Facial expressions of emotion are notculturally universal
Rachael E. Jacka,b,1, Oliver G. B. Garrodb, Hui Yub, Roberto Caldarac, and Philippe G. SchynsbaSchool of Psychology, University of Glasgow, Scotland G12 8QB; bInstitute of Neuroscience and Psychology, University of Glasgow, Scotland G12 8QB, United
Kingdom; and cDepartment of Psychology, University of Fribourg, Fribourg 1700, Switzerland

Since Darwin’s seminal works, the universality of facial expressionsof emotion has remained one of the longest standing debates inthe biological and social sciences. Brieﬂy stated, the universality
hypothesis claims that all humans communicate six basic internal
emotional states (happy, surprise, fear, disgust, anger, and sad)using the same facial movements by virtue of their biologicaland evolutionary origins [Susskind JM, et al. (2008) Nat Neurosci
11:843–850]. Here, we refute this assumed universality. Using aunique computer graphics platform that combines generativegrammars [Chomsky N (1965) MIT Press, Cambridge, MA] withvisual perception, we accessed the mind’s eye of 30 Western andEastern culture individuals and reconstructed their mental representations of the six basic facial expressions of emotion. Crosscultural comparisons of the mental representations challenge
universality on two separate counts. First, whereas Westerners
represent each of the six basic emotions with a distinct set of facial
movements common to the group, Easterners do not. Second,
Easterners represent emotional intensity with distinctive dynamic
eye activity. By refuting the long-standing universality hypothesis,
our data highlight the powerful inﬂuence of culture on shaping
basic behaviors once considered biologically hardwired. Consequently, our data open a unique nature–nurture debate acrossbroad ﬁelds from evolutionary psychology and social neuroscience
to social networking via digital avatars.

||

modeling reverse correlation categorical perception
top-down processing cultural speciﬁcity||

s ﬁrst noted by Darwin in The Expression of the Emotions in
Man and Animals (1), some basic facial expressions originallyserved an adaptive, biological function such as regulating sensory
exposure (2). By virtue of their biological origins (1–3), facial
expressions have long been considered the universal language tosignal internal emotional states, recognized across all cultures.
Speciﬁcally, the universality hypothesis proposes that six basic internal human emotions (i.e., happy, surprise, fear, disgust, anger,
and sad) are expressed using the same facial movements acrossall cultures (4–7), supporting universal recognition. However,consistent cross-cultural disagreement about the emotion (8–13)
and intensity (8–10, 14–16) conveyed by gold standard universal
facial expressions (17) now questions the universality hypothesis.
To test the universality hypothesis directly, we used a uniquecomputer graphics platform (18) that combines the power ofgenerative grammars (19, 20) with the subjectivity of visual perception to genuinely reconstruct the mental representations ofbasic facial expressions in individual observers (see also refs. 21,
22). Mental representations reﬂect the past visual experiences
and the future expectations of the individual observer. A crosscultural comparison of the mental representations of the six basic
expressions therefore provides a direct test of their universality.
Fig. 1 illustrates our unique computer graphics platform (seeMaterials and Methods, Stimuli and Materials and Methods, Procedure for full details). Like a generative grammar (19, 20), we
randomly generated all possible three-dimensional facial movements (see Movie S1 for an example). Observers only categorized these random facial animations as expressive when theA

www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1200155109

random facial movements correlated with their subjective mental
representations—i.e., when they perceive an emotion. Thus, we
can capture the subsets of facial movements that correlate withthe subjective, culture-speciﬁc representations of the six basic
emotions in individual observers and compare them.
Fifteen Western Caucasian (WC) and 15 East Asian (EA)
observers (Materials and Methods, Observers) each categorized
4,800 such animations (evenly split between same and other-race
face stimuli) by emotion (i.e., one of the six basic emotions or“don’t know”) and intensity (on a ﬁve-point scale ranging from“very low” to “very high”).
To model the mental representation of each facial expression,
we reverse correlated (23) the random facial movements with theemotion response (e.g., happy) that these random facial movements elicited (Materials and Methods, Model Fitting) (18). In
total, we computed 180 models of facial expression representations per culture (15 observers × 6 emotions × 2 race of face).
Each model comprised a 41-dimensional vector coding a composition of facial muscles—one dimension per muscle group,with six parameters coding its temporal dynamics and a set ofintensity gradients coding how these dynamics change with perceived intensity (Materials and Methods, Model Fitting).
The universality hypothesis predicts that, in each culture, these
mental models will form six distinct clusters—one per basic
emotion, because each emotion is expressed using a speciﬁc
combination of facial movements common to all humans. In
addition, the mental models should also represent similar signaling of emotional intensity across cultures. Our data demonstrate cultural divergence on both counts.
ResultsSix Basic Emotions Are Not Universal. We clustered the 41-dimensional models of expression representation in each culture
independently (Materials and Methods, Clustering Analysis andMutual Information and Fig. S1). As predicted (24), WC models
form six distinct and emotionally homogeneous clusters. However, EA models overlap considerably between emotion categories, demonstrating a different, culture-speciﬁc, and therefore
not universal, representation of the basic emotions. Fig. 2 summarizes the results for each culture (WC, Left; EA, Right).
Representation of Emotional Intensity Varies Across Cultures. To
identify where and when in the face each culture represents emotional intensity, we compared the models of expression representation according to how facial movements covaried with perceived

Author contributions: R.E.J., O.G.B.G., R.C., and P.G.S. designed research; R.E.J., O.G.B.G.,
and H.Y. performed research; O.G.B.G., H.Y., and P.G.S. contributed new reagents/analytic
tools; R.E.J., O.G.B.G., H.Y., and P.G.S. analyzed data; and R.E.J., R.C., and P.G.S. wrote
the paper.
The authors declare no conﬂict of interest.
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
Freely available online through the PNAS open access option.
1

To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: rachael.jack@glasgow.ac.uk.

This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.
1073/pnas.1200155109/-/DCSupplemental.

PNAS Early Edition | 1 of 4

PSYCHOLOGICAL AND
COGNITIVE SCIENCES

Edited by James L. McClelland, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, and approved March 19, 2012 (received for review January 5, 2012)

Fig. 1. Random generative grammar of facial movements and the perceptual categorization of emotions. (Stimulus) On each experimental trial, thefacial movement generator randomly selected a subset of facial movements,
called action units (AUs) (here, AU9 color coded in red, AU10 Left in green,and AU17 in blue) and values specifying the AU temporal parameters (seecolor-coded temporal curves). On the basis of these parameters, the generator rendered a three-dimensional facial animation of random facial
movements, illustrated here with four snapshots. The color-coded vector
Below represents the 3 (of 41) randomly selected AUs comprising the stimulus on this illustrative experimental trial. (Mental representations) Observers categorized each random facial animation according to the six basic
emotion categories (plus “don’t know”) and rated the emotional intensity
on a ﬁve-point scale. Observers will interpret the random facial animation asa meaningful facial expression (here, “disgust,” “medium intensity”) when
the facial movements correspond to the observer’s mental representationof that facial expression. Each observer (15 Western Caucasian and 15
East Asian) categorized 4,800 such facial animations of same and otherrace faces.

emotional intensity across time (Materials and Methods, Model
Fitting). Fig. 3 summarizes the results (blue, WC; red, EA; P <0.05). The temporal dynamics of the models revealed culture-speciﬁc representation of emotional intensity, as mirrored by popular
culture EA emoticons: In EA, (^.^) is happy and (>.<) is angry(see also Movie S2 for examples of culture-speciﬁc use of the eyes
and mouth). The red face regions in Fig. 3 show that EA models
represent emotion intensity primarily with early movements of theeyes in happy, fear, disgust, and anger, whereas WC models represent emotional intensity with other parts of the face.
Discussion
Using a FACS-based random facial expression generator andreverse correlation, we reconstructed 3D dynamic models of thesix basic facial expressions of emotion in Western Caucasian andEast Asian cultures. Analysis of the models revealed clear cultural
speciﬁcity both in the groups of facial muscles and the temporal
dynamics representing basic emotions. Speciﬁcally, cluster analysis showed that Western Caucasians represent the six basic
emotions each with a distinct set of facial muscles. In contrast, theEast Asian models showed less distinction, characterized byconsiderable overlap between emotion categories, particularly forsurprise, fear, disgust, and anger. Cross-cultural analysis of thetemporal dynamics of the models showed cultural speciﬁcity
where (in the face) and when facial expressions convey emotional
intensity. Together, our results show that facial expressions ofemotion are culture speciﬁc, refuting the notion that human
2 of 4 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1200155109

emotion is universally represented by the same set of six distinct
facial expression signals.
To understand the implications of our results, it is important
to ﬁrst highlight the fundamental relationship between the perception and production of facial expressions. Speciﬁcally, thefacial movements perceived by observers reﬂect those producedin their social environment because signals designed for communication (and therefore recognition) are those perceived by
the observer. That is, one would question the logic and adaptive
value of an expressive signal that the receiver could not or does
not perceive. Thus, the models reconstructed here reﬂect theexperiences of individual observers interacting with their social
environment and provide predictive information to guide cognition and behavior. These dynamic mental representations,
therefore, reﬂect both the past experiences and future expectations of basic facial expressions in each culture.
Cultural speciﬁcity in the facial expression models therefore
likely reﬂects differences in the facial expression signals transmitted and encountered by observers in their social environment.
For example, cultural differences in the communication ofemotional intensity could reﬂect the operation of culture-speciﬁc
display rules (25) on the transmission (and subsequent experience) of facial expressions in each cultural context. For example,
East Asian models of fear, disgust, and anger show characteristic
early signs of emotional intensity with the eyes, which are underless voluntary control than the mouth (26), reﬂecting restrained
facial behaviors as predicted by the literature (27). Similarly,
culture-speciﬁc dialects (28) or accents (29) would diversify basic
facial expression signals across cultures, giving rise to cultural
hallmarks of facial behavior. For example, consider the “happy”
models in Fig. 3—East Asian models show an early increased
activation of the orbicularis oculi muscle, pars lateralis (action unit
6) which typiﬁes “genuine” smiles (26, 30).
Are the six basic emotions universal? We show that six clusters
are optimal to characterize the Western Caucasian facial expression
models, thus supporting the view that human emotion is composedof six basic categories (24, 31–33). However, our data show that thisorganization of emotions does not extend to East Asians, questioning the notion that these six basic emotion categories are universal. Rather, our data reﬂect that the six basic emotions (i.e.,
happy, surprise, fear, disgust, anger, and sad) are inadequate toaccurately represent the conceptual space of emotions in East
Asian culture and likely neglect fundamental emotions such as
shame (34), pride (35), or guilt (36). Although beyond the scope ofthe current paper, such questions can now be addressed with ourplatform by constructing a more diverse range of facial expression
models that accurately reﬂect social communication in different
cultures beyond the six basic categories reported in the literature.
In sum, our data directly show that across cultures, emotions
are expressed using culture-speciﬁc facial signals. Although somebasic facial expressions such as fear and disgust (2) originallyserved as an adaptive function when humans “existed in a much
lower and animal-like condition” (ref. 1, p. 19), facial expression
signals have since evolved and diversiﬁed to serve the primaryrole of emotion communication during social interaction. As aresult, these once biologically hardwired and universal signals
have been molded by the diverse social ideologies and practicesof the cultural groups who use them for social communication.
Materials and Methods
Observers. We screened and recruited 15 Western Caucasian (European, six
males, mean age 21.3 y, SD 1.2 y) and 15 East Asian (Chinese, seven males,mean age 22.9 y, SD 1.3 y). All EA observers had newly arrived in a Westerncountry (mean residence 5.2 mo, SD 0.94 mo) with International English
Language Testing System score ≥6.0 (competent user). All observers had
minimal experience of other cultures (as assessed by questionnaire; SI Observer Questionnaire), normal or corrected-to-normal vision, gave written
informed consent, and were paid £6/h in an ethically approved experiment.

Jack et al.

Stimuli. On each experimental trial, a 4D photorealistic facial animation generator (18) randomly selected, from 41 core action units (AUs) (37), a subsampleof AUs from a binomial distribution (n = 5, P = 0.6, median = 3). For each AU,
the generator selected random values for each of the six temporal parameters(onset/peak/offset latency, peak amplitude, acceleration, and deceleration)from a uniform distribution. We generated time courses for each AU using
a cubic Hermite spline interpolation (ﬁve control points, 30 time frames). To
generate unique identities on each trial, we ﬁrst obtained eight neutral expression identities per race (white WC: four female, mean age 23 y, SD 4.1 y;Chinese EA: four female, mean age 22.1 y, SD 0.99 y) under the same conditions of illumination (2,600 lx) and recoding distance (143 cm; Dimensional
Imaging) (38). Before recording, posers removed any makeup, facial hair, visible jewelry, and/or glasses, and removed the visibility of head hair using a cap.
We then created, for each race of face, two independent “identity spaces”
for each sex using the correspondent subset of base identities and the shape
and Red-Green-Blue (RGB) texture alignment procedures (18). We deﬁned all
points in the identity space by a [4 identities × 1] unit vector, where each entry
corresponded to the weights assigned to each individual identity in a linear
mixture. We then randomly selected each unit vector from a uniform distribution and constructed the neutral base shape and RGB texture accordingly.
Finally, we retargeted the selected temporal dynamic parameters for each AU
onto the identity created and rendered all facial animations using 3ds Max.
Procedure. Observers viewed stimuli on a black background displayed on a 19inch ﬂat panel Dell monitor with a refresh rate of 60 Hz and resolution of
1,024 × 1,280. Stimuli appeared in the central visual ﬁeld and remained
visible until the observer responded. A chin rest ensured a constant viewing
distance of 68 cm, with images subtending 14.25° (vertical) and 10.08°(horizontal) of visual angle, reﬂecting the average size of a human face (39)during natural social interaction (40). We randomized trials within eachblock and counterbalanced (race of face) blocks across observers in each
cultural group. Before the experiment, we established familiarity with theemotion categories by asking observers to provide correct synonyms anddescriptions of each emotion category. We controlled stimulus presentation
using Matlab 2009b.

Fig. 3. Spatiotemporal location of emotional intensity representation inWestern Caucasian and East Asian culture. In each row, color-coded faces show
the culture-speciﬁc spatiotemporal location of expressive features representing
emotional intensity, for each of the six basic emotions. Color coding is as follows:
blue, Western Caucasian; red, East Asian, where values reﬂect the t statistic. All
color-coded regions show a signiﬁcant (P < 0.05) cultural difference as indicatedby asterisks labeled on the color bar. Note for the EA models (i.e., red faceregions), emotional intensity is represented with characteristic early activations.

Jack et al.

Model Fitting. To construct the facial expression models for each observer,
emotion, and intensity level, we followed established model ﬁtting procedures (18). First, we performed a Pearson correlation between the binary
activation parameter of each AU and the binary response variable for eachof the observers’ emotion responses, thus producing a 41-dimensional vector
detailing the composition of facial muscles. To model the dynamic component of the models, we then performed a linear regression between each of
the binary emotion response variables and the six temporal parameters for

PNAS Early Edition | 3 of 4

PSYCHOLOGICAL AND
COGNITIVE SCIENCES

Fig. 2. Cluster analysis and dissimilarity matrices of the Western Caucasian and East Asian models of facial expressions. In each panel, vertical color-coded bars show
the k means (k = 6) cluster membership of each model. Each 41-dimensional model (n = 180 per culture) corresponds to the emotion category labeled Above (30 models
per emotion). The underlying gray-scale dissimilarity matrices represent the Euclidean distances between each pair of models, used as inputs to k-means clustering.
Note that, in the Western Caucasian group, the lighter squares along the diagonal indicate higher model similarity within each of the six emotion categories comparedwith the East Asian models. Correspondingly, k-means cluster analysis shows that the Western Caucasian models form six emotionally homogenous clusters (e.g., all 30“happy” models belong to the same cluster, color-coded in purple). In contrast, the East Asian models show considerable model dissimilarity within each emotion
category and overlap between categories, particularly for “surprise,” “fear,” “disgust,” “anger,” and “sad” (note the heterogeneous color coding of these models).

each AU. To calculate the intensity gradients, we ﬁtted a linear regression
model of each AU’s temporal parameters to the observer’s intensity ratings.
Finally, to generate movies of the dynamic models, we combined the signiﬁcantly correlated AUs with the temporal parameters derived from theregression coefﬁcients.
Clustering Analysis and Mutual Information. To ascertain the optimal numberof clusters required to map the distribution of the models in each culture, weapplied k-means clustering analysis (41) (k = 2–40 inclusive) to the 180 WC
and 180 EA models independently and calculated mutual information (41)(MI) for each value of k as follows. We randomly selected 90 models (15 per

1. Darwin C (1999) The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (Fontana Press,
London), 3rd Ed.
2. Susskind JM, et al. (2008) Expressing fear enhances sensory acquisition. Nat Neurosci
11:843–850.
3. Andrew RJ (1963) Evolution of facial expression. Science 142:1034–1041.
4. Ekman P, Sorenson ER, Friesen WV (1969) Pan-cultural elements in facial displays ofemotion. Science 164:86–88.
5. Tomkins SS (1962) Affect, Imagery, and Consciousness (Springer, New York).
6. Tomkins SS (1963) Affect, Imagery, and Consciousness (Springer, New York).
7. Ekman P, Friesen W, Hagar JC, eds (1978) Facial Action Coding System Investigators
Guide (Research Nexus, Salt Lake City, UT).
8. Biehl M, et al. (1997) Matsumoto and Ekman’s Japanese and Caucasian facial expressions of emotion (JACFEE): Reliability data and cross-national differences.
J Nonverbal Behav 21:3–21.
9. Ekman P, et al. (1987) Universals and cultural differences in the judgments of facial
expressions of emotion. J Pers Soc Psychol 53:712–717.
10. Matsumoto D, et al. (2002) American-Japanese cultural differences in judgements ofemotional expressions of different intensities. Cogn Emotion 16:721–747.
11. Matsumoto D (1989) Cultural inﬂuences on the perception of emotion. J Cross Cult
Psychol 20:92–105.
12. Jack RE, Blais C, Scheepers C, Schyns PG, Caldara R (2009) Cultural confusions showthat facial expressions are not universal. Curr Biol 19:1543–1548.
13. Moriguchi Y, et al. (2005) Speciﬁc brain activation in Japanese and Caucasian people
to fearful faces. Neuroreport 16:133–136.
14. Yrizarry N, Matsumoto D, Wilson-Cohn C (1998) American-Japanese Differences in
multiscalar intensity ratings of universal facial expressions of emotion. Motiv Emot 22:
315–327.
15. Matsumoto D, Ekman P (1989) American-Japanese cultural differences in intensity
ratings of facial expressions of emotion. Motiv Emot 13:143–157.
16. Matsumoto D (1990) Cultural similarities and differences in display rules. Motiv Emot
14:195–214.
17. Matsumoto D, Ekman P (1988) Japanese and Caucasian Facial Expressions of Emotion(JACFEE) and Neutral Faces (JACNeuF). Slides (San Francisco State University, San
Francisco).
18. Yu H, Garrod OGB, Schyns PG (2012) Perception-driven facial expression synthesis.
Comput Graph 36(3):152–162.
19. Chomsky N (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
20. Grenander U, Miller M (2007) Pattern Theory: From Representation to Inference(Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, UK).
21. Jack RE, Caldara R, Schyns PG (2011) Internal representations reveal cultural diversity
in expectations of facial expressions of emotion. J Exp Psychol Gen 141:19–25.
22. Dotsch R, Wigboldus DH, Langner O, van Knippenberg A (2008) Ethnic out-groupfaces are biased in the prejudiced mind. Psychol Sci 19:978–980.
23. Ahumada A, Lovell J (1971) Stimulus features in signal detection. J Acoust Soc Am 49:
1751–1756.

4 of 4 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1200155109

emotion) and applied k-means clustering analysis (Euclidian distance; 1,000
repetitions). Using the resulting k centroids, we then assigned the remaining
90 models to clusters on the basis of shortest Euclidean distance, and calculated MI, i.e., (model emotion label; cluster). We repeated the computation 100 times, averaged the 100 MI values, and normalized by an ideal MI(i.e., perfect association between cluster and emotion label). Fig. S1 shows
the averaged MI for each culture (WC, blue line; EA, red line).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. The Economic and Social Research Council andMedical Research Council (United Kingdom; ESRC/MRC-060-25-0010) andthe British Academy (SG113332) supported this work.

24. Levenson RW (2011) Basic emotion questions. Emotion Review 3:379–386.
25. Ekman P (1972) Universals and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotion, in
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, ed Cole J (Univ of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE).
26. Duchenne GB (1862–1990) The mechanisms of human facial expression or an electrophysiological analysis of the expression of the emotions, ed Cuthebertson R (Cambridge Univ Press, New York).
27. Matsumoto D, Takeuchi S, Andayani S, Kouznetsova N, Krupp D (1998) The contribution of individualism vs. collectivism to cross-national differences in display rules.
Asian J Soc Psychol 1:147–165.
28. Elfenbein HA, Beaupré M, Lévesque M, Hess U (2007) Toward a dialect theory: Cultural differences in the expression and recognition of posed facial expressions.
Emotion 7:131–146.
29. Marsh AA, Elfenbein HA, Ambady N (2003) Nonverbal “accents”: Cultural differencesin facial expressions of emotion. Psychol Sci 14:373–376.
30. 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 33:417–433, discussion 433–480.
31. Ekman P (1992) An argument for basic emotions. Cogn Emotion 6:169–200.
32. Ekman P (1992) Are there basic emotions? Psychol Rev 99:550–553.
33. Ekman P, Cordaro D (2011) What is meant by calling emotions basic. Emotion Review
3:364–370.
34. Li J, Wang L, Fischer K (2004) The organisation of Chinese shame concepts? Cogn
Emotion 18:767–797.
35. Tracy JL, Robins RW (2004) Show your pride: Evidence for a discrete emotion expression. Psychol Sci 15:194–197.
36. Bedford O, Hwang K-K (2003) Guilt and shame in Chinese culture: A cross-cultural
framework from the perspective of morality and identity. J Theory Soc Behav 33:
127–144.
37. Ekman P, Friesen W (1978) Facial Action Coding System: A Technique for the Measurement of Facial Movement (Consulting Psychologists Press, Washington, DC).
38. Urquhart CW, Green DS, Borland ED (2006) 4D Capture using passive stereo photogrammetry. Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Visual Media Production(Institution of Electrical Engineers, Edison, NJ), p 196.
c A, Petricevic N, Selimovic E (2006) Anthropometric dif39. Ibrahimagic-Seper L, Celebi
ferences between males and females in face dimensions and dimensions of central
maxillary incisors. Med Glas 3:58–62.
40. Hall E (1966) The Hidden Dimension (Doubleday, Garden City, NY).
41. MacQueen J (1967) Some methods for classiﬁcation and analysis of multivariate observations. Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics
and Probability (Univ of California Press, Berkeley, CA) 1:281–297.
42. Magri C, Whittingstall K, Singh V, Logothetis NK, Panzeri S (2009) A toolbox for the
fast information analysis of multiple-site LFP, EEG and spike train recordings.
BMC Neurosci 10:81.

Jack et al.