CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE GERMAN IlEXPRESSION

PSYCHOLOGY" TO NONVERBAL
COMMUNICATION RESEARCH
I: THEORIES AND CONCEPTS
Jens Asendorpf
HaraldG. Wallbott
: ... / : . . . . ,:: , .
.
m'ls first part f a senes'of research'on
!
faCial expression;:bridy'iMtivement,,'antf'spet!d'fYattd fJkebfias'il'lld '
oOlnceptsofthfs.,neacrlyankhokwn ll>ranonefpsy:ttho1o:gy illitd
.TQpjcs, Qf!
and an,j, Qf
behavlor. "
, '. .' > , , ' ".' ,.' : \ ,,:','
I
/.
" . weshouldnowconcentratensearchingfor ()f '
! '
i:
appr'aotitdpa"lictlitady:i: vha
j
S'{(ioy@f) ..
munication!lwithlllt ..011mJtty
"fQspodfahHUY.lWeaecd,mote
,.
preferabletotheinductivecqUecting ..
becomeourrespectabJehabit(lsraet&iajfel,1972, p. 4) .
'. "':1

.1"."
f
i",: > " :: ,."::
.' ;,J '.
tt16;
.<' ):\f,;,. ':, r. }}L:Qit1,/qh'(\IJ h>]:i .
.'.' " ... N;;;i
, ofl,t1p .,IO,W,,tl,V, r. , . <".1.0.'.
ahot afcw"'('olt\ccl. .'
.;,' jA1I1fi8ld Cl 'V{eW
J." Hftrfo/tbGit,)'"aNbotti':Jtl5tus.U:e,bttrf .
,,'n'
.. .,.' .' ....',;
0191-5811,>1"11/ JfltH/IJ.;JfJll'i,@)"1981 ,tt/'u
"
.
10
1
!/{NAtOf NONVlRB/\!. BlIIAVIOI{
pastfiftyorsixtyycarsof in thearea,we inGermanyseem
to be in an extraordinary position: what is called nonverbal com-
municationresearch here oranywhereelse in Europe(foracurrent
review sec EIIgring, 1980) is influenced almost exclusively by
Americanpsychologyorlinguistics.FromDarwin'stimeuntilabout
1960itseems thatlittlehappened in turopeanpsychology. This is
espedallystrange inGermanybecausetllerewas muchinteresting
psychological research pertinent to nonverbal communication,
"Expression Psychology"(Ausdruckspsychologie), which culmina-
ted in the thirtiesofthis century.
SinceExpressionPsychologywasincreasinglytransformedinto
a radst ideologyunder the Nazi regime, mostGerman emigrants
working in the field(e.g., KurtLewindidsome interesting
research before he had toemigrate). Two examples of the sparse
workdonebytheseemigrantsareWolff(1943)andArnheim(1949).
Inthefifties,therewasabriefrenaissanceofExpressionPsychology
in G'errnafJY, bllt it s()Qn critic,izedforitsoHen veryspeculative
, ,'\t " ,'. l ""Y. .' ,,'"'( . ' .' .", ' , , . -',
.It QH1t;:kly andquie,tJyatthe end pftbe
jiJ,$t GeJtl;lannOAverb.atcqe:nOltunicationre.sear(:hWq$
anew'generationoJ psychologis,ts,Tbisnewline'(lf .
'resea'rch'developedin else"a;lmosttotaUy
unaffectedoyExpressioh P'sVthdhJgy. . .. ', . 'q
Havingthis inmind, thepurposeofthe prese'ntseries offour
articlesis
, " ' '. : .' . . - .
Qf'Expressiot!)'Ps.YQh0iogVasfaras
itICOflC'erns nOlilverbaIltQmm'llJnicatt'onreserc.h. .
To,enablerion-German,speaking.res.earchefZs'i;n:pa:liticuJar to
arideKJjetimentalresultsof
"; .,'
': >.
Regarding the second purpose, we have tried to presentan
. f;1JmQ&t e.xpedrhental
far' a$,d.;\$ts
i
pertillsntl.to:facia,{l
. of the.. and vocaJ' expression (PartiV)
. oE
Shdconce."'ts :ol.l'V."h. i'n....,
. , ' """"" .',," """""'U,,:l '. ,g",,8,, ,' '. e. "QO,
..,..W-e, ,dticUI$,po.vsiognq,m,ic.. ,,eues .' o'f
'. ot i
nonverbal cornmunicaliort/itt\We
.......
'wU1' ofuftaJ(
".
J 'th'"
e
re'eafth
s
.. .
. " .. ....'. . ()
'"
on
the. . SUC'A\.8shandwriUntl oraflt'
, " ,." ""', .
I
,
l :
I
I "
137
JENS ASrNDORPf. HARALD WAll.UOTr
Regarding the first purpose, we have chosen a non-historical
systematic approach in order to provide clarity and a rapid
orientationforthereader.Therefore,wewill notdiscussthecourse
of theoretical reasoning as it developed from 1920 to 1960, but
structure our overview by discussing three basic questions with
which Expression Psychologywas concerned.
Although there have been several different approaches, all
theoriesofExpression Psychologyshareonecommonbelief: there
is some Usubject of expression" (Ausdruckssubiekt), Le., an
emotion, mood, attitude, ordisposition, which is expressed as an
"expression" (Ausdruck)' in some "medium of expression"
((\usdrUCKSJnedium; cf. Kirchhoff,1965). In thiscontextthreebasic
questions can beasked:
1. Wh'at constitutesan expression?
2. What relationship exists between the subject of expression
and theexpression'itse.lf?
,::3. How is expression#erceivedl
What is ex;press-ion?
,',Onefeaturetyp'icalf PsychologVis
;hat'they 'are w;,th aso it appears in
, !ObS,fvable behavio,/ 't,han with tf,e, yndedyiAg';'SGfbJject of,
,.expression.",One reasQn ,that, most
, .were ',Rredoniinanily .j,ftltcre$teQ in,"devetf)ping
diagnostil!tbdls. Therefdre,;the Qfmosttheod:eswas ...
notthe'subject ,f ,itself,acnd'su'tlJiects
'were seldoi carefully investigated. Subjects:;'were
, psv,cwkstate'$i
'. as
and tattltUdes.
Sbme' '. nblisttc theorj"es, iti$'
is acfual,iz'ed. J.n a gj\(en,moment; end thaf''"itis
,thetefarEtimposstble to. :intE) distinctfdaits
orstilat@S'l' ' '" , '., , ' ' ' ..
Startingwithadefinitionof"expression,"theselheoriest'ried
to separate expreSs!9(t .. allR8ctiQn;by certahi'acfs'or
charal!terisficsof'at'tswitij. i'expressJ\ve,
TherewereqUite to thisproblem.
JOURNAl 01 NONVrRBAI.
Tracing back to Piderit (1867) and Darwin (1872), attempts
were made to isolate special aets having only an expressive
function. "Genuine expressive movements" (reine
Ausdrucksbewegungen) were differentiated from "goal-
directedmovements"(Zweckbewegungen) aboveall byKlages
(1926) and Buytendijk (1956). These attempts of definition
were often criticized . because obviousJy goal-directed
. movements also may have expressive value at times. Bhler
(1933) conceived the concepts of expressiveness and goal-
directednessasjusttwoaspectsofthesamephenomenon(Le.,
an action), and lersch (1955) spoke of varying degrees of
expressiveness and goal-diretedness for a given act.
-' Another approach was to differentiategenuine expressions
from "arbitrary movements"(Willkrbewegungen, e.g.,
Klages, 1926), or more specificaUy, trom "presentations"
..(Darstellungen).Whiie can be
.. definedfunctionaHywithoutnecessarily tratingthern backto
intentions, arbitrary movements.re,<luire just that, and $0 this
definition of expression is from the'very beginningentangled
with thedelicateproblemofintentionality.Thisis alsotrueof
thedifferentiation from presentations; the latterincludeany
.modifications of genuine expressions by- attempts ofserf-
.
presentation, deception, and so on. A more sophJsticated
wasGottschaldt's(1958)assUrnpti90
..of voluntary'coAtr-ti'lW'ithl'lrhilifestations" (ADsserungen) and .
. .. I'expressiofls" (A\tsdrucR) as
....
'. ,; <affetive movemeh'ts... ar. .
... (;)xpre5sions as mainty . ..
.. \re,ferHng totfte,whelesocialsituatlc>.rJ, 4SltIs bythe
..,ac,tor. :' .... '.." .' ...........
. hl:terestlngand(asfaT'Swe:knoWlne.VtnrecQj)sidec,t)d
.......
....... ;;4I.:1andlunB$initlallenrarepartitulf'1ylikely
'ival,ue. rfulrk.d, OpQn
: Astllitkshsltungenlt that.is the. ,
trom which.811 actisltartea.' ;... . '. .
.... ... ...., , ; . ....'"". '...'. .. ..' ',' ,
ofthese. .. 1,(1 J
twO.l"esPcb. FJflSt, genuirieexpres,slQn.
. " ". ;-::;'.; ..' '.... :. '.' ", . . . "'. . ,
j
,
I
I
I
..
t
,H'" __,",,-_ '_' '.- ",
139
IfNS ASfNDORPF. "'ARAlD WAllOTr
in mind, Le., totallyspontaneousexpressions, as itwere, unspoiled
by any demands of thc sodal situation. This concept has been
fatal for Expression Psychology because most researchers were
pushed to look for genuine expressions neglecting the wide
spectrum of othcrexpressive movements, or(even worse) to take
obvious presentations for genuine expressions (leonhard, 1949;
Strchle, 1954). Consequences for application of Expression
Psychology in psychodiagnostics have beendisastrous.
Furthermore, all approaches tackle the definition of
expressionin a fairlyanalyticwaybytryingtoidentifydistinetacts
having.expressive vatue, and with afairly statie concept of an
expressjveact:eithertheaetisan expressionorithas certainstatic
expressive features.With the rise of Gestalt Psychology in
. Getmany,boththeanalyticapproachandthestaticconcept:ionof
anexpressiveactwas criticized. Arnheim(1928; seepart11 ofthis
. showed that parts of faciatexpressions change their
expressive quaHtydependingon thetontext ofotherpartsofthe
expression. Flach (192(1; seepartJ 11) found that professional
da'neersrepresents'peci'fkcontentsnotalways ..
hut 'byspecifk dynamic patterns. Wr;ner (1940; 'see ..
Part Jl)ca'me to analgous results by detailed analysesof .
mnkeys"chatterlngandangere,xp,ressions. Thelattftwoauthors ..'.
UkewfseemphasitecJfhe id:eathat"BlOSt, gein ,their
eXJ)res'sivequalities by the'jr "frow, ..
rinde) andcannofbedescribed bystaU<;char8cteristics
ahlne. ' '., .,
... .... ..The conceptsf we discussechuptonowaU:.....
.r-e-gard expression an ..'.
(lAd tralts, somethnes rn.od_fied inordertofitthe.dema,nds,;of an
on'goinsscial interactlqp.Thattl}e a',sefldeijlsoften.
toward atbestonfy'.hnplitHly
taken'tn't aCCoullt. .,.. ... . .. '; ... ..".'." ...;)
Bhler{1933, one01 theleadinglanguagepsychologists ..
f his time, was oneof the.few., vvll$ ,1Qoked'at Hxpretsion
PsychoJogyfrom a<;Qmrnunicalipo'vi(!wpoint. He
main fUl1ctions of communicativebehavior:
(Darstellu,og), (Austflrt.ick), aod i'appeal"(Appell). He
arguedthatanycommunicativeI?ehaviorls hoth the
andanexpressiondrrepresenlaticirfbfthe'semi)er's
He .tberefofe p.roposed,tostartfrorn tljereceiverSPOlnLQf vlew ....
antito focus the i'resohance" (Re$onanz) the ..
. .
. .. :
'.tu 'I'! w ... .. .. '::,":,'
1-1U
JOURNAl Of NONVI RBAI, BlIIAVIOI{
receiver lo the sender. Howcver, he did not furt her elaborate this
rather unusual approach with respect to nonverbal
comillunication.
What relationship cxists !Jctwecm su/>jecl of expression and
expression?
Expression Psychology was developed chiefly for diagnostic
reasons. Consequently, the relationship between expression and its
, subject was essential for all theories. The rather naive assumption
of a constant relationship, a of physiognomists suchas
tavater (1775-1778), can neverthetess be faund in theories of
expression (cf. Klages, 1926; Strehle, 1954; Lersch, 1955). These
theorists thooght that it shuld be possibte to estabiish a kindof
Jexicon bfexpressins which assigns a meaning to each expression
in terms of sUbjects of expression. f course" more than one
meaning was" usyally f04nd for an .. expressive act, and
tOflsequently esch 'expression was "explaine,d" by ,a "halo of
.. t'he 'relationship
, anexpression a;ndits halo of meaning was as,a const3Qt,
Olle. ',' ' " ' ,." ", ,
Often t.heoriststried tosUbstantiate empir,i<;aJ,ly the meaning;
an '
'. semantic' 'aha'ogitiS' descrJptions' and
',sutt;cts of ,expressioh,. tuniihgthiis aHlogy on 'a destriptive leVCilI
into a kind of inference rule. fot example" an lIerra,ticcharacter"
():natfl/der) was' 'asshciatetf pody .
mQ;vements",(etkige'giewegtJngeh)' t)y lt!rscl} (195$);,Qf
was assGoialed' eyes ,HQJzkamp(1:965)
j ttermedi "', :> ,
" cth:fra'cleUze'H bY theif use Q{Uo the, JQgicaJ
sense false or dubious) syllogisl11s, s.uch c;as' fp,Uowir;lg: '
. . , :..: .: .'
.: >. ",- .'. - t
Q. cf.' ha-s asofffate (Q) '. " .' " "
, ,', S;te$.embles:Q, .(;:f;\, a soft' soft face (Q)
. " - ." '"".". '
. S cl 1', rnay,have a (5)
.'. ,', .. i
",'The thesc,ond.premise and {he' .'
cOritlusion:(!ta:wh.', 'a.od of ,this' 's'ort'
ih.enotfbnthat EXpression was ,',
unscientific,' 'Secause such conclusipns'
141
IENS ASENDORPf, UARAU) WAltnOTl
werequitecommon. Holzkamp(1965) furtherdistinguishedamong
three types of con1monly used analogies:
Analogies of course(VerlaufsanaJogien), using criteria suchas
dlrectlon, form, and succession In tirne of expressive
(cf. Engel, 1765/86; Klages, Lersch, 1957).
Analogies by (as in almostall physiognomieliterature).
Analogies of space, using criteria such as ideal spatial
proportions, the synlbolic meaning of spatial directions, and
soon.
i i
I f
i 1 . Strehte(1954} and Lersch (1957) were representatives of a
"iI .' specialf9rmofthis inference-byanalogybranch.Theystatedthat
I, . actionshavebothafunction(in ful/iHing a goal)asweil as
J .ian expr<essivevalue. This value, i.e., the meanhigfexpression,is.
i I ' .
. . .'derivedbyanalogyJromthefunctionoftherespectiveaction. An
I; 'alten dted examp'le is theonementioned by Lersch
!'PJaf,fowing theeyes of tJPper'<ind lower lids hastfJe
I .'.furlction0fsnarpentngcQnt'eurs ofperceived anaJq"y
1I .dtfoll'ows,thita person witllncurowed_eyesshouldhavea .
I' .. '. lf$'alsing . . ...... ...... : .,' ..' '" .' .. ...... ' ... .
:1' r;Si'OlHrte'thehala-of;.meaning approach is W6rner's.(1940) .
of IIlimited determination" (RahttfenbestJmmtheit)ofan .
. ..... .Kpression. Accotdlngto expressiorrisdc;termined'hy '.'
.' .' .. suDject'o{; onlywtthifl'Celttain HtTii'ts; ontheother'hQQ ...'
.' ......'.... itrmayvafY"&mong,Antlividats'beca'(Jse,'bt .
"'express;ons; .Furthermore,.the.... same 'expr'essiofama'y . be
. related.to quite different subjects of exp,ression within <:Jifferent..
.'.f)erS!0ns.W:(jri1e'r ci'tes from supporting .
.,lniJatter,,d presents hts. support$ his
y;ew:" '! .',;,." .... .' ,;:,:!' . v',' .' ';.; .. .'. .
:............ "::.:Theptobf:em:of .
be?tween sttJbje'Ct
1
ofexpre'sltbn.arid disciJssed ' .
. (19127)I:By'SA 01' crYlng,. iieJd" .
. (Au$dem Felde geherj), andstartle 'c:hHteri hesbpwed'.
maVHave. on'
i.i '. . both the internal stateand theexternal situaHQnof ari'ind'fvldual. .'
: ..he,cHticizedJthecJ.fissific'atiofl tb!!,earfY
...... E_:ress1dn;Pso/t::;h'ol'()gy which'ccitegorizeS'exptessldn
ofits most frequent occurence allthere"fore eils;. up withfalse
int'erpretations iristances. Lewinstatesthatexpres,sion
142
tOURNAI O! NONVIRBA! IIIIlt\VIOI{
like any other behavor, belongs to different "psychic levels"
(seelische Schichten); expression is characterized by an interaction
bctween different "interlockcd psychic systerns" (inein-
andergeschachtelte seelische Systeme). Therefore, expression can
be understood only by taking into consideration all the different
goaIs, motives, and apprehensions of the individuaI.
Unfortunately, lewin did not elaborate his view further, and his
influence on Expression PsychoJogy seems to have been quite
limited.Similarideascanbefoundmuchlaterin thework ofFrijda
(1953, 1969)orGottsc;:hardt (1958).
. Frijda related hunlan expressions to the "positionality"
of the actor, Le., the person's spccificposition.
towards the actual situation. ThisD4tch psychologistobviously
stands in thetraditionofExpression did infhJcnce
its tater development strongly (cf. 1965). His concept ()f
positionaUtyisdiscijssed intwoEngJisl1a/tides(Frijda,19.5'3,19(9),
Cottschaldt (1958} lookaquite,shnilrapproach. For'hlm .
express[ons depend... on the percep:tionoft'le actualsQdal
situation;h{a,sodal bvthe
'. "demands. to . .. .to.l,iea,r"
n\h(s byboth
. thesenderan.d theposslblerece,lver; ancJthe
. ismQ{Jetate.'d bY.tbeaender's.
'.petce.ptionfthe ".... ... .'i,\ ...... ,:,;;.:. ....... , .'. 7,;" '.
'. ',. . .eXPFes,sl'on, .'
impfeSSfQno.fthe, byJbe.'
.sender (19.f)5),;,who,di8tiogtJishes
". between '.. .' .
"\ .
- . da
contr:ibute .to .. :a"$ndel,s:ua'(lual
positiona'Uty" . (Aktl;ls(posltlonallta.tl,...whereby.' poslti:ong:fU, .
..
_ .. .... ; .11;..,
. e)(pt'$sioq; .91::: . und.er:stoo(f'\the'
%t>;. .' : .'.."
eil.s,: the:>reteiver:
. rl!$p.O.{\(J..:;,; .' ,.'....:......:.:;' ;.. ,) " ... ;... :'1
I
-- .. is " thirdperson.
. I
i
senders
- '
..:f .. .'.Pi;:.' . "C;';'.
t
,: t "..... .':,'.
I
14.
JI NS ASfNDOHPI, .IAHAU) WAlUIOI I
Thesedistinctionsshowsomeinterestinganalogiestomodern
nonverbal communicalion research, especially to Ekman and
Friesen's (1969) distinction of informative, interactive, and.
cornmunicative behavior, whereby informative behavior may be
relatcd to expressive value and discovery value, interactive
behaviorresemblesKirchhoff'sreactivevalue,andcommunicative
behavior resembles to some degree communicative value of

, expression.
t
i
i
i
I
. Howis expressionperceivedl I
I
... 'Although this question has become important'n today's
t
research, Expressin Psychologywassefdom explidtly C.oocelned
withthatpoint.Itpftenwasstatedthattheunityofexpressionand
meaning.cannat be.discussed's"eparately trom impression ('f.
Husar, 1973), Le., that expression'and hnpressioll can only be
.' understo@das agestalt,iAseparableirltbdistinct There,fore,
tha,cof1cepts to Understand th.e p,rpcess, ()f
alsQplay Ei majotpartJn .
'formation.
thetealwilo/s'eJ<isted aiht>ther'lfriedf ,the
of ani),lo,Io/< . ,....
. appraac!a{t6(. expJ,IGttheotie,swereJ?roPQseq, t tr:;eq,tq ,......
theeJ(;presSion.. Qffhese ..
ofimpressioncan,:be siriiihlrWi;1y.On C1f'.
the
. :.A. . . ,
Ilereeiver<,recg"ires fhis'ettav1r# '.
subj,ectof f.}'ri'
chajncolls;ists reltionaf (,oocepts:Expression .....
attribution. '.. ... '. ". .. ... ' .
. . After illt.this basiS .n9-t the .,.....
B.fJJhswJkiail,Je,lIS ...a'$,pf.hlbQf.nation.
has. bec01J1e NA . 1969:
Scherer, 197!:): ..
obv,MlUS 0";tnel'evel ofmltni'fesfalIQOS: Tral1/state<
on .
Extern"Hlat';bn:>>.rpe:rteptlon ,>. . . . ....... '....
.. ... The ,.,
aAd.the use:ofthe
1
leAsemdqel'i(i'tdy'-s'rese,arc,",JiE!s.prin;ta:riJy in
the conceptuaHzation f.perc>epfi'oh"and fnference/attribution
i
loH
)(HJHNAI ()I N()NVIIWAI HIIIAVI<)I{
processes. While the Idtter btlse conclusions only on measurable
aspects of perception accuracy, nonverbal sensitivity, and welt-
defined cognitive inference models, thc former have dcveloped
some more or less obscurc modds to cxplain llw underlying
processes.
, Imitation theorists I)OSluli\tmt t,hnt thtl should hllve
some lo pvr<:eivml bhaviol'. This imitation, in
turn, should Inducean expericnceora feeling wHhin the receiver,
which then is attributed to the person perceived(Hinausverlegen).
This v;ew was stressed particularly by lipps (1907) and Klages
(1950). Both authors claim that 'some, 'iimitation drive"
(Nachahmungstrieb) exists that makes possible the understanding
of others, or"empathy"(Einfhlung). The lies in the fact
,thalt'tliis drive ot te,ndency to i:mitate an other person's behavior
has never been verified. The poly proQf often was to invite the
.:readerto look athisownbehaviorandbythatto. rea:lize the truth .
./of theargumenl(forinstance,peQple.vawning)ogethe,rl) .
." ,.Some thes:hQfU=ornings. lipps(1907)U'ied to ....
,telaboratetheconcep"t princi!pJe,stathlg
.'. ,tn'lHfje'fs9tiS"ha\(e ,via . .. thatcertaih
.,xpfessio'lls .ar@' to iand"wil', when
of knowledge., This .
.
.' ''eflJatgemeHtofdje' QfdoQt ,further.
-'
" teflQ&Ocr"sometimes ....
termed fot' lRphracRer, 1963),..
'..... .. lied' .
... :' fhchtE!r ,I.SOO suchentity.
< driv'e" ibi that
.. rlhe'r'... , '"7. .; "ader .thls: term'." PIe'
.". di$tln:gtJishes betw.een'five ty\pesJ>.f'.. processes"'"
(1957): . ,"'" !;:
. thaf,' .'.' .
'........ '..', ,"',:
':" ,'}{'Odenti:ngJ,; ,ilQQtl:'{ef,> .
'. .' ..'n1:(J\;,errteht's'to.' linp,' aOQ;';JJ. hera'Cit'k)!n.
C
(:
. i
.:.... Motric irinitatlon of'..
.'.' '. ,'j'tJsfttle group .
I
. .situations, 'ih, .............. '.. '. ... ." .
-, behavior' .
.
... ''<(Ji'fferent 'hvthesimultaneouslnductjon":' .
11 NS ASI NDOIU'f WA" no I I
of thc same crnotional !ltate, parlicularly by situational
IIldcomotoric Le., expressive behavior caused by a
congruent imagination in different persons.
Other Expressive psychologists used concepts, nearly as
vaguc as the irnitation drive. Sonle of these concepts were quite
sirnilar to Jung's (1960) ideas about "intuitive perception.
11
This
cQncept states that persons perceive other persons unconsciously,
a form not of "irrational," but rather of "extra-rational"
perception. concepts were Kroh's (1934) "physiognomie
perception," where meaning is obtained imrnediately without
. interfering reflections or conscious processes, and Wellek's (1943) .
. "complex-qualitative understanding of expression and essence."
. These vague concepts. contributedmuch .. to the view of .
.. Expression Psychology as being unscientific.. Nevertheless, the.
distinction between an itnn)ediate fprm of impression formation
.and a less immediate, more reflectiveforin senSeas
.. recent research on hemispherictUfferenes intheperceptioo of ..
emotional facial expression shows (cf. Mosc()\Iitch, ScuUioo' &.
Chfistie, 1976;Suberi& Mc:Keever,1977). . .. ... ...... > ......'.
.. .One f1'nal aspect of impression theories has to be nientiooed. .. .
. . thatis in particular im:portantwithin of
..lheories. It :was hypothesizedthatinddcediniitative behaviorin '
\ .torn;will rhe .... .
..: rnost reccnt representaHve olthisldea"b Rohrac'''er{196,3r in hIs .........
(
. i'rudiment theory" (Rudimeiltentheorie). FolloWlng. Carpenter's
!
ideomotork law he state$ that imitaled.m.ove'ments will.indtlte ':
usually these. movemerlts(WhtHlW:e
see,Someone belr18 sad,for eXc1rriple,we wil'firni,tate thesad fadal.
a."t:J Ji) 'tut.n
will
,and--inthatway we-wfil4 ...
... ..... Nundetstand" hirn). This hypothesis mftl1tbe' itr"ekedba<=kf9>the .
. ,... between Ja'rn,es.;l:ange- ;()f .tim.'oli;Qnand ..
, '. Cannon fotlowe{s fronie"Presstve ..
. .... . behavir in .. is .'.'
..... not fuHy resolved. t:t i$ stlU not;cte''r, yvhether or- nQt
. betUri:to
.untahgle th
i
lsprQl;Iem tai,rd,,1974;
... .......... ' . ...' . . :.,... ..... ).
. .,.Thoughm'ost()fthe o;E
.... Psycholgy presented hete mayseem rather obscute, theywere' .....
the ba:sis and frameworkJor sorne results. . ..
14b
HHJHNAI. 01 NONVI ,.WAI. 111 IIAVIO!<
on f acial expression, voice, and body movementtobereported in
the following parts of theseries. Apart from sorne strangelooking
terms Expression Psychology has contributed some important
results loour understandingof nonverbal behavior, and are
atleastsomethemes,wheretheoriesof Expression Psychologyand
nonverbal communication research are not far ilpart from each
other. I t 15 our opinion that this connection has not bocn
sufficientlyrecognized in presentresearch.Onereasonmaybethe
languagebarrier. ToJower this barriersomewhatis oneaimofthis
series. Another aim may be more ambitious; we will try to
demonstrate that not all of Expression Psychology was pure
;'metaphysks"Or just nonsense.
REFERENCES
. . . ' '. '. ..' . .'
Arnheim, R. Experimentell-psychologische Untersuchungen tum Ausdrucksproblem. Psy
ch"/Q.8;s,he fors.chung, 1926, 11, 2432. . .... ..... .. .... . .
... ; R. The gestalt theoryofexpression. Psycho/ogicslReview,1949, 56, 15.0,171.
I . '
Bhler,K Ausdwcfuthealie. Jena: G. flst'her, 1933. . .
... S')f:ac;bpsychologie. .Jena: C. Fiscaer, 1934; . .
Buser, R. Ausdruckspsycho/og;e. MUflchen: E. .
Buytendijk, F. J. J. der;menschlichen HaiWng ,.md Bewegung. Berl.ln:
..'... .. ..'... ... .. ....... .... . .. ... .
pitheemotJoos iaman and anima/so loiidon: J. Murray,1672;
,-J., .t W; V. T 01 Categories, oriBtns.
..... ..... usse,-andt'OdlrJa. 1. .... . .. ........ ... . .... ... j
.... qfPsychology, 1981, : ... ..
.... JOlleI" J.J. Ideen Mimik; .Be.din:A. Myliu5, 171fS186; . ... .. ... .. ..........' ..c .
.... ;tlach. A.ie P$ycf,Olosieder PsychOlogie, .
.. '. ...<:: . ........ .... ... .. .. ... .... .....'. .... ..,.>.... .
. ' #. . .. . j.- - " ,. ': . . . '.. , .,"
....... Jhe:'uttdetJtand.lngoffad.l:expressions01 Psycholosica, 195}.
..... '9"l9+362. ..... . . .. ... .......... . .. ..' .. . ........' . .'.' .. .
... lfl L.. In
".; . ; ;,.. .. .p$ychQ1OSy,vol. ... l'tos",969, ' ...... ;' ..... .
.. ..G,(I,tJsf!hfl1dt,.ILH.ndfunaUnd' Ausdruck In P'svcholbalede',<petsonllchkelt.le/tsehr:lltfur .
c;.'. ..;;i/: .. ... .' ...,','.. .:L':; . ':,;,' :I,) . ...
...... ;"."..t:, ce .. .. '. S.d. ... e ....:), ..... ..... :.I,l.'Cb. d:...... . t.l .. o.,.r.eo. '1:1\. R,. KI"C.. ,.
'. t,/ Hanilhuc'f8erPtychqlp,It. vor! pp.,l?113.. .',,'..
. . ... r..ffel,fl.(Eds.)tfTheconJext o"cl., .
......"" ....:..... ;h . f.;, ..;.. ":" ..'.,........ .. . .... .,.:'.; '';:) ','. .
,> ; (tMB, C; ..... .. ..
,"fkal (;l.'CtunasifFlic;hes 3..
. I
... C(unW'tagen der Ausdrudc5'plycf.olosJe. (Ed.1
... G . H08rete, pp.i11..219. ': ..:............
I
I
I
Ktaaes. 1, Crun.illa,en der Charakterkunde. leipzig: ,. A, Barth.1926. .. .... ..... '.'. .
.Klases, L. der W/ssen.chalfvom A.,,$druck. f)Qnn: 8ouvi,r,i9PP, .. '..... . .
O. In seitler atigerneiopsy.cbols.lschen Qet;leutUI)8f
'... Neuft!PSycho(o,isc,hes,ruqJe.n, 1934,12, ' '. "",. ." .....'.. .. . .
.. ' '"'".' .' '
.': '.
147
ItNS ASLNlJORPl', HARAlD WAUBOIT
laird, J. D. S(!If"ttrlbution of emotion: The effectsofeKpreuivebehavloronthequalityof
emotionalcxperience.Journal 01 I'ersonality aodSodal Psycho/oBY. 1974,29,475-486.
lavatcr, J. c. Pllys;ognom;sche fragmente, zur 8e/rderung der Menschenkenntnis und
Menschenliebe. leipzig: Weidmann&Reich, 17151778.
Leonhard. K. Ausdruckssprache der Seele. Berlln: Haug,1949.
lersch, P. Gesicht und Seele. Mnchen: E. Relnhardt, 1955.
Lersch, P. Zur Theorie des mimischen Ausdrucks. Zeitschrift tr Experimentelle und
Angewandte Psychologie, 1957, 4, 409419.
i lewin, K. KindlicherAusdruck. Zeitschrift fr Padsgog;$che Psychologie. 1927, 28, 510-526.
I tipps, T. DasWissenvonfremdenlehen. InT. Lipps(Ed.), Psychologische Untersuchungen I.
I
leipzig: Engelmann, 1907.
! Moscovitch, M., SculUon, 0., &Christle.D. Earry vs. latestagesofprocessingandtheirrela-
(
tion to functional hemlspheric asymmetries In face recognltion. Journal of
Experitnental Psycho/pgy: fluman Percepfion and Performance, 1976, 2,401-416.
Piderlt, T. Wissenschaltliches System der Mimik und Physiognomik. Detmold: Klingenberg,
.1867. .
Richter,H. ZumProblemderideomotorischenPhanomene.Zeitschrift fr Psychologie, 1957,
. .' 161,161-254. , .
Rohracher. H.Kleine Charakterkunde. (10th ed.)Wien: Urban & Schwarzenbers,1963.
Schererm,K. R. Infereneerulesinpersonalityattributionfrom voicequality:Theloudvoice
ofextraversion. ~ u r o p n loumalol Sodal Psycho/ogy,1978, 8, 467-487,
Suberi, M:, &McKeever, W. f"Oifferential right hemisphericmemorystorageof emotional
. and non-emotional faces. Neuropsycho/ogia, 1977, 15, 757-768.
Strehle; H. Mienen, Gesten und Geblden. MlJnchen: E. Reinhardt, 1954.
Tagiuri, R.Personperceplion. In G. lindzey,& E. Aronson{Ed;}, The handbook of sodal psy-
chot08Y. vol. 3, Reading:Add'son-Wesley,1969, pp. 395449: .
.Tourallgeau,R., & Ellsworth, P. C. Theroleoffaeialresponsein theexperienceofemotion.
10uma/ol PersonalityandSocial Psych%gy,1979, 37,1519-1531 .
.Wellek, A; HeUpach's"DeutschePhysiognomik"unddieProblemederPhysiognomik uber-
haupt. Zeitschrift fr Angewandte Psychologie und Charakterkunde. 1943,66, 1-41.
Worner, R. Theoretische und,experimentelle Beitrge zum Aus'drucksproblem. Zeit$chrjft
, fr Angewandte Psychologie lind Charakterkunde, 1940,59, 257-318......... . .
Wol{f, W. The expression 01 personality. NeW York: Harper, 1943. .
. ".... .