Adèle Gallant
Marie-Pier Mazerolle
Annalie Pelot
Annie Roy-Charland- 1School of Psychology, Université de Moncton, Moncton, NB, Canada
- 2Department of Psychology, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON, Canada
Whereas cross-cultural differences in recognition of emotional facial expressions are widely established, less information exists regarding differences in their production. The current systematic review was conducted to summarize and clarify the role of culture in the production of emotional facial expressions. Following a two-step process, 21 peer-reviewed articles were included within the current review, from which four categories were generated exploring findings from child/infant and adult studies separately: (1) production of spontaneous expressions, (2) production of posed expressions, (3) comparison of spontaneous and posed expressions, and (4) others. Whereas the production of emotional facial expressions is shown to be largely universal, culturally variable nuances exist but vary according to spontaneous versus posed expressions.
1 Introduction
Emotional facial expressions are among the most salient channels of non-verbal communication. By activating specific muscle groups, humans convey internal states, guide social interactions, and provide environmental cues to others (Darwin, 1998; Ekman, 1971; Horstmann, 2003; Sander and Scherer, 2009). A smile can signal happiness or approval (Brown and Moore, 2002; Rychlowska et al., 2017), while widened eyes and a gaping mouth may communicate fear, alerting others to possible danger (Gosselin and Kirouac, 1995; Lee et al., 2013). Because of their communicative power, emotional facial expressions have long been central to research on human emotion.
1.1 Historical and theoretical background
Charles Darwin argued that emotional facial expressions are innate, biologically grounded, and evolutionarily conserved across species and human groups (Darwin, 1998). His proposal that emotions are adaptive responses with characteristic behavioral displays inspired discrete emotion theories, which posit that a limited set of basic emotions are universally shared, each linked to distinct eliciting conditions, physiological changes, and observable expressions (Izard, 1971; Tomkins and McCarter, 1964; Magai, 2001).
Building on this framework, Ekman et al. (2002) developed the Facial Action Coding System (FACS) to identify muscular movements (action units, AUs) underlying visible appearance changes in the face. This tool enabled researchers to chart reproducible patterns of muscle activation associated with discrete emotions. For instance, AU6 (cheek raiser) and AU12 (lip corner puller) were seen as cues happiness, while the combination of AU4 (brow lowerer) and AU7 (lid tightener) are associated with anger. Many researchers have since identified combinations of AUs that recur reliably with particular emotions (Ekman et al., 2002).
1.2 Universality of emotional facial expressions
With the theories such as the basic emotion theory (Ekman et al., 1969), the universality hypothesis argues that basic emotions are expressed and recognized similarly across cultures. Early theorists such as Tomkins and McCarter (1964) proposed innate affect programs that generate recognizable expressions. Ekman and Friesen (1971) famously asked members of a preliterate group in Papua New Guinea to produce expressions corresponding to emotional scenarios (e.g., “show me what you would look like if your child had died”), and found that American participants recognized them with high accuracy. Conversely, Papua New Guinea participants reliably recognized Americans’ posed expressions. These findings were widely interpreted as evidence that six emotions, anger, disgust, fear, sadness, surprise, and happiness, constitute “basic emotions” with universal facial signals (Ekman et al., 1969; Ekman, 1971, 1992; Ekman and Rosenberg, 1997; Izard, 1971, 1994; Hwang and Matsumoto, 2015). The universality perspective has influenced psychology, anthropology, and neuroscience, as well as clinical domains such as assessment (Douglas and Porter, 2010; Oosterman et al., 2016) and interventions (Webster et al., 2021).
1.3 Culture and emotional facial expressions
Despite its dominance, the universality hypothesis has been challenged by accounts emphasizing cultural variability. Cultural constructionist theories argue that emotional facial expressions are not biologically fixed “readouts” but are shaped by learned values, beliefs, norms, meanings, language, and customs (Triandis, 1995; Mascolo et al., 2003; Shaver et al., 1992; Russell, 1994, 1995). In this view, culture not only regulates expressions but defines the meaning of emotions themselves. Several mechanisms have been proposed. For instance, display rules are culturally learned guidelines that dictate how and when emotions should be shown, concealed, or exaggerated (Ekman and Friesen, 1975; Matsumoto, 1990; Banerjee, 1997; Banerjee and Yuill, 1999; Matsumoto and Hwang, 2013). For example, Asian cultural contexts place emphasis on shame and social harmony, encouraging individuals to mask negative emotions and exaggerate positive ones (Fung, 1999; Shaver et al., 1992; Camras et al., 1998, 2006; Mui et al., 2017). Another mechanism is the in-group advantage: people are more accurate at recognizing emotional facial expressions from members of their own cultural group (Elfenbein and Ambady, 2002; Elfenbein et al., 2004). A meta-analysis supported this effect across many emotions, and further research suggests culturally specific “non-verbal accents” in emotional facial expressions (Elfenbein et al., 2002). For example, smiles may be universal markers of happiness, but cultures differ in whether closed- versus open-mouth smiles are common (Beaupré and Hess, 2003; Bjornsdottir and Rule, 2021). Together, these findings highlight that cultural learning and socialization might shape both the production and recognition of emotional facial expressions.
1.4 Methodological sources of discrepancy
While the reason being the inconsistencies in the literature leading to the persistence of the debate is unclear, methodological heterogeneity might play an important role. Amongst methodological differences, task designs might matter. Forced-choice paradigms, which constrain participants to a fixed set of labels, tend to inflate recognition accuracy, whereas free-labeling tasks produce lower accuracy and seem to reveal more culturally variable interpretations (Russell, 1994, 1995; Nelson and Russell, 2013; Ortony, 2022). Furthermore, the operationalizations of “culture” further complicate conclusions. Studies often substitute nationality for culture, grouping heterogeneous populations into broad categories (e.g., “East Asian”), ignoring important intracultural variation (Hofstede, 2001). Research using international students raises similar concerns, as acculturation may rapidly alter recognition accuracy (Elfenbein and Ambady, 2003). Another important variation between studies is related to the emotional facial expressions themselves. Many influential studies have used posed expressions, deliberately enacted by actors or participants under instruction. These could lead to important difference in stimuli both between studies but also within studies. While researchers can control for the presence of specific muscle movements in their stimuli, not all do. Indeed, posed expressions are produced by explicit instructions to display a specific emotion or activate specific muscles, while spontaneous expressions result from an induced emotional experience. While standardizable, posed expressions are typically produced in controlled laboratory settings and may differ systematically from spontaneous expressions, which arise from genuine emotional experiences often captured in naturalistic or ecologically valid contexts (Namba et al., 2017). Expressions may also differ as a function of the study setting. In this sense, non-naturalistic studies can be defined as those conducted in controlled laboratory environments, whereas naturalistic studies involve the observation of emotional expressions in real-life contexts. It is possible that the setting influences the expressions produced. However, context does not necessarily determine the elicitation method: for example, a participant may produce a spontaneous expression in response to an emotional film clip, even though the situation takes place in a non-naturalistic laboratory setting. Recognition accuracy and cultural differences can vary depending on which type of stimulus is used (Matsumoto and Hwang, 2017). These methodological inconsistencies likely explain why some studies strongly support universality while others report cultural divergence (e.g., Blais et al., 2008; Haidt and Keltner, 1999; Jack et al., 2009, 2012; Elfenbein and Ambady, 2002).
1.5 The role of production procedures
Notably, most cross-cultural studies focus on recognition, while the production of expressions has received comparatively little attention. Yet production determines the very stimuli on which recognition studies rely. If expressions differ across cultures in intensity, timing, or AU configuration, whether due to innate mechanisms, display rules, or methodological elicitation, then recognition findings alone cannot resolve whether expressions are universal or culturally variable. For instance, a recognition study comparing Western and East Asian observers may find accuracy differences. Without knowing whether the expressions judged were posed or spontaneous, or how they were originally produced within each cultural context, it is impossible to determine whether these differences reflect perceptual biases, cultural display rules, or deeper biological variation. In this sense, production is not simply parallel to recognition, it is foundational to understanding the stimuli that have fueled this debate.
1.6 The goal of the review
The present systematic review focuses on cross-cultural production of emotional facial expressions. By synthesizing studies across development and adulthood, and comparing methodological approaches (posed vs. spontaneous, static vs. dynamic, task designs, cultural groupings), we aim to clarify whether cultural influences on production contribute to the inconsistencies that characterize the universality vs. cultural variation debate. By examining production directly, we seek to move beyond recognition alone, toward a more integrated understanding of how universal biological mechanisms and cultural processes jointly shape the human face of emotion.
2 Methods
This study was conducted in accordance with the preferred guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA Group; Moher et al., 2009). A systematic review of academic articles published between 1972 and 2024 was conducted through May 10th to May 13th, 2024, drawing upon three databases: PsycINFO, PubMed, and Scopus. The flow diagram illustrating the search strategy employed and screening information is presented in Figure 1. Two search strategies were employed for this review. First, the keywords facial expressions OR facial expressions of emotions OR emotional facial expressions, production, and cultur* (only this prefix was used to include both variations of the word, i.e., culture and cultural) were used. A total of 21 results were obtained with PsycINFO, 126 results with PubMed and 59 results with Scopus. Additionally, a second search was completed combining the keywords facial expressions OR facial expressions of emotions OR emotional facial expressions, spontaneous* and cultur*. In this second search, the keyword spontaneous was employed to access additional articles which touched based on the cultural differences and similarities in the case of emotional facial expressions that are not produced on command or simulated. A total of 19 results from PsycINFO, 30 results from PubMed, and 30 results from Scopus were included. In addition, four additional articles were found through Google Scholar. Before beginning the first screening, duplicates were eliminated, and articles were removed if their title was irrelevant (e.g., not linked to facial expressions). Thus, 30 duplicates were removed, and 171 articles were excluded based on their title.
Figure 1. Method diagram. *The term “cultur” was intentionally used in the keywords to capture multiple extensions of the word (e.g., “culture,” “cultural”).
Based solely on the abstracts, a first screening was conducted to identify irrelevant and relevant articles. Empirical and theoretical articles published in peer-reviewed journals relating to the production of emotional facial expressions in different cultures or ethnicity were included; any articles concerning the influence of other variables exclusively (e.g., age, sex, medical conditions, disabilities), measuring recognition or judgment of emotional facial expressions, and any article not related to facial expressions of emotions were excluded. Finally, animal-related research articles were removed as we are focusing on human behavior exclusively. Based on this first screening, 62 articles were retained. A second screening was conducted in a meeting with the three researchers. Articles were accepted for the review if they were directly related to the production of emotional facial expressions amongst people of different cultures; articles not touching base on such comparison were excluded. The current review thus includes 21 articles, listed in Table 1.
Table 1. List of selected articles and demographic information.
Based on the articles selected, we highlight two distinctions in the types of production: spontaneous expressions and posed expressions. The selected articles were categorized based on the type of production used, which is displayed in Table 2. Further information and definitions on these categories will be discussed in greater detail in the following section.
Table 2. Production type.
3 Results
The studies accepted for review are listed in Table 1, with an overview of their sociodemographic information. Based on the articles and their results, four main categories were created regarding production of expressions: spontaneous, posed, both spontaneous and posed, and other. In all categories, studies featuring children/infants and adults are presented to get a broad overview of the effect of cultures on these populations. Within the spontaneous category, we further distinguish between non-naturalistic (laboratory-based) and naturalistic (field or observational) studies. This subclassification highlights contextual differences that allows examination of how culture might modulate emotional facial behavior contexts beyond just a laboratory setting. We added an “other” category since certain production methods did not fit in our previously two defined categories. For instance, some studies are described as “in the wild” where they utilized computer-coding methods to analyze emotional content available on the Internet. Details of the studies are presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Summary of the main results of each study included in the review.
Among the selected studies, it is worth distinguishing between laboratory-based, naturalistic, and “in the wild” settings. While “in the wild” technically falls under naturalistic observation, these studies relied on pre-existing images (e.g., candid celebrity photos or expressions from photoshoots) without clear information on the elicitation method. Given the ambiguity in these sources, they were grouped separately because it is impossible to clearly know if these expressions are posed or spontaneous. Overall, 15 studies (71.4%) were conducted in laboratory settings, 4 (19.1%) in naturalistic environments, and 2 (9.5%) were classified as “in the wild.” Our results were categorized and interpreted based on the type of elicitation (spontaneous vs. posed) rather than the experimental setting itself, as observed differences were consistently tied to elicitation style. Similar trends were found across both laboratory and naturalistic studies. For instance, masking and intensity effects in the work of Matsumoto (naturalistic) and Camras (laboratory) showed similar patterns, suggesting that context alone (lab vs. real life) does not account for the variability. Laboratory studies of spontaneous expressions typically involve emotionally evocative stimuli that elicit genuine emotional responses, much like those encountered in everyday life. This reinforces the notion that the key distinction lies in whether expressions are posed or spontaneous, rather than in the experimental setting itself.
3.1 Spontaneous expressions
A total of 15 studies (71.4%) examined the production of spontaneous expressions, with 7 being with children (46.7%) and 8 with adults (53.3%). In regard to cultures examined, many studies used the eastern and western country classification to regroup countries represented in their study. For example, some studies use Japan and United-States exclusively, while others used a combination of countries in subgroups (i.e., East Asia, Western Europe). See Table 3, column 3 for all the variations of expression production types. Spontaneous expressions generally displayed a high degree of cross-cultural consistency, particularly for emotions such as happiness, sadness, and fear. However, the intensity and frequency of expressions varied across cultural contexts. Studies that elicited production of facial expression through recall of an emotional experience and through presenting various stimuli found this pattern (Chentsova-Dutton and Tsai, 2007; Friesen, 1972; Camras et al., 2006; McDuff et al., 2017). For example, the study by McDuff et al. (2017) observed patterns of spontaneous emotional facial expressions in 12 different countries and found subtle variations in display rules, such as more frequent presentations of brow furrowing in more individualist cultures. Furthermore, individuals from collectivist cultures, particularly East Asian groups, tended to attenuate or regulate emotional expressions more than those from individualistic cultures, consistent with the concept of display rules. This pattern of results was also found when looking at children and infants (Camras et al., 1992, 1998, 2003, 2007). For instance, Camras et al. (2007) observed the emotional facial expression of anger and fear in 11-month-old European American, Chinese, and Japanese infants and they found no major differences. At the same time, studies examining naturally occurring spontaneous expressions, such as those observed in sports competitions, suggest that culturally driven regulation occurs primarily after an initial universal reaction (Matsumoto and Willingham, 2006; Matsumoto et al., 2009b; Tracy and Matsumoto, 2008). For instance, athletes across cultures exhibited similar expressions immediately after a victory or loss, but cultural norms influenced the subsequent modulation of facial behavior. This supports the idea that while the emotion facial expressions of basic emotions tend to be universal, cultural influences guide secondary adjustments in social contexts.
3.2 Posed expressions
A total of 4 studies (19%) examined the production of posed expressions, with 1 being with children and 3 with adults. In terms of cultures examined, the most frequent were Chinese (n = 2) and Japanese (n = 2), followed by, North America (Canada and the USA, n = 1, 25%), Gabonese (n = 1), Indian (n = 1), South Korean (n = 1), French (n = 1), Dutch (n = 1, 25%). Posed emotional facial expressions are deliberate and artificially generated using imitation, commands, or emotion labels. In contrast to spontaneous emotional facial expressions, they exhibited greater cultural variability. In terms of facial muscle activation, studies utilizing the Facial Action Coding System (FACS) found that while core action units for basic emotions were generally consistent, culturally specific facial movements were still found. For instance, Elfenbein et al. (2007) suggest that emotions mainly elicited in social interactions such as anger, contempt, happiness, sadness, serenity, and shame, show greater cultural variations in contrast to those often elicited by internal experience (disgust, fear). Cordaro et al. (2018) expanded on this by analyzing 22 emotions, confirming cultural consistency in core action units but identifying 104 unique cultural accents. For example, open-mouthed lip puckers were more common in India for positive emotions, while head lowering was more frequent in China for negative emotions. Collectivist cultures tended to express emotions in a more inhibited manner (e.g., gaze aversion, head down) (e.g., Tracy and Matsumoto, 2008). Grossard et al. (2018) explored different factors in the production of posed emotional facial expressions amongst children and found regional variations and variations based on the elicitation method. They found variations in the production of emotional facial expressions as a function of the social environment. In Sato et al.’s (2019) study, even though the authors found that Japanese participants had the potential of producing similar facial movements as Western participants, they produced expressions more evidently when asked to imitate a photograph then when following a scenario. Furthermore, they also found variations in the facial activations used. Thus, emotional facial expressions produced with the use of a scenario were not consistent with the prototypical expressions proposed theoretically.
3.3 Both (spontaneous and posed expressions)
Fang et al. (2022) compared the production of spontaneous and posed emotional facial expressions, and their findings revealed that Chinese participants’ posed expressions were less distinct than those of Dutch participants, aligning with prior research on cultural influences in facial expressivity (Cordaro et al., 2018; Elfenbein et al., 2007). While both groups shared certain frequent action units (AUs) for anger and disgust, several other AUs varied between cultures. Results also suggest that posed expressions incorporate culturally specific features, whereas spontaneous expressions tend to be more universal. Interestingly, even if spontaneous expressions displayed fewer cross-cultural differences than posed expressions, there were still subtle variations in display rules and intensity. This observation reinforces previous research that collectivist cultures, such as China, exhibit less distinct emotional expressions than individualistic cultures (Matsumoto et al., 2009b; Tsai et al., 2002; Camras et al., 1998).
3.4 Other types of production
Beyond laboratory settings, some studies (n = 2, 9.5%) have analyzed emotional facial expressions in naturalistic environments using internet-sourced images and videos. The sample of these studies consisted of adults, and the culture groups are presented in Table 1, column 3. Du and Martinez (2015) examined compound emotions (e.g., happy-surprise) using computer-coded facial expressions from global media, identifying 17 compound emotions that were consistently produced across cultures. Similarly, Srinivasan and Martinez (2018) analyzed images from 30 countries and identified eight culturally distinct emotional facial expressions, though their presence varied across linguistic groups. Some expressions were widespread, while others were unique to specific languages or regions.
4 Discussion
The present review set out to clarify a longstanding debate in the literature on emotional facial expressions whether these expressions are biologically universal or shaped by cultural influences. While decades of research have documented both striking consistencies and systematic differences across cultural groups, our synthesis highlights that inconsistencies can be traced to methodological factors, particularly the distinction between posed and spontaneous expressions. Most importantly, we found that the production of expressions, long overshadowed by the focus on recognition, plays a critical role in shaping how emotions are conveyed and subsequently interpreted across cultures. By foregrounding production, our review demonstrates that apparent contradictions in the universality versus culture debate may reflect differences in how expressions are elicited, displayed, and regulated, rather than evidence for one theoretical perspective over the other.
4.1 Interpretation of findings
Findings from spontaneous expression studies reinforce the idea that basic emotional facial expressions are largely shared between cultures, consistent with the universality hypothesis (Ekman and Friesen, 1971; Ekman et al., 1987; Hwang and Matsumoto, 2015; Izard, 1994). However, cultural variability in intensity and regulation, especially in regulated environments, suggests that socialization plays a critical role in the control of emotional facial expressions (Matsumoto, 1990; Saarni, 1999). A plausible interpretation would be that individuals from collectivist cultures tend to regulate outward expressions to maintain social harmony, while those from individualistic cultures emphasize self-expression (Markus and Kitayama, 1991; Matsumoto et al., 2008). In contrast, posed expression studies demonstrate greater cultural variation in muscle activation and additional facial movements, supporting the idea that culture influences learned expression styles rather than innate emotional responses (Biehl et al., 1997; Jack et al., 2012; Chen and Jack, 2017). The presence of culturally specific facial gestures in posed expressions aligns with previous research on non-verbal accents and dialect theory, suggesting that social norms guide expression production (Elfenbein and Ambady, 2003; Marsh et al., 2003).
Moreover, spontaneous and posed expressions seem to serve different social functions, which may explain why cultural differences are more pronounced in the latter (Buck and VanLear, 2002; Matsumoto et al., 2009a; Namba et al., 2017). More precisely, spontaneous expressions seem automatic and biologically driven, whereas posed expressions seem more consciously controlled, allowing for greater cultural shaping. This distinction is particularly important when interpreting cross-cultural findings on emotional facial expression production.
4.2 Theoretical and methodological considerations
The findings raise important questions regarding research methodologies in the field of emotional facial expression production. Studies using posed expressions may overestimate cultural differences, as participants consciously engage in socially influenced expression patterns. Conversely, spontaneous expressions in naturalistic settings, such as those observed in sports competitions, provide stronger evidence for the universality hypothesis. As the literature did not distinguish between modes of induction, it contributed to the debate between universality and cultural differences. However, when we further analyze the modes of production, both positions are legitimate and supported depending on the context. This duality underscores the significance of our contribution, challenging current methodologies and highlighting the need for more nuanced approaches in cross-cultural research.
Additionally, studies examining emotional facial expressions “in the wild” (Du and Martinez, 2015; Srinivasan and Martinez, 2018) using internet-based images and videos highlight potential limitations in data sources, as such media often mix posed and genuine expressions. Future research should refine methodologies to better distinguish between authentic and socially influenced emotional expressions.
Finally, differences in production procedures, particularly whether expressions are posed or spontaneous, may also have significant implications for research on recognition of emotional facial expressions with regards to culture. The type of stimuli used could directly influences how expressions are perceived and interpreted. Consequently, findings of cultural differences or universality in recognition should be considered in light of the production methods underlying the stimuli. Future research should therefore examine recognition as a function of the stimuli used, systematically comparing posed and spontaneous emotional facial expressions, in order to clarify inconsistencies in the current literature and to better inform theoretical accounts.
5 Conclusion
In sum, this review demonstrates that the longstanding debate on the universality versus cultural specificity of emotional facial expressions cannot be resolved without careful attention to how expressions are produced. Evidence from spontaneous expression production studies largely supports universality, whereas findings from posed expression studies highlight cultural shaping through socialization, display rules, and non-verbal accents. Rather than being contradictory, these perspectives appear complementary: universality emerges most clearly when emotions are elicited spontaneously, while cultural differences surface when expressions are consciously constructed. Methodological choices, particularly the reliance on posed versus spontaneous stimuli, therefore play a decisive role in shaping theoretical interpretations. Moving forward, research should systematically disentangle these modes of production and examine their consequences for both production and recognition. Doing so will not only clarify inconsistencies in the current literature but also advance theory by situating universality and cultural variation as interconnected outcomes of the interaction between biological mechanisms and cultural contexts.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in this study are included in this article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
AG: Investigation, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Data curation, Conceptualization. M-PM: Data curation, Software, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis. AP: Writing – original draft. AR-C: Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Resources, Conceptualization, Project administration, Validation, Funding acquisition.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This research was supported by a NSERC Discovery grant (Grant number RGPIN-2020-05575) to Annie Roy-Charland.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Banerjee, M. (1997). Hidden emotions: Preschoolers’ knowledge of appearance-reality and emotion display rules. Soc. Cogn. 15, 107–132. doi: 10.1521/soco.1997.15.2.107
Banerjee, R., and Yuill, N. (1999). Children’s understanding of self-presentational display rules: Associations with mental-state understanding. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 17, 111–124. doi: 10.1348/026151099165186
Beaupré, M. G., and Hess, U. (2003). In my mind, we all smile: A case of in-group favoritism. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 39, 371–377. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00012-X
Biehl, M., Matsumoto, D., Ekman, P., Hearn, V., Heider, K., Kudoh, T., et al. (1997). Matsumoto and Ekman’s Japanese and Caucasian Facial Expressions of Emotion (JACFEE) and Neutral Faces (JACNeuF). San Francisco: University of California.
Bjornsdottir, R. T., and Rule, N. O. (2021). Perceiving acculturation from neutral and emotional faces. Emotion 21, 720–729. doi: 10.1037/emo0000735
Blais, C., Jack, R. E., Scheepers, C., Fiset, D., and Caldara, R. (2008). Culture shapes how we look at faces. PLoS One 3:e3022. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003022
Brown, W. M., and Moore, C. (2002). Smile asymmetries and reputation as reliable indicators of likelihood to cooperate: An evolutionary analysis. Adv. Psychol. Res. 11, 59–78.
Buck, R., and VanLear, C. A. (2002). Verbal and nonverbal communication: Distinguishing symbolic, spontaneous, and pseudo-spontaneous nonverbal behavior. J. Commun. 52, 522–541. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02560
Camras, L. A., Bakeman, R., Chen, Y., Norris, K., and Cain, T. R. (2006). Culture, ethnicity, and children’s facial expressions: A study of European American, Mainland Chinese, Chinese American, and adopted Chinese girls. Emotion 6, 103–115. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.6.1.103
Camras, L. A., Oster, H., Bakeman, R., Meng, Z., Ujiie, T., and Campos, J. J. (2007). Do infants show distinct negative facial expressions for fear and anger? Emotional expression in 11-month-old European American, Chinese, and Japanese infants. Infancy 11, 131–155. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7078.2007.tb00219.x
Camras, L. A., Oster, H., Campos, J. J., and Bakeman, R. (2003). Emotional facial expressions in European-American, Japanese, and Chinese infants. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1000, 135–151. doi: 10.1196/annals.1280.007
Camras, L. A., Oster, H., Campos, J. J., Miyake, K., and Bradshaw, D. (1992). Japanese and American infants’ responses to arm restraint. Dev. Psychol. 28, 578–583. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.28.4.578
Camras, L. A., Oster, H., Campos, J., Campos, R., Ujiie, T., Miyake, K., et al. (1998). Production of emotional facial expressions in European American, Japanese, and Chinese infants. Dev. Psychol. 34, 616–628. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.34.4.616
Chen, C., and Jack, R. E. (2017). Discovering cultural differences (and similarities) in facial expressions of emotion. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 17, 61–66. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.06.010
Chentsova-Dutton, Y. E., and Tsai, J. L. (2007). Gender differences in emotional response among European Americans and Hmong Americans. Cogn. Emot. 21, 162–181. doi: 10.1080/02699930600911333
Cordaro, D. T., Sun, R., Keltner, D., Kamble, S., Huddar, N., and McNeil, G. (2018). Universal and cultural variations in 22 emotional expressions across five cultures. Emotion 18, 75–93. doi: 10.1037/emo0000302
Darwin, C. (1998). The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, 3rd Edn. London: Harper Collins.
Douglas, K. M., and Porter, R. J. (2010). Recognition of disgusted facial expressions in severe depression. Br. J. Psychiatry 197, 156–157. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.110.078113
Du, S., and Martinez, A. M. (2015). Compound facial expressions of emotion: From basic research to clinical applications. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. 17, 443–455. doi: 10.31887/DCNS.2015.17.4/sdu
Ekman, P. (1971). Universals and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotion. Nebraska Symp. Motiv. 19, 207–283.
Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cogn. Emot. 6, 169–200. doi: 10.1080/02699939208411068
Ekman, P., and Friesen, W. V. (1971). Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 17, 124–129. doi: 10.1037/h0030377
Ekman, P., and Friesen, W. V. (1975). Unmasking the Face: A Guide to Recognizing Emotions from Facial Clues. Hoboken, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ekman, P., and Friesen, W. V. (1978). Facial Action Coding System. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Ekman, P., and Friesen, W. V. (2003). Unmasking the Face: A Guide to Recognizing Emotions from Facial Clues, Vol. 10. Los Altos, CA: Malor Books.
Ekman, P., and Rosenberg, E. L. (1997). What the Face Reveals: Basic and Applied Studies of Spontaneous Expression Using the Facial Action Coding System (FACS). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., and Hager, J. C. (2002). Facial Action Coding System: Manual and Investigator’s Guide. Salt Lake City, UT: Research Nexus.
Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., and Tomkins, S. S. (1971). Facial affect scoring technique: A first validity study. Semiotica 3, 37–58. doi: 10.1515/semi.1971.3.1.37
Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., O’Sullivan, M., Chan, A., Diacoyanni-Tarlatzis, I., Heider, K., et al. (1987). Universals and cultural differences in the judgments of facial expressions of emotion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53, 712–717. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.53.4.712
Ekman, P., Sorenson, E. R., and Friesen, W. V. (1969). Pan-cultural elements in facial displays of emotion. Science 164, 86–88. doi: 10.1126/science.164.3875.86
Elfenbein, H. A., and Ambady, N. (2002). On the universality and cultural specificity of emotion recognition: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 128, 203–235. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.2.203
Elfenbein, H. A., and Ambady, N. (2003). When familiarity breeds accuracy: Cultural exposure and facial emotion recognition. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85, 276–290. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.276
Elfenbein, H. A., Beaupré, M., Lévesque, M., and Hess, U. (2007). Toward a dialect theory: Cultural differences in the expression and recognition of posed facial expressions. Emotion 7, 131–146. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.7.1.131
Elfenbein, H. A., Mandal, M. K., Ambady, N., Harizuka, S., and Kumar, S. (2002). Cross-cultural patterns in emotion recognition: Highlighting design and analytical techniques. Emotion 2, 75–84. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.2.1.75
Elfenbein, H. A., Mandal, M., Ambady, N., Harizuka, S., and Kumar, S. (2004). Hemifacial differences in the in-group advantage in emotion recognition. Cogn. Emot. 18, 613–629. doi: 10.1080/02699930341000380
Fang, X., Sauter, D. A., Heerdink, M. W., and van Kleef, G. A. (2022). Culture shapes the distinctiveness of posed and spontaneous facial expressions of anger and disgust. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 53, 471–487. doi: 10.1177/00220221221095208
Friesen, W. V. (1972). Cultural Differences in Facial Expressions in a Social Situation: An Experimental Test of the Concept of Display Rules. Doctoral dissertation. San Francisco, CA: University of California.
Fung, H. (1999). Becoming a moral child: The socialization of shame among young Chinese children. Ethos 27, 180–209. doi: 10.1525/eth.1999.27.2.180
Gosselin, P., and Kirouac, G. (1995). Decoding facial emotional prototypes. Can. J. Exp. Psychol. 49, 313–329. doi: 10.1037/1196-1961.49.3.313
Grossard, C., Chaby, L., Hun, S., Pellerin, H., Bourgeois, J., Dapogny, A., et al. (2018). Children facial expression production: Influence of age, gender, emotion subtype, elicitation condition and culture. Front. Psychol. 9:446. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00446
Haidt, J., and Keltner, D. (1999). Culture and facial expression: Open-ended methods find more expressions and a gradient of recognition. Cogn. Emot. 13, 225–266. doi: 10.1080/026999399379267
Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations, 2nd Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Horstmann, G. (2003). What do facial expressions convey: Feeling states, behavioral intentions, or actions requests? Emotion 3, 150–166. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.3.2.150
Hwang, H., and Matsumoto, D. (2015). “Evidence for the universality of facial expressions of emotion,” in Understanding Facial Expressions in Communication: Cross-Cultural and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, eds M. K. Mandal and A. Awasthi (Singapore: Springer), 41–56. doi: 10.1007/978-81-322-1934-7_3
Izard, C. E. (1994). Innate and universal facial expressions: Evidence from developmental and cross-cultural research. Psychol. Bull. 115, 288–299. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.288
Izard, C. E. (1995). Maximally Discriminative Movement System (revised). Newark, NJ: University of Delaware.
Jack, R. E., Blais, C., Scheepers, C., Schyns, P. G., and Caldara, R. (2009). Cultural confusions show that facial expressions are not universal. Curr. Biol. 19, 1543–1548. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.07.051
Jack, R. E., Garrod, O. G., Yu, H., Caldara, R., and Schyns, P. G. (2012). Facial expressions of emotion are not culturally universal. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A. 109, 7241–7244. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1200155109
Lee, D. H., Susskind, J. M., and Anderson, A. K. (2013). Social transmission of the sensory benefits of eye widening in fear expressions. Psychol. Sci. 24, 957–965. doi: 10.1177/0956797612464500
Levenson, R. W., Carstensen, L. L., Friesen, W. V., and Ekman, P. (1991). Emotion, physiology, and expression in old age. Psychol. Aging 6, 28–35. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.6.1.28
Lewis, M., and Ramsay, D. (2002). Cortisol response to embarrassment and shame. Child Dev. 73, 1034–1045. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00455
Lewis, M., Takai-Kawakami, K., Kawakami, K., and Sullivan, M. W. (2010). Cultural differences in emotional responses to success and failure. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 34, 53–61. doi: 10.1177/0165025409348559
Magai, C. (2001). “Emotions over the life span,” in Handbook of the Psychology of Aging, eds J. E. Birren and K. W. Schaie (San Diego: Academic Press), 399–426.
Markus, H. R., and Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol. Rev. 98, 224–253. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
Marsh, A. A., Elfenbein, H. A., and Ambady, N. (2003). Nonverbal “accents”: Cultural differences in facial expressions of emotion. Psychol. Sci. 14, 373–376. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.24461
Mascolo, M. F., Fischer, K. W., and Li, J. (2003). “Dynamic development of component systems of emotions: Pride, shame and guilt in China and the United States,” in Handbook of Affective Sciences, eds R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, and H. H. Goldsmith (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 375–408.
Matsumoto, D. (1990). Cultural similarities and differences in display rules. Motiv. Emot. 14, 195–214. doi: 10.1007/BF00995569
Matsumoto, D., and Hwang, H. C. (2017). Methodological issues regarding cross-cultural studies of judgments of facial expressions. Emotion Rev. 9, 375–382. doi: 10.1177/1754073916679008
Matsumoto, D., and Hwang, H.-S. (2013). “Cultural display rules,” in The Encyclopedia of Cross-Cultural Psychology, ed. K. D. Keith (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons), 303–304. doi: 10.1002/9781118339893.wbeccp126
Matsumoto, D., and Willingham, B. (2006). The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat: Spontaneous expressions of medal winners of the 2004 Athens Olympic Games. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 91, 568–581. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.3.568
Matsumoto, D., Olide, A., and Willingham, B. (2009a). Is there an ingroup advantage in recognizing spontaneously expressed emotions? J. Nonverbal Behav. 33, 181–191. doi: 10.1007/s10919-009-0068-z
Matsumoto, D., Willingham, B., and Olide, A. (2009b). Sequential dynamics of culturally moderated facial expressions of emotion. Psychol. Sci. 20, 1269–1274. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02438.x
Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., and Fontaine, J. (2008). Mapping expressive differences around the world: The relationship between emotional display rules and individualism versus collectivism. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 39, 55–74. doi: 10.1177/0022022107311854
McDuff, D., Girard, J. M., and el Kaliouby, R. (2017). Large-scale observational evidence of cross-cultural differences in facial behavior. J. Nonverbal Behav. 41, 1–19. doi: 10.1007/s10919-016-0244-x
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., and Prisma Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 6:e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Mui, P. H. C., Goudbeek, M. B., Swerts, M. G. J., and Hovasapian, A. (2017). Children’s nonverbal displays of winning and losing: Effects of social and cultural contexts on smiles. J. Nonverbal Behav. 41, 67–82. doi: 10.1007/s10919-016-0241-0
Namba, S., Makihara, S., Kabir, R. S., Miyatani, M., and Nakao, T. (2017). Spontaneous facial expressions are different from posed facial expressions: Morphological properties and dynamic sequences. Curr. Psychol. 36, 593–605. doi: 10.1007/s12144-016-9448-9
Nelson, N. L., and Russell, J. A. (2013). Universality revisited. Emotion Rev. 5, 8–15. doi: 10.1177/1754073912457227
Oosterman, J. M., Zwakhalen, S., Sampson, E. L., and Kunz, M. (2016). The use of facial expressions for pain assessment purposes in dementia: A narrative review. Neurodegener. Dis. Manag. 6, 119–131. doi: 10.2217/nmt-2015-0006
Ortony, A. (2022). Are all “basic emotions” emotions? A problem for the (basic) emotions construct. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 17, 41–61. doi: 10.1177/1745691620985415
Oster, H., and Rosenstein, D. (1996). Baby FACS: Analyzing Facial Movement in Infants. Unpublished manuscript.
Russell, J. A. (1994). Is there universal recognition of emotion from facial expression? A review of the cross-cultural studies. Psychol. Bull. 115, 102–141. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.102
Russell, J. A. (1995). Facial expressions of emotion: What lies beyond minimal universality? Psychol. Bull. 118, 379–391. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.118.3.379
Rychlowska, M., Jack, R. E., Garrod, O. G., Schyns, P. G., Martin, J. D., and Niedenthal, P. M. (2017). Functional smiles: Tools for love, sympathy, and war. Psychol. Sci. 28, 1259–1270. doi: 10.1177/0956797617706082
Sander, D., and Scherer, K. R. (2009). The Oxford Companion to Emotion and the Affective Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sato, W., Hyniewska, S., Minemoto, K., and Yoshikawa, S. (2019). Facial expressions of basic emotions in Japanese laypeople. Front. Psychol. 10:259. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00259
Shahid, S., Krahmer, E., and Swerts, M. (2008). “Alone or together: Exploring the effect of physical co-presence on the emotional expressions of game playing children across cultures,” in Fun and Games, ed. P. Markopoulos (Springer), 94–105. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-88322-7_10
Shaver, P. R., Wu, S., and Schwartz, J. C. (1992). “Cross-cultural similarities and differences in emotion and its representation,” in Emotion, ed. M. S. Clark (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications), 175–212.
Srinivasan, R., and Martinez, A. M. (2018). Cross-cultural and cultural-specific production and perception of facial expressions of emotion in the wild. IEEE Trans. Affect. Comput. 12, 707–721. doi: 10.1109/TAFFC.2018.2887267
Tomkins, S. S., and McCarter, R. (1964). What and where are the primary affects? Some evidence for a theory. Percept. Mot. Skills 18, 119–158. doi: 10.2466/pms.1964.18.1.119
Tracy, J. L., and Matsumoto, D. (2008). The spontaneous expression of pride and shame: Evidence for biologically innate nonverbal displays. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105, 11655–11660. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0802686105
Tsai, J. L., Chentsova-Dutton, Y., Freire-Bebeau, L., and Przymus, D. E. (2002). Emotional expression and physiology in European Americans and Hmong Americans. Emotion 2, 380–397. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.2.4.380
Keywords: cultural differences, culture, emotional facial expressions, encoding, production
Citation: Gallant A, Mazerolle M-P, Pelot A and Roy-Charland A (2026) Cultural differences in the production of emotional facial expressions: a review. Front. Psychol. 17:1699374. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1699374
Received: 04 September 2025; Revised: 05 December 2025; Accepted: 05 January 2026;
Published: 02 February 2026.
Edited by:
Martina Montalti, University of Messina, ItalyReviewed by:
Victoria Rostovtseva, Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology (RAS), RussiaMarzio Gerbella, University of Parma, Italy
Minha Cho, University of California, Berkeley, United States
Copyright © 2026 Gallant, Mazerolle, Pelot and Roy-Charland. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Adèle Gallant, YWRlbGUuZ2FsbGFudC4xQHVsYXZhbC5jYQ==