Social Functionality of Human Emotion

PS63CH11-Niedenthal ARI 31 October 2011 11:51
ANNUAL
REVIEWS Further
Social Functionality of
Click here for quick links to
Annual Reviews content online,
including:
Human Emotion
• Other articles in this volume
• Top cited articles Paula M. Niedenthal and Markus Brauer
• Top downloaded articles
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:259-285. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
• Our comprehensive search Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, France, and Department of Psychology,
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706; email: niedenthal@wisc.edu
by Umea University Library on 08/19/14. For personal use only.
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
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
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, emo-
tional expressions and learning and understanding through vicarious
emotion are the phenomena of interest. Behavioral and brain mecha-
nisms 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
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).
IN THE DYAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
IN DYADS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
Collective Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
IN GROUPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
needs to cooperate and compete. The scientific
Contagion of Emotion Within
strategy that has emerged to empirically
the Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
address this question involves linking specific
Self-Stereotyping and
emotions to distinct motivations, problems,
Emotion Norms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
Can scientists study emotion? And if so, should visual fields, made more efficient eye move-
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 (Méhu & Dunbar
Passion and Reason has finally been abandoned 2008) and facial expressions of aggression
260 Niedenthal · Brauer

(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 (Rimé 2007, Rimé 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
research on emotional intelligence (e.g., Mayer pre- and nonverbal communication of emotion
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

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
fearful of them in their current appearance (i.e., and colleagues (2007) tested whether the ac-
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,

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
the idea that facial expression is a primary reg- elicited by observing emotions in others can be
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

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
vicarious embarrassment, empathic concern, make judgments of the target, such as how
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

& 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 pho-
tographs 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
2010). Perceivers of expressions often automat- expression, mimicry may also be important
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,

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
filler called Restylane) performed a task that also disrupted performance on a similar task in a
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

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-
tion or distress. How we might do so requires
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

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).
The anterior insula receives connections from Whether or not a shared circuits approach
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

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
group viability and sustained collective action identification with a group and knowledge that
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

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, Latané &
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
group emotion can be a basis for the formation the “real” group of participants did not know
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

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 &
phenomena is that the individual experiences Branscombe 2005). Other analyses have linked
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 Stürmer & 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).

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
of research on group-based emotions. The 1991). It is defined as the tendency for group
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,

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.
naı̈ve 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 naı̈ve 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
Parkinson & Simmons (2009) recently docu- involves mimicry and the synchronization of
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

provide a platform for much-needed research action relies on a process of “crafting a so-
on this topic (Blascovich & Bailenson 2011). cial identity that has a relevant, congruent pat-
tern 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
knowledge of the anger of women as a group with noninteracting individuals and groups for
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

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 emo-
tion 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 (Stürmer 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
stereotypes and expectations than when they of emotion. We propose that facial expression
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.

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 sup-
ported 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
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
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

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 conse-
quences. 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 repa-
rations 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
Blascovich J, Bailenson J. 2011. Infinite Reality: Avatars, Eternal Life, New Words, and the Dawn of the Virtual
Revolution. New York: Morrow
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

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 expres-
sions 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. Contrôle 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 sub-
strates of recall and recognition. Cognition 33:25–62
Damasio AR. 1994. The brain binds entities and events by multiregional activation from convergence zones.
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. S Hurley,
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

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.
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
Gallese V. 2005. Being like me: self-other identity, mirror neurons, and empathy. In Perspectives on Imitation:
From Neuroscience to Social Science. Vol. 1: Mechanisms of Imitation and Imitation in Animals, ed. S Hurley,
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

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. Vergüenza ajena. In The Emotions: Social, Cultural and Biological Dimensions, ed. R Harre, 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.
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
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
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, Rimé 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 percep-
tion 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

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
Latané 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
Marsh AA, Kozak MN, Ambady N. 2007. Accurate identification of fear expressions predicts prosocial behav-
ior. Emotion 7:239–51
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

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
Méhu 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 embar-
rassment 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.
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
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
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

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
Rimé B. 2007. Interpersonal emotion regulation. In Handbook of Emotion Regulation, ed. JJ Gross, pp. 466–85.
New York: Guilford

Rimé 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
Singer T, Seymour B, O’Doherty J, Kaube H, Dolan RJ, Frith CD. 2004. Empathy for pain involves the
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 con-
ceptual 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-Borgström M. 2002. Automatic mimicry reactions as related to differences in emotional empathy.
Scand. J. Psychol. 43:433–43
Sonnby-Borgström M, Jönsson P. 2004. Dissmissing-avoidant pattern of attachment and mimicry reactions
at different levels of information processing. Scand. J. Psychol. 45:103–13

Spezio ML, Huang P-YS, Castelli F, Adolphs R. 2007. Amygdala damage impairs eye contact during conver-
sations 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
Stürmer 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
Stürmer 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, Côté 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.
Tracy JL, Robins RW. 2008. The nonverbal expression of pride: evidence for cross-cultural recognition.
J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 94:516–30
Tracy JL, Robins RW, Tangney JP. 2007. The Self-Conscious Emotions: Theory and Research. New York: 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

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, Mühlberger 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, Giguère 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
Niedenthal PM, Krauth-Gruber S, Ric F. 2006. The Psychology of Emotion: Interpersonal, Experien-
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

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 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
Developmental Psychobiology
Learning to See Words
Brian A. Wandell, Andreas M. Rauschecker, and Jason D. Yeatman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p31

Memory
Remembering in Conversations: The Social Sharing
and Reshaping of Memories
William Hirst and Gerald Echterhoff p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p55
Judgment and Decision Making
Experimental Philosophy
Joshua Knobe, Wesley Buckwalter, Shaun Nichols, Philip Robbins,
Hagop Sarkissian, and Tamler Sommers p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p81
Brain Imaging/Cognitive Neuroscience
Distributed Representations in Memory: Insights from Functional
Brain Imaging
Jesse Rissman and Anthony D. Wagner p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 101
Neuroscience of Learning
Fear Extinction as a Model for Translational Neuroscience:
Ten Years of Progress
Mohammed R. Milad and Gregory J. Quirk p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 129
Comparative Psychology
The Evolutionary Origins of Friendship
Robert M. Seyfarth and Dorothy L. Cheney p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 153
Emotional, Social, and Personality Development
Religion, Morality, Evolution
Paul Bloom p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 179
vi
Adulthood and Aging

Consequences of Age-Related Cognitive Declines
Timothy Salthouse p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 201
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 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 227
Social Development, Social Personality, Social Motivation, Social Emotion
Social Functionality of Human Emotion
Paula M. Niedenthal and Markus Brauer p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 259
Social Neuroscience
Mechanisms of Social Cognition
Chris D. Frith and Uta Frith p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 287

Personality Processes
Personality Processes: Mechanisms by Which Personality Traits
“Get Outside the Skin”
Sarah E. Hampson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 315
Work Attitudes
Job Attitudes
Timothy A. Judge and John D. Kammeyer-Mueller p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 341
The Individual Experience of Unemployment
Connie R. Wanberg p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 369
Job/Work Analysis
The Rise and Fall of Job Analysis and the Future of Work Analysis
Juan I. Sanchez and Edward L. Levine p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 397
Education of Special Populations
Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) and Reading Fluency:
Implications for Understanding and Treatment of Reading Disabilities
Elizabeth S. Norton and Maryanne Wolf p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 427
Human Abilities
Intelligence
Ian J. Deary p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 453
Research Methodology
Decoding Patterns of Human Brain Activity
Frank Tong and Michael S. Pratte p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 483
Contents vii
Human Intracranial Recordings and Cognitive Neuroscience

Roy Mukamel and Itzhak Fried p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 511
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 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 539
Neuroscience Methods
Neuroethics: The Ethical, Legal, and Societal Impact of Neuroscience
Martha J. Farah p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 571
Indexes
Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 53–63 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 593

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 53–63 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 598
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Psychology articles may be found at

http://psych.AnnualReviews.org/errata.shtml
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
• Intercultural Competence, Kwok Leung, Soon Ang, • What Was, What Is, and What May Be in OP/OB,
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: service@annualreviews.org
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
• Bayesian Computational Tools, Christian P. Robert • Estimating the Number of Species in Microbial Diversity
• Bayesian Computation Via Markov Chain Monte Carlo, Studies, John Bunge, Amy Willis, Fiona Walsh
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: service@annualreviews.org

Social Functionality of Human Emotion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Functionality of Human Emotion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PS63CH11-Niedenthal ARI 31 October 2011 11:51

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012. 63:259–85 Keywords

and replaced by more optimistic programs of

Simulating Facial Expression . . . . . . . 265

function of emotion within psychology address

260 Niedenthal · Brauer

www.annualreviews.org • Functionality of Emotions 261

expression, as well as posture and prosody,

262 Niedenthal · Brauer

www.annualreviews.org • Functionality of Emotions 263

distinct from having an emotional reaction to motivations, perhaps as an associative learning

264 Niedenthal · Brauer

tographs of the angry expressions, functional

www.annualreviews.org • Functionality of Emotions 265

266 Niedenthal · Brauer

www.annualreviews.org • Functionality of Emotions 267

acupuncture and control participants were observational fear-learning recruits neural

268 Niedenthal · Brauer

www.annualreviews.org • Functionality of Emotions 269

270 Niedenthal · Brauer

www.annualreviews.org • Functionality of Emotions 271

mentality (high image threat). Image threat and its success.

Of interest was the result that emotions were

272 Niedenthal · Brauer

www.annualreviews.org • Functionality of Emotions 273

self-stereotyping as an important mechanism as being illegitimate, negative, and controllable

274 Niedenthal · Brauer

www.annualreviews.org • Functionality of Emotions 275

276 Niedenthal · Brauer

www.annualreviews.org • Functionality of Emotions 277

others on people’s reactions to norm violations. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 32:853–67

278 Niedenthal · Brauer

expressions and postures on emotional experience. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 57:100–8

www.annualreviews.org • Functionality of Emotions 279

280 Niedenthal · Brauer

www.annualreviews.org • Functionality of Emotions 281

rassment of another. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 53:1061–69

282 Niedenthal · Brauer

New York: Guilford

www.annualreviews.org • Functionality of Emotions 283

284 Niedenthal · Brauer

www.annualreviews.org • Functionality of Emotions 285

Volume 63, 2012 Contents

Brian A. Wandell, Andreas M. Rauschecker, and Jason D. Yeatman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p31

Adulthood and Aging

Chris D. Frith and Uta Frith p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 287

Human Intracranial Recordings and Cognitive Neuroscience

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 53–63 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 593

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Psychology articles may be found at

New From Annual Reviews:

Annual Reviews | Connect With Our Experts

New From Annual Reviews:

Editor: Stephen E. Fienberg, Carnegie Mellon University

Annual Reviews | Connect With Our Experts

You might also like

Editor: Stephen E. Fienberg, Carnegie Mellon University