The Perception of Four Basic Emotions by Children With Autism_JOURNAL of ABNORMAL CHILD Psychology

8/3/2019 The Perception of Four Basic Emotions by Children With Autism_JOURNAL of ABNORMAL CHILD Psychology

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-perception-of-four-basic-emotions-by-children-with-autismjournal-of-abnormal 1/12

Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2004, pp. 469–480 ( C 2004)

The Perception of Four Basic Emotions in Human

and Nonhuman Faces by Children With Autismand Other Developmental Disabilities

Thomas F. Gross1,2

Received May 8, 2003; revision received March 18, 2004; accepted March 22, 2004

Children who experienced autism, mental retardation, and language disorders; and, children in a

clinical control group were shown photographs of human female, orangutan, and canine (boxer) faces

expressing happiness, sadness, anger, surprise and a neutral expression. For each species of faces,

children were asked to identify the happy, sad, angry, or surprised expressions. In Experiment 1,error patterns suggested that children who experienced autism were attending to features of the lower

face when making judgements about emotional expressions. Experiment 2 supported this impression.

When recognizing facial emotion, children without autism performed better when viewing the full

face, compared to the upper and lower face alone. Children with autism performed no better when

viewing the full face than they did when viewing partial faces; and, performed no better than chance

when viewing theupper face alone.The results are discussed with respect to differences in themanner

that children with and without autism process social information communicated by the face.

KEY WORDS: face perception; facial emotion; autism.

The face is a rich source of information about oth-

ers’ emotional states. By 12 months of age, infants act asthough they appreciate the significance of basic emotions

expressed by others (cf., Camras et al., 1994; Izard et al.,

1995). Nonetheless, the ability to use facial expressions

to make social judgements about others’ emotional states

improves with age (Cunningham & Odum, 1986; Gross &

Ballif, 1991; Hosie, Gray, Russell, Scott, & Hunter, 1998;

Manstead, 1993; Reichenbach & Masters, 1983).

The ability to accurately recognize emotions appears

to reflect children’s development and generalization of

emotional schema. These schema facilitate the recogni-

tion of emotional states in others from human groups that

are different from their own (Ekman, 1989; Elfenbein &

Ambady, 2002). They also appear to allow children to gen-eralize knowledge to make social judgments about nonhu-

1Department of Psychology, University of Redlands, Redlands,

California.2Address all correspondence to Thomas F. Gross, Department of

Psychology, University of Redlands, P.O. Box 3080, 1200 Colton

Avenue, Redlands, California 92373-0999; e-mail: thomas gross@

redlands.edu.

man animals (Linnankoski, Laasko, Aulanko, & Leinonen,

1994; Pascalis, Demont, de Haan, & Campbell, 2001). Itis, however, unclear what emotional schema are used by

children who experience disabilities. The current research

examines this issue by having children who experience

disabilities identify basic emotions (happiness, sadness,

anger, and surprise) in human and nonhuman (canine and

orangutan) faces.

Some groups of individuals with disabilities (e.g.,

persons who experience mental retardation and conduct

disorders) have difficulty recognizing emotions in faces

compared to persons who do not experience disabilities

(e.g., Dodge, 1993; McAlpine, Kendall, & Singh, 1991;

McAlpine, Singh, Kendall,& Ellis,1992; Rojahn, Rabold,

& Schneider, 1995). Compared to individuals with andwithout disabilities, persons who experience autism are

generally found to have particular difficulty recognizing,

identifying, and understanding the significance of emo-

tions (Bormann-Kischkel, Vilsmeier, & Baude, 1995;

CelaniBattacchi, & Arcidiacono, 1999; Hobson& Ouston,

1989; Weeks & Hobson, 1987). In some cases, persons

who experience autism can label and identify emotions

469

0091-0627/04/1000-0469/0 C 2004 Springer Science+Business Media, In.



470 Gross

and those with high verbal ability are better able to do so

(Braverman, Fein, Lucci, & Waterhouse, 1989; Ozonoff,

Pennington, & Rogers, 1990). Persons with autism may

also perform better when recognizing specific kinds of

emotions, for example, simple emotions that are related

to external situations (happiness and sadness) rather than

those related to internal cognition or self-awareness (sur-prise and embarrassment; Baron-Cohen, 1991; Baron-

Cohen, Spitz, & Cross, 1993; Capps, Yirmiya, & Sigman,

1992; Feldman, McGee, Mann, & Stain, 1993; Yirmiya,

Sigman, Kasari, & Mundy, 1992). Persons with autism

also may be less sensitive to negative emotions, for exam-

ple, distress, fear, and discomfort (Sigman, Kasari, Kwon,

& Yirmiya, 1992).

One explanation for why persons who experience

autism have dif ficulty recognizing emotional expressions

is that they fail to develop or have overly restricted use

of social schema. Children with autism may fail to de-

velop coherent and coordinated concepts of persons and,

specifically, the feelings that othersexperienceand express

(Hobson, 1993). Furthermore, the social schema devel-

oped by children with autism may be used in a restricted

fashion and may be more readily applied to those with

whom these children are most familiar (e.g., Boucher &

Lewis, 1992; Boucher, Lewis, & Collis, 1998). Children

with autism may establish emotional relationships with

family members and may be sensitive to their emotional

states although they may be less likely to monitor and re-

spond to the emotional states of unfamiliar others (e.g.,

Capps & Sigman, 1996; Sigman & Mundy, 1989). Com-

pared to children without autism, those who experience

autismalso have dif ficultyreading socialinformation (e.g.,maturity) in nonhuman compared to human faces (Gross,

2002).

Another explanation for why children who experi-

ence autism have dif ficulty reading emotional expressions

in human faces is that they attend to a narrow range of

features when making judgements about facial affect. Al-

though they may develop and generalize schema that in-

form them about affect, these schema may be based upon

a few, select facial features rather than whole face configu-

rations. Research has shown that children with autism are

less likely than children without autism to perceive stimuli

as coherent organized wholes and are inclined to attend to

specific features or attributes of stimulus events (e.g.,Frith& Happe, 1994). The latter appears to be true of their abil-

ity to monitor facial features to make judgements about

facial affect. Compared to persons without autism, those

who experienceautism aremore likely to attend to features

of the lower face and are less sensitive to the upper face

and eyes when making judgements about facial emotion

or when viewing social scenes (Baron-Cohen, Campbell,

Karmiloff-Smith, Grant, & Walker, 1995; Baron-Cohen,

Wheelwright, & Jolliffe, 1997; Bormann-Kischkel et al.,

1995; Celani et al., 1999; Klin, Jones, Schultz, Volkmar,

& Cohen, 2002; Langdell, 1978).

Children with autism might be expected to have

unique error patterns when recognizing facial emotion

if they are attending to the lower part of the face whenmaking judgements about emotion. For example, sad and

neutral expressions typically have down-turned lateral

margins of the mouth (more exaggerated in a sad face) and

this is particularly true in canines with jowls (e.g., boxers).

Other research suggests that the region of the eyes may be

particularly important in the expression and discrimina-

tion of anger and happiness (e.g., Walden & Field, 1982).

The latter may, again, be particularly true of a canine face

in which the expression of anger and happiness share sim-

ilar lower face features, that is, up-turned lateral margins

of the mouth and teeth may be bared to effect either a

snarl or a smile. It might be anticipated that children who

experience autism would make emotion identification er-

rors when lower facial features are ambiguous, that is, the

features are common to more than one emotion and when

disambiguation requires attention to the upper face.

One way to assess children’s use of facial emotion

schema that are unique to human faces is to assess their

capacity to make judgments about emotion when viewing

unfamiliar faces (Ekman, 1989). In this particular study,

the use of facial emotion schema by children with dis-

abilities was assessed by having children identify facial

expressions of emotion (happy, sad, angry, and surprise)

in more familiar human and less familiar nonhuman (ca-

nine and orangutan) faces (cf. Gross, 2002). Attention toand use of specific facial features for making judgements

about facial emotions wasassessed by analyzing error pat-

terns (Experiments 1 and 2) and by having participants

identify facial emotions with the upper and lower region

of the face masked (Experiment 2).

EXPERIMENT 1

Method

Participants

Participants in this study were referred to a social ser-

vice agency in southern California. Children were referred

by professionals in medicine (pediatricians, pediatric neu-

rologists, psychiatrists), education (school psychologists,

speech and language pathologists, school nurses), and so-

cial work (clinical social workers). During an intake and

screening process, children were given an intelligence



Perception of Four Basic Emotions 471

Table I. Experiment 1: Sample Characteristics

Characteristic

Age in months IQ CARS VABS communication

Group M(SD) Range M(SD) Range M(SD) Range M(SD) Range

AU 92.4(39.4) 54 – 180 79.2a,b

(20.7) 45 – 112 32.5(2.9) 30 – 39 55.3b

(17.8) 30 – 110LD 88(33.9) 50 – 156 84.2a,b(10) 73 – 102 19.5c(3.3) 16 – 25 58.6a,b(9.9) 42 – 72

MR 109.1(27.7) 54 – 158 53.1b(9.7) 34 – 69 19.1c(3.3) 16.5 – 24.5 49.6b(12.9) 35 – 77

CC 94.7(31.3) 46 – 138 95.9a (12.7) 77 – 125 18.4c(4) 15 – 24.5 83.2a (13.3) 69 – 112

a Group means differ significantly from MR group mean ( p < .05).bGroup means differ significantly from CC group mean ( p < .05).cGroup means differ significantly from AU group mean ( p < .05).

test (e.g., Leiter-R; Roid & Miller, 1997, Stanford-Binet

Intelligence Scale 4th Edition; Thorndike, Hagen, &

Sattler, 1986, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children —

III; Wechsler, 1991), the Vineland Adaptive Behavior

Scale (VABS; Sparrow, Balla, & Cicchetti, 1984), and

the Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS; Schopler,

Reichler, & Renner, 1988). The VABS was completed us-

ing information provided by the child’s parent or guardian.

The CARS was completed based upon clinical observa-

tion, parent report, and other information (e.g., school

notes) in the child’s file. On the basis of information ob-

tained in this screening and other clinical and school infor-

mationcontainedin a child’s file,childrenwere placed into

one of four groups (see Table I for sample characteristics).

One group consisted of 27 children (3 females and

24 males) who experienced autism. Children who were

included in the autism group (AU) had received the di-

agnosis independently by two professionals with exper-tise in autism. Another group consisted of 28 children

(8 females and 20 males) who experienced developmen-

tal language disorders without mental retardation or per-

vasive developmental disorder (LD). Another group of

26 children (11 females and 15 males) consisted of chil-

dren who experienced mental retardation without perva-

sive developmental disorder (MR). A fourth group of

27 children (9 females and 18 males) were included as

clinical controls (CC). These children experienced mild

cerebral palsy, epilepsy, specific learning disabilities, at-

tention disorders but, otherwise, did not experience a lan-

guage disorder, mental retardation, or pervasive develop-

mental disorder. Children included in the AU, MR, and LDgroups satisfied the diagnostic criteria specified in the Di-

agnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders — IV

(American Psychiatric Association,1994). Children expe-

riencing mental retardation and language disorders were

included in an attempt to account for differences in per-

formance that might be due to deficits in intellectual and

verbal ability.

Between group analyses of variances were conducted

on sample characteristics. Post hoc analyses of mean dif-

ferences were conducted using Tukey’s HSD test (α =

.05). There was no significant difference between groups

with respect to age, F (3, 104) = 1.97, p > .1. The four

groups differed significantly in intellectual ability,

F(3, 104) = 44.15, p < .01. Children in the MR group

had significantly lower scores than children in the three

other groups. Children in the AU and LDgroups had lower

scores than children in the CC group.

Significant between group differences were obtained

for children’s performance on the Communication subtest

of the VABS, F(3, 104) = 31.2, p < .01. Children in the

MR group had significantly lower scores than children in

the LD and CC groups. Children in the AU and LD groups

had lower scores than children in the CC group.

Significant between group differences were also ob-

tained for children’s CARS scores, F (3, 104) = 109.3, p < .01.ChildrenintheAUgrouphadsigni ficantly higher

scores than children in the other three groups. The

scores of children in the other three groups did not

differ significantly.

Procedure and Materials

Participants were shown plates with color photo-

graphs. The first three plates were training sets that in-

troduced the participant to the nature of the task, that is,

pointing to the photograph on the plate that was named

by the experimenter. The first training set consisted of a

plate with three pictures (doll, Teddy bear, and key). The

second set consisted of a plate with four pictures (shoes, a

ceramic boat, a comb, and a glass). The third set consisted

of a plate with five pictures (a child reading, climbing,

jumping, digging, and brushing his teeth). To be included

in the study, participants had to select the correct photo-

graph on all three training trials (the named object/event is



472 Gross

italicized in the sets described above). For the participant’s

response to be considered valid the child hadto be looking

at the stimulus set as his/her response was being made. If

not, the child was redirected to the stimulus set and the

prompt was repeated.

Following the three training trials, 24 test trials were

presented. Each trial consisted of a plate that wasdivided into five pie-shaped sections. Into each of these

sections was placed one of five full-face, color photo-

graphs (approximately 4.5× 4.5 cm) depicting five fa-

cial expressions: happy, sad, angry, surprise, and a neutral

expression. Each trial consisted of a set of either human

female (unadorned and without make-up), orangutan, or

canine (boxer) faces. The human face presented posed ex-

pressions. Expressionswere consistent withfacial features

associated with these expressions as generally described

in humans (Frijda, 1986; Smith & Scott, 1998). Expres-

sions in the orangutan face were consistent with descrip-

tions of emotion in nonhuman primates (e.g., Chevalier-

Skolnikoff, 1973; de Waal, 1989); and, in the canine face,

with expressions consistent with descriptions of canine

emotion (Hall & Sharp, 1978; Scott & Fuller, 1965). The

photographs of faces used in this study can be seen in

Fig. 1.3

On the test trials, participants were asked to point to

the photograph of the face depicting one of four emotions

(happy, sad, angry, and surprised). Only one emotion was

probed per trial. Over the course of the experiment, each

emotion was probed twice for each of the three species

of faces. The location of faces on the plates varied across

trials with the stipulation that for each species no face oc-

curred in the same position more than twice. Each speciesof faces occurred in successive sets of three trials with the

order of presentation of species within that set determined

randomly. Each of the emotions was probed within each

species in thefirst 12 plates, then again in the last 12 plates.

The order in which emotions were probed was determined

randomly.

Results

Data were analyzed using analyses of covariance.

Previous work hasshownthat performance on face percep-

tion tasks can be affected by intellectual (e.g., McAlpineet al., 1992; Rojah et al., 1995) and verbal ability (e.g.,

3The stimuli were pretested with a group of college student volunteers.

Some students (25) were asked to name the emotion expressed by each

of the faces. Another group of students (30) were told the names of

the five emotions and asked to match the emotion to the face. On the

free naming task, accuracy ranged between 89 and 100%; and, on the

matching task accuracy ranged between 95 and 100%.

Braverman et al., 1989; Ozonoff et al., 1990). Further-

more, significant differences in intellectual and verbal

ability (VABS Communication subtest) existed between

some groups of children participating in this study. To

control for the influence of intellectual and verbal ability

on children’s performance, IQ and VABS Communication

subtest scores were included as covariates in these anal-yses. Tukey’s HSD test (α = .01) was used for post hoc

comparisons of means.

Recognition Accuracy

The data used in this analysis consisted of the num-

ber of emotions (0 – 2) recognized correctlyas a function of

species (canine, orangutan, and human), group (AU, LD,

MR, and CC), and emotion (happy, sad, angry, and sur-

prised). Data were analyzed using a 4× 3× 4 ANCOVA

with group as a between subjects factor; and, species and

emotion as within subjects factors. (There were no co-variate effects in this analysis.) A significant main effect

was found for group, F(3, 102) = 18.21, p < .01. Autis-

tic children ( M = .83) recognized fewer emotions than

children in the MR ( M = 1.42), LD ( M = 1.62), and CC

( M = 1.74) groups (the latter three groups did not differ

significantly).

A significant interaction was obtained between

species, emotion, and group, F(18, 624) = 1.72, p < .05.

This interaction (Table II) shows that children in the

nonautistic groups generally perform better than children

in the AU group when recognizing the emotional expres-

sionsin each of the three faces. In five conditions, children

in the AU group performed comparably to those in the

MR group. Children in the AU group were comparable to

children in all nonautistic groups only when identifying

happiness in human faces.

Error Analyses

To understand why children erred when identifying

facial expression in human and nonhuman faces, error

analyses were conducted. The data in this analysis rep-

resent the frequency with which the target emotion was

identified incorrectly. Because each of the four emotions

was probed twice for each of the three species of faces,

scores in this analysis ranged between 0 and 2. These data

were analyzed separately for errors made when identify-

ing happiness (i.e., error: sad, angry, surprised, and neu-

tral), sadness (i.e., error: happy, angry, surprised, and neu-

tral); anger (i.e., error: happy, sad, surprised, and neutral);

and, surprise (i.e., error: happy, sad, angry, and neutral).

Error data were analyzed using 4× 3× 4 ANCOVA’swith




Fig. 1. The five emotions expressed in the canine, orangutan, and human face. (From top to bottom, emotions

are: happiness, sadness, surprise, anger, and neutral).



474 Gross

Table II. Experiment 1: Mean Number of Emotions Recognized as a Function of Species and Group

Species

Canine Orangutan Human

Group Happy Sad Angry Surprise Happy Sad Anger Surprise Happy Sad Anger Surprise

AU 0.78a

0.33b

0.81 0.67 1.11 0.67 0.89 0.67 1.41a

1.07b

0.96 0.63LD 1.71c 1.02b,c 1.71c 1.39c 1.79c 1.5c 1.54c 1.64c 1.96 1.68b,c 1.86c 1.68c

MR 1.54c 1.04b,c 1.46c 1.0 1.58 1.35c 1.35 1.42c 1.85 1.65b,c 1.46 1.35c

CC 1.93c 1.0b,c 1.85c 1.33c 1.82c 1.85c 1.74c 1.81c 1.93 1.93b,c 1.85c 1.81c

a,bWithin group comparison of means (a – a, b – b) is statistically significant ( p < .05).cBetween group comparison with AU group mean is statistically significant ( p < .05).

group as the between subjects factor; and, species and

error type as the within subjects factors. (There were no

covariate effects in these analyses.)

The analysis of errors made when identifying hap-

piness revealed a significant interaction between species,

group, and error type, F (18, 624) = 1.96, p = .01. Chil-

dren in the AU group more often confused anger with

happiness when viewing the canine face ( M = .58) than

did children intheMR ( M = .15),LD( M = .14), and CC

( M = 0) groups; and, they were more likely to make this

error when viewing canineratherthan orangutan ( M = .2)

or human ( M = .08) faces.

A significant interaction between species, group, and

error type occurred in the analysis of errors made when

identifying sadness, F(18, 624) = 2.1, p < .01. When

viewing the canine face, children in the AU group more

often selected the neutral ( M = .85) face as appearing

sad compared to the frequency with which this error wasmade by children in the MR ( M = .31), LD ( M = .39),

and CC ( M = .41) groups; and, they made this error more

frequently when viewing canine than orangutan ( M =

.27) and human ( M = .27) faces. Children in the AU

group were more likely to select the angry orangutan face

as appearing sad ( M = .73) compared to the frequency

with which this error was made by children in the MR

( M = .23), LD ( M = .25), and CC ( M = .11) groups;

and, were more likely to make this error when viewing

orangutan than canine ( M = .08) or human ( M = .19)

faces. No significant interactions involving groups oc-

curred in the analyses of errors made when identifying

anger or surprise.

In sum, compared to children in the nonautistic

groups, those in the AU group made specific errors when

identifying facial emotions in the canine and orangutan

faces. Children in the AU group confused anger for hap-

piness and a neutral expression for sadness when viewing

the canine face; and, confused anger for sadness when

viewing the orangutan face.

Performance Compared to Chance

Data were also analyzed to assess whether children

selected faces appropriate to each emotion at a rate above

chance. Using chi-square analyses, the frequency with

which children in each of the four groups selected the

correct face was compared to chance ( p = .2). chi-square

analyses (α = .01) revealed that children in all four

groups identified happy, surprised, and angry expre-

ssions in all three species of faces at a rate above chance.

Children in the MR, LD, and CC groups identified sad-

ness in the canine face at a rate above chance; however,

the performance of children in the AU group was at

chance.

Discussion

Children in the AU group were generally less accu-

rate than children in the nonautistic groups when identi-

fying emotions. With the exception of somewhat better

ability to identify happiness in human than canine faces,

thepattern of performance when shown human andnonhu-

man faces was not particularly different in children from

the AU and nonautistic groups. When identifying anger

and surprise (and happiness in the human and orangutan

faces), children in the AU group performed no better or

worse when recognizing these emotions in either human

or nonhuman faces. (All children performed worse when

identifying sadness in the canine than in the human face.)

As such, these data provide little support for the notion

that autistic children are forming emotional schema that

are unique to or uniquely applied to human faces, as may

be the case when they make judgments about facial age

(Gross, 2002). If this is so, then why do children in the

AU group have dif ficulty identifying facial expressions of

emotion? An answer is suggested by the analysis of error

data.




Error analyses showed that children in the AU group

made specific errors when identifying facial emotions. For

example, children in the AU group, more so than children

in nonautistic groups, confused anger with happiness and

a neutral expression with sadnesswhen viewing the canine

face. When viewing the orangutan face, children in the AU

group more often confused anger with sadness. Althoughchildren in the AU and MR groups were similar in their

ability to identify some of the emotions expressed in the

three species of faces, only AU children showed specific

error patterns.

What is it about the faces that contributed to the spe-

cific errors made by children with autism? It would ap-

pear that when expressing specific emotions, the lower

orangutan and canine faces have features that are simi-

lar to the lower facial features associated with specific

emotions in the human face. In the canine’s facial expres-

sions of anger and happiness, the lateral margins of the

mouth are drawn up. Teeth are also visible in the angry

canine face. Up-turned lateral margins of the mouth and

“toothiness” are features that are associated with a smile

in the human face (Frijda, 1986; Smith & Scott, 1998).

Likewise, in both the sad and neutral canine faces, the

mouth has down-turned lateral margins — features associ-

ated with a frown in the human face. In the angry and sad

orangutan faces, the mouth also has down-turned lateral

margins. Thus, the specific errors made by children in the

AU groupappear to reflect schema that are associated with

the lower part of the human face when expressing partic-

ular emotional states, that is, up-turned lateral margins of

the mouth for happy and down-turned lateral margins of

the mouth for sad.

EXPERIMENT 2

The second experiment further examined the possi-

bility that children who experience autism are attending to

Table III. Experiment 2: Sample Characteristics

Characteristic

Age in months IQ CARS VABS communication

Group M(SD) Range M(SD) Range M(SD) Range M(SD) Range

AU 83.7(34.5) 59 – 182 82.2a,b(16.7) 48 – 111 32.2(2.3) 30 – 38.5 59.3b(16.8) 41 – 84

LD 83.1(26.8) 50 – 142 85.7a (9.6) 75 – 101 22.2b,c(4.3) 16.5 – 27 65.2a,b(9.8) 48 – 72

MR 99.8(25.8) 66 – 134 56.3b(9.2) 41 – 69 21.3c(3.8) 17.5 – 27 49.2b(9.8) 40 – 71

CC 92.4(37.3) 54 – 158 97.8a (16.6) 77 – 129 18.6c(2.7) 16 – 23 89.2a (19.7) 70 – 122

a Group means differ significantly from MR group mean ( p < .05).bGroup means differ significantly from CC group mean ( p < .05).cGroup means differ significantly from AU group mean ( p < .05).

features of the lower face when making judgements about

facialemotion.In this study, children were shown thesame

faces as in the first experiment. On different trials only the

upper half, lower half, or full face was shown. In each of

these conditions, children were asked to point to the face

that showed each of the four emotions. It was anticipated

that if children with autism rely upon the lower part of theface for making judgements about facial emotion, then

their performance would be no better when viewing the

lower half or the full face. Furthermore, it was expected

that their performance would be particularly poor when

viewing the upper face alone.

Method

As in the first experiment, four groups of children

were studied. There were 18 children in the AU group

(14 males and 4 females), 9 in the LD group (7 males and

2 females), 12 in the MR group (8 males and 4 females),and 9 in the CC group (7 males and 2 females). The criteria

for a child’s inclusion in one of the groups were identical

to those reported in Experiment 1 (see Table III for sam-

ple characteristics). The four groups did not differ with

respect to age, F (3, 44) = .76, p > .1. Significant dif-

ferences were obtained between groups for intelligence,

F(3, 44) = 16.9, p < .01; CARS score, F(3, 44) = 49.3,

p < .01; and, VABS Communication standard score,

F(3, 44) = 13.18, p < .01. Post hoc analyses of means

using Tukey’s HSD test (α = .05) indicated that children

in the MR group had significantly lower intelligence than

did children in the other three groups; and, children in theAU group had lower intelligence than did children in the

CC group. Children in the AU group had higher CARS

scores than did children in the other three groups; and,

children in the LD group had higher CARS scores than

did children in the CC group. Children with mental retar-

dation had lower VABS Communication scores than did



476 Gross

children in the LD and CC groups; and, children in the AU

and LD groups had lower communication scores than did

children in the CC group.

The same set of materials used in Experiment 1 was

used in this study. The training procedure was identical

for this study and, again, children had to select the correct

item on all three training trials to be included in the study.Following the three training trials, 36 test trials were pre-

sented. The first 24 test trials consisted of sets of six trials

in which children were shown each of the three species of

faces with the lower and upper half of the faces masked.

Each species of face occurred in sets of three trials and the

species of face were presented randomly within a set. A

different plate was shown on each trial, and one emotion

(happy, sad, angry, or surprised) was identified per trial.

Within species of face and masking condition, the posi-

tion of faces on the plates varied across trials and never

occurred twice in the same location. Because of the length

of the procedure, each of the four emotions in each of the

three species of faces was probed once with the lower half

of the face masked and once with the upper half of the

face masked.

Following the presentation of the masked faces, 12

additional plates were shown to children. These plates

consisted of full-face photographs of the five emotional

expressions in the canine, orangutan, or human face. Each

of the three species of face occurred within sets of three

trials with the species of face occurring randomly within

each set. Each emotion in each species of face was probed

only once. The order in which emotions were probed was

determined randomly. With the presentation of each plate,

children were asked to point to the photograph depictingthe emotion named by the experimenter.

Results

Recognition Accuracy

For each view of the face (upper, lower, full), chi-

square tests of independence were conducted on the fre-

quency with which the four emotions were recognized

correctly as a function of group and species of face. Anal-

yses for each of the face views failed to reach statistical

significance ( p > .05); that is, there were nonsignificant

interactions between group and species for each com-

bination of emotion and face view. Consequently, data

were collapsed across emotions and reanalyzed using a

4× 3× 3 ANCOVA. Group was included as the between

subjects factor; and, species and face view (upper, lower,

and full) as the within subjects factors. For this analysis,

individual scores for species and face view ranged from

Table IV. Experiment 2: Mean Number of Emotions Recognized as a

Function of Group and Face View

Face view

Group Upper face Lower face Full face

AU 0.94 1.29 1.41

LD 1.74a 1.81a 2.81b

MR 1.47a 1.63 2.25b

CC 2.04a 2.37a 3.5b

a,bWithin group comparison of means (b – a) is statistically significant

( p < .05).

0 to 4 (i.e., the number of emotions identified correctly).

Children’s IQ and VABS Communication subtest scores

were entered as covariates. (There were no covariate ef-

fects in this analysis.)

Significant main effects were obtained for group,

F(3, 42) = 6.8, p < .01. Children in the AU group per-

formed more poorly ( M = 1.22) than did children in the

LD ( M = 2.12), and CC ( M = 2.63) groups; and were

marginally worse ( p = .1) than children in the MR ( M =

1.8) group. A significant interaction was found between

group and face view, F(6, 88) = 2.8, p = .015. As can

be seen in Table IV, children in the CC and LD groups

performed significantly better when viewing the full face

than when viewing either the upper or lower face alone.

Children in the MR group performed better when viewing

the full face than the upper face alone. Children in the AU

group performed no better when viewing the full face than

when viewing partial faces.

Error Analyses

Errors made when recognizing facial emotions were

subjected to chi-square analyses of goodness of fit (α =

.01) for each combination of species of face, group, and

face view (upper, lower, and full) with cells defined by

the target emotion and the error made. When viewing the

full canine faces, children in the AU group confused anger

with happiness and happiness with anger. Children in the

MR group confused anger with happiness when shown

the full canine face; and, children in the LD group made

this error when viewing the lower face. Children in the

MR group confused sadness with anger when viewing theupper, lower, and full orangutan face.

Performance Compared to Chance

The frequencies with which children in the four

groups selected emotional expressions correctly as a func-

tion of species of face and face view were compared




to chance ( p = .2) using chi-square analyses (α = .01).

These analyses revealed that children in all four groups

identified facial expressions of emotion when viewing the

full and lower face at levels above chance. Whereas chil-

dren in the CC, MR, and LD groups recognized emotions

in the upper face at levels above chance, children in the

AU group performed at chance.

Discussion

The results of this study showthatchildren in the LD,

MR, and CC groups identified facial emotions better when

viewing a full rather than partial face. (Children in the MR

group performed no better when viewing the lower rather

than the full face.) Face view, however, had no effect upon

the recognition of emotional expressions by children in

the AU group.

These results also suggest that children in the AU

group were attending primarilyto the lowerpart of theface

for information about facial emotion. These children per-

formed no better than chance when identifying emotions

when only the upper part of the face was visible. Chil-

dren in the nonautistic groups generally used information

from the upper and lower part of the face and appeared

to integrate this information to make judgments about fa-

cial expression of emotions (i.e., their performance was

significantly better when viewing the full face than partial

face). Children in the AU group did not appear to integrate

this information.

The emotion recognition errors made by children

in the AU group also suggest that they were attendingto the configuration of the mouth when making judge-

ments about canine facial expressions. As in Experiment

1, Children in the AU group confused anger with happi-

ness. Curiously, children in the AU group also confused

happiness with anger. Perhaps the open mouth and pro-

truding tongue of the “happy” dog appeared menacing to

some of these children. (The latter is sometimes repre-

sented in cartoon depictions of a wolf licking its “chops”

before pouncing on its prey.)

It is interesting to note that, when viewing the lower

canine face, children in the LD group also confused anger

with happiness; however, they did not persist in making

this error when the full face was shown. Children in the

LD group seem to resolve whateverambiguity is present in

the configuration of the mouth by using information from

the upper region of the face. Children in the MR group

confused the canine expression of anger with happiness

when viewing the full face. It would appear that, when

in doubt, MR children resolve ambiguity in the full facial

expression by attending to the lower face.

It is also of note that children in the MR group con-

fused sadness with anger when viewing either full or par-

tial orangutan faces. It is unclear why this error was made.

One possibility is that under some circumstances, like

preschoolers (e.g., Jenkins & Ball, 2000; Hosie et al.,

1998), children who experience mental retardation have

dif ficulty understanding the difference between sad andangry.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

This research examined the use of facial emotion

schema by disabled children with and without autism.

Relative to other groups of children, those who experi-

enced autism had dif ficulty identifying facial emotion al-

though they generally identified facial emotions at levels

above chance. The results of these two studies are consis-

tent with past research showing that relatively high func-

tioning persons with autism are able to apply emotional

schema to identify basic facial expressions of emotion

(e.g., Capps et al., 1992; Travis & Sigman, 1998). These

results also suggest that the schema used by children with

autism are somewhat different than those used by children

who do not experience autism. Two explanations of this

difference were explored in the current research. One ex-

planation is that children with autism develop emotional

schema that are unique to or uniquely applied to human

faces. Another explanation is that children with autism

develop facial emotion schema that are generalized to dif-

ferent faces; however, these schema are poorly elaborated

and consist primarily of features from the lower face.The results of Experiment 1 provide partial support

for the notion that children with autism develop emotional

schema that are unique to human faces. Children in the AU

and nonautistic groups were comparable in their ability to

identify happiness in human faces, although children in

the AU group performed poorly relative to other children

when identifying happiness in the canine face. Further-

more, in Experiment 1, children in the AU group per-

formed no better than chance when recognizing sadness

in the canine face. Although such findings are interest-

ing, on the whole, the results of these two studies provide

little support for the belief that children with autism de-

velop emotional schema that are uniquely applied to hu-

man faces. Although children experiencing autism gen-

erally performed more poorly than other children when

identifying emotions, in both studies they were able to

identify most emotions in human and nonhuman faces at

levels above chance. Furthermore, there was no interac-

tion between group and species of face in Experiment 2.

One limitation of this study is that there were not a variety



478 Gross

of faces used as stimuli. It is possible that repeated presen-

tations of the same nonhuman faces fostered a familiarity

that facilitated the identification of emotions by children

with autism.

A more compelling explanation for the poor perfor-

mance of children experiencing autism, relative to other

children, is that they form and generalize emotionalschema that are based upon lower face features associ-

ated with emotions expressed in the human face. In both

Experiments 1 and 2, children in the AU group confused

anger for happiness in the canine face. Both of these ex-

pressions share up-turned lateral margins of the mouth,

a feature that is associated with the expression of happi-

ness in the human face.4 In Experiment 1, children in the

AU group also appear to have confused facial expressions

associated with sadness in human faces, that is, expres-

sions having down-turned lateral margins of the mouth.

Children with autism more frequently confused a neutral

with a sad canine face and an angry with a sad orangutan

face.

Additional evidence that children who experience

autism attend to the lower part of the face when mak-

ing judgements about emotions was found in Experiment

2. In that study, children who did not experience autism

performed better when viewing a full rather than a par-

tial face. The face view, however, had no effect on the

performance of children who experienced autism. Also,

although children in the nonautistic groups recognized fa-

cial expressions at a rate above chance when viewing ei-

ther partial or full faces, autistic children performed above

chance only when viewing the full or lower faces.

An alternative explanation of these findings mightbe that AU children in these studies did not have suf-

ficient verbal or intellectual ability to differentiate emo-

tions (Braverman et al., 1989; McAlpine et al., 1991, 1992;

Rojahn et al., 1995; Ozonoff et al., 1990). This might be

particularly true under conditions in which minimal or less

salient visual information was available to support reason-

ing about emotions (e.g., when viewing the upper half of

the face). For several reasons such an interpretation seems

unlikely. Both intellectual and verbal ability were statis-

tically controlled in data analyses. Furthermore, children

in the MR and LD groups were comparable to children in

the AU group or had lower scores on an intelligence test

and the VABS Communication subtest; yet, these children

4Anecdotally, two parents of children in the AU group spontaneously

reported that their children seemed insensitive to the danger posed by

a snarling dog. They reported that when their children saw a growling

dog,they would laughand approachthe animal. These anecdotalreports

are consistent with emotion recognition errors noted in these studies,

that is, children with autism appear to confuse anger and happiness in

canine faces.

generally performed better than children in the AU group

when identifying facial emotions.

Why might children with autism depend upon

schema associated with the lower part of the human face

for making judgments about emotion? Research indicates

that primary and secondary emotional systems guide our

orientation to facial affect. The primary emotional system,perhaps under the influence of the right cerebral hemi-

sphere (e.g., Ross, Homan, & Buck, 1994), is functional

at a very early age, perhaps from birth. This system ap-

pears to automatically orient us to the upper face for in-

formation about others’ emotional states (Prodan Orbelo,

Testa, & Ross, 2001). The secondary emotional system,

perhaps under the influence of the left cerebral hemisphere

(e.g., Buck & Duffy, 1980), consists of learned, cultural

rules that are used intentionally to communicate affec-

tive information to others (Ekman, 1985). The expression

of learned or acquired displays of emotion typically in-

volves the lower face. Hence, we learn to use lower facial

gestures to communicate social states and to monitor the

lower face for important information about others’ inten-

tions and feelings (e.g., Prodan et al., 2001).

Children with autism may experience a right-hemi-

spheric disorder (Rinehart, Bradshaw, Moss, Brereton, &

Tonge, 2000; Sabbagh, 1999). This disorder may be asso-

ciated with a dysfunction of the primary emotional system

that limitsthe ability of children with autismto develop co-

herentconcepts about emotional experiences. Givena dys-

function of the primary emotional system, children with

autism may have to rely upon the secondary emotional

system for knowledge about others’ emotions. Because

the use of this system directs attention to the lower face(e.g., Prodan et al., 2001), it would notbe surprising to find

that children with autism are prone to attend to the lower

face when making judgments about emotion. Such rea-

soning suggests that persons with autism, who skillfully

use the secondary emotional system, that is, consistently

attend to the lower face for information about others’ emo-

tional states, should also be more socially adept. In fact,

Klin et al. (2002) have found that autistic adolescents who

more frequently directed their attention to the lower face

when viewing social scenes also experienced higher levels

of social adjustment.

REFERENCES

AmericanPsychiatric Association. (1994). The diagnostic and statisticalmanual of mental disorders, IV . Washington, DC: Author.

Baron-Cohen, S. (1991). Do people with autism understand what causesemotion? Child Development, 62, 385 – 395.

Baron-Cohen, S., Campbell, R., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Grant, J.,& Walker, J. (1995). Are children with autism blind to the




mentalistic significance of the eyes? British Journal of Develop-mental Psychology, 13, 379 – 398.

Baron-Cohen, S., Spitz, A., & Cross, P. (1993). Do children with autismrecognize surprise? Cognition and Emotion, 7, 507 – 513.

Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., & Jolliffe, T. (1997). Is there a “lan-guage of the eyes?” Evidence from normal adults and adults withautism or Aspergers syndrome. Visual Cognition, 4, 311 – 331.

Bormann-Kischkel, C., Vilsmeier, M., & Baude, B. (1995). The develop-

ment of emotional concepts in autism. Journal of Child Psychologyand Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 36, 1243 – 1259.

Boucher,J., & Lewis, V. (1992). Unfamiliar facerecognitionin relativelyable autistic children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatryand Allied Disciplines, 33, 843 – 859.

Boucher, J., Lewis, V., & Collis, G. (1998). Familiar face and voicematching and recognition in children with autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 39, 171 – 181.

Braverman, M., Fein, D., Lucci, D., & Waterhouse, L. (1989). Affectcomprehension in childrenwith pervasive developmental disorders.

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 19, 301 – 316.Buck, R., & Duffy, R. J. (1980). Nonverbal communication of affect in

brain damaged patients. Cortex, 16, 351 – 362.Camras, L.A., Dunn,J., Izard,C. E.,Lazarus, R.,Panksepp, J.,Rothbart,

M. K., et al. (1994). What develops in emotional development? InP. Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotions: Fun-

damental questions (pp. 345 – 375). New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Capps, L., & Sigman,M. (1996). Autisticaloneness.In R. D. Kavanaugh,B. Zimmerberg, & S. Fein (Eds.), Emotion: Interdisciplinary per-spectives (pp. 237 – 296). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Capps, L., Yirmiya, N., & Sigman, M. (1992). Understanding of simpleand complex emotions in non-retarded children with autism. Jour-nal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 33,1169 – 1182.

Celani, G., Battacchi, M. W., & Arcidiacono, L. (1999). The under-standing of the emotional meaning of facial expressions in peoplewith autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 29,57 – 66.

Chevalier-Skolnikoff, S. (1973). Facial expression of emotion in non-human primates. In P. Ekman (Ed.), Darwin and facial expres-sion: A century of research in review (pp. 11 – 89). New York, NY:Academic, Press.

Cunningham, J., & Odom, R. (1986). Differential salience of facial fea-tures in children’s perception of affective expression. Child Devel-opment, 57, 136 – 142.

de Waal, F. (1989). Peacemaking among primates. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Dodge, K. (1993). Social-cognitive mechanisms in the development of conduct disorder and depression. Annual Review of Psychology, 44,559 – 584.

Ekman, P. (1985). Telling lies:Clues to deceitin the marketplace,politicsand marriage. New York, NY: Norton.

Ekman, P. (1989). The argument and evidence about universals in fa-cial expressions of emotions. In H. Wagner & A. Manstead (Eds.),

Handbook of social psychophysiology (pp. 143 – 164). Chichester,England: Wiley.

Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. (2002). On the universality and culturalspecificity of emotion recognition: A meta-analysis. Psychological

Bulletin, 128, 203 – 235.Feldman, R. S., McGee, G. C., Mann, L., & Stain, P. (1993). Nonverbalaffective decoding ability in children with autism and in typicalpreschoolers. Journal of Early Intervention, 17, 341 – 350.

Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Frith, U., & Happe, F. (1994). Autism: Beyond “Theory of Mind.” Cog-nition, 50, 115 – 132.

Gross, T. F. (2002). Perception of human and non-human facial age bydevelopmentally disabled children. Journal of Autism and Devel-opmental Disorders, 32, 169 – 179.

Gross, A. L., & Ballif, B. (1991). Children’s understanding of emotionsfrom facial expressions and situations: A review. Developmental

Review, 11, 368 – 398.Hall, R. L., & Sharp, H. S. (1978). Wolf and man: Evolution in parallel.

New York, NY: Academic Press.Hobson, R. P. (1993). Understanding persons: The role of affect. In

S. Baron-Cohen, H. Tager-Flusberg, & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Un-derstanding other minds: Perspectives from autism (pp. 204 – 224).

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Hobson, R. P., & Ouston, J. (1989). Naming emotion in faces andvoices:

Abilities and disabilities in autism and mental retardation. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7, 237 – 250.

Hosie, J. A., Gray, C. D., Russell, P. A., Scott, C., & Hunter, N. (1998).Thematchingof facial expressions by deafand hearing children andtheir production and comprehension of emotion labels. Motivationand Emotion, 22, 293 – 313.

Izard, C. E., Fantauzzo, C. A., Castle, J. M., Haynes, O. M., Rayias,M. F., & Putnam, P. H. (1995). The ontogeny and significance of infants’ facial expressions in the first9 monthsof life. Developmen-tal Psychology, 31, 997 – 1013.

Jenkins, J. M., & Ball, S. (2000). Distinguishing between negative emo-tions: Children’s understanding of the social-regulatory aspects of emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 261 – 282.

Klin, A., Jones, W., Schultz, R., Volkmar, F., & Cohen, D. (2002). Visualfixation patterns during viewing of naturalistic social situations as

predictorsof social competence in individualswith autism. Archivesof General Psychiatry, 59, 809 – 816.

Langdell, T. (1978). Recogniton of faces: An approach to the study of autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied

Disciplines, 19, 255 – 268.Linnankoski,I., Laakso,M., Aulanko,R., & Leinonen, L. (1994). Recog-

niton of emotions in macaque vocalizations by children and adults. Language and Communication, 14, 183 – 192.

Manstead, A. S. R. (1993). Children’s representation of emotion. In C.Pratt & A. F. Garton (Eds.), Systems of representation in children:

Development and uses (pp. 185 – 210). New York: Wiley.McAlpine, C., Kendall, K., & Singh, N. N. (1991). Recognition of

facial expression of emotion by persons with mental retardation. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 96, 29 – 36.

McAlpine, C., Singh, N. N., Kendall, K., & Ellis, C. R. (1992). Recog-nition of facial expressions of emotion by persons with mentalretardation: A matched comparison study. Behavior Modi ficationSpecial Issue: Current Research on Social Behavior, 16, 543 – 558.

Ozonoff, S., Pennington, B. F., & Rogers, S. J. (1990). Are there emo-tional perception deficits in young autistic children? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 31, 343 – 361.

Pascalis, O., Demont, E., de Haan, M., & Campbell, R. (2001). Recog-nition of faces of different species: A developmental study be-tween 5 and 8 years of age. Infant and Child Development, 10, 39 – 45.

Prodan, C. I., Orbelo, D. M., Testa, J. A., & Ross, E. D. (2001). Hemi-sphericdifferencesin recognizing upperand lower facial displaysof emotion. Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology, and Behavioral Neu-rology, 14, 206 – 212.

Reichenbach, L., & Masters, J. (1983). Children’s use of expressive andcontextual cues in judgements of emotion. Child Development, 54,

993 – 1004.Rinehart, N. J., Bradshaw, J. L., Moss, S. A., Brereton, A. V., & Tonge,B. L. (2000). Atypicalinterferenceof local detail on global process-ing in high-functioning autism and Asperger ’s disorder. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 41, 769 – 778.

Roid, G. H., & Miller, L. J. (1997). Leiter International PerformanceScale-Revised . Wood Dale, IL: Stoelting.

Rojahn, J., Rabold, D. E., & Schneider, F. (1995). Emotion specificityin mental retardation. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 99,477 – 486.



480 Gross

Ross, E. D., Homan, R. W., & Buck, R. (1994). Differential hemisphericlateralization of primary and social emotions. Neuropsychiatry,

Neuropsychology, and Behavioral Neurology, 7, 1 – 19.Sabbagh, M. A. (1999). Communicative intentions and language: Evi-

dence from right-hemisphere damage and autism. Brain and Lan-guage, 70, 26 – 69.

Schopler, E., Reichler, R. J., & Renner, B. R. (1988). The Childhood Autism Rating Scale. Los Angles, CA: Western Psychological

Services.Scott, J. P., & Fuller, J. L. (1965). Genetics and the social behavior of

canines. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Sigman, M. D., Kasari, C., Kwon, J., & Yirmiya, N. (1992). Responses

to the negative emotions of others by autistic, mentally retarded,and normal children. Child Development, 63, 796 – 807.

Sigman, M. D., & Mundy, P. (1989). Social attachments in autistic chil-dren. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent

Psychiatry, 28, 74 – 81.Smith, C. A., & Scott, H. H. (1998). A componential approach to the

meaning of facial expression. In J. A. Russell & J. M. Fernandez-

Dols (Eds.), The psychology of facial emotion (pp. 229 – 320).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sparrow, S.S., Balla,D. A.,& Cicchetti, D.V. (1984). VinelandA daptive Behavior Scales. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Thorndike, R. L., Hagen, E. P., & Sattler, J. M. (1986). Stanford – Binet Intelligence Scale, 4th ed. Chicago, IL: The Riverside.

Travis, L. L., & Sigman, M. (1998). Social deficits and interpersonal re-lationships in autism. Mental Retardation and Developmental Dis-

abilities, 4, 65 – 72.Walden, T. A.,& Field, T. M. (1982). Discrimination of facial expressions

by preschool children. Child Development, 53, 1312 – 1319.Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children — 3rd ed.

New York, NY: The Psychological Corporation.Weeks, S. J., & Hobson, R. P. (1987). The salience of facial expression

for autistic children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatryand Allied Disciplines, 28, 137 – 151.

Yirmiya, N., Sigman, M. D., Kasari, C., & Mundy, P. (1992). Empa-thy and cognition in high functioning children with autism. Child

Development, 63, 150 – 160.

Documents

The Perception of Four Basic Emotions by Children With Autism_JOURNAL of ABNORMAL CHILD Psychology