German Expression Psychology _R

8/13/2019 German Expression Psychology _R

1/13

CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE GERMAN IlEXPRESSIONPSYCHOLOGY TO NONVERB LCOMMUNIC TION RESEARCH~ R T THEORIES ND CONCEPTSJensAsendorpfHaraldG. Wallbott

: ... / : . . . . ,:: , .. : J : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r f ; r ; ~ ~ t R ~ : , n ~ ~ ' ~ i ~ ~ i ~ ~ ; \ ~ * ) l r ; : s i ~ ~ Y ~ O l ~ ~ ~ i : : ~ , ~ ~m ls first partf a senes'of a r t t c r ~ s t b t h e r f 1 ~ h W ' ~ " c q ~ e ' " researchon! faCial expression;:bridy'iMtivement,,'antf'spet!d'fYattd: v 6 i C ~ ' ; fJkebfias'il'lld 'oOlnceptsof thfs.,neacrlyankhokwn ll>ranon ef psy:ttho1o:gy ~ r t r ~ V i i e w e ; d illitdQ J ~ < ; " $ S e d i .TQpjcs, d ~ d e t h e , Q ~ t . u . r . ~ Qf e ~ p , : e . s ; s j v e b e b . v ~ 9 r , , t ~ ~ l ; e l p t j ~ 1 i l ~ e t w e e l s t a t e s f t ~ a i t s and e x p r e s ~ ~ M ~ " b ~ h a v i Q r , an,j, t h f e p ~ ~ ~ e p t i ~ n Qf~ x p r e $ S l v e behavlor. ", ~ : . : . ' . ' '. . > , , ' .' ,. : \ ,,: ,I/ " .we shouldnow concentratensearchingfor ~ e w a v e n u ~ s ' ()f '!'i : appr'aotitdpa"lictlitady:i: vha j S'{(ioy@f) o r . n a , f 1 s o ~ i a t e o m munication!lwithlllt . 0 m y i R g i O O o . m u : t h a b o u t r i g : i d ~ ~ o n ..011mJtty

; \ l v H h j t i a ~ ~ c f j h o : n , $ o . $ m e p J t " l g n t a 4 fQspodfahHUY. lWeaecd,mote, . q ~ ' $ , ' " ~ t . Q l ~ ' ~ P t : j m e ~ ~ " Y " n ( ) ~ ~ t i v ~ t i ~ . Q V i W t . t I d J j ) e . preferabletotheinductivecqUecting J ; ~ j a ~ d ' A i . ~ ~ ~ t ; M sbecomeourrespectabJehabit (lsraet&iajfel, 1972,p. 4) .. ' :1 .1"." fi ,: > " ,. ::

. J h i s " ~ : l h 1 ~ l b n " b } h ; 5 t , f . { t t . ; ' t O ; ~ O t t f t t . l ) 9 v ( : b m 9 R V ' 1 n 7 ~ ~ ~ N \ I , ' i 1 f l t ) f t ~ e 5 . t i 0 ' n o h v ~ r n t ~ t ) t t U T f ~ t t g f t t 1 h , ~ ~ l i , r t J \ ' i W f 1 i ' t t ~ l f l * / t ~ $ e W i f l g tt16;.< ; ' ~ :\f ; . ~ h ) X ~ r } . i ' ~ ~ ' ; j ':, r. }}L:Qit1,/qh'(\IJ ~ : : ~ & h : j ? ; , : , ~ r H h>]:i ' ) , ' r ' ~ 1 ~ ... " ~ ~ f ; l i i N;;;i ; l , i ~ d ' 1 " 1 1 J : R g t " " i ~ ~ f ~ - ~ t m : 1 M ~ J ; 1 W 1 ; r J ~ t ~ ' . P f h i ; ~ t ~ i " : ( Q J D . t t f t ( t ~, b ~ ~ . , . ofl,t1p ~ Q U r n ~ ( f ~ u r ~ . t J $ ; r : i ~ ~ . '. ,IO,W, ,tl,V, f . " . ~ . , W ~ l h ~ W W ) I " I ) l r. ,< . 1.0.'. t ~ w ~ . , . . l d e . , k ; D o w n l ~A m n j l ' c a r 1 p ' ~ Y ~ h o t i j M f s ( s . ~ , \ ' e n t ~ ' : J n l ( r ( : 9 . l i t r i t ) ' d t l d n s ahot ( . . , . I e ~ afcw"'('olt\ccl. .., J e t i s ~ l l 9 r i d 6 f p n jA1I1fi8ld Cl W i l ; ~ i o t # i i t r ~ w i t n U l l { 1 ) r l i v c i i l t ~ < i H t U e 5 s ( , h . V{eW

~ ~ . r ~ m u w ; : f j o , ~ 1 1 1 q ~ ~ I : ' P r ~ . p r " ' ~ ' f , h o " , ~ d : J. a q w e s f : e ~ t ~ Hftrfo/tbGit,)' aNbotti :Jtl5tus.U:e,bttrf ., , 'n ' 1 i } 1 ~ r . I I < l Q t ) / m f ~ p , t . t ~ f I . l l i w .. ~ ) v . : f t : i " ' ; 5 ' 1 ~ / l l . .,.' . ....' , ;

0191-5811,>1 11/JfltH/I J.;JfJll'i@ 1981 U i l t j . l ~ t n S d . r t u " ,tt/'u"

. ~ i V T ~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r . ~ ~ t " ~ i ( j ~ . ~ i P t f q o , , G i ~ l s ~ , ~ ; . , ~ c ~ t . \ ~ r ? , ~ , ? V \ : i " " f U i "


2/13

101 /{NAt Of NONVlRB/\ . BlIIAVIOI{

past fifty or sixty ycars of r e s ~ a n " ' h in the area, we in Germany seemto be in an extraordinary position: what is called nonverbal communication research here or anywhere else in Europe (for a currentreview sec EIIgring, 1980) is influenced almost exclusively byAmerican psychology or linguistics. From Darwin's time until about1960 it seems that little happened in turopean psychology. This isespedally strange in Germany because tllere was much interestingpsychological research pertinent to nonverbal communication,"Expression Psychology" Ausdruckspsychologie), which culminated in the thirties of this century.Since Expression Psychology was increasingly transformed intoa radst ideology under the Nazi regime, most German emigrants

~ t o p p e d working in the field (e.g., Kurt Lewin did some interestingresearch before he had to emigrate). Two examples of the sparsework done by these emigrants are Wolff (1943) and Arnheim (1949).In the fifties, there was a brief renaissance of Expression Psychologyin G'errnafJY, bllt it ~ a s s()Qn critic,ized for its oHen very speculative, , \t " , . l Y . ' , , ' ' ( . ' . . , ' , , . - ,~ h ~ l r a < : ; t ~ ~ " ~ f } S t .It ~ J ~ d ' r ~ l p E t QH1t;:kly andquie,tJy at the end pf tbel S i ~ t i e s # jiJ,$t , e f ( ) r ~ GeJtl;lan nOAverb.atcqe:nOltunication re.sear(:h Wq

U o r i g ' i n a , f j e d ~ / b v a new' generation oJ psychologis,ts, Tbis new line'(lf .'resea'rch'developed in e T m ' ~ n v , a S ' e v e r y w h e r ~ else"a;lmost totaUyunaffected oy Expressioh P'sVthdhJgy. . , . qHaving this in mind, the purpose of the prese'nt series of fourarticles is t w o f o l d ~

, " ~ . , ' . : . . . - .T o p r ~ e B t a c o n Q i s e : r e v 1 e w Qf 'Expressiot )'Ps.YQh0iogV asfar asit ICOflC'erns nOlilverba I ltQmm'llJnicatt'onreserc.h. .To ,enablerion-German ,speaking .res.earchefZs'i;n :pa:liticuJar top r ( ) f i i t l f r 6 m d l e i t h e o r l e s , ( O f l c e p t ~ ; arid eKJjetimental results ofE x P ~ s M ( i t f P : ~ V c h o 1 o g t "; . , '

': >.Regarding the second purpose, we have tried to presentan. f;1JmQ&t c p m p J e t e r ~ y i ; E t w < ( ) f i G , r m Q n / n t e f a t t . t f . ' a ~ 9 u . t e.xpedrhental

~ 9 f k : , ~ Q . f l . f h b , ~ h ~ ~ M 1 9 . ' ~ ( l 1 l d . l l Q O O ; , ~ f ar' a$, d.;\$ts pertillsntl.to :facia,{l. ( ~ c u t l l of the e r l 3 , ~ ) , b o d l l v : ( P ~ r t t l l ) , and vocaJ'expression (PartiV). o ; a f f e c ' ~ s c r f l d p e r s t m a U t y ~ r , a . l ~ l 8 i n d a ' i s ( ) ' ~ ( J ' s k - e t c h t f h e m a h l j J f d e a sShdconce."'ts :ol.l'V. h. t . ' e i ~ s l . ; f l . c . " p g v c h o f b . ' , , ~ ( . x . ~ . ' . . ' J ; ' r \ t ~ ' f ' i'n , ' t h e s . ~ ' n . : . i l , i : ; ~. , ' """"" .',," , ~ t ' ' ' ' ' j ' ' 'U,,:l '. : , , , , ~ : r , , , : , . ' , , ; M ' ,g ,,8,, , ' . e. "QO,V A { ~ a J c . b a o n ~ l s ..,..W e ' : i w f U : ~ : ' t l O ' f ~ ,dticUI ,po.vsiognq,m,ic ,,eues o'f, . ; e r S ( ) n a ~ 1 , t y . ot ' f a d e ' , ~ e t ~ H ~ ~ f ~ ~ f : ' , . t h e i r , ~ ~ I J " : , i ~ f ~ ' i ~ e ' d : i v l u e " f ~ rnonverbal cornmunicaliort/itt\We...... 'wU1'ofuftaJ(. J 'th'"e re'eafth . .. . . . . . . () 'onthe . x p r e s s i v ~ . v a J u ~ . f } ~ ~ a , r t . ' f j l , t ; t s , " SUC'A\.8shandwriUntl orafl t '

P ' r o d u c ~ s . } r \ : I ~ 1 ~ ' } 2 " " , ' : : i , t ~ ~ , " r ' ~ " ,. ""', .I
http:///reader/full/nOAverb.athttp:///reader/full/pertillsntl.tohttp:///reader/full/nOAverb.athttp:///reader/full/pertillsntl.to


3/13

,l :

II "

137JENS ASrNDORPf. HARALD WAll.UOT r

Regarding the first purpose, we have chosen a non-historicalsystema tic approach in order to provide clarity and a rapidorientation for the reader. Therefore, we will not discuss the courseof theoretical reasoning as it developed from 1920 to 1960, butstructure our overview by discussing three basic questions withwhich Expression Psychology was concerned.

Although there have been several different approaches, alltheories of Expression Psychology share one common belief: thereis some Usubject of expression" (Ausdruckssubiekt), Le., anemotion, mood, attitude, or disposition, which is expressed as an"expression" (Ausdruck) in some "medium of expression"((\usdrUCKSJnedium; cf. Kirchhoff, 1965). In thiscontext three basicquestions can be asked:1. Wh'at constitutes an expression?2. What relationship exists between the subject of expression

and the expression' itse.lf?,::3. How is expression #erceivedl

hat is ex;press ion?,' , Onefeature typ'icalf ~ U i i h e o r i E s ( ) f E x p r e s s i o n PsychologV is;hat they 'are t n o t e c " i ? i P c ~ r o e d w;,th e x p ~ s ~ J ( i ) 1 i 1 aso i t appears in, !ObS,fvable behavio,/ 't,han with tf,e, yndedyiAg';'SGfbJject of,,.expression." ,One reasQn , J l , l i g ~ . t , b ~ ,that, most E ' x p f ~ s i o n, P s v c h o J o g i s t s . were ',Rredoniinanily .j,ftltcre$teQ in, "devetf)pingdiagnostil! tbdls. Therefdre, ;the s J ~ r t i n g ( P Q i n t Qfmosttheod:es was ...notthe'subject ,f X p ' r ~ s s i ( ) n b " ~ . i h e , ~ x p r e s ; s i o n ,itself, acnd'su'tlJiects

o f i e ~ p r e s ~ f d n 'were seldoi carefully investigated. Subjects:;'were, g e n e r a l l y c 9 n s i d e r e ~ , b ~ l J ~ , f m { l n ~ , n ~ ; , Q ( , : t t r ( U J l l ~ n t psv,cwkstate'$i'. S l I J ~ , ~ ~ . , ' ~ f f ' e ~ t i v ~ s l ~ l ~ S / U f ) , ~ r ~ o n a l i t Y c f l t r a . e d 5 t i c s i ' s u ~ t : t as

l ( t ~ ' M p e J a m t t n t s " ( T e f 1 n e r a m e n t ) f and , r { a r e l ~ } , s ( ) c i a l tattltUdes.Sbme . nblisttc theorj es, c J f l t M ~ d . t b ~ , ~ , i t i ' l w a v s , t h e : ~ h o l e' p ' e t ~ ~ r 1 " a { l ~ i t y t f l ~ t is acfual,iz'ed. J n a gj\(en, moment; end thaf''"itis, thetefarEtimposstble to. d e c Q ) P Q s e p e r s n a l ' f ~ Y , :intE) distinct fdaitsor st i la t@ S l ' ' , ' ., , ' ' ' ..

Starting with adefinition of "expression," these lheories t'riedto separate expreSs!9(t .. allR8ctiQn; by , i ~ Q l f t t J ' " g certahi'acfs' orcharal terisficsof 'at'tswitij. i'expressJ\ve, ~ ~ ; t l l ~ ~ " E A u s d r u c k s w e r t } .There were qUite d i f f e r e n t ~ l p p r o a c h e s to this problem.


4/13

JOURNAl 01 NONVrRBAI. n n I V I O I ~

Tracing back to Piderit (1867) and Darwin (1872), attemptswere made to isolate special aets having on y an expressivefunction. "Genuine expressive movements" (reineAusdrucksbewegungen) were differentiated from "goaldirected movements" Zweckbewegungen) above all by Klages(1926) and Buytendijk (1956). These attempts of definitionwere often criticized .because obviousJy goal-directed. movements also may have expressive value at times. Bhler(1933) conceived the concepts of expressiveness and goaldirectedness as just two aspects of the same phenomenon (Le.,an action), and lersch (1955) spoke of varying degrees ofexpressiveness and goal-diretedness for a given act.

-' Another approach was to differentiategenuine expressionsfrom "arbitrary movements (Willkrbewegungen, e.g.,Klages, 1926), or more specificaUy, trom "presentations".. (Darstellungen).Whiie g o a l - d i ) e c ~ j e d m o v e m e n t s can be. . defined functionaHy without necessarily trating thern back tointentions, arbitrary movements .re, . . ..' . ' . . . . .. , ,

~ I l of these . p p r t i ~ h . j : b f l ~ e f l " l n i , ~ ? < p ~ r , e s s l o h a r e $ ' f m l l , ~ t 1,(1 JtwO.l esPcb. FJflS t, t b . ~ j . a t l h . Y e ) ~ . t b i 1 c e p t ' o l : ~ genu irie expres,slQn.. " ;-::;'.; . : ~ ~ ~ : ; ~ : ~ . : ~ } . r ~ : : : } : . ~ , \ < ; ~ ~ t ; : : ; : I . ; < i ~ : : . : . ~ . ; ; - : : .. ' - : ~ , .... : ~ ~ : : . .' . ~ : , . . . '. . ,

j,III

..t

,H'" __ , , , - _ _ .- , ~ . "
http:///reader/full/socialsituatlc%3E.rJhttp:///reader/full/socialsituatlc%3E.rJ


5/13

139IfNSASfNDORPF. "'ARAlDWAllOT r

in mind, Le., totally spontaneous expressions,as itwere,unspoiledby any demands of thc sodal situation. This concept has beenfatal for Expression Psychology because most researchers werepushed to look for genuine expressions neglecting the widespectrum of othcr expressivemovements, or (even worse)to takeobvious presentations for genuine expressions (leonhard, 1949;Strchle, 1954). Consequences for application of ExpressionPsychology in psychodiagnostics have been disastrous.Furthermore, all approaches tackle the definition ofexpressionin afairlyanalytic way by tryingto identify distinet actshaving.expressive vatue, and with afairly statie concept of anexpressjveact:either the aet is n expressionor ithas certain staticexpressive features. With the rise of Gestalt Psychology in.Getmany,both the analytic approach and the staticconcept:ion ofan expressiveact was criticized.Arnheim (1928; see part of this. e r i e ~ ) showed that parts of faciatexpressions change theirexpressivequaHty depending on the ton text of other partsof theexpression. Flach (192(1; seepa r t J 11) found that professionalda'neersrepresents'peci'fk contents not alwaysb y s p ~ d . f i c g e ~ t u r e s ,hut 'byspecifk dynamic m o v ~ m e n t patterns. Wr;ner (1940; 'see ..Part Jl)ca'me toanalgous resultsbydetailed analyses of r h e s o ~ .mnkeys"chatterlng and anger e,xp,ressions.The lattf twoauthors .. '.UkewfseemphasitecJfhe id:eathat "BlOSt, m o v ~ m e n t gein ,theireXJ)res'sivequalities by the'jr "frow, c h a r a c ~ e r i s ~ i c s ( 4 b l a t l f m e r k rinde) and cannofbe described c o m p l ~ t e l y by staU


6/13

1-1UJOURNAl Of NONVI RBAI, BlIIAVIOI{

receiver lo the sender. Howcver, he did not furt her elaborate thisrather unusual approach with respect to nonverbalcomillunication.What relationship cxists Jctwecm su/>jecl o expression andexpression?

Expression Psychology was developed chiefly for diagnosticreasons. Consequently, the relationship between expression and its, subject was essential for all theories. The rather naive assumptionof a constant relationship, a r e m ~ i n d e r of physiognomists suchastavater (1775-1778), can neverthetess be faund in theories ofexpression (cf. Klages, 1926; Strehle, 1954; Lersch, 1955). Thesetheorists thooght that it shuld be possibte to estabiish a kindofJexicon bfexpressins which assigns a meaning to each expressionin terms of sUbjects of expression. course more than onemeaning was usyally f04nd for an expressive act, andtOflsequently esch 'expression was explaine,d by ,a halo of

.. m e a n i n g ( D e u : t u n g s h o f } . N ~ v e r t h e l e s s , t'he 'rela tionship e t w e e ~, anexpression a;ndits halo of meaning was c q . n ~ e i v e d as,a const3Qt,Olle. , ' ,. , ,Often t.heoriststried tosUbstantiate empir,i


7/13

141IENS ASENDORPf, UARAU) WAltnOTl

were qu ite common. Holzkamp (1965) further distinguished amongthree types of con1monly used analogies:Analogies of course VerlaufsanaJogien), using criteria such asdlrectlon, form, and succession In tirne of expressive

l 1 1 o v ~ , m e n t s (cf. Engel, 1765 86; Klages, 1 9 ~ 6 ; Lersch, 1957).Analogies by q u a l i ~ y (as in almost all physiognomie literature).Analogies of space, using criteria such as ideal spatialproportions, the synlbolic meaning of spatial directions, andso on.i iI fi 1 . Strehte(1954} and Lersch (1957) were representatives of a"i I .' special f9rmof this inference-byanalogy branch. They stated thatI, . . c e r t ~ i n actions have both a function (in ful/iHing a goal) as weil asJ .i n expr


8/13

142tOURNAI O NONVI RBA IIII l t \VIOI{

like any other behavor, belongs to different psychic levelsseelische Schichten); expression is characterized by an interactionbctween different "interlockcd psychic systerns" inein-andergeschachtelte seelische Systeme). Therefore, expression canbe understood only by taking into consideration all the differentgoa Is, motives, and apprehensions of the individua I.Unfortunately, lewin did not elaborate his view further, and hisinfluence on Expression PsychoJogy seems to have been quitelimited. Similar ideas can be found much later in the work of Frijda(1953, 1969) or Gottsc;:hardt (1958).. Frijda related hunlan expressions to the "positionality"

( ~ o s i t i o n a l i t t ) of the actor, Le., the person's spccificposition .towards the actual situation. ThisD4tch psychologist obviouslystands in the tradition of Expression ~ y c h o l o g y a n d did infhJcnceits tater development strongly (cf. F r U ( f ~ , 1965). His concept ()fpositionaUty is discijssed in two EngJisl1a/tides(Frijda, 19.5'3,19(9),

Cottschaldt (1958} lookaquite ,shnilr approach. For' hlm .express[ons depend .. on the percep:tionof t'le actualsQdalsituation; h{a ,sodal n t ~ r , . a c t i o n ~ h e . y r e : h E ~ v i J . ~ i n H u e ' n c d bvthe'. demands. to . b r i n g Q n e ' ~ .. l n H u e n c ~ : .to.l,iea,r" ( G e / : t f J . l i l g s ~ u n d

. ~ ~ r k , u n g ~ a o s p r u c h l . f n\h(s s . e n s e . e x p r ~ s s , i p n J s d ~ t ~ r m ~ n ; d by both. the sender an.d the posslble rece,lver; ancJthe r e l a ~ ~ ' Q n s h , p b e t w e . e h . , s \ J b l ~ c t ( ) f e ~ p r e S S ; Q I l . i J . n q . ~ ? C p r e s s i o n ismQ{Jetate.'d bY.tbeaender's .'.petce.ptionfthe r e c ~ i v e r . ... ... . i,\ ...... ,:,;;.:. ....... , .'.,; .. ',. T h ~ ~ ' i n t r j < ; a t e r , ~ J " t i o n s h i p . b e t w e ~ , s u b j e J c ; ) f .eXPFes,sl on, .'

~ x p r ~ s s i q n , ~ f 1 d impfeSSfQno.f the, r e c t a , i v ' r a s a ~ H c l r ; > , ~ t e d byJbe '.sender ; s ~ l s o t \ ~ c e n t u a t ~ d l > v K i r c h J u ) j ; f (19.f)5),;,who,di8tiogtJishes. between f 9 : U ~ : n y a l u ~ s Q f ~ x P f ~ s s i o n . ~ j ' , .. .

~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ \ .- . ~ E x p r ~ s s i v ~ v a l u ~ / I ~ , . , t P w h a l , d e a f e e da ~ x p r e s s i ~ h scontr:ibute . to .. t h ~ , r e . a U z ~ H Q f 1 . Q l , :a $ndel,s:ua'(lualpositiona'Uty . (Aktl;ls(posltlonallta.tl,...whereby . poslti:ong:fU, .

r t 1 e a n ~ . t h e " W ~ ~ J f ~ ~ ~ ~ t t 9 n J q f ; ~ ~ e ~ A t i ~ t { ' b ~ l m 8 1 n t h e \ y : b t f d . ~ ' . _ I ' C o m " , . ~ r 1 I ~ a \ i x ( : : : ~ . y ~ ' ~ , , / ~ X l t e t , . ' .. J ; l c e 8 . ; ~ t i J e l : r e t e i V e : r ' < ~ ; Q f . ....; 1 ;..,. e)(pt' sioq; 8 e t \ ( ~ l j : e ( m . R t . $ S I O b .91::: b a M t ' n 8 ~ : und.er:stoo(f \ thes e n ( ) e " s " t ~ t e s t t ~ ; t i t $ / f e f l , I : ~ t ) I $ " : " ; ' i t>;. .' : .. .

" R ~ a c ~ J y ~ . y a l . . , ~ _ ~ ~ ~ i ; ~ e " i ; > : t p l w h a t , d e a r ~ e eil.s,: the:>reteiver:. rl!$p.O.{\(J..:;,; : , , ~ ~ ; ~ . , f : j ~ , ~ ; . : Y ~ \ ; ~ S , ; ~ J / ' . ,. :...... :.:; ; .. , " ... ; : 1 I- . , , ' [ j i s . ( o v e O ' J ; , J , : t ~ ~ ; ~ t J r , : r .. ~ ' , : w h a t 4 t } r ~ e \ is thirdperson.( n e l ( h ~ r $ ~ o . ~ ~ f , . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ t f . , , : ~ t e t . ~ ~ ~ ~ \ f : ~ , Q l l Q b J S i i o h s f r ( ) m t l l e . Isenders ~ ~ p r ~ ~ $ J . y ~ ~ ~ p .

- ' ; ~ . \ { ~ ' :' ' l , , ~ Y i . ~ :f . . ..Pi;:. . C;'; t

,: ..... . ' , '. I
http:///reader/full/rela~~'Qnsh,pbetwe.ehhttp:///reader/full/Aktl;ls(posltlonallta.tlhttp:///reader/full/8et/(~lj:e%E7%A8%AD.Rthttp:///reader/full/rela~~'Qnsh,pbetwe.ehhttp:///reader/full/Aktl;ls(posltlonallta.tlhttp:///reader/full/8et/(~lj:e%E7%A8%AD.Rt


9/13

14.JI NS ASfNDOHPI, .IAHAU) WAlUIOI I

These distinctions show some interesting analogies to modernnonverbal communicalion research, especially to Ekman andFriesen's (1969) distinction of informative, interactive, and.cornmunicative behavior, whereby informative behavior may berelatcd to expressive value and discovery value, interactivebehavior resembles Kirchhoff's reactive value, and communicativebehavior resembles to some degree communicative value of, expression.tiiiI . ows expression perceivedl I

I . . . ' Although this question has become important n today'st research, Expressin Psychologywas sefdom explidtly C.oocelnedwith that point. It pften was stated that the unity of expression andmeaning. cannat be. discussed 's"eparately tro impression ('f.Husar, 1973), Le., that expression' and hnpressioll can only be.' understo@das agestalt,iAseparableirltb distinct p a r t ~ . There,fore,tha,cof1cepts o f a n f o g y . s ~ d to Understand th.e p,rpcess, ()f' ( l ~ p ; r e s s i C ) ; ~ i , als play Ei majotpartJn t h e t h e o r i e s o n i t U J ~ , r e s s i , ( , ) n .'formation. B e . s i d e s l ~ e r a l f i e r . O b s i : : : u r ~ , c o n ~ I U s i p n s ; b v a n a l o 8 : Vthete alwilo/s'eJther'lfriedf r ~ a s o f l i i u i c e n t e t , e d ~ r o u n d ,the; ~ Q A c e f ) ' t of ~ i m 1 t a t ~ ~ n " " f ' { ~ l l ~ h , t n U , R ) : i ' ~ p h i 1 ~ t Y t g , , ~ t l e . ani),lo,Io/< . ,.appraac a{t6(. expJ,IGt theotie,swere J?roPQseq, t tr:;eq, tq ~ e 5 c r i l ; e ,..... .theeJ(;presSion.. t l 1 p r e s ' S i o p r o t ~ s s . M o . s f Qffhese h : n i t a : ~ i o , n t t l e o r i e s ..ofimpression can,:be f o ~ h \ a l i z e l J i ~ l : ~ siriiihlrWi;1y.On t h ~ J ~ v e J C1f .

m Q o J : f ~ s t a l t i c m the o l t o ~ i r y g ' t ~ a i h i ~ " b Y P f # h e s i z e , d : A P ~ r ~ n h ~ s ; a h~ p e r ; e ' n c e T h e ' J 1 e t s o n . ' s h o ~ t ' : ~ ~ p r e s . $ h t ~ b ~ ~ ~ ' l ( l Q ' f :. A. . A t ~ . ,Ilereeiver epfi'oh"and fnference/attribution
http:///reader/full/ltl1pres'Sio%22prot~ss.%E7%8D%AF.sfhttp:///reader/full/siriiihlrWi;1y.Onhttp:///reader/full/ltl1pres'Sio%22prot~ss.%E7%8D%AF.sfhttp:///reader/full/siriiihlrWi;1y.On


10/13

i

loH)( HJHNAI ()I N( )NVIIWAI HIIIAVI ~ 4 1 t ~ d .; "ader .thls: term'." PIe'

. . di$tln:gtJishes betw.een' five ty\pesJ>.f' u i ~ ~ o J j o t ( ) r k processes"'"(1957): . , ' ;:. : ~ ( ' : 0 r t h o t r o p i 5 m ~ ; u 1 ~ . ~ i ~ ' ~ ~ , ~ : b l q t ~ k i f , J ~ u j ~ U ~ . f ) f o c e s s e s thaf,' . . .'....... ' ., . ~ d j r e Q t ~ t h ~ { R e ~ ( : ~ p t p ~ ~ : ~ r ' g C \ o t J : 9 ' W f 9 W f , ~ P , t i ~ , l i ~ r ~ l l i ' a o ~ ," ' ,:

': ~ ~ . ,'}{'Odenti:ng J,; ~ ~ ~ ' c t i R n ~ , " . , l . ~ ' ' ' f { J l ~ ~ t ' 8 > ,ilQQtl:'{ef,> p e r s o n / ~ .. . . . n1:(J\;,errteht's' to.' linp, u ~ aOQ;';JJ. t g e ~ ~ ~ $ . H n s . f 9 : r ) ~ j ; s ' Q r : her a'Cit'k) n.C( : .

.:.... ' ~ Motric i n f ~ t t , " ' 1 . e ~ ~ ( p h e Q Q n l ~ n a , F ~ 4 ~ e d b y t r h ~ irinitatlon of' .. . '. , j tJsf ttle e x p ' f t ; s s v e ' m 6 Y , e m ~ . n f ; i A ~ ~ p ~ j o n a U y l n v o l v i n g group .. . situations, p a f t i ~ u l ~ r J y 'ih, n : ' \ , s ~ Q e h 4 \ Y h ) r . ; .............. '.. . . .. . .-, h E . X l ' f e s S : i 6 n ~ : d f 1 ~ ~ ~ ' 6 ~ Y r r i , i , c ~ ' \ ~ \ ~ i / q . e . , t h ~ i d e n t i c a ~ behavior' .

.... ''


11/13

11 NS ASI NDOIU'f I ' A I ~ A I I ) WA no I I

of thc same crnotional ltate, parlicularly by situational c u e ~ .IIldcomotoric a c t i ( ) n ~ , Le., expressive behavior caused by acongruent imagination in different persons.Other Expressive psychologists used concepts, nearly asvaguc as the irnitation drive. Sonle of these concepts were quitesirnilar to Jung's (1960) ideas about "intuitive perception.11 ThiscQncept states that persons perceive other persons unconsciously,a form not of "irrational," but rather of "extra-rational"perception. R e l a t ~ d concepts were Kroh's (1934) "physiognomieperception," 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 m a k e s q ~ i t e 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 t h e f ~ a m ~ w o t k of i m i t ~ t i p n . . lheories. It :was hypothesizedthatinddcediniitative behaviorin '\ . torn;will i n d ~ c e a n e m o t i Q h ~ l ~ x p e i J e " c e ) ~ . t h e } . p e r e e i v e r ~ rhe .... ...: rnost reccnt representaHve olthisldea b Rohrac'''er{196,3r in h s .( . i'rudiment theory" Rudimeiltentheorie). FolloWlng.Carpenter'sideomotork law he state$ that imitaled.m.ove'ments will.indtlte :

; ~ x p e r i e n c e s usually c o n n e c t ~ d w i t h these. movemerlts(WhtHlW:esee,Someone belr18 sad,for eXc1rriple,we wil'firni,tate thesad fadal.e x ~ r ~ s s i o n a. t:J Ji) 'tut.n will f e ~ } ; s ~ d , J Q o , ,and--inthatway we-wfil4 ...... ..... Nundetstand" hirn). This hypothesis mftl1tbe' itr ekedbathe .. ... . q ~ n t f o V e J s y between Ja 'rn,es.;l:ange- t ~ e q r i ~ ~ ;()f .tim.'oli;Qnand, . Cannon fotlowe{s c ~ n c ~ r n i n g , ~ ~ r o I 9 o f f e e d b a c k fronie"Presstve. ... . behavir in c O ' l ~ s t i t ' u t i n g e ~ o t i o . n a l e x ~ e r i e n c e . ~ , h s . J ' r o ~ l e m is ~ J H ....... not fuHy resolved. t:t i stlU not;cte''r, yvhether r nQt m i m i ~ ~ i : t . e ) ( p ~ e $ 5 i o n s f 2 a ' 1 ~ H ~ i t c e f t a i n f ~ , n h 8 ~ i r e c n t J e S Q ~ l f c n J . a s betUri:to.untahgle thilsprQl;Iem ( c f ~ tai,rd,,1974; T 0 u r i ; l n g ~ a t l ~ r E ~ b W Q r t h t

~ 9 7 9 . .......... ' . .. .' . . :. ... ..... ) .. . ,.Thou ghm o s t ( ) fthe i ~ ~ a s ~ . o ~ J . ' . c o r ) . c e p t s ' " o;E . E x . p r e s s i ~ n ~.... Psycholgy presented hete mayseem rather obscute, theywere' .....

n o n e t h ~ l e . ' i s the ba:sis and frameworkJor sorne i n t e r ~ s t i n g results. . .
http:///reader/full/perception.11http:///reader/full/perception.11http:///reader/full/f~,nh8~irec%DF%AEtJeSQ~lfcnJ.ashttp:///reader/full/perception.11http:///reader/full/f~,nh8~irec%DF%AEtJeSQ~lfcnJ.as


12/13

14b

HHJHNAI. 01 NONVI .WAI. 111 IIAVIO!

Documents

German Expression Psychology _R