phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | a measurement routinely given the name of the construct it is taken to reveal, so that the name carries an inference the data do not support— “Fourth, published research on emotional expressions and emotion perception often confounds the measurements made in an experiment with the interpretation of the data, referring without sufficient justification to facial movements as “emotional displays,” “emotional expressions” or even “facial expressions,” rather than “facial… | |
| claim-type | critique— “People do express instances of anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness and surprise with the hypothesized facial configurations presented in Figure 4 at above chance levels, suggesting that those facial configurations sometimes serve as expressions of emotion as proposed. However, the reliability of this finding is weak, and there is… | |
| method — evidence | — “Our review is the most comprehensive and systematic to date, encompassing studies of healthy adults across cultures, newborns and young children, as well as people who are congenitally blind, and confirms that specific emotion categories -- anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise – are each expressed with a particular… | |
| object of study — evidence | — “When you see someone smile and infer that the person is happy, you are making what is known as a reverse inference: you are assuming that the smile reveals something about the person’s emotional state that you cannot access directly (see Figure 3).” | |
| research question — evidence | — “Four criteria must be met to justify a reverse inference that a particular facial configuration expresses and therefore reveals a specific emotional state: reliability, specificity, generalizability and validity (explained in Table 2 and Figure 3). These criteria are commonly encountered in the field of psychological measurement and over the… | |
| contribution — evidence | — “Four criteria must be met to justify a reverse inference that a particular facial configuration expresses and therefore reveals a specific emotional state: reliability, specificity, generalizability and validity (explained in Table 2 and Figure 3). These criteria are commonly encountered in the field of psychological measurement and over the… | |
| transfer | from psychometrics: reliability, specificity, generalizability and validity - the criteria of psychological measurement - carried into an audit of what a whole literature's vocabulary is entitled to assert— “Four criteria must be met to justify a reverse inference that a particular facial configuration expresses and therefore reveals a specific emotional state: reliability, specificity, generalizability and validity (explained in Table 2 and Figure 3). These criteria are commonly encountered in the field of psychological measurement and over the… | transfers[0] |
| transfer | from cognitive neuroscience: reverse inference, and the conditional probability that formalises it, carried from neuroimaging methodology into the reading of faces— “When you see someone smile and infer that the person is happy, you are making what is known as a reverse inference: you are assuming that the smile reveals something about the person’s emotional state that you cannot access directly (see Figure 3).” | transfers[1] |
| mechanism | response-set constraint manufacturing agreement offering a participant six emotion words and one face forces a choice among them, so agreement measures how the options were built rather than what the face conveys; remove the array and let people supply their own word and the rates fall— “Choice-from-array tasks severely limit the possibility of observing evidence that can disconfirm the common view of emotional expressions, however, because they restrict participants’ options for inferring the psychological meaning of facial configurations by offering them a limited set of emotion labels.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | valence perception passing as emotion perception where happiness is the only pleasant category in the array, every distractor differs from the target in valence, so a participant can score perfectly by discriminating pleasant from unpleasant without perceiving any emotion category at all— “This is particularly true for studies that include only one pleasant emotion category, i.e., happiness, where all foils differ from the target in valence, and therefore the robust reliability and specificity for inferring happiness from smiling in these studies may be the result of participants engaging in valence perception rather than… | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | naming carrying the inference calling a measured facial movement an 'emotional display' imports the conclusion into the description, so a later reader inherits an inference nobody tested; the same happens with 'recognizing' rather than 'inferring' and 'accuracy' rather than 'agreement'— “Fourth, published research on emotional expressions and emotion perception often confounds the measurements made in an experiment with the interpretation of the data, referring without sufficient justification to facial movements as “emotional displays,” “emotional expressions” or even “facial expressions,” rather than “facial… | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | above-chance publication threshold a result reliable enough to publish can still be low in absolute terms, so a literature of individually valid findings accumulates into a consensus that no single finding supports— “First, statistical standards are commonly adopted that don’t translate well for applying emotion research to other domains, applied or scientific. Showing that people frown when sad or scowl when angry with greater statistical reliability than would be expected by chance may be a scientific finding that warrants publication in a peer-reviewed… | mechanisms[3] |
| critiques | the common view that each of six emotion categories is reliably and specifically expressed by, and recognisable from, its own configuration of facial movements— “People do express instances of anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness and surprise with the hypothesized facial configurations presented in Figure 4 at above chance levels, suggesting that those facial configurations sometimes serve as expressions of emotion as proposed. However, the reliability of this finding is weak, and there is… | claim_relations[0] |
| critiques | automated emotion-recognition technology that infers emotional states from facial movements alone— “Technology companies, for example, are spending millions of research dollars to build devices to read emotions from faces, erroneously taking the common view as the one that is scientifically best supported. A more accurate description, however, is that their technology detects facial movements, not emotional expressions.” | claim_relations[1] |
| qualifies | choice-from-array emotion-perception findings, which supply the strongest support for the common view and cannot produce disconfirming evidence— “Choice-from-array tasks severely limit the possibility of observing evidence that can disconfirm the common view of emotional expressions, however, because they restrict participants’ options for inferring the psychological meaning of facial configurations by offering them a limited set of emotion labels.” | claim_relations[2] |
| reinterprets | the canonical six facial configurations - as Western stereotypes rather than as prototypes or universal displays— “Instead, the facial configurations in Figure 4 are best thought of as Western gestures, symbols or stereotypes that fail to capture the rich variety with which people spontaneously move their faces to express emotions in everyday life. A stereotype is not a prototype. The distinction is an important one, because a prototype is the most… | claim_relations[3] |
| sense | "emotional expression" - AS LICENSED: a facial configuration that reliably and specifically communicates an emotional state. The paper's glossary adds that many so-called emotional expressions are errors of reverse inference— “Emotional expression a facial configuration, bodily movement, or vocal expression that reliability and specifically communicates an emotional state. Many so-called emotional expressions are in fact errors of reverse inference on the part of perceivers (e.g., an actor crying when not sad).” | senses[0] |
| sense | "emotional expression" - AS USED IN THE LITERATURE: any facial configuration labelled with an emotion category, applied without checking reliability, specificity, generalizability or validity— “Fourth, published research on emotional expressions and emotion perception often confounds the measurements made in an experiment with the interpretation of the data, referring without sufficient justification to facial movements as “emotional displays,” “emotional expressions” or even “facial expressions,” rather than “facial… | senses[1] |
| sense | "accuracy" - AS DEFINED: correspondence to an intended performance that must be perceiver-independent and not subject to the whims of the experimenter— “Accuracy Extent to which a participant’s performance corresponds to the intended performance on an experimental task. Critically, this requires proper experimental task design, so that the intended correct performance is perceiver-independent, and not subject to the whims of the experimenter.” | senses[2] |
| sense | "accuracy" - AS IT SHOULD BE RENAMED in this literature: agreement or consensus, because what these studies measure is whether people label a face the same way, not whether the label is correct— “Fourth, published research on emotional expressions and emotion perception often confounds the measurements made in an experiment with the interpretation of the data, referring without sufficient justification to facial movements as “emotional displays,” “emotional expressions” or even “facial expressions,” rather than “facial… | senses[3] |
| sense | 'common view' / 'classical view' - THE FRAMEWORK THIS PAPER IS AGAINST HAS TWO NAMES, AND THE SECOND APPEARS EXACTLY ONCE: 'a set of beliefs were refer to as the common view (also called the classical view)'. A definitions row already glosses 'Common view'; what was missing is that the literature this paper argues with calls it something else. A reader searching the corpus for 'classical view' - which is what the opposing literature calls itself - would not have reached this record.— “A simple Google search using the phrase “emotional facial expressions” [see Box 1, in supplementary on-line materials (SOM)] reveals the ubiquity with which, at least in certain parts of the world, people believe that certain emotion categories are reliably signaled or revealed by certain facial muscle movement configurations – a set of… | senses[4] |
| sense | Facial movement - an objective, perceiver-independent configuration description that makes no emotional inference— “Facial movement A facial configuration that is objectively described in a perceiver-independent way. This description is agnostic about whether the movement expresses an emotion and does not use reverse inference. FACS coding is an example” | senses[5] |
| sense | Facial expression - a perceiver-dependent inference that a facial configuration expresses an internal state— “Facial expression A facial configuration that someone infers is expressing an internal state. Facial expressions of emotion are configurations that perceivers reverse infer to have been caused by an internal emotion state; they are thus perceiver-dependent” | senses[6] |
| sense | Perceiver-dependent - interpretation depends on human judgment and may be consistent without being accurate or valid— “Perceiver-dependent Interpretation of an observation that depends on human judgment. Perceiver dependency can produce conclusions that are consistent across people but not accurate or valid. Perceiver-independent An observation that does not depend on human judgment. Although some philosophers argue that all observations require some human… | senses[7] |
| sense | Perceiver-independent - observation does not depend on human judgment, though independence comes in degrees— “Perceiver-dependent Interpretation of an observation that depends on human judgment. Perceiver dependency can produce conclusions that are consistent across people but not accurate or valid. Perceiver-independent An observation that does not depend on human judgment. Although some philosophers argue that all observations require some human… | senses[8] |
| sense | Forward inference - inferring an effect from a known cause, such as frowning conditional on anger— “Forward inference Inferring an effect from knowing its cause. An example would be the conditional probability of observing a frown given we know somebody is angry” | senses[9] |
| sense | Percent agreement - inter-rater consistency, explicitly not percent accuracy— “Percent agreement A measure of agreement between raters; high agreement produces high inter-subject consistency. Percent agreement is not the same as percent accuracy, since the former is more perceiver-dependent than the latter” | senses[10] |
| sense | Percent accuracy - not interchangeable with agreement because agreement is more perceiver-dependent— “Percent agreement A measure of agreement between raters; high agreement produces high inter-subject consistency. Percent agreement is not the same as percent accuracy, since the former is more perceiver-dependent than the latter” | senses[11] |
| sense | Recognition - acknowledging an independently confirmed existent, contrasted with interpretive perception— “Recognition Acknowledging something’s existence (which is confirmed to exist by perceiver-independent means). Contrast with perception (which involves inference and interpretation)” | senses[12] |
| sense | Perception - inference and interpretation rather than independently confirmed recognition— “Recognition Acknowledging something’s existence (which is confirmed to exist by perceiver-independent means). Contrast with perception (which involves inference and interpretation)” | senses[13] |
| sense | Discrimination - deciding that stimuli differ without identifying what they are or recognizing what they mean— “Discrimination In psychophysics, to judge that two stimuli are different from one another; separate from identifying what they are (identification) or what they mean (recognition)” | senses[14] |
| sense | Identification - deciding what a stimulus is, not merely that it differs from another— “Discrimination In psychophysics, to judge that two stimuli are different from one another; separate from identifying what they are (identification) or what they mean (recognition)” | senses[15] |
| sense | Emotional granularity - experiencing or perceiving emotion through many differentiated categories— “Emotional granularity experiencing or perceiving emotions according to many different categories” | senses[16] |
| control | four criteria fixed in advance - reliability, specificity, generalizability, validity - so that the review's verdict is not a matter of the reviewers' impression — partial— “People do express instances of anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness and surprise with the hypothesized facial configurations presented in Figure 4 at above chance levels, suggesting that those facial configurations sometimes serve as expressions of emotion as proposed. However, the reliability of this finding is weak, and there is… — rules out a review verdict that is the reviewers' impression of a literature they already disagreed with— “Four criteria must be met to justify a reverse inference that a particular facial configuration expresses and therefore reveals a specific emotional state: reliability, specificity, generalizability and validity (explained in Table 2 and Figure 3). These criteria are commonly encountered in the field of psychological measurement and over the… | controls[0] |
| control | evidence sought across four independent populations - developed-nation adults, small-scale remote cultures, infants and children, and congenitally blind people - so that no single literature's method could carry the conclusion — held— “Our review is the most comprehensive and systematic to date, encompassing studies of healthy adults across cultures, newborns and young children, as well as people who are congenitally blind, and confirms that specific emotion categories -- anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise – are each expressed with a particular… — rules out a conclusion about facial expression drawn from one population - Western adults - and stated about people— “Our review is the most comprehensive and systematic to date, encompassing studies of healthy adults across cultures, newborns and young children, as well as people who are congenitally blind, and confirms that specific emotion categories -- anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise – are each expressed with a particular… | controls[1] |
| control | results partitioned by the METHOD used to collect them, to test whether support for the common view is a property of the phenomenon or of the task — failed— “However, the reliability of this finding is weak, and there is evidence that the strength of support for the common view varies systematically with the research methods used. The strongest support for the common view -- found in data from urban, industrialized or developed samples completing choice-from-array tasks -- does not show robust… — rules out support for the common view that is a property of the TASK used to collect it rather than of the phenomenon— “However, the reliability of this finding is weak, and there is evidence that the strength of support for the common view varies systematically with the research methods used. The strongest support for the common view -- found in data from urban, industrialized or developed samples completing choice-from-array tasks -- does not show robust… | controls[2] |
| control | the authors turning the same critique on their own published work rather than only on other laboratories' — held— “Similar examples come from our own papers. One paper series of papers focused on the brain structures involved in perceiving emotions from facial configurations and the other focused on early life experiences. These papers were framed in terms of “recognizing facial expressions of emotion” and exclusively presented participants with specific… — rules out a critique that applies to every laboratory except the one making it— “Similar examples come from our own papers. One paper series of papers focused on the brain structures involved in perceiving emotions from facial configurations and the other focused on early life experiences. These papers were framed in terms of “recognizing facial expressions of emotion” and exclusively presented participants with specific… | controls[3] |
| control | testing the common view against specific alternative hypotheses about context, rather than only against chance — absent-stated-about-other — rules out specific alternative accounts of the expression-emotion link, in particular context-based ones - testing against the null alone rules out chance and nothing else— “In practice, however, experiments almost always test the common view against the null hypothesis for reliability and specificity and rarely test specific alternative hypotheses.” | controls[4] |
| weight | the common view that each of six emotion categories is reliably and specifically expressed by, and recognisable from, its own configuration of facial movements — 0.95— “People do express instances of anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness and surprise with the hypothesized facial configurations presented in Figure 4 at above chance levels, suggesting that those facial configurations sometimes serve as expressions of emotion as proposed. However, the reliability of this finding is weak, and there is… | claim_relations[0] |
| weight | automated emotion-recognition technology that infers emotional states from facial movements alone — 0.95— “Technology companies, for example, are spending millions of research dollars to build devices to read emotions from faces, erroneously taking the common view as the one that is scientifically best supported. A more accurate description, however, is that their technology detects facial movements, not emotional expressions.” | claim_relations[1] |
| weight | choice-from-array emotion-perception findings, which supply the strongest support for the common view and cannot produce disconfirming evidence — 0.9— “Choice-from-array tasks severely limit the possibility of observing evidence that can disconfirm the common view of emotional expressions, however, because they restrict participants’ options for inferring the psychological meaning of facial configurations by offering them a limited set of emotion labels.” | claim_relations[2] |
| weight | the canonical six facial configurations - as Western stereotypes rather than as prototypes or universal displays — 0.9— “Instead, the facial configurations in Figure 4 are best thought of as Western gestures, symbols or stereotypes that fail to capture the rich variety with which people spontaneously move their faces to express emotions in everyday life. A stereotype is not a prototype. The distinction is an important one, because a prototype is the most… | claim_relations[3] |
| differs in (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | emotional expressions —distinct-from→ facial configurations — whether reliability, specificity, generalizability and validity have been demonstrated | concept_edges[0] |
| relation | emotional expressions —distinct-from→ facial configurations — the second is what was measured; the first adds an inference the evidence must license— “Fourth, published research on emotional expressions and emotion perception often confounds the measurements made in an experiment with the interpretation of the data, referring without sufficient justification to facial movements as “emotional displays,” “emotional expressions” or even “facial expressions,” rather than “facial…— “referring without sufficient justification to facial movements as “emotional displays,” “emotional expressions” or even “facial expressions,” rather than “facial configurations,” “facial movements” or “facial actions”” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | emotional expressions —distinct-from→ facial configurations — 0.95— “Fourth, published research on emotional expressions and emotion perception often confounds the measurements made in an experiment with the interpretation of the data, referring without sufficient justification to facial movements as “emotional displays,” “emotional expressions” or even “facial expressions,” rather than “facial… | concept_edges[0] |
| differs in (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | accuracy —distinct-from→ Consistency — whether there is a perceiver-independent correct answer to be right about | concept_edges[1] |
| relation | accuracy —distinct-from→ Consistency — a group can consistently believe something that is wrong— “Consistency An outcome that does not vary greatly across time, context, or different individuals (see forward inference). Consistency is not accuracy (a group of people can consistently believe something that is wrong).”— “Consistency is not accuracy (a group of people can consistently believe something that is wrong)” | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | accuracy —distinct-from→ Consistency — 0.95— “Consistency An outcome that does not vary greatly across time, context, or different individuals (see forward inference). Consistency is not accuracy (a group of people can consistently believe something that is wrong).” | concept_edges[1] |
| differs in (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | stereotype —distinct-from→ prototype — whether the configuration is actually the most frequent instance of the category | concept_edges[2] |
| relation | stereotype —distinct-from→ prototype — a prototype is the typical instance; a stereotype is a belief over-applied— “Instead, the facial configurations in Figure 4 are best thought of as Western gestures, symbols or stereotypes that fail to capture the rich variety with which people spontaneously move their faces to express emotions in everyday life. A stereotype is not a prototype. The distinction is an important one, because a prototype is the most…— “A stereotype is not a prototype. The distinction is an important one, because a prototype is the most frequent or typical instance of a category, whereas a stereotype is an oversimplified belief that is taken as generally more applicable than it actually is.” | concept_edges[2] |
| weight | stereotype —distinct-from→ prototype — 0.95— “Instead, the facial configurations in Figure 4 are best thought of as Western gestures, symbols or stereotypes that fail to capture the rich variety with which people spontaneously move their faces to express emotions in everyday life. A stereotype is not a prototype. The distinction is an important one, because a prototype is the most… | concept_edges[2] |
| audit | Choice-from-array tasks —contrasted-with→ free labeling — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span describes the choice-from-array method without naming it.— “Asking perceivers to infer an emotion by matching a facial configuration to an emotion word selected from a small array of options, or telling participants a brief story about a typical instance of an emotion category and asking them to pick a facial configuration from an array of two or three photos, generally inflates agreement rates… | concept_edges[3] |
| differs in (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | Choice-from-array tasks —contrasted-with→ free labeling — whether the participant may supply a word the experimenter did not offer | concept_edges[3] |
| relation | Choice-from-array tasks —contrasted-with→ free labeling — the constrained task inflates agreement and cannot produce disconfirming evidence— “Asking perceivers to infer an emotion by matching a facial configuration to an emotion word selected from a small array of options, or telling participants a brief story about a typical instance of an emotion category and asking them to pick a facial configuration from an array of two or three photos, generally inflates agreement rates…— “Asking perceivers to infer an emotion by matching a facial configuration to an emotion word selected from a small array of options, or telling participants a brief story about a typical instance of an emotion category and asking them to pick a facial configuration from an array of two or three photos, generally inflates agreement rates… | concept_edges[3] |
| weight | Choice-from-array tasks —contrasted-with→ free labeling — 0.9— “Asking perceivers to infer an emotion by matching a facial configuration to an emotion word selected from a small array of options, or telling participants a brief story about a typical instance of an emotion category and asking them to pick a facial configuration from an array of two or three photos, generally inflates agreement rates… | concept_edges[3] |
| note | common view —same-as→ classical view — A bare parenthetical synonym, no hedge. THE AXIS IS THE AUTHOR'S OWN VS THE OPPOSING LITERATURE'S: Barrett coins 'common view' for the position she is attacking, and notes that it already has a name. lists discipline, language, profession and venue as the axes this type carries; this is a fifth - THE NAME A POSITION'S CRITICS GIVE IT AGAINST THE NAME IT GIVES ITSELF.— “A simple Google search using the phrase “emotional facial expressions” [see Box 1, in supplementary on-line materials (SOM)] reveals the ubiquity with which, at least in certain parts of the world, people believe that certain emotion categories are reliably signaled or revealed by certain facial muscle movement configurations – a set of… | concept_edges[4] |
| relation | common view —same-as→ classical view — the paper gives the second name parenthetically as an alternative for the first— “A simple Google search using the phrase “emotional facial expressions” [see Box 1, in supplementary on-line materials (SOM)] reveals the ubiquity with which, at least in certain parts of the world, people believe that certain emotion categories are reliably signaled or revealed by certain facial muscle movement configurations – a set of… | concept_edges[4] |
| note | facial configuration —distinct-from→ Facial expression — The glossary explicitly says the objective configuration is not synonymous with the inference-laden expression.— “Facial configuration A pattern of visible contractions of multiple muscles in the face; the production analog to configural perception of faces. Configurations can be described objectively (e.g., with FACS coding). Not synonymous with “facial expression”, which requires an inference about how the facial configurations were caused” | concept_edges[5] |
| note | Perceiver-independent —distinct-from→ Perceiver-dependent — The glossary contrasts the two categories through dependence on human judgment and a 'whereas' example.— “Perceiver-dependent Interpretation of an observation that depends on human judgment. Perceiver dependency can produce conclusions that are consistent across people but not accurate or valid. Perceiver-independent An observation that does not depend on human judgment. Although some philosophers argue that all observations require some human… | concept_edges[6] |
| note | Percent agreement —distinct-from→ percent accuracy — The glossary states directly that percent agreement is not percent accuracy.— “Percent agreement A measure of agreement between raters; high agreement produces high inter-subject consistency. Percent agreement is not the same as percent accuracy, since the former is more perceiver-dependent than the latter” | concept_edges[7] |
| note | Discrimination —distinct-from→ identification — The glossary says discrimination is separate from identifying what stimuli are.— “Discrimination In psychophysics, to judge that two stimuli are different from one another; separate from identifying what they are (identification) or what they mean (recognition)” | concept_edges[8] |
| note | Discrimination —distinct-from→ Recognition — The glossary says discrimination is separate from recognizing what stimuli mean.— “Discrimination In psychophysics, to judge that two stimuli are different from one another; separate from identifying what they are (identification) or what they mean (recognition)” | concept_edges[9] |
| outcome | control — partial— “Four criteria must be met to justify a reverse inference that a particular facial configuration expresses and therefore reveals a specific emotional state: reliability, specificity, generalizability and validity (explained in Table 2 and Figure 3). These criteria are commonly encountered in the field of psychological measurement and over the…— “People do express instances of anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness and surprise with the hypothesized facial configurations presented in Figure 4 at above chance levels, suggesting that those facial configurations sometimes serve as expressions of emotion as proposed. However, the reliability of this finding is weak, and there is… | controls[0] |
| outcome | control — held— “Our review is the most comprehensive and systematic to date, encompassing studies of healthy adults across cultures, newborns and young children, as well as people who are congenitally blind, and confirms that specific emotion categories -- anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise – are each expressed with a particular… | controls[1] |
| outcome | control — failed— “However, the reliability of this finding is weak, and there is evidence that the strength of support for the common view varies systematically with the research methods used. The strongest support for the common view -- found in data from urban, industrialized or developed samples completing choice-from-array tasks -- does not show robust… | controls[2] |
| outcome | control — held— “Similar examples come from our own papers. One paper series of papers focused on the brain structures involved in perceiving emotions from facial configurations and the other focused on early life experiences. These papers were framed in terms of “recognizing facial expressions of emotion” and exclusively presented participants with specific… | controls[3] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — absent-stated-about-other | controls[4] |
| limitation | the review covers six emotion categories, not the twenty-plus currently studied, because the evidence base for the other categories is far smaller - the conclusions are extended to them by argument rather than by review— “Our review is the most comprehensive and systematic to date, encompassing studies of healthy adults across cultures, newborns and young children, as well as people who are congenitally blind, and confirms that specific emotion categories -- anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise – are each expressed with a particular… | limitations[0] |
| limitation | evidence from small-scale remote cultures on expression PRODUCTION is inconclusive rather than negative: there are no systematic controlled observations of how people in these contexts spontaneously move their faces— “Asking perceivers to infer an emotion by matching a facial configuration to an emotion word selected from a small array of options, or telling participants a brief story about a typical instance of an emotion category and asking them to pick a facial configuration from an array of two or three photos, generally inflates agreement rates… | limitations[1] |
| limitation | validity - the fourth criterion - is not evaluated by the review either, because the underlying studies almost never address it— “Questions of validity are almost never addressed in production and perception studies. Even if reliable and specific facial movements are observed across generalizable circumstances, it is a difficult and unresolved question as to whether these facial movements can justify an inference about a person’s emotion state.” | limitations[2] |
| limitation | the authors' own earlier papers used exactly the design they criticise, presenting posed configurations without context; the critique includes its own authors— “Similar examples come from our own papers. One paper series of papers focused on the brain structures involved in perceiving emotions from facial configurations and the other focused on early life experiences. These papers were framed in terms of “recognizing facial expressions of emotion” and exclusively presented participants with specific… | limitations[3] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | — “People do express instances of anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness and surprise with the hypothesized facial configurations presented in Figure 4 at above chance levels, suggesting that those facial configurations sometimes serve as expressions of emotion as proposed. However, the reliability of this finding is weak, and there is… | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | — “There appear to be many-to-many mappings between facial configurations and emotion categories (e.g., anger is expressed with a broader range of facial movements than just a scowl and scowls express more than anger).” | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | — “However, the reliability of this finding is weak, and there is evidence that the strength of support for the common view varies systematically with the research methods used. The strongest support for the common view -- found in data from urban, industrialized or developed samples completing choice-from-array tasks -- does not show robust… | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | — “Choice-from-array tasks severely limit the possibility of observing evidence that can disconfirm the common view of emotional expressions, however, because they restrict participants’ options for inferring the psychological meaning of facial configurations by offering them a limited set of emotion labels.” | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | content_tags.findings[4] | |
| finding | content_tags.findings[5] | |
| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[6] |
| quantity | the correlation range the paper calls weak reliability - a person sometimes scowls in anger, but not most of the time Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| variable | context Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[0] |
| definition | emotional expression Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | Common view Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | accuracy Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| definition | Consistency Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[3] |
| definition | Conditional probability Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[4] |
| definition | Ecological validity Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[5] |
| definition | reverse inference Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[6] |
| concept | reverse inference — not defined in this paper's own words; assuming a facial movement reveals an inner state you cannot observe - a conditional probability, and the move the whole common view rests on Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[0] |
| concept | reliability — not defined in this paper's own words; does the configuration occur during the emotion more often than chance - the only one of the four criteria the evidence supports, and weakly Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[1] |
| concept | specificity — not defined in this paper's own words; does it occur ONLY during that emotion - lacking in almost all research domains Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[2] |
| concept | generalizability — not defined in this paper's own words; does the finding survive a change of method, setting or population - the strongest support does not show it Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[3] |
| concept | validity — not defined in this paper's own words; the fourth criterion, and the one almost never addressed at all in production and perception studies Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[4] |
| concept | emotional expression — not defined in this paper's own words; the contested name: licensed only when all four criteria are met, and used throughout the literature where they are not Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[5] |
| concept | facial configuration — not defined in this paper's own words; the neutral, descriptive term the paper says should be used instead wherever the criteria are unmet - a smile rather than an expression of happiness Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[6] |
| concept | emotional expressions — not defined in this paper's own words; the plural as the prescription states it - the name the literature applies to facial movements without having earned it Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[7] |
| concept | facial configurations — not defined in this paper's own words; the plural as the prescription states it - the neutral description of what was actually measured Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[8] |
| concept | accuracy — not defined in this paper's own words; requires a perceiver-independent correct answer; the paper argues this literature has none and should say agreement or consensus Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[9] |
| concept | Consistency — not defined in this paper's own words; an outcome that does not vary across time, context or people - and explicitly not accuracy, since a group can consistently believe something wrong Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[10] |
| concept | Common view — not defined in this paper's own words; that emotion categories reliably cause specific facial muscle patterns AND that those patterns are diagnostic of the categories - the two beliefs under test Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[11] |
| concept | stereotype — not defined in this paper's own words; an oversimplified belief taken as more generally applicable than it is - what the paper says the six canonical facial configurations actually are Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[12] |
| concept | prototype — not defined in this paper's own words; the most frequent or typical instance of a category - what the common view claims the configurations are, and the distinction the paper turns on Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[13] |
| concept | Choice-from-array tasks — not defined in this paper's own words; picking one emotion word from a short list supplied by the experimenter - the method that produces the strongest support for the common view and cannot disconfirm it Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[14] |
| concept | free labeling — not defined in this paper's own words; letting participants supply their own word; agreement rates fall when the array is removed Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[15] |
| concept | context — not defined in this paper's own words; the paper's collective name for the unmeasured factors that weak reliability implies are doing the work Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[16] |
| concept | Ecological validity — not defined in this paper's own words; whether findings generalise to real-life settings - the question the laboratory-versus-world half of generalizability asks Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[17] |
| concept | Conditional probability — not defined in this paper's own words; p(X given Y) - the form a reverse inference takes, and what a face-reading claim is actually asserting Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[18] |
| concept | classical view — not defined in this paper's own words; the alternative name for the common view, given parenthetically and used once Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[19] |
| concept | Facial movement — not defined in this paper's own words; a perceiver-independent description of a facial configuration, agnostic about emotion Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[20] |
| concept | Facial expression — not defined in this paper's own words; a facial configuration inferred by a perceiver to express an internal state Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[21] |
| concept | Perceiver-dependent — not defined in this paper's own words; an interpretation whose conclusion depends on human judgment Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[22] |
| concept | Perceiver-independent — An observation that does not depend on human judgment Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[23] |
| concept | Forward inference — not defined in this paper's own words; inferring an effect from a known cause Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[24] |
| concept | Percent agreement — not defined in this paper's own words; inter-rater agreement producing inter-subject consistency Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[25] |
| concept | percent accuracy — not defined in this paper's own words; the stronger criterion that percent agreement is explicitly said not to equal Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[26] |
| concept | Recognition — not defined in this paper's own words; acknowledging something whose existence is independently confirmed Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[27] |
| concept | perception — not defined in this paper's own words; inference and interpretation, contrasted here with recognition Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[28] |
| concept | Discrimination — not defined in this paper's own words; judging that two stimuli differ without identifying or recognizing them Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[29] |
| concept | identification — not defined in this paper's own words; judging what a stimulus is, separated here from discrimination Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[30] |
| concept | Emotional granularity — not defined in this paper's own words; experiencing or perceiving emotions through many different categories Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[31] |
| reliability | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| specificity | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[1] |
| generalizability | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[2] |
| null hypothesis | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[3] |
When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824