Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 295300

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Emotional intelligence, personality and the decoding of non-verbal expressions

of emotion
Christopher Edgar , Margaret McRorie, Ian Sneddon
School of Psychology, Queens University, University Road, Belfast, Northern Ireland, BT7 1NN, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Previous research has highlighted theoretical and empirical links between measures of both personality
Received 14 June 2011 and trait emotional intelligence (EI), and the ability to decode facial expressions of emotion. Research has
Received in revised form 13 October 2011 also found that the posed, static characteristics of the photographic stimuli used to explore these links
Accepted 18 October 2011
affects the decoding process and differentiates them from the natural expressions they represent. This
Available online 13 November 2011
undermines the ecological validity of established trait-emotion decoding relationships.
This study addresses these methodological shortcomings by testing relationships between the reliabil-
Keywords:
ity of participant ratings of dynamic, spontaneously elicited expressions of emotion with personality and
Emotion perception
Facial expression
trait EI. Fifty participants completed personality and self-report EI questionnaires, and used a computer-
Emotional intelligence logging program to continuously rate change in emotional intensity expressed in video clips. Each clip
Personality was rated twice to obtain an intra-rater reliability score. The results provide limited support for links
between both trait EI and personality variables and how reliably we decode natural expressions of emo-
tion. Limitations and future directions are discussed.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction participants performance in an Inspection Time (IT) task and an

The ability to perceive, process and react appropriately to facial
expressions of emotion (henceforth referred to as emotion decod-
ing) is a central facet of communication in everyday life (Zuckerman,
Lipets, Koivumaki, & Rosenthal, 1975). This decoding ability is not
one that exists in equal measure across individuals, and psycholog-
ical traits such as trait EI and personality may provide a source for
this variation (Austin, 2004; Gomez, Gomez, & Cooper, 2002). Trait
EI has been formally dened as a constellation of emotional self-
perceptions located at the lower levels of personality hierarchies
and these self-perceptions reect the processing of both interper-
sonal and intrapersonal emotional information (Petrides, Pita, &
Kokkinaki, 2007). High trait EI is seen as a universally benecial trait,
with previous research demonstrating how the effects of trait EI on
performance in emotion-related tasks parallel the benecial effects
of general ability in cognitive-processing tasks, being associated
with greater speed and accuracy (Austin, 2005).
Given that decoding of emotion is an integral part of trait EI and
high trait EI is associated with enhanced performance when pro-
cessing emotional information, it is reasonable to assume that
the emotion decoding process should be affected accordingly.
Austin (2004, 2005) tested this assumption directly and found that
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 028 9097 5445; fax: +44 028 9097 5486.
E-mail addresses: cedgar07@qub.ac.uk (C. Edgar), m.mcrorie@qub.ac.uk
(M. McRorie), i.sneddon@qub.ac.uk (I. Sneddon).
emotion recognition task shared a positive relationship with trait
EI scores. These results are in line with previous research that
reported trait EI to be associated with both the speed at which
emotional expressions are identied (Petrides & Furnham, 2003)
and how accurately they can be labelled (Ciarrochi, Chan, & Bajgar,
2001). These results associate high trait EI with improved perfor-
mance on multiple measures of decoding ability and emphasise
the need to consider trait EI when investigating individual differ-
ences in the decoding process.
Personality may also play an important role in mediating indi-
vidual differences in emotion decoding. Several theories associate
high extraversion scores with heightened sensitivity to positive
emotional stimuli and high neuroticism scores with heightened
sensitivity to negative emotion (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985; Gomez
et al., 2002; McCrae & Costa, 1987). Subsequent attempts have
been made to validate and expand upon these links, with authors
proposing that personality traits interact with attention (Amin,
Constable, & Canli, 2004), motivation (Zuckerman, Joireman, Kraft,
& Kuhlman, 1999) and mood (Rusting, 1998) to mediate the pro-
cessing of emotional stimuli.
These theories refer to emotional stimuli in a very general way
and tend not to account for decoding emotional expressions explic-
itly. This raises the issue of treating emotional expressions in a
similar way conceptually to more general stimuli designed to elicit
emotion (e.g. words, pictures of animals/situations/objects). The
literature suggests a common neural locus for both experiencing

0191-8869/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.024
296 C. Edgar et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 295300
and decoding emotion (see Bastiaansen, Thioux, & Keysers, 2009;
Goldman & Sripada, 2005) and this may allow for a degree of pre-
dictive overlap when deriving hypotheses from general emotion
processing theories. It would be expected then, that high extraver-
sion would be associated with a heightened sensitivity to positive
emotional expressions, and high neuroticism with heightened sen-
sitivity to negative emotional expressions. Theoretical links
between psychoticism and the decoding of emotion have also been
identied, suggesting that the aggressive, anti-social, detached
qualities associated with high psychoticism scores should result
in heightened sensitivity to expressions of anger, sadness and fear,
and low sensitivity to expressions of happiness (Blair, Colledge,
Murray, & Mitchell, 2001; Miskovic & Schmidt, 2010).
A number of studies have begun to reveal links between person-
ality constructs and emotion decoding. Positive associations have
been reported between both extraversion and neuroticism with
performance on tasks involving the processing of positive and neg-
ative emotional information respectively (De Pascalis & Speranza,
2000; Gomez et al., 2002). In addition, a growing body of literature
has associated high extraversion and neuroticism scores with
heightened neural response to positive and negative emotional
stimuli respectively, following predicted patterns of heightened
sensitivity at a neural level (Amin et al., 2004; Canli et al., 2001).
When testing how this sensitivity affected the decoding process
directly, Matsumoto et al. (2000) found that extraversion scores
showed a positive relationship with participants ability to identify
expressions of happiness but neuroticism scores showed a nega-
tive relationship with their ability to identify happiness, anger, fear
and sadness. These results suggest that heightened sensitivity to
emotional information may not always prove benecial, with high
neuroticism scores associated with reduced performance in rec-
ognising specic expressions. The aggressive-detached qualities
of psychoticism result in emotion-specic effects on the decoding
process. A range of experimental methods found high scores in
psychopathic tendencies associated with lowered attention to
angry faces (Miskovic & Schmidt, 2010) and with difculty pro-
cessing fearful and sad faces accurately and quickly (Blair et al.,
2001).
Although these studies have made progress establishing the
role of trait EI and personality constructs in the emotion decoding
process, they have repeatedly failed to address methodological
criticisms that undermine ecological validity of their results. Most
have employed static, posed photographs of emotional expressions
to derive data and inform theory (variants of Matsumoto and
Ekmans (1988) JACFEE picture set the most widely utilised).
There are two fundamental ways in which these photographs
differ from the natural expressions they are supposed to emulate.
Firstly, the posed nature of such expressions dissociates them from
their naturally elicited counterparts. Posed expressions are more
intense, lacking both blending of different expressions and dis-
tracting features (Naab & Russell, 2007). When comparing the
two types of stimuli, Naab and Russell (2007) found much lower
labelling consensus for spontaneous expressions of emotion com-
pared to posed. These results are broadly in line with those of sim-
ilar studies (e.g. Yik, Meng, & Russell, 1998), indicating the more
salient features of posed expressions make them consistently eas-
ier to identify. Posed expressions also have a much slower onset
time and tend to be less physically symmetrical (Hess & Kleck,
1994).
Secondly, the expression of emotion is not a static, immediate
process, but a series of dynamic, complex action patterns that persist
over time (Tcherkassof, Bollon, Bubois, Pansu, & Adam, 2007). Stud-
ies conducted by Sato and Yoshikawa (2004) and Kamachi et al.
(2001) utilised computer-generated animations to present expres-
sions of emotion at varying speeds. These authors found that partic-
ipants were able to recognise certain emotions (e.g. happiness) more
accurately when presented quickly, and others (e.g. sadness) when
presented more slowly. Furthermore, Biele and Grabowska (2006)
compared participants intensity ratings of happy and angry expres-
sions in photographs to those presented in dynamic animations.
Their results indicated dynamic animations were consistently rated
as more intense compared to their static counterparts.
Such results provide an interesting insight into how individuals
rated dynamic emotional expressions after they had been viewed,
but issues with their methodology still remain. Schubert (2010)
argues that allowing participants to provide a summative judge-
ment of dynamic stimuli after they have been perceived is not
the same as obtaining a continuous measure as the stimuli are
viewed. Although several authors have called for emotion research
to employ naturalistic stimuli (e.g. Kamachi et al., 2001; Naab &
Russell, 2007; Tcherkassof et al., 2007) this has been impeded by
a lack of appropriate tools to perform meaningful analyses.
The above ndings show that posed expressions of emotion dif-
fer in several fundamental ways from spontaneous emotion
expressions and that they lack the dynamic features that play a
key role in determining how we decode expressions over time. This
questions how well the previously established relationships
between trait EI, personality and emotion decoding ability accu-
rately inform us of how individuals differ in their ability to decode
emotion in day-to-day interactions. The origin of this problem lies
with the pervasive use of posed emotional expressions in experi-
mental contexts that are fundamentally different from the natural
emotional expressions they are supposed to represent.
For the rst time in emotion-individual differences research this
study aims to test established relationships between trait EI, per-
sonality, and participants ability to decode dynamic expressions
of spontaneously elicited emotion.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Fifty undergraduate students, postgraduate students and work-
ing professionals (52% female), were recruited using volunteer
sampling. The majority of participants were from Northern Ireland
with a mean age of 23.8 years (SD = 6.68).
2.2. Materials
2.2.1. Personality questionnaire
Measures of extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism were
obtained using the short-scale Eysenck Personality Question-
naire-Revised (EPQ-R) (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991). Each dimension
had 12 corresponding items that could be answered using a yes or
no closed choice format. This questionnaire provided measures of
extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism previously shown to
have links to the decoding process. The above scales obtained
alpha ratings of .88, .82 and .61 respectively.
2.2.2. Emotional intelligence
Emotional intelligence was assessed using a modied version of
the Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Scale (SSREI)
(Austin, Saklofske, Huang, & McKenney, 2004). This scale consists
of 41 items presented on a 5 point Likert scale, using the anchors
strongly agree to strongly disagree. The SSREI provides an overall
trait EI score and sub-scale measures of Optimism/Mood regula-
tion, Utilisation of Emotion and Appraisal of Emotions that have
previously been shown to relate to decoding measures (Austin,
2004). The above scales obtained alpha ratings of .88, .73, .62 and
.84 respectively.
 C. Edgar et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 295300
2.2.3. Emotional stimuli
For clarity, participants conveying an emotional expression are
henceforth referred to as encoders and participants observing
and rating these expressions are referred to as decoders. Nine emo-
tional stimulus clips (30 s duration) were selected from the Belfast
Induced Natural Emotion Database an existing database of English
language video clips (Sneddon, McKeown, McRorie, & Hanratty,
2011a). These clips depict three examples of adult females express-
ing emotion in the same induced condition (3 sadness, 3 amuse-
ment, 3 disgust), varying in the intensity of expression.
The clips were presented without sound and only the encoders
face and upper body were visible. Sneddon, McKeown, McRorie
and Vukicevic (2011b) employed similar video clips in recent
cross-cultural research, and comment on the advantages of using
stimuli consisting of dynamic, spontaneously elicited expressions.
These authors accept that this increase in ecological validity comes
at the price of reliability, forfeiting the ability to objectively catego-
rise the emotion conveyed within the stimuli.
The stimuli were displayed using a variant of FeelTrace, a com-
puter-logging program called IntenseTrace (Cowie et al., 2000). A
10 cm  10 cm window containing the stimulus appeared on
screen alongside an interactive horizontal scale (Fig. 1). Decoders
used the mouse to move a coloured spot along the scale to trace
real-time judgement of the intensity of the emotional expression
of the target individual. The scale was anchored at the left by the
text Zero emotion totally emotionless and at the right by
Emotion at maximum intensity. Instructions for decoders were
provided on-screen.
2.3. Procedure
The use of naturalistic stimuli and a computer based trace tool
to dynamically rate the intensity of expressed emotion in real time
is a novel approach to the study of individual differences in emo-
tion perception. Following explanation of the task, decoders ini-
tially used the trace tool while viewing a series of three practise
clips. Decoders then rated the 12 experimental clips (Time 1), after
which they completed the personality and trait EI questionnaires.
Participants then rated the 12 clips for a second time (Time 2).
To control for order effects the sequence in which clips were pre-
sented was randomised for Time 1 and again for Time 2 and
remained xed across participants.
Fig. 1. Screen presentation of video clip and the emotion rating scale IntenseTrace.
297
2.4. Trace data reduction and analysis
The IntenseTrace program records the position of the moving
spot on the rating scale every 25 ms giving a near continuous
recording at a rate of 40 Hz. The delity of the original rating
was deemed too high to provide a meaningful representation of
decoders reaction to change in stimuli intensity so an average rat-
ing was calculated for each second (each rating had 30 data points).
Pearsons r was used to provide an indicator of how similar each
pair of traces was, providing an intra-rater reliability score for each
clip. An average of the three reliability scores was calculated to
produce a score for each target emotion and an average of these
produced the overall consistency score.
There is a lack of previous research examining the importance
of reliability in the non-verbal communication of emotion but it
is not difcult to imagine how less consistent judgements could
make appropriate interpretation of expressions difcult and ham-
per communication. It also has the benet of providing a value that
is sensitive to the temporal properties of the data, comparing how
decoders responses change over time.
There is evidence of gender differences in decoding emotion,
with females generally more accurate, and their rating of emotion
expressions more variable and higher than males (Hall & Matsum-
oto, 2004). We thus explored decoding-trait relationships in the
full sample and also when split for gender. (Post hoc power analy-
ses for a small sample size of 25 males, medium effect size of 0.35,
and alpha equal to 0.05 suggest the power to be 0.5667).
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive statistics
Table 1 provides descriptive statistics for trait EI, personality
and decoders intra-rater reliability scores (a measure of how con-
sistently they rated expressed intensity) for each condition.
Male decoders scored signicantly higher in psychoticism
(p = .001) and signicantly lower in neuroticism (p = .004) than
females. Paired samples t-tests compared reliability scores in each
condition to explore how encoders target emotion differentiated
decoders responses. Decoders were signicantly more reliable rat-
ing amusement (p < .001) and disgust (p < .001) over fear suggest-
ing properties inherent in these expressions make them easier to
298 C. Edgar et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 295300

Table 1 Table 3
Descriptive statistics: self-report EI, personality, intra-rater reliability. EI and intra-rater reliability correlations.

Sample mean (SD) Male mean (SD) Female mean (SD) Disgust Fear Amusement Overall
**
EI Overall EI .182 .366 .187 .266*
Overall EI score 153.77 (12.73) 154.61 (8.75) 153.00 (15.68) MoodReg -.082 .105 .038 .035
Mood 45.54 (5.49) 45.17 (5.50) 45.89 (5.57) Utilisation -.043 .069 .003 .012
Regulation Appraisal .084 .222 .000 .118
Utilisation 21.56 (3.67) 21.50 (3.75) 21.62 (3.67)
Males
Appraisal 38.16 (5.67) 38.92 (5.34) 37.46 (5.97)
Overall EI .072 .063 .027 .060
Personality MoodReg .067 .105 .008 .069
Extraversion 9.06 (3.30) 8.92 (3.54) 9.19 (3.12) Utilisation .032 .013 .096 .051
Neuroticism 6.16 (3.39) 4.75 (3.53) 7.46 (2.72) Appraisal .012 .230 .382* .240
Psychoticism 2.92 (2.08) 3.92 (1.84) 2.00 (1.88)
Females
Intra-rater reliability Overall EI .273 .534** .280 .374*
Disgust 0.67 (0.16) 0.66 (0.17) 0.68 (0.15) MoodReg .105 .291 .101 .133
Fear 0.53 (0.21) 0.54 (0.22) 0.53 (0.22) Utilisation .125 .121 .090 .021
Amusement 0.68 (0.18) 0.70 (0.19) 0.66 (0.18) Appraisal .189 .582** .311 .385*
Overall 0.62 (0.18) 0.63 (0.17) 0.61 (0.18) *
p < .05.
**
p < .01.

decode consistently. Curiously there was no signicant difference

in the reliability scores of disgust and amusement. 3.4. Personality and intra-rater reliability

3.2. Relationships between intra-rater reliability scores
Correlational analysis was used to quantify the degree of simi-
larity in reliability scores produced by decoders across conditions.
Results demonstrated universally positive relationships between
all conditions across the entire sample, as well as for male and
female decoders when analysed separately (Table 2). This uniform
pattern of response may be indicative of a single, underlying pro-
cess that is responsible for mediating decoding reliability.
3.3. Emotional intelligence and intra-rater reliability
Table 3 shows the relationship between trait EI and decoding
reliability scores for the complete sample; high trait EI scores were
associated with high decoding reliability for fear and overall scores.
When split for gender, female decoders produced signicant rela-
tionships associating high trait EI & appraisal of emotion subscale
scores with high decoding reliability for fear and overall. For male
decoders there was a signicant negative association between
appraisal of emotion subscale scores and amusement reliability
scores. These results suggest that the relationship between apprai-
sal of emotion and reliability depends on both the target emotion
and gender of the decoder. It is also notable that the highest num-
ber of signicant associations was in the fear condition.
Table 2
Intra-rater reliability correlations across conditions.
Table 4 shows the correlations between personality and reli-
ability scores. There were no signicant relationships when analys-
ing the complete sample, although the negative relationship
between neuroticism and fear reliability was arguably approaching
signicance (p = .055). When split for gender, female decoders pro-
duced signicant relationships associating high neuroticism scores
with low reliability scores in the fear condition and high psychot-
icism scores with low reliability scores in the amusement condi-
tion. There was a notable lack of signicant associations between
personality and reliability scores for males.
4. Discussion
In line with previous research males scored lower in neuroti-
cism and higher in psychoticism than females (Martin & Kirkcaldy,
1998). Comparing intra-rater reliability scores of intensity ratings,
it was apparent that fear was the most difcult expression to
decode reliably. It is not clear whether this was due to how decod-
ers processed fear or to how it was expressed by the encoders (or a
combination of both factors). Interestingly, these results demon-
strate a conceptual similarity between reliability scores and more
traditional measures of emotion decoding that tend to be enhanced
when decoding happiness/disgust relative to fear (Ekman &
Friesen, 1971).
Particularly interesting was the universally positive manifold of
relationships between all reliability scores across all emotions.
These results are in line with previous research that also found high

Disgust Fear Amusement Overall

Disgust Table 4
Fear .680** Personality and intra-rater reliability correlations.
Amusement .497** .686**
Disgust Fear Amusement Overall
Overall .822** .908** .850**
Extraversion .141 .043 .070 .023
Males
Neuroticism .125 .229 .138 .200
Disgust
Psychoticism .045 .090 .059 .047
Fear .732**
Amusement .563** .785** Males
Overall .844** .949** .882** Extraversion .113 .029 .048 .032
Neuroticism .053 .133 .201 .147
Females
Psychoticism .120 .271 .211 .231
Disgust
Fear .636** Females
Amusement .456* .601** Extraversion .180 .117 .104 .009
Overall .818** .876** .827** Neuroticism .307 .380* .029 .246
*
Psychoticism .039 .058 .460* .161
p < .05.
** *
p < .01. p < .05.
 C. Edgar et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 295300
inter-correlations between decoding variables across a range of
emotions (Austin, 2004, 2005; Matsumoto et al., 2000). Matsumoto
et al. (2000) interpreted this as a positive sign of convergent validity.
There is no direct explanation why reliability scores correlate
together so strongly (as opposed to patterns of reliability being dif-
ferent across emotions). In fact these results are contrary to previous
research that found the decoding process to be more distinct
between differing emotions (Suzuki, Hoshino, & Shigemasu, 2010).
Both overall trait EI scores and appraisal of emotion subscale
scores tend to share a positive relationship with decoding reliabil-
ity. Conceptualising high decoding reliability as a benecial charac-
teristic is in line with previous studies that associated high trait EI
with universally benecial effects on the emotion decoding process
increasing both decoding speed and accuracy (Austin, 2004,
2005; Ciarrochi et al., 2001; Petrides & Furnham, 2003). This rela-
tionship is particularly apparent between trait EI and fear reliabil-
ity scores (and to a lesser extent the composite, overall scores).
This implies that high scores in trait EI and on the appraisal of emo-
tion subscale may be positively linked to how reliably we decode
emotion. Furthermore these relationships provide additional evi-
dence that reliability parallels traditional measures of decoding
such as speed and accuracy.
One result running contrary to established literature is the neg-
ative relationship between decoding reliability and Appraisal of
Emotions subscale for males. This nding along with the general
lack of signicant results for male decoders is puzzling. Whilst it
is conceivable that females are more sensitive to certain aspects
of the stimuli (e.g. fear), the unexpected pattern of results may
be due to some form of encoderdecoder gender interaction.
It is not clear why there is a comparative lack of results between
trait EI and reliability for disgust and happiness, however the high-
er reliability scores and lower variation may be indicative of a ceil-
ing effect.
Relationships between reliability scores and personality traits
also revealed a similar pattern of associations found with measures
of decoding speed and accuracy. Neuroticism was negatively linked
to how reliably individuals rated expressions of fear (albeit females
only), supporting previous work that reported high neuroticism
scores associated with poor performance when processing nega-
tive emotional expressions (Matsumoto et al., 2000). Unlike
Miskovic and Schmidt (2010) ndings, psychoticism scores failed
to demonstrate a signicant relationship with ratings of fear stim-
uli. However the negative association with amusement does t
with psychoticisms theoretical links to detached/anti-social qual-
ities (Eysenck, 1992). Once again, the female data is the most
informative.
These results are encouraging, but limited, and there is a clear
need to expand on this work. Utilising alternative measures of both
EI and personality within a larger sample would facilitate fuller
understanding of the relationship between psychological traits
and the decoding process. Candidates include ability-based mea-
sures of EI (MacCaan & Roberts, 2008) and ve factor models of
personality (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Furthermore, the literature
has begun to report trait-decoding links with measures of Theory
of Mind (Ferguson & Austin, 2010) and both the behavioural acti-
vation & inhibition systems (Knyazev, Bocharov, Slobodskaya, &
Ryabichenko, 2008).
The incorporation of male encoders in future experimental
designs would allow for exploration of encoderdecoder gender
interaction. Future work could also incorporate traditional mea-
sures of decoding speed and accuracy to clarify the nature of their
relationship with both decoding reliability and psychological traits.
Finally the data produced by the continuous ratings was extremely
rich and complex. The data points in a trace likely represent an
amalgamation of psychological processes ranging in relevance to
the emotional content of the clip, some segments of the data
299
may be more pertinent to the decoding process than others. It
would be benecial to explore a variety of analytical techniques
and separate information relevant to the decoding process from
that which simply reects how participants interact with the soft-
ware itself.
5. Conclusions
This study has made some progress towards building an under-
standing of how trait EI and personality relate to decoding natural-
istic emotion. By implementing spontaneous/dynamic expressions
of emotion it addressed criticisms of the posed stimuli used in pre-
vious research. Reliability provided a measure that was both sensi-
tive to the dynamic characteristics of the stimuli and informative
of how decoders ratings related to established psychological traits.
It is hoped through replication and expansion of this work that a
greater understanding of how trait EI and personality constructs
relate to decoding natural emotion expressions will be developed.
References
Amin, Z., Constable, R. T., & Canli, T. (2004). Attentional bias for valenced stimuli as a
function of personality in the dot-probe task. Journal of Research in Personality,
38, 1523.
Austin, E. J. (2004). An investigation of the relationship between trait emotional
intelligence and emotional task performance. Personality and Individual
Differences, 36, 18551864.
Austin, E. J. (2005). Emotional intelligence and emotional information processing.
Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 403414.
Austin, E. J., Saklofske, D. H., Huang, S. H. S., & McKenney, D. (2004). Measurement of
trait emotional intelligence. testing and cross validating a modied version of
Schutte et als (1998) measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 36,
555562.
Bastiaansen, J. A. C. J., Thioux, M., & Keysers, C. (2009). Evidence for mirror systems
in emotions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,
27, 23912404.
Biele, C., & Grabowska, A. (2006). Sex differences in perception of emotion intensity
in dynamic and static facial expressions. Experimental Brain Research, 171, 16.
Blair, R. J. R., Colledge, E., Murray, L., & Mitchell, D. G. V. (2001). A selective
impairment in the processing of sad and fearful expressions in children with
psychopathic tendencies. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 491498.
Canli, T., Zhao, Z., Desmond, J. E., Kang, E., Gross, J., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2001). An fMRI
study of personality inuences on brain reactivity to emotional stimuli.
Behavioral Neuroscience, 115, 3342.
Ciarrochi, J. V., Chan, A. Y. C., & Bajgar, J. (2001). Measuring emotional intelligence in
adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 11051119.
Cowie, R., Douglas-Cowie, E., Savvidou, S., McMahon, E., Sawey, M., & Schroeder, M.
(2000). FEELTRACE: an instrument for recording perceived emotion in real time.
In R. Cowie, E. Douglas-Cowie, & M. Schroeder (Eds.), Speech and Emotion:
Proceedings of the International Speech Communication Research Workshop
(pp. 1924). Co. Down: Newcastle.
De Pascalis, V., & Speranza, O. (2000). Personality effects on attentional shifts to
emotional charged cues: ERP, behavioural and HR data. Personality and
Individual Differences, 29, 217238.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1971). Constants across cultures in the face and
emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 124129.
Eysenck, H. J. (1992). A reply to Costa and McCrae. P or A and C - the role of theory.
Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 867868.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and Individual Differences. New
York: Plenum.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1991). Eysenck Personality Scales (EPS Adult). Kent:
Hodder and Stoughton Ltd.
Ferguson, F. J., & Austin, E. J. (2010). Associations of trait and ability emotional
intelligence with performance on Theory of Mind tasks in an adult sample.
Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 414418.
Goldman, A. I., & Sripada, C. S. (2005). Simulationist models of face-based emotion
recognition. Cognition, 94, 193213.
Gomez, R., Gomez, A., & Cooper, A. (2002). Neuroticism and Extraversion as
predictors of negative and positive emotional information processing:
comparing Eysencks, Grays, and Newmans theories. European Journal of
Personality, 16, 333350.
Hall, J. A., & Matsumoto, D. (2004). Gender differences in judgments of multiple
emotions from facial expressions. Emotion, 4, 201206.
Hess, U., & Kleck, R. E. (1994). The cues decoders use in attempting to differentiate
emotion-elicited and posed facial expressions. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 24, 367381.
Kamachi, M., Bruce, V., Mukaida, S., Gyoba, J., Yoshikawa, S., & Akamatsu, S. (2001).
Dynamic properties inuence the perception of facial expressions. Perception,
30, 875887.
300 C. Edgar et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 295300
Knyazev, G. G., Bocharov, A. V., Slobodskaya, H. R., & Ryabichenko, T. I. (2008).
Personality-linked biases in perception of emotional facial expressions.
Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 10931104.
MacCaan, C., & Roberts, R. D. (2008). New Paradigms for assessing emotional
intelligence. Theory and Data. Emotion, 8, 540551.
Martin, T., & Kirkcaldy, B. (1998). Gender differences on the EPQ-R and attitudes to
work. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 15.
Matsumoto, D., & Ekman, P. (1988) Japanese and Caucasian Facial Expressions of
Emotion (JACFEE) and Neutral Faces (JACNeuF). [Slides]. San Francisco, CA:
Department of Psychology, San Francisco State University.
Matsumoto, D., LeRoux, J., Wilson-Cohn, C., Raroque, J., Kooken, J., Ekman, P., et al.
(2000). A new test to measure emotion recognition ability: Matsumoto and
Ekmans Japanese and Caucasian Brief Affect Recognition Test (JACBART).
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24, 179209.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. C. (1987). Validation of the ve-factor model across
instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,
8190.
Miskovic, V., & Schmidt, L. A. (2010). Individual differences in psychoticism predict
attention for emotional faces. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 499501.
Naab, P. J., & Russell, J. A. (2007). Judgements of emotion from spontaneous facial
expressions of New Guineans. Emotion, 7, 736744.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, D. (2003). Trait Emotional intelligence. behavioural
validation in two studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood
induction. European Journal of Personality, 17, 3957.
Petrides, K. V., Pita, R., & Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location of trait emotional
intelligence in personality factor space. British Journal of Psychology, 98,
273289.
Rusting, C. L. (1998). Personality, mood, and cognitive processing of emotional
information: three conceptual frameworks. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 165196.
Sato, W., & Yoshikawa, S. (2004). The dynamic aspects of emotional facial
expressions. Cognition and Emotion, 18, 710.
Schubert, E. (2010). Continuous self-report methods. In P. N. Juslin & J. A. Loboda
(Eds.), Handbook of Music and Emotion: Theory, Research, Applications
(pp. 223253). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sneddon, I., McKeown, G., McRorie, M., & Hanratty, J. (2011a). The Belfast Induced
Natural Emotion Database. Journal of LATEX Class Files, 6, 111.
Sneddon, I., McKeown, G., McRorie, M., & Vukicevic, T. (2011b). Cross-cultural
patterns in dynamic ratings of positive and negative natural emotional
behaviour. PLoS One, 6, 18.
Suzuki, A., Hoshino, T., & Shigemasu, K. (2010). Happiness is unique: A latent
structure of emotion recognition traits revealed by statistical model
comparison. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 196201.
Tcherkassof, A., Bollon, T., Bubois, M., Pansu, P., & Adam, J.-M. (2007). Facial
expressions of emotions: A methodological contribution to the study of
spontaneous and dynamic emotional faces. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 37, 13251345.
Yik, M., Meng, Z., & Russell, J. A. (1998). Adults freely produced emotion labels for
babies spontaneous facial expressions. Cognition & Emotion, 12, 723730.
Zuckerman, M., Joireman, J., Kraft, M., & Kulman, D. M. (1999). Where do
motivational and emotional traits t within three factor models of
personality? Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 287504.
Zuckerman, M., Lipets, M. S., Koivumaki, J. H., & Rosenthal, R. (1975). Encoding and
decoding nonverbal cues of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
32, 10681076.