1(2):162–77 Heise DR, O’Brien J. 1993. Emotion expression in groups. In Handbook of Emotions, ed. M Lewis, JM Haviland, pp. 489–98. New York: Guilford Hennenlotter A, Schroeder U, Erhard P, Catrop F, Haslinger B, et al. 2005. A common neural basis for receptive and expressive communication of pleasant facial affect. NeuroImage 26:581–91 Hepburn S, Stone WL. 2006. Longitudinal research on motor imitation in autism. In Imitation and the Social Mind: Autism and Typical Development, ed. S Rogers, J Williams. New York: Guilford Hertenstein MJ, Campos JJ. 2004. The retention effects of an adult’s emotional displays on infant behavior. Child Dev. 75:595–613 Hess U. 2009. Mimicry. In Oxford Companion to Affective Sciences, ed. D Sander, KS Scherer, pp. 253–54. London: Oxford Univ. Press Hess U, Blairy S, Philippot P. 1999. Facial mimicry. In The Social Context of Nonverbal Behavior, ed. P Philippot, R Feldman, E Coats, pp. 213–41. Cambridge: Cambrige Univ. Press Horstmann G. 2003. What do facial expressions convey: feeling states, behavioral intentions, or action re- quests? Emotion 3(2):150–66 Hutchison WD, Davis KD, Lozano AM, Tasker RR, Dostrovsky JO. 1999. Pain-related neurons in the human cingulate cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 2:403–5 Iacoboni M, Dapretto M. 2006. The mirror neuron system and the consequences of its dysfunction. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 7:942–51 Iglesias I. 1996. Verguenza¨ ajena. In The Emotions: Social, Cultural and Biological Dimensions,ed.RHarre,WG Parrott, pp. 122–31. London: Sage Iyer A, Leach CW, Crosby FJ. 2003. White guilt and racial compensation: the benefits and limits of self-focus. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 29:117–29 Iyer A, Leach CW, Pedersen A. 2004. Racial wrongs and restitutions: the role of guilt and other group- based emotions. In Collective Guilt: International Perspectives, ed. N Branscombe, B Doosje, pp. 262–83. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Iyer A, Schmader T, Lickel B. 2007. Why individuals protest the perceived transgressions of their country: the role of anger, shame and guilt. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 33:572–87 Access provided by University of Wisconsin - Madison on 01/17/15. For personal use only. Johnson-Laird PN, Oatley K. 1992. Basic emotions, rationality, and folk theory. Cogn. Emot. 6:201–23 Kagan J. 2007. What Is an Emotion? History, Measures, and Meanings. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press Kanyangara P, Rime´ B, Philippot P, Yzerbyt V. 2007. Collective rituals, intergroup perception and emotional climate: participation in “Gacaca” tribunas and assimilation of the Rwandan genocide. J. Soc. Issues 63:387– 403 Keillor JM, Barrett AM, Crucian GP, Kortenkamp S, Heilman KM. 2002. Emotional experience and perception in the absence of facial feedback. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 8(1):130–35 Kelly JR, Barsade SG. 2001. Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 86:99–130 Keltner D, Gross JJ. 1999. Functional accounts of emotions. Cogn. Emot. 13:467–80 Keltner D, Haidt J. 1999. Social function of emotions at four levels of analysis. Cogn. Emot. 13:505–21 Keltner D, Haidt J. 2003. Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion. Cogn. Emot. 17:297–314

280 Niedenthal · Brauer PS63CH11-Niedenthal ARI 31 October 2011 11:51

Keltner D, Kring AM. 1998. Emotion, social function, and psychopathology. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2:320–42 Keysers C, Gazzola V. 2007. Integrating simulation and theory of mind: from self to social cognition. Trends Cogn. Sci. 11:194–96 Keysers C, Kaas JH, Gazzola V. 2010. Somatosensation in social perception. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 11:417–28 Kitayama S, Mesquita B, Karasawa M. 2006. Cultural affordances and emotional experience: socially engaging and disengaging emotions in Japan and the United States. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 91(5):890–903 Kropp JO, Haynes OM. 1987. Abusive and nonabusive mothers’ ability to identify general and specific emotion signals of infants. Child Dev. 58:187–90 Krull DS, Seger CR, Silvera DH. 2008. Smile when you say that: effects of willingness on dispositional inferences. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44:735–42 Lamm C, Batson CD, Decety J. 2007. The neural substrate of human empathy: effects of perspective-taking and cognitive appraisal. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 19:42–58 Lanzetta JT, Englis BG. 1989. Expectations of cooperation and competition and their effects on observers’ vicarious emotional responses. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 56:543–54 Latane´ B, Nida S. 1981. Ten years of research on group size and helping. Psychol. Bull. 89:308–24 Leach CW, Iyer A, Pedersen A. 2006. Anger and guilt about in-group advantage explain the willingness for political action. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 32:1232–45 Leach CW, Tiedens LZ. 2004. A world of emotion. In The Social Life of Emotions, ed. LZ Tiedens, CW Leach, pp. 1–18. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press Le Bon G. 1895/1963. Psychologie des Foules. Paris: Presses Univ. de France Lee T-W, Dolan RJ, Critchley HD. 2007. Controlling emotional expression: behavioral and neural correlates of nonimitative emotional responses. Cereb. Cortex 18(1):104–13 Lee T-W, Josephs O, Dolan RJ, Critchley HD. 2006. Imitating expressions: emotion-specific neural substrates in facial mimicry. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 1(2):122–35 Leonard DJ, Moons WG, Mackie DM, Smith ER. 2011. We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore: anger, self-stereotyping and collective action. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 14:99–111 Leyens JP, Demoulin S, Vaes J, Gaunt R, Paladino MP. 2007. Infra-humanization: the wall of group differences. Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 1:139–72 Lickel B, Schmader T, Curtis M, Scarnier M, Ames DR. 2005. Vicarious shame and guilt. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 8:145–47 Mackie DM, Devos T, Smith ER. 2000. Intergroup emotions: explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 79:602–16 Magee JC, Tiedens LZ. 2006. Emotional ties that bind: the roles of valence and consistency of group emotion in inferences of cohesiveness and common fate. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 32:1703–15 Maringer M, Krumhuber E, Fischer A, Niedenthal PM. 2011. Beyond smile dynamics: mimicry and beliefs in judgments of smiles. Emotion 11:181–87 Marsh AA, Ambady N. 2007. The influence of the fear facial expression on prosocial responding. Cogn. Emot. 21(2):225–47

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Marsh AA, Kozak MN, Ambady N. 2007. Accurate identiﬁcation of fear expressions predicts prosocial behavior. Emotion 7:239–51 Access provided by University of Wisconsin - Madison on 01/17/15. For personal use only. Matthews G, Wells A. 1999. The cognitive science of attention and emotion. In Handbook of Cognition and Emotion, ed. T Dalgleish, MJ Power, pp. 171–92. Chichester, UK: Wiley Mayer JD, Salovey P, Caruso DR. 2004. Emotional intelligence: theory, ﬁndings, and implications. Psychol. Inq. 60:197–215 McDougall W. 1923. Outline of Psychology. New York: Scribner McGarty C, Bliuc A-M, Thomas EF, Bongiorno R. 2009. Collective action as the material expression of opinion-based group membership. J. Soc. Issues 65:839–57 McGarty C, Pedersen A, Leach CW, Mansell T, Waller J, Bliuc A-M. 2005. Group-based guilt as a predictor of commitment to apology. Br.J.Soc.Psychol.44:659–80 McIntosh DN. 1996. Facial feedback hypotheses: evidence, implications, and directions. Motiv. Emot. 20:121– 47 McIntosh DN. 2006. Spontaneous facial mimicry, liking and emotional contagion. Polish Psychol. Bull. 37:31–42

www.annualreviews.org • Functionality of Emotions 281 PS63CH11-Niedenthal ARI 31 October 2011 11:51

McIntosh DN, Druckman D, Zajonc RB. 1994. Socially induced affect. In Learning, Remembering, Believing: Enhancing Human Performance, ed. D Druckman, RA Bjork, pp. 251–76, 364–71. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press McIntosh DN, Reichmann-Decker A, Winkielman P, Wilbarger JL. 2006. When the social mirror breaks: deﬁcits in automatic, but not voluntary, mimicry of emotional facial expressions in autism. Dev. Sci. 9:295–302 Mehu´ M, Dunbar RIM. 2008. Relationship between smiling and laughter in humans (Homo sapiens): testing the power asymmetry hypothesis. Folia Primatol. 79:269–80 Mesquita B, Ellsworth P. 2001. The role of culture in appraisal. In Appraisal Processes in Emotion: Theory, Methods, Research, ed. K Scherer, A Schorr, T Johnstone, pp. 233–48. New York: Oxford Univ. Press Mesquita B, Marinetti C, Delvaux E. 2011. The social psychology of emotions. In Handbook of Social Cognition, ed. S Fiske, N Macrae. New York: Sage. In press Miller DA, Smith ER, Mackie DM. 2004. Effects of intergroup contact and political predispositions on prejudice: role of intergroup emotions. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 7:221–37 Miller RS. 1987. Empathic embarrassment: situational and personal determinants of reactions to the embarrassment of another. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 53:1061–69 Mineka S, Cook M. 1993. Mechanisms involved in the observational conditioning of fear. J. Exp. Psychol.: Gen. 122:23–38 Mojzisch A, Schilbach L, Helmert J, Pannasch S, Velichkovsky B, Vogeley K. 2006. The effects of self- involvement on attention, arousal, and facial expression during social interaction with virtual others: a psychophysiological study. Soc. Neurosci. 1:184–95 Moody E, McIntosh DN. 2006. Mimicry and autism: bases and consequences of rapid, automatic matching behavior. In Imitation and the Social Mind: Autism and Typical Development, ed. S Rogers, J Williams, pp. 71–95. New York: Guilford Moons WG, Leonard DJ, Mackie DM, Smith ER. 2009. I feel our pain: antecedents and consequences of emotional self-stereotyping. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 45:760–69 Mumme DL, Fernald A. 1996. Infants’ responses to facial and vocal emotional signals in a social referencing paradigm. Child Dev. 67:3219–37 Musgrove L, McGarty CA. 2008. Opinion-based group membership as a predictor of collective emotional responses and support for pro- and anti-war action. Soc. Psychol. 39:37–47 Neumann R, Strack F. 2000. “Mood contagion”: the automatic transfer of mood between persons. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 79:211–23 Niedenthal PM. 2007. Embodying emotion. Science 316:1002–5 Niedenthal PM, Barsalou LW, Winkielman P, Krauth-Gruber S, Ric F. 2005. Embodiment in attitudes, social perception, and emotion. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 9:184–211 Niedenthal PM, Kruth-Gruber S, Ric F. 2006. The Psychology of Emotion: Interpersonal Experiential, and Cognitive Approaches. Principles of Social Psychology Series. New York: Psychol. Press Niedenthal PM, Mermillod M, Maringer M, Hess U. 2010. The Simulation of Smiles (SIMS) model: embodied

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org simulation and the meaning of facial expression. Behav. Brain Sci. 33:417–80 Oatley K, Jenkins JM. 1992. Human emotions: function and dysfunction. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 43:55–85 Access provided by University of Wisconsin - Madison on 01/17/15. For personal use only. Ohman A, Mineka S. 2001. Fears, phobias, and preparedness: toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning. Psychol. Rev. 108:483–522 Olsson A, Nearing KI, Phelps EA. 2007. Learning fears by observing others: the neural systems of social fear transmission. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 2:3–11 Olsson A, Phelps EA. 2004. Learned fear of “unseen” faces after Pavlovian, observational and instructed fear. Psychol. Sci. 15:822–28 Parkinson B, Simons G. 2009. Affecting others: social appraisal and emotion contagion in everyday decision making. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 35:1071–84 Parrott WG. 2001. Implications of dysfunctional emotions for understanding how emotions function. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 5:180–86 Perrett DI, Rolls ET, Caan W. 1982. Visual neurons responsive to faces in the monkey temporal cortex. Exp. Brain Res. 47:329–42

282 Niedenthal · Brauer PS63CH11-Niedenthal ARI 31 October 2011 11:51

Pescosolido AT. 2002. Emergent leaders as managers of group emotion. Leadersh. Q. 13:583–99 Phelps EA. 2006. Emotion and cognition: insights from studies of the human amygdala. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 57:27–53 Pickett CL, Gardner WL, Knowles M. 2004. Getting a cue: the need to belong and enhanced sensitivity to social cues. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30:1095–107 Pitcher D, Garrido L, Walsh V, Duchaine B. 2008. TMS disrupts the perception and embodiment of facial expressions. J. Neurosci. 28(36):8929–33 Pollak SD. 2008. Mechanisms linking early experience and the emergence of emotions: illustrations from the study of maltreated children. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 17:370–75 Pollak SD, Cicchetti D, Hornung K, Reed A. 2000. Recognizing emotion in faces: development effects of child abuse and neglect. Dev. Psychol. 36:679–88 Pourtois G, Grandjean D, Sander D, Vuilleumier P. 2004. Electrophysiological correlates of rapid spatial orienting towards fearful faces. Cereb. Cortex 14:619–33 Quinn RA, Dutton JE. 2005. Coordination as energy-in-conversation. Acad. Manage. Rev. 30:36–57 Redl F. 1942. Group emotions and leadership. Psychiatry 5:573–96 Reysen S, Branscombe NR. 2008. Belief in collective emotions as conforming to the group. Soc. Influence 3:171–88 Rime´ B. 2007. Interpersonal emotion regulation. In Handbook of Emotion Regulation, ed. JJ Gross, pp. 466–85. New York: Guilford Rime´ B, Herbette G, Corsini S. 2004. The social sharing of emotion: illusory and real benefits of talking about emotional experiences. In Emotional Expression and Health. Advances in Theory, Assessment and Clinical Applications, ed. I Nyklicek, LR Temoshok, A Vingerhoets, pp. 29–42. Hove, UK/New York: Brunner- Routledge Rodriguez Mosquera PM, Fischer AH, Manstead ASR, Zaalberg R. 2008. Attack, disapproval, or withdrawal? The role of honour in anger and shame responses to being insulted. Cogn. Emot. 22(8):1471–98 Salovey P, Kokkonen M, Lopes PN, Mayer JD. 2003. Emotional intelligence: What do we know? In Feelings and Emotions: The Amsterdam Symposium, ed. ASR Manstead, NH Frijda, AH Fischer, pp. 321–40. London: Cambridge Univ. Press Salovey P, Mayer JM. 1990. Emotional intelligence. Imagination Cogn. Personal. 9:185–211 Schachter S. 1959. The Psychology of Affiliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press Scharlemann JPW, Eckel CC, Kacelnik A, Wilson RK. 2001. The value of a smile: game theory with a human face. J. Econ. Psychol. 22:617–40 Scherer KR. 1984. On the nature and function of emotion: a component process approach. In Approaches to Emotion, ed. KR Scherer, P Ekman, pp. 293–317. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Scherer KR. 1994. An emotion’s occurrence depends on the relevance of an event to the organism’s goal/need hierarchy. In The Nature of Emotion: Fundamental Questions, ed. P Ekman, RJ Davidson, pp. 227–31. New York/Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press Schilbach L, Wohlschlaeger A, Kraemer N, Newen A, Shah NJ, Fink G. 2006. Being with virtual others: neural correlates of social interaction. Neuropsychologia 44:718–30 Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Singer T, Seymour B, O’Doherty J, Kaube H, Dolan RJ, Frith CD. 2004. Empathy for pain involves the

Access provided by University of Wisconsin - Madison on 01/17/15. For personal use only. affective but not sensory components of pain. Science 303:1157–62 Singer T, Seymour B, O’Doherty JP, Stephan KE, Dolan RJ, Frith CD. 2006. Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others. Nature 439:466–69 Smith ER, Seger CR, Mackie DM. 2007. Can emotions be truly group level? Evidence regarding four conceptual criteria. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 93:431–46 Solomon RC. 1976. The Passions: The Myth and Nature of Human Emotions. Notre Dame, IN: Univ. Notre Dame Press Solomon RC. 1993. The philosophy of emotions. In Handbook of Emotions, ed. M Lewis, JM Haviland, pp. 3–15. New York: Guilford Sonnby-Borgstrom¨ M. 2002. Automatic mimicry reactions as related to differences in emotional empathy. Scand. J. Psychol. 43:433–43 Sonnby-Borgstrom¨ M, Jonsson¨ P. 2004. Dissmissing-avoidant pattern of attachment and mimicry reactions at different levels of information processing. Scand. J. Psychol. 45:103–13

www.annualreviews.org • Functionality of Emotions 283 PS63CH11-Niedenthal ARI 31 October 2011 11:51

Spezio ML, Huang P-YS, Castelli F, Adolphs R. 2007. Amygdala damage impairs eye contact during conversations with real people. J. Neurosci. 27:3994–97 Spoor JR, Kelly JR. 2004. The evolutionary significance of affect in groups: communication and group bonding. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 7:398–412 Srivastava S, Tamir M, McGonigal KM, John OP, Gross JJ. 2009. The social costs of emotional suppression: a prospective study of the transition to college. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 96:883–97 Stel M, van Knippenberg A. 2008. The role of facial mimicry in the recognition of affect. Psychol. Sci. 19:984–85 Stocks EL, Lishner DA, Waits BL, Downum EM. 2011. I’m embarrassed for you: the effect of valuing and perspective taking on empathic embarrassment and empathic concern. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 41:1–26 Strack F, Martin LL, Stepper S. 1988. Inhibiting and facilitating conditions of the human smile: a nonobtrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 54:768–76 Sturmer¨ S, Simon B. 2009. Pathways to collective protest: calculation, identification, or emotion? A critical analysis of the role of group-based anger in social movement participation. J. Soc. Issues 65(No. 4):681–70 Sturmer¨ S, Snyder M, Omoto AM. 2005. Prosocial emotions and helping: the moderating role of group membership. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 88:532–46 Sullins E. 1991. Emotional contagion revisited: effects of social comparison and expressive style on mood convergence. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 17:166–74 Susskind JM, Lee DH, Cusi A, Feiman R, Grabski W, Anderson AK. 2008. Expressing frear enhances sensory acquisition. Nat. Neurosci. 11:843–50 Sy T, Cotˆ e´ S, Saavedra R. 2005. The contagious leader: impact of the leader’s mood on the mood of the group members, group affective tone, and group processes. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:295–305 Tangney JP, Fischer KW, eds. 1995. Self-Conscious Emotions: Shame, Guilt, Embarrassment, and Pride.New York: Guilford Tangney JP, Stuewig J, Mashek DJ. 2007. Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 58:345–72 Tarrant M, Dazeley S, Cottom T. 2009. Social categorization and empathy for outgroup members. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 48:427–46 Thomas EF. 2005. The role of social identity in creating positive beliefs and emotions to motivate volunteerism. Aust. J. Volunteerism 10:45–52 Thomas EF, McGarty C. 2009. The role of efficacy and moral outrage norms in creating the potential for international development activism through group-based interaction. Br.J.Soc.Psychol.48:115–34 Thomas EF, McGarty C, Mavor I. 2009. Aligning identities, emotions, and beliefs to create commitment to sustainable social and political action. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 13:194–217 Timmers M, Fischer AH, Manstead ASR. 2003. Ability versus vulnerability: beliefs about men’s and women’s emotional behavior. Cogn. Emot. 17:41–63 Totterdell P. 2000. Catching moods and hitting runs: mood linkage and subjective performance in professional sport teams. J. Appl. Psychol. 85:848–59 Totterdell P, Kellett S, Teuchmann K, Briner RB. 1998. Evidence of mood linkage in work group. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 74:1504–15

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Tracy JL, Robins RW. 2008. The nonverbal expression of pride: evidence for cross-cultural recognition. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 94:516–30 Access provided by University of Wisconsin - Madison on 01/17/15. For personal use only. Tracy JL, Robins RW, Tangney JP. 2007. The Self-Conscious Emotions: Theory and Research.NewYork:Guilford van Zomeren M, Fischer AH, Spears R. 2007. Testing the limits of tolerance: how intergroup anxiety amplifies negative and offensive responses to out-group-initiated contact. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 33:1686–99 van Zomeren M, Spears R, Fisher AH, Leach CW. 2004. Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 87:649– 64 van Zomeren M, Spears R, Leach CW. 2008. Exploring psychological mechanisms of collective action: Does relevance of group identity influence how people cope with disadvantage? Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 47:353–72 Vaughan K, Lanzetta J. 1980. Vicarious instigation and conditioning of facial expressive and autonomic responses to a model’s expressive display of pain. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 38:909–23 Vaughan K, Lanzetta J. 1981. The effect of modification of expressive display on vicarious emotional arousal. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 17:16–30

284 Niedenthal · Brauer PS63CH11-Niedenthal ARI 31 October 2011 11:51

Wakslak CJ, Jost JT, Tyler TR, Chen ES. 2007. Moral outrage mediates the dampening effect of system justiﬁcation on support for redistributive social policies. Psychol. Sci. 18:267–74 Walter F, Bruch H. 2008. The positive group affect spiral: a dynamic model of the emergence of positive affective similarity in work groups. J. Org. Behav. 29:239–61 Wicker B, Keysers C, Plailly J, Royet JP, Gallese V, Rizzolatti G. 2003. Both of us disgusted in my insula: the common neural basis of seeing and feeling disgust. Neuron 40:655–64 Wieser MJ, Muhlberger¨ A, Alpers GW, Macht M, Ellgring H, Pauli P. 2006. Emotion processing in Erratum Parkinson’s disease: dissociation between early neuronal processing and explicit ratings. Clin. Neurophysiol. 117:94–102 Wilder DA, Shapiro PN. 1989. Role of competition-induced anxiety in limiting the beneﬁcial impact of positive behavior by an out-group member. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 56:60–69 Williams LA, DeSteno D. 2008. Pride and perseverance: the motivational role of pride. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 94:1007–17 Wilson-Mendenhall CD, Barrett LF, Simmons WK, Barsalou LW. 2011. Grounding emotion in situated conceptualization. Neurologica 49:1105–27 Winkielman P, McIntosh DN, Oberman L. 2009. Embodied and disembodied emotion processing: learning from and about typical and autistic individuals. Emot. Rev. 2:178–90 Wohl MJA, Branscombe NR. 2005. Forgiveness and collective guilt assignment to historical perpetrator groups depends on level of social category inclusiveness. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 88:288–303 Wohl MJA, Giguere` B, Branscombe NR, McVicar DN. 2010. One day we might be no more: collective angst and protective action from potential distinctiveness loss. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 41:289–300 Zajonc RB, Adelmann PK, Murphy ST, Niedenthal PM. 1987. Convergence in the physical appearance of spouses: an implication of the vascular theory of emotional efference. Motiv. Emot. 11:335–46 Zajonc RB, Murphy ST, Inglehart M. 1989. Feeling and facial efference: implications of the vascular theory of emotion. Psychol. Rev. 96:395–416

RELATED RESOURCES Feldman Barrett L, Niedenthal PM, Winkielman P, eds. 2005. Emotion: Conscious and Unconscious. New York: Guilford Fredrickson B. 2009. Positivity: Groundbreaking Research Reveals How to Embrace the Hidden Strengh of Positive Emotions, Overcome Negativity, and Thrive. New York: Crown. http://www. positivityratio.com/ Gutman R, on TED. 2011. The hidden power of smiling. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/ ron_gutman_the_hidden_power_of_smiling.html Hanson D, on TED. 2009. Robots that “show emotion.” http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/ eng/david_hanson_robots_that_relate_to_you.html

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Niedenthal PM, Krauth-Gruber S, Ric F. 2006. The Psychology of Emotion: Interpersonal, Experien-

Access provided by University of Wisconsin - Madison on 01/17/15. For personal use only. tial, and Cognitive Approaches. Principles of Social Psychology Series. New York: Psychol. Press Sander D, Scherer K, eds. 2009. Oxford Companion to the Affective Sciences. London: Oxford Univ. Press Vohs KD, Baumeister RF, Loewenstein G. 2007. Do Emotions Help or Hurt Decision Making? A Hedgefoxian Perspective. New York: Russell Sage Found. Press Geneva Emotion Research Group. http://www.unige.ch/cisa/gerg.html Laboratory for Affective Neuroscience, University of Wisconsin-Madison. http://psyphz.psych. wisc.edu/ Software for recognizing facial expression for emotion: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/ 2008/02/080223125318.htm; http://mplab.ucsd.edu/∼marni/Projects/CERT.htm

www.annualreviews.org • Functionality of Emotions 285 PS63-FrontMatter ARI 10 November 2011 9:52

Annual Review of Psychology Volume 63, 2012 Contents

Prefatory Working Memory: Theories, Models, and Controversies Alan Baddeley pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp1 Developmental Psychobiology Learning to See Words Brian A. Wandell, Andreas M. Rauschecker, and Jason D. Yeatman ppppppppppppppppppppp31 Memory Remembering in Conversations: The Social Sharing and Reshaping of Memories William Hirst and Gerald Echterhoff pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp55 Judgment and Decision Making Experimental Philosophy Joshua Knobe, Wesley Buckwalter, Shaun Nichols, Philip Robbins, Hagop Sarkissian, and Tamler Sommers pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp81 Brain Imaging/Cognitive Neuroscience Distributed Representations in Memory: Insights from Functional Brain Imaging Jesse Rissman and Anthony D. Wagner ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp101 Neuroscience of Learning Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Fear Extinction as a Model for Translational Neuroscience: Access provided by University of Wisconsin - Madison on 01/17/15. For personal use only. Ten Years of Progress Mohammed R. Milad and Gregory J. Quirk ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp129 Comparative Psychology The Evolutionary Origins of Friendship Robert M. Seyfarth and Dorothy L. Cheney ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp153 Emotional, Social, and Personality Development Religion, Morality, Evolution Paul Bloom pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp179

vi PS63-FrontMatter ARI 10 November 2011 9:52

Adulthood and Aging Consequences of Age-Related Cognitive Declines Timothy Salthouse pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp201 Development in Societal Context Child Development in the Context of Disaster, War, and Terrorism: Pathways of Risk and Resilience Ann S. Masten and Angela J. Narayan ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp227 Social Development, Social Personality, Social Motivation, Social Emotion Social Functionality of Human Emotion Paula M. Niedenthal and Markus Brauer pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp259 Social Neuroscience Mechanisms of Social Cognition Chris D. Frith and Uta Frith pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp287 Personality Processes Personality Processes: Mechanisms by Which Personality Traits “Get Outside the Skin” Sarah E. Hampson pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp315 Work Attitudes Job Attitudes Timothy A. Judge and John D. Kammeyer-Mueller ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp341 The Individual Experience of Unemployment Connie R. Wanberg ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp369 Job/Work Analysis The Rise and Fall of Job Analysis and the Future of Work Analysis Juan I. Sanchez and Edward L. Levine ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp397 Education of Special Populations Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Access provided by University of Wisconsin - Madison on 01/17/15. For personal use only. Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) and Reading Fluency: Implications for Understanding and Treatment of Reading Disabilities Elizabeth S. Norton and Maryanne Wolf ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp427 Human Abilities Intelligence Ian J. Deary ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp453 Research Methodology Decoding Patterns of Human Brain Activity Frank Tong and Michael S. Pratte pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp483

Contents vii PS63-FrontMatter ARI 10 November 2011 9:52

Human Intracranial Recordings and Cognitive Neuroscience Roy Mukamel and Itzhak Fried ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp511 Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on How to Control It Philip M. Podsakoff, Scott B. MacKenzie, and Nathan P. Podsakoff pppppppppppppppppppp539 Neuroscience Methods Neuroethics: The Ethical, Legal, and Societal Impact of Neuroscience Martha J. Farah pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp571

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 53–63 ppppppppppppppppppppppppppp593 Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 53–63 ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp598

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Psychology articles may be found at http://psych.AnnualReviews.org/errata.shtml Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by University of Wisconsin - Madison on 01/17/15. For personal use only.

viii Contents Annual Reviews It’s about time. Your time. It’s time well spent.

New From Annual Reviews: Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior Volume 1 • March 2014 • Online & In Print • http://orgpsych.annualreviews.org Editor: Frederick P. Morgeson, The Eli Broad College of Business, Michigan State University The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior is devoted to publishing reviews of the industrial and organizational psychology, human resource management, and organizational behavior literature. Topics for review include motivation, selection, teams, training and development, leadership, job performance, strategic HR, cross-cultural issues, work attitudes, entrepreneurship, affect and emotion, organizational change and development, gender and diversity, statistics and research methodologies, and other emerging topics. Complimentary online access to the first volume will be available until March 2015.

Table of Contents: • An Ounce of Prevention Is Worth a Pound of Cure: Improving • Perspectives on Power in Organizations, Cameron Anderson, Research Quality Before Data Collection, Herman Aguinis, Sebastien Brion Robert J. Vandenberg • Psychological Safety: The History, Renaissance, and Future • Burnout and Work Engagement: The JD-R Approach, of an Interpersonal Construct, Amy C. Edmondson, Zhike Lei Arnold B. Bakker, Evangelia Demerouti, • Research on Workplace Creativity: A Review and Redirection, Ana Isabel Sanz-Vergel Jing Zhou, Inga J. Hoever • Compassion at Work, Jane E. Dutton, Kristina M. Workman, • Talent Management: Conceptual Approaches and Practical Ashley E. Hardin Challenges, Peter Cappelli, JR Keller • Constructively Managing Conflict in Organizations, • The Contemporary Career: A Work–Home Perspective, Dean Tjosvold, Alfred S.H. Wong, Nancy Yi Feng Chen Jeffrey H. Greenhaus, Ellen Ernst Kossek • Coworkers Behaving Badly: The Impact of Coworker Deviant • The Fascinating Psychological Microfoundations of Strategy Behavior upon Individual Employees, Sandra L. Robinson, and Competitive Advantage, Robert E. Ployhart, Wei Wang, Christian Kiewitz Donald Hale, Jr. • Delineating and Reviewing the Role of Newcomer Capital in • The Psychology of Entrepreneurship, Michael Frese, Organizational Socialization, Talya N. Bauer, Berrin Erdogan Michael M. Gielnik • Emotional Intelligence in Organizations, Stéphane Côté • The Story of Why We Stay: A Review of Job Embeddedness, • Employee Voice and Silence, Elizabeth W. Morrison Thomas William Lee, Tyler C. Burch, Terence R. Mitchell Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org • Intercultural Competence, Kwok Leung, Soon Ang, • What Was, What Is, and What May Be in OP/OB,

Access provided by University of Wisconsin - Madison on 01/17/15. For personal use only. Mei Ling Tan Lyman W. Porter, Benjamin Schneider • Learning in the Twenty-First-Century Workplace, • Where Global and Virtual Meet: The Value of Examining Raymond A. Noe, Alena D.M. Clarke, Howard J. Klein the Intersection of These Elements in Twenty-First-Century • Pay Dispersion, Jason D. Shaw Teams, Cristina B. Gibson, Laura Huang, Bradley L. Kirkman, • Personality and Cognitive Ability as Predictors of Effective Debra L. Shapiro Performance at Work, Neal Schmitt • Work–Family Boundary Dynamics, Tammy D. Allen, Eunae Cho, Laurenz L. Meier Access this and all other Annual Reviews journals via your institution at www.annualreviews.org.

Annual Reviews | Connect With Our Experts

Tel: 800.523.8635 (us/can) | Tel: 650.493.4400 | Fax: 650.424.0910 | Email: [email protected] Annual Reviews It’s about time. Your time. It’s time well spent.

New From Annual Reviews: Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application Volume 1 • Online January 2014 • http://statistics.annualreviews.org Editor: Stephen E. Fienberg, Carnegie Mellon University Associate Editors: Nancy Reid, University of Toronto Stephen M. Stigler, University of Chicago The Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application aims to inform statisticians and quantitative methodologists, as well as all scientists and users of statistics about major methodological advances and the computational tools that allow for their implementation. It will include developments in the field of statistics, including theoretical statistical underpinnings of new methodology, as well as developments in specific application domains such as biostatistics and bioinformatics, economics, machine learning, psychology, sociology, and aspects of the physical sciences. Complimentary online access to the first volume will be available until January 2015.

table of contents: • What Is Statistics? Stephen E. Fienberg • High-Dimensional Statistics with a View Toward Applications • A Systematic Statistical Approach to Evaluating Evidence in Biology, Peter Bühlmann, Markus Kalisch, Lukas Meier from Observational Studies, David Madigan, Paul E. Stang, • Next-Generation Statistical Genetics: Modeling, Penalization, Jesse A. Berlin, Martijn Schuemie, J. Marc Overhage, and Optimization in High-Dimensional Data, Kenneth Lange, Marc A. Suchard, Bill Dumouchel, Abraham G. Hartzema, Jeanette C. Papp, Janet S. Sinsheimer, Eric M. Sobel Patrick B. Ryan • Breaking Bad: Two Decades of Life-Course Data Analysis • The Role of Statistics in the Discovery of a Higgs Boson, in Criminology, Developmental Psychology, and Beyond, David A. van Dyk Elena A. Erosheva, Ross L. Matsueda, Donatello Telesca • Brain Imaging Analysis, F. DuBois Bowman • Event History Analysis, Niels Keiding • Statistics and Climate, Peter Guttorp • Statistical Evaluation of Forensic DNA Profile Evidence, • Climate Simulators and Climate Projections, Christopher D. Steele, David J. Balding Jonathan Rougier, Michael Goldstein • Using League Table Rankings in Public Policy Formation: • Probabilistic Forecasting, Tilmann Gneiting, Statistical Issues, Harvey Goldstein Matthias Katzfuss • Statistical Ecology, Ruth King

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org • Bayesian Computational Tools, Christian P. Robert • Estimating the Number of Species in Microbial Diversity Studies, John Bunge, Amy Willis, Fiona Walsh Access provided by University of Wisconsin - Madison on 01/17/15. For personal use only. • Bayesian Computation Via Markov Chain Monte Carlo, Radu V. Craiu, Jeffrey S. Rosenthal • Dynamic Treatment Regimes, Bibhas Chakraborty, • Build, Compute, Critique, Repeat: Data Analysis with Latent Susan A. Murphy Variable Models, David M. Blei • Statistics and Related Topics in Single-Molecule Biophysics, • Structured Regularizers for High-Dimensional Problems: Hong Qian, S.C. Kou Statistical and Computational Issues, Martin J. Wainwright • Statistics and Quantitative Risk Management for Banking and Insurance, Paul Embrechts, Marius Hofert

Access this and all other Annual Reviews journals via your institution at www.annualreviews.org.

Annual Reviews | Connect With Our Experts

Tel: 800.523.8635 (us/can) | Tel: 650.493.4400 | Fax: 650.424.0910 | Email: [email protected]