What scientists who study emotion agree about
Ekman, P. (2016). What scientists who study emotion agree about. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(1), 31-34. doi:10.1177/1745691615596992. The single best source on the other side, and the article should use it. Method: an email survey sent to 248 scientists in mid-June 2014, one reminder two weeks later, a 60 per cent response rate that he calls moderately high, closed-ended answers only, restricted to scientists using quantitative methods. Inclusion criteria were five or more publications in eight years in a named list including Science, Nature, Psychological Bulletin, Psychological Review, PNAS, Journal of Neuroscience, Neuron and Emotion, or editorial-board or reviewer status at Emotion, or a contribution to The Nature of Emotion. The detail the article should not leave out: Ekman reports that he enlisted a well-known scientific critic of his findings and theory, James A. Russell, who verified that the selection process was free from bias apart from the exclusion of scientists not using quantitative methods, vetted the survey questions and contributed one of them. He asked his most prominent critic to audit his own survey design, and that is a fact about conduct. The percentages: 88 per cent of respondents endorsed that there is compelling evidence for universals in some aspect of emotion, and 80 per cent endorsed the evidence for universal signals in the face or voice; agreement was lower on universals in the events that trigger emotion at 66 per cent, physiology at 51 per cent and appraisal mechanisms at 44 per cent.
Ekman, P. (2016). What scientists who study emotion agree about. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(1), 31-34. doi:10.1177/1745691615596992. The single best source on the other side, and the article should use it. Method: an email survey sent to 248 scientists in mid-June 2014, one reminder two weeks later, a 60 per cent response rate that he calls moderately high, closed-ended answers only, restricted to scientists using quantitative methods. Inclusion criteria were five or more publications in eight years in a named list including Science, Nature, Psychological Bulletin, Psychological Review, PNAS, Journal of Neuroscience, Neuron and Emotion, or editorial-board or reviewer status at Emotion, or a contribution to The Nature of Emotion. The detail the article should not leave out: Ekman reports that he enlisted a well-known scientific critic of his findings and theory, James A. Russell, who verified that the selection process was free from bias apart from the exclusion of scientists not using quantitative methods, vetted the survey questions and contributed one of them. He asked his most prominent critic to audit his own survey design, and that is a fact about conduct. The percentages: 88 per cent of respondents endorsed that there is compelling evidence for universals in some aspect of emotion, and 80 per cent endorsed the evidence for universal signals in the face or voice; agreement was lower on universals in the events that trigger emotion at 66 per cent, physiology at 51 per cent and appraisal mechanisms at 44 per cent.
Written from the fULL TEXT READ, including the complete survey instrument in the appendix, at the born-digital PDF of the published version on his own site, paulekman.com, cross-checked against the SAGE landing page.
What our sources record
Recorded when this source was checked, figures included, with page references and quotation marks removed.
Ekman, P. (2016). What scientists who study emotion agree about. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(1), 31-34. doi:10.1177/1745691615596992