/\-,MotivationandEmotion.Vol.15.No.4, 1091

Contradictionsin the Study of Contempt:What's It All About? Reply to Russell

Paul Ekman1Universityof California,San Frallcisco

MaureenO'SullivanUniversityof Sail Francisco

David Matsumoto

San FranciscoStateUniversity

A numberof methodologicalproblemsmakeit difficulttodrawanyconcluionsfrom Russell's.'itudiesof contcmpt,includinga taskwhichmaymaximizetheinfluenceof unfamiliaritywiththe ta.:k.alld instructiolL"whichmayencourageobserversto rate many rather titan few enIotlorlS. We rabiequestioll.

---294 . Ekman, O'Sullivan, and Matsumoto

-

First letusconsidertwopossiblemethodologicalproblemsin Russell'sseriesof experiments.In thefirstexperimentRussellgavehissubjectsonlyonephotographandaskedthem"to describetheemotionexpressedwithwhateversinglelabel thc) chose",While thisprocedurehasthevirtueofseeinghowpeoplefreei..bhcl photographsof expressionwhentheyhavenot hadpriorcxposureI.' ..,therphotographs,it mayhavethedisadvantageof maximizingthc influ.II .e of taskunfamiliarityon theresults.The factthat nearlyone-thirdof t11('responseswerecompletelyidiosyncraticsug-gcststhcpossibilitythathi'>.;ubjectsmighthavebecnconfusedaboutwhatwasexpectedof them,In 0ur.earlystudies(Ekman,1972)we foundunre-liabilityin initial responseswhensubjectshad to judge exprcssions,Forthatrcasonwe havesincealwaysthoroughlyexplainedthe taskand thenencouragedsubjectsto ask questionsabout the taskbeforeproceeding.Even if somesubjectsmightstill havebeenuncertainafterwe answeredtheirquestions,thisprobablyhadlittle influenceon our results,aswe havefoundthatsubjectsbetterunderstandwhatis expectedof themaftertryingit a fewrimes.Typicallywe collectjudgmentson 30or morephotographs,notononeor two,and(heeffectof possibleconfusionson initialresponsesdoesnot countfor much.

A differentproblemmayhaveoccurredin thesecondexperimentandin a numberof Russell's(199Ia)otherrecentstudiesof contemptin whichhe had his subjects"rate the degreeto which the faceshownexpressedeachof six emotions,"ratingeachemotionon a 4-point intensityscale,Weddingthisjudgmenttaskwith a designin whichthesubjectseesonlyonc or twophotographs.intendedto depictonlyoneor twodifferentemo-tions,maycrcatcdcmandcharactcristicsto ratemanyratherthanfewemo-tions.OthclWisewhywould the experimenterhavegiventhemso manydiffcrentlabelswhcn thcyare seeingonlyone or twoexpressions?Whenwc usethe multiple-emotionratingprocedurewe showthesubjectsmanyphotographs.Our subjectsmaydevelopa differentset,believingthatmanylabels~lrcprovidedbecausemanyfacesare to be judged,and thusmaynot bc impiicitlyencouragedto usemanylabelson eachphotograph.

. Evenif we dismissthesepossibledesignproblems.weregardthedif-ferences-bctweenRussell'sfindingsaodQ~IJ~asJri~~'llfo~~~efollowingrea- . .sons.First,theproblemmaybe limitedonly to the Englishlanguage.--Our +-----findingshavebeenreplicatedin.manyculturesand languages;RussellhasonlystudicdEnglishspeakersin North America.It maybe thatin Englishthe lexicaldistinctionbetweendisgustandcontemptis lessclearthan it isin mostother languages.Such an interpretationwouldbe consistentwithour findingthatthereis higheragreementaboutcontemptjudgmentsin anumberof other languagesthan we h.tVefound for EngJish speakers(Ekman,O'SullivanandMatsumoto,1991).Second,Russellhasnot deter-

ji

Ii

I

"- .

- I

ContradictionsIn theStudyurContempt " 1

minedwhetherhisresultsarespecifictocontemptorcommontootherem"'>tions.Third, his procedure--eachpersonseesone or twofaces-has leclaimto ecologicalvaliditythanour procedure-eachpersonseesmanydferentexpressionsin manydifferentcOntexts.While neitherof our desigcan claimto be verysimilarto actuallife, certainlysecirr.manydiffereexpres.':>ionsis a bit morc life-like thanformingimpres.';i('flsaboutonetwo isolated expressions.Fourth, we believe the v~.:of still phO1graphs-evenmultipleexpressionsaswe havedone-to :.tudythe issuehowcontextinfluencesobservers'inferencesis tooartiticialto learnmuof value.Most of our inferencesarc drawnfromseeingmovingfacesrstaticones,attachedtobodiesnotdisembodied,withsoundandwordscoing out of the mouthnot silent,andwithobservershavinginformationexpectationsaboutthe situationin whichtheexpressionoccurs.It is qupossibleto utilizevideotapeto manipulatemanyof thosecontextualv,abIesandmeasuretheirinfluenceson observers'inferences.We andoth(Berry,1991~iJugental,1986;Ekman,Friesen,O'SullivanandScherer,)9:havedonesuchwork. Russell (1991b)termssuchwork the studyof Iexpresser'scontext,andsaysthat he,insteadis interestedin thevariabotherthantheexpresserwhichaffecttheobserver,whathe termsthejwmentcontext.Grantedhisinterest,westillbelieveitwouldbefarpreferato utilizemorerealistic,robuststimulithanstillphotographs.It is not tlwebelievestillphotographsareuseless-wecontinueto usethemto ansvsuchquestionsas whetherthe apexof an expressioncanelicitagreemeacrossagroupof observers-butwethinkit is thewrongmediumto addr,themorecomplexsocialpsychologicalquestionswhichRussellfocusesupe

Russellbelieveshe hasestablishedthe importanceof theobservt:contexton thejudgmentof facial expressionsof emotions.We thinkhas failed to demonstratethis becauseof designflaws,and because1useof still photographsto representexpressionandto manipulatecont,has little relevanceto importantissuesin the socia!psychologyof intpersonalperception.We hopein thefutureRusse!!examinestheseimp'tantquestionsin more'robustinstantiationsof thephenomenon.

_m m_.REFERENCES.' ~---~----------------

Berry, D. S. (1991). Accuracy in social perception: Contributions of facial and v(information.Journal of PenOlwlityand Social Psychology.61. 298-307.

Bugental,}). (1986).Unmaskingthc "polite smilc": Situationaland personaldcCermin:mtmanagedaffect in adult-child interaction.PcrsOlwlityalld Social P!'YC:/lOlogyBullet;n,7-16.

Ekman. P. ft972). Universal and cultural differencesin facial expressionsof emotion. ICole (Ed.). Nebm.d:lI.\ymfJos;ulII01111/o{;",lI;OIl.!1J71(pp. 207-2K\) Lincoln: Univclof NebraskaPress.

I'

296 Ekman, O'Sullivan, und Matsumoto

Ekman,P., Friesen,W. V., O'Sullivan. M., & Scherer.K. (1980).Relativeimportanceof face,bodyand speechin judgmentsof personalityand affect.Journal of Personalityand SocialP.o;ycholofO',38, 270-277.

Ekman, P., O'Sullivan, M., & Matsumoto, D. (1991). Confusions about context in thejudgment of facialexpressions:A rcp1yto "The contemptexpressionand the relativitythesis."Motil'otiOlIand Emotion, 15, 169-176.

Russell. J. A. (1991a).The contempt expression and the relativity thesis.Motivation andEmotion. lJ, 149-168-

Russell, J. A. (I991b). Rejoinder to Ekman, O'Sullivan, and Matsumoto. Motivatioll alldEmotion, 15, 177-184.

~- -~-- -~ ~ ~ ~ -~_. .- ~.- - -~ -~ -.- ~ ~ .. --'---'-_.' '-'---' '---'---~ ... '..

I.

IIeI -L ~-.-

!iI'

:iIIF't:,

"Ii!'I'iIil.,

~IIIii!

Ii

Motivatioll and Emotioll, Vol. 15, No.4, 1991

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The Editors wish to thank the followingpeople.who contributedby re-viewingmanuscriptsfor Volume 15:

Robert AbelsonLynn Y. AbramsonLaurenAlloyCraig AndersonKristenJoan-AndersonSusanAndersonJamesAverill

RichardJ. DavidsonEd DeciDouglasDerryberryEdwardF. DienerDavidDunning

P. ChristopherEarleyPaul Ekman

. --

Anita Barbee

John A. BarghRobertA. BaronRobert S. BaronLeonardBerkowitzP. M. BinerVirginia BlankenshipJamesBlascovichElliott BlassStevenJ. BrecklerMarilyn BrewerJoel--.Brockner-------

Daphne EugentalBrad Bushman

Michael FanselowNormanT. FeatherTiffany FieldJoseph ForgasAlan FridlundIrene FriezeJohn J. Foredy

ThomasGilovichTony Greenwald

m mm ~-----------------

Jennifer CampbellRobert B. CialdiniLee Anna CJarkJohn C. CondryMichaelConwayMichaelCunningham

Judith A. HaUJudith M. HarackiewiczSusanD. HarterJeannetteHaviland

Bill IckesDan ligenRick Ingram

--- - -- '297