Behavioural responses to facial and postural expressions of emotion: An interpersonal circumplex approach

Abstract

While the recognition of emotional expressions has been extensively studied, the behavioural response to these expressions has not. In the interpersonal circumplex, behaviour is defined in terms of communion and agency. In this study, we examined behavioural responses to both facial and postural expressions of emotion. We presented 101 Romanian students with facial and postural stimuli involving individuals ('targets') expressing happiness, sadness, anger, or fear. Using an interpersonal grid, participants simultaneously indicated how communal (i.e., quarrelsome or agreeable) and agentic (i.e., dominant or submissive) they would be towards people displaying these expressions. Participants were agreeable-dominant towards targets showing happy facial expressions and primarily quarrelsome towards targets with angry or fearful facial expressions. Responses to targets showing sad facial expressions were neutral on both dimensions of interpersonal behaviour. Postural versus facial expressions of happiness and anger elicited similar behavioural responses. Participants responded in a quarrelsome-submissive way to fearful postural expressions and in an agreeable way to sad postural expressions. Behavioural responses to the various facial expressions were largely comparable to those previously observed in Dutch students. Observed differences may be explained from participants' cultural background. Responses to the postural expressions largely matched responses to the facial expressions.

Circular Modelling of Circumplex Measurements for Interpersonal Behavior

“…In most circumplex research, the two axes Agency and Communion are analyzed separately (see, e.g., aan het Rot et al, 2013, aan het Rot et al, 2015, aan het Rot et al, 2017; Brekelmans et al, 2005; Hopwood et al, 2020; Mainhard, Brekelmans, den Brok, & Wubbels, 2011; Mainhard, Pennings, Wubbels, & Brekelmans, 2012; Pennings et al, 2014; Pennings et al, 2018; Sadler & Woody, 2003). Given that interpersonal theory states that interpersonal behavior should be described as a blend of Agency and Communion and cannot be interpreted correctly based on only one of these dimensions, this is not an ideal way of analyzing IPC data.…”

“…The conceptual basis for the IPC was developed by Leary (1957), but the mathematical basis for the model was laid by Guttman (1954) who wanted to model an ordering “without a head and foot to it” (p. 325). Such an ordering can be called a circumplex or circular ordering and is described by Gurtman (2009, p. 602) as “a continuous order with no beginning or end.” Until now, research on interpersonal behavior has heavily relied on linear statistical methods to analyze circumplex data (e.g., aan het Rot et al, 2017; Hopwood et al, 2020; Pennings et al, 2018). These linear methods, however, assume orderings that do have a beginning and end, which does not correspond to the circular nature of the IPC.…”

Facial Affect and Interpersonal Affiliation: Displays of Emotion During Relationship Formation in Social Anxiety Disorder

“…Some emotion theorists have proposed that behaviors of emotional expression play an important role within social relationships and that deficits in this area may explain impairment in interpersonal processes across a wide range of psychological disorders (Keltner & Kring, 1998). Although there is ongoing debate about whether viewing specific facial expressions leads to perception of certain emotion categories universally (Gendron, Lindquist, Barsalou, & Barrett, 2012; Kim & Sasaki, 2014; Kitayama & Uskul, 2011), considerable evidence supports the idea that affective facial displays have important interpersonal outcomes (aan het Rot et al, 2017; Schrammel, Pannasch, Graupner, Mojzisch, & Velichkovsky, 2009; Williams, McGlone, Abbott, & Mattingley, 2008), and some propose that the function of facial displays can be understood only by assessing their role within social interactions (Crivelli & Fridlund, 2018). Evidence suggests that people rely heavily on strangers’ facial displays when making judgments regarding their stable traits, including the degree to which they are affiliative and warm (Knutson, 1996).…”

“…Evidence suggests that people rely heavily on strangers’ facial displays when making judgments regarding their stable traits, including the degree to which they are affiliative and warm (Knutson, 1996). Moreover, viewing others’ smiles has been linked to viewers’ subsequent approach behaviors (Furl, Gallagher, & Averbeck, 2012; Winkielman, Berridge, & Wilbarger, 2005), agreeable and dominant behaviors (aan het Rot et al, 2017), and desire for further contact with the person smiling (Palmer & Simmons, 1995). Research suggests that responsivity toward a partner per se, such as smiling in response to the partner’s disclosures, may be read as attentiveness and positive regard and has special significance for relationship building (Reis & Shaver, 1988).…”

“…We selected smiling and fear expressions as our primary outcomes, two facial displays that have been associated with interpersonal outcomes (aan het Rot et al, 2017; Schrammel et al, 2009; Williams et al, 2008) and that are relevant for individuals with SAD. The primary aim of the study was to characterize the frequency and intensity of these facial displays in individuals diagnosed with SAD versus a control group without clinical diagnoses within the context of a relationship formation encounter.…”