Essay

ORIGINAL PAPER

Recognition of Facial Expressions of Negative Emotions in Romantic Relationships

Seung Hee Yoo1 • Sarah E. Noyes1

Published online: 31 October 2015 � Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract Previous research has demonstrated that individuals who were accurate at recognizing facial expressions of emotions reported better relationships with family and

friends. The purpose of the present study was to test whether the ability to recognize facial

expressions of negative emotions predicted greater relationship satisfaction with their

romantic relationships and whether this link was mediated by constructive responses to

conflict. Participants currently involved in a romantic relationship completed a validated

performance measure of recognition of facial expressions and afterwards reported on the

responses they engaged in during conflict with their romantic partner and rated their

romantic relationship satisfaction. Results showed that accurate recognition of facial

expressions of negative emotions (anger, contempt, disgust, fear, and sadness) predicted

less conflict engaging behaviors during conflict with their romantic partners (but not

positive problem solving and withdrawal), which in turn predicted greater relationship

satisfaction. The present study is the first to show that the ability to recognize facial

expressions of negative emotions is related to romantic relationship satisfaction and that

constructive responses to conflict such as less conflict engaging behaviors, mediate this

process.

Keywords Recognition of facial expressions � Romantic relationships satisfaction � Conflict engagement � Negative emotions

& Seung Hee Yoo syoo@sfsu.edu

Sarah E. Noyes noyessa@gmail.com

1 Department of Psychology, San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94132, USA

123

J Nonverbal Behav (2016) 40:1–12 DOI 10.1007/s10919-015-0219-3

Introduction

Understanding factors that predict romantic relationship satisfaction is important because

fulfilling romantic relationships strongly contribute to individual’s happiness (Myers and

Diener 1995; Sternberg and Hojjat 1997). One important line of research on romantic

relationship satisfaction has examined the role of emotions in romantic relationships. Most

of the research on emotions and romantic relationship satisfaction have focused on the

negative emotional experiences of couples, particularly how individuals in romantic

relationships expressed their negative emotions and responded to each other during times

of conflict (Gottman 1994). Across many studies, researchers demonstrated that engaging

in constructive responses during conflict was an important predictor of high romantic

relationship satisfaction (Arellano and Markman 1995; Hanzal and Segrin 2009; Karney

and Bradbury 1995; Kurdek 1994). Happy couples engaged in more constructive responses

such as expressing themselves in a positive manner, listening without interrupting the

partner, and stopping before the conflict got too heated (Arellano and Markman 1995;

Johnson et al. 2005). In contrast, unhappy couples engaged in more destructive responses

such as conflict engagement, withdrawal, stubbornness, and negativity during conflict

(Arellano and Markman 1995; Gottman and Krokoff 1989). Similarly, unhappy married

couples in long-term marriages expressed negative emotions in response to their partners’

expressions of negative emotions during conflict, which resulted in escalation of the

conflict (Cartensen et al. 1995).

Constructive Responses During Conflict in Romantic Relationships

Research has demonstrated that individuals’ constructive responses to their partners’

negative emotions during conflicts have important consequences for romantic relationship

satisfaction. To be able to constructively respond during conflicts with their romantic

partners, individuals would need to understand their partners’ feelings during the conflict

as well as the partners’ perception of the conflict. One way in which this could occur is

through accurate recognition of facial expressions (Hall et al. 2009), particularly that of

negative emotions because individuals express many negative emotions during conflict

(Carrère and Gottman 1999; Cartensen et al. 1995).

Facial expressions of emotions ‘‘help individuals know each others’ emotions, beliefs,

and intentions’’ (Keltner and Haidt 1999, p. 511). From the expresser’s facial expressions,

individuals can infer the expresser’s current emotions, attitudes, and how the expresser

intends to behave (Keltner and Haidt 1999; Van Kleef 2009). Because facial expressions of

emotions communicate these important pieces of information about the expresser,

researchers have proposed that facial expressions of emotions serve important social

functions such as influencing the other person’s behavior toward the expresser of the

emotions (Keltner and Haidt 1999; Van Kleef 2009). For example, facial expressions of

sadness and fear can signal that the expresser is in distress and needs sympathy and support

(Marsh et al. 2007; Van Kleef 2009), which could lead individuals to offer help to the

expresser (Graham et al. 2008; Marsh et al. 2007)

2 J Nonverbal Behav (2016) 40:1–12

123

Recognition of Facial Expressions of Negative Emotions and Romantic Relationship Satisfaction

These two theories—the social communicative functions of facial expressions and the

importance of constructive responses to negative emotions on romantic relationship sat-

isfaction—form the basis of our research hypotheses. We propose that the ability to rec-

ognize facial expressions of negative emotions would predict greater romantic relationship

satisfaction. This would occur because accurate recognition of negative facial expressions,

which are frequently expressed during conflicts, would facilitate constructive responses to

conflict. In other words, constructive responses to conflict would mediate the link between

the ability to recognize facial expressions of negative emotions and relationship satisfac-

tion in romantic relationships. Facial expressions of emotions convey important infor-

mation about the expresser, including how the expresser is feeling in a situation (Keltner

and Haidt 1999; Van Kleef 2009). When relationship partners express negative emotions

during conflict, individuals can infer how their relationship partners are feeling. This

inference would be more accurate when individuals have the ability to accurately recognize

facial expressions of negative emotions. Therefore, during conflicts, individuals who

accurately recognize facial expressions of negative emotions can understand how their

relationship partners are feeling, how they perceive the conflict, and the needs of the

relationship partner in that particular situation (Clark and Finkel 2005). Consequently,

individuals would be able to prepare themselves to respond in ways that are appropriate

and constructive for the situation and their relationship partners. Appropriate and con-

structive responses during conflict, in turn should promote higher relationship satisfaction

(Arellano and Markman 1995; Hanzal and Segrin 2009; Karney and Bradbury 1995;

Kurdek 1994).

Previous Research on Recognition of Facial Expressions of Emotions

Research on relationships with family and friends provide some support for the first part of

our hypothesis. Previous research has shown that individuals who were accurate at rec-

ognizing facial expressions of emotions reported better relationships with family and

friends. The ability to recognize facial expressions predicted having good relationships

with family and peers and being popular with peers for children ranging in ages from

preschool to middle school (Boyatzis and Satyaprasad 1994; Custrini and Feldman 1989;

Nowicki and Duke 1994). College students’ ability to recognize facial expressions was also

positively correlated with having more satisfying relationships with friends and family

(Carton et al. 1999). In these studies, researchers examined composite scores of several

emotions, such as happiness, sadness, anger, fear (and for some also surprise and disgust)

when assessing the ability to recognize facial expressions and did not distinguish between

positive and negative emotions. A meta-analysis of studies that assessed various nonverbal

abilities found that the ability to recognize facial expressions was positively related to

relationship quality with close others (Hall et al. 2009).

Ability to Recognize Facial Expressions of Emotions and Romantic Relationship Satisfaction

The question remains whether the benefits of recognizing facial expressions extend beyond

family and friend relationships to romantic relationships. To date, there are a few studies

J Nonverbal Behav (2016) 40:1–12 3

123

that suggest that this may be the case. The ability to correctly interpret spouses’ intentions

behind verbal statements based on how they were delivered nonverbally was related to

greater relationship satisfaction of married couples (Gottman and Porterfield 1981; Noller

and Feeney 1994). Studies on the ability-based model of emotional intelligence (Mayer

et al. 2003) found that romantic relationship quality was positively predicted by the four

branches of emotional intelligence, which include the ability to recognize emotional

expressions in faces (Brackett et al. 2005).

However, it should be noted that these studies did not isolate the effects of the ability to

recognize facial expressions. Instead, the ability to recognize facial expressions was

examined as part of a broader set of recognition abilities of various types of nonverbal

behaviors that would occur when people make verbal statements (such as voice). Studies

on emotional intelligence examined the ability to recognize facial expressions along with

the other three branches of emotional intelligence (the ability to regulate, understand, and

utilize emotions). It is therefore premature to conclude from these studies that the ability to

recognize facial expressions per se is related to romantic relationship outcomes. It is

possible that it is the recognition of other types of nonverbal behaviors or other branches of

emotion intelligence abilities, and not the recognition of facial expressions that is related to

romantic relationships. To our knowledge, no study on romantic relationships has sepa-

rately examined the effects of recognition of facial expressions.

Present Study

The goals of the present study were to test whether ability to recognize facial expressions

of negative emotions would predict greater romantic relationship satisfaction and whether

constructive responses to conflict would mediate the link between negative facial

expression recognition ability and romantic relationship satisfaction. Accurate recognition

of facial expressions of negative emotions would allow individuals to understand their

relationship partners’ negative emotions during emotion-rich and high-conflict situations

that are frequently experienced in romantic relationships (Christensen and Walczynski

1997; Fitness 2001). This will allow them to respond constructively and appropriately in

emotional conflict situations, which will ultimately be related to greater relationship

satisfaction.

To assess constructive responses to conflict, we examined three responses to conflict

that have been identified by previous research to be relevant for relationship satisfaction—

positive problem solving (e.g., discussing differences constructively, compromising),

conflict engagement (e.g. launching personal attacks, insulting partner), and withdrawal

(e.g., shutting down, tuning the partner out) (Gottman and Krokoff 1989; Kurdek 1994).

Because engaging in fewer conflict engagement and withdrawal behaviors, and more

positive problem solving behaviors have been linked to higher relationship satisfaction,

increases in relationship satisfaction over time, and fewer relationship breakups among

married heterosexual couples and gay/lesbian couples (Gottman 1994; Hanzal and Segrin

2009; Kurdek 1994), we operationalized these behaviors as constructive responses to

conflict.

The present study extends on the extant research on the ability to recognize facial

expressions of emotions in two ways. We address one gap in the literature by focusing on

the ability to recognize facial expressions of emotions in the context of romantic rela-

tionships. Furthermore, the present study is the first to empirically test a mediator that can

4 J Nonverbal Behav (2016) 40:1–12

123

explain why the ability to recognize facial expressions is related to better relationship

outcomes. Our hypothesis on constructive responses to conflict being a potential mediator

is consistent with previous theories on why the ability to recognize facial expressions

should predict positive social relationships. Several researchers have proposed that accu-

rate recognition of facial expressions predicts better social relationships because it allows

individuals to understand what the expresser is feeling and experiencing, which helps

individuals appropriately respond in situations with the expresser (Custrini and Feldman

1989; Hall et al. 2009; Marsh et al. 2007). Appropriate responses, in turn prevent social

rejections. No study to date has empirically examined this interesting hypothesis and we

aimed to do so in our study.

Method

Participants

Participants who were currently involved in a heterosexual romantic relationship for a

minimum of 3 months and did not have any children were recruited to participate in

exchange for extra credit in their psychology courses. A total of 119 undergraduate college

students (96 female, 23 male) attending San Francisco State University participated in this

study. The mean age of the participants was 23 years (SD = 7.08). Of the 119 participants,

the racial/ethnic backgrounds were White (36 %), Hispanic/Latino (27 %), Asian (22 %),

mixed (7 %), African American (3 %), and other (5 %). The majority of the participants

were dating, while 4 % reported being engaged, 17 % reported cohabitating with their

current romantic partner, and 18 % were in a long-distance relationship (one participant

was married). Relationship length ranged from 4 months to 30 years (M = 2.6 years,

SD = 3.39). In the current study, length of time in the current relationship was not related

to any of the relationship related variables: the three subscales of constructive responses to

conflict (r = .02, p = .86 for positive problem solving, r = .07, p = .50 for conflict

engagement, r = .02, p = .83 for withdrawal) nor relationship satisfaction, (r = .02,

p = .84).

Measures

Recognition of Facial Expressions

The shortened version of the Micro-expression Recognition Training Tool (MiX; Mat-

sumoto and Hwang 2011) was used to assess recognition ability of facial expressions of

seven emotions: anger, contempt, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise. This tool

consisted of 28 expressions (four expressions of each emotion) by male and female

expressers of six ethnic groups (Caucasian, African, Asian, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, and

South/Southeast Asian). The expressers displayed emotional expressions that were coded

using the Ekman and Friesen’s (1978) Facial Action Coding System to ensure that the

muscles that were identified to correspond to each of the emotions were correctly activated

(Matsumoto and Hwang 2011). The expressions were presented for 67 ms sandwiched

between two 1 s presentations of the same expresser’s neutral face. Participants completed

a fixed-choice judgment task in which they selected a single emotion label. The response

J Nonverbal Behav (2016) 40:1–12 5

123

alternatives included anger, contempt, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, or surprise.

Correct responses were coded as 1 and incorrect answers were coded as 0.

A score for recognition of facial expression of negative emotions was computed by

averaging the scores for anger, contempt, disgust, fear, and sadness expressions (a = .70). A score for recognition of facial expression of positive emotion was computed by aver-

aging the scores for happiness and surprise (a = .70). Higher scores represented greater facial expression recognition ability. Although our hypotheses focused on negative facial

expression recognition ability, we also examined positive facial expression recognition

ability in our analyses to test whether the results are specific to recognition of facial

expressions of negative emotions or whether they are applicable to recognition of both

negative and positive emotions.

Relationship Satisfaction

The 7-item Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS; Hendrick 1988) was used to assess

general relationship satisfaction. Participants answered the items using a 5-point Likert

scale ranging from 1 to 5. The response option labels changed depending on the question

(e.g., 1 = poor, unsatisfied, not much; 5 = excellent, extremely satisfied, very much); 1

represented low satisfaction and 5 represented high satisfaction. Scores were computing by

averaging the seven items, and high scores represented greater self-reported relationship

satisfaction (a = .79). Example questions were ‘‘How well does your partner meet your needs?’’ and ‘‘To what extent has your relationship met your original expectations?’’

Responses to Conflict

Participants completed the Conflict Resolution Style Inventory (CRSI; Kurdek 1994),

which is a 16-item self-report measure that assesses the different ways in which individuals

could respond during conflict-positive problem solving (e.g., ‘‘focusing on the problem at

hand’’), conflict engagement (e.g., ‘‘launching personal attacks’’), withdrawal (e.g., ‘‘re-

maining silent for longs periods of time’’). Participants were asked to ‘‘rate how frequently

you use each of the following styles to deal with arguments or disagreements with your

partner’’. Participants used a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always) to respond to

the questions. The items that composed each of the subscales were averaged to create

scores for the three subscales. Higher scores indicated greater use of positive problem-

solving (a = .79), conflict engagement (a = .82) or withdrawal (a = .80).

Procedure

Participants were emailed with links to the MiX and the online self-report questionnaires.

Participants were asked to complete the online study in a private and quiet environment

that was free of distractions. Participants first completed the MiX and then reported on the

responses they engaged in during their conflicts with their romantic partners and rated their

romantic relationship satisfaction. They also completed several questionnaires that were

not part of this study. Participants were provided with debriefing information at the end.

All of the study took place online.

6 J Nonverbal Behav (2016) 40:1–12

123

Results

In Tables 1 and 2, the descriptive statistics and the correlations among the variables (the

ability to recognize facial expressions of negative and positive emotions, relationship

satisfaction, and responses to conflict) are presented. There were no significant gender

differences in any of the variables.

Ability to Recognize Facial Expressions of Negative Emotions and Relationship Satisfaction

To test whether recognition of facial expressions of negative emotions would positively

predict relationship satisfaction, we conducted a regression analysis with the ability to

recognize facial expressions of negative emotions and positive emotions entered as

simultaneous predictors of relationship satisfaction. Negative facial expression recognition

ability predicted greater relationship satisfaction, standardized beta = .24, t (116) = 2.32,

p \ .05. Positive facial expression recognition ability did not predict relationship satis- faction, standardized beta = -.04, t (116) = -.41, p = .69.

The Mediating Role of Constructive Responses to Conflict

To test whether responses to conflict (positive problem-solving, conflict engagement,

withdrawal) would mediate the relationship between negative facial expression recognition

ability and relationship satisfaction, we first examined if our predictor (negative facial

expression recognition ability) was correlated with our proposed mediators (Baron and

Kenny 1986). The mediator that was significantly correlated with the predictor was conflict

engagement, r(119) = -.21, p \ .05. Positive problem-solving and withdrawal were not correlated with the predictor (r(119) = -.02, p = .82; r(119) = -.04, p = .70). Indi-

viduals who were more accurate in recognizing facial expressions of negative emotions

reported engaging in less conflict engaging behaviors during conflict with their romantic

partners. Conflict engagement negatively predicted relationship satisfaction, standardized

beta = -.45, t (117) = -5.43, p \ .001, indicating that individuals who engaged in less conflict engagement reported greater relationship satisfaction.

To test whether conflict engagement mediated the relationship between negative facial

expression recognition ability and relationship satisfaction, we conducted a mediation

analysis using the bootstrap method (Preacher and Hayes 2008) with 1000 resamples.

Because negative facial expression recognition ability was positively correlated with

positive facial expression recognition ability (r(119) = .49, p \ .001), positive facial expression recognition ability was entered as a covariate. The indirect effect through the

mediator (conflict engagement) was significant with the 95 % confidence interval of .0586

to .5949. Controlling for conflict engagement, the direct effect of negative facial expres-

sion recognition ability on relationship satisfaction was no longer statistically significant,

standardized beta = .13, t (116) = 1.55, p = .12, indicating that conflict engagement fully

mediated the relationship between negative facial expression recognition ability and

relationship satisfaction. Individuals who were accurate at recognizing facial expressions

of negative emotions reported engaging in less conflict engagement behaviors, which

predicted greater relationship satisfaction.

J Nonverbal Behav (2016) 40:1–12 7

123

Discussion

The present study found that participants who were accurate at recognizing facial

expressions of negative emotions (anger, contempt, disgust, fear, and sadness) used less

conflict engaging behaviors (such as personal attacks and losing control) during conflicts

with their romantic partners, which in turn, was related to greater satisfaction with their

romantic relationship. When individuals accurately recognize facial expressions of nega-

tive emotions, they would be better able to understand how their partners are feeling during

times of conflict, which is when their partners are most likely to express many negative

emotions. By gaining an understanding of their partners, they are properly equipped to

adjust their behavior and communicate effectively in less conflict engaging ways (Cherniss

2010; Hall and Bernieri 2001). As a result of the constructive ways in which their conflicts

were resolved, individuals are more satisfied in their romantic relationships (Arellano and

Markman 1995; Hanzal and Segrin 2009; Karney and Bradbury 1995; Kurdek 1994).

These results suggest that to be satisfied in romantic relationships, it is important to first

accurately recognize facial expressions of negative emotions, and then to constructively

respond, such as by engaging in less conflict engaging behaviors. However, more research

on the relationship between negative facial expression recognition ability and constructive

responses are needed because the two other responses to conflict that we examined, pos-

itive problem solving and withdrawal, were not related to the ability to recognize facial

expressions of negative emotions. This may have occurred because engaging in positive

Table 1 Descriptive statistics

Variable M SD Possible range of scores

1. Recognition of facial expressions of negative emotions .53 .19 0–1

2. Recognition of facial expressions of positive emotions .81 .22 0–1

3. Relationship satisfaction 4.21 .60 1–5

4. Conflict engagement 2.30 .88 1–5

5. Positive problem solving 4.03 .62 1–5

6. Withdrawal 2.50 .92 1–5

Table 2 Correlations among variables

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Recognition of facial expressions of negative emotions

– .49** .22* -.21* -.02 -.04

2. Recognition of facial expressions of positive emotions

– .08 -.04 -.06 .06

3. Relationship satisfaction – -.45** .35** -.41**

4. Conflict engagement – -.36** .51**

5. Positive problem solving – -.41**

6. Withdrawal –

* p \ .05; ** p \ .001

8 J Nonverbal Behav (2016) 40:1–12

123

problem solving behaviors (e.g., discussing differences constructively, compromising)

during conflict may occur in low conflict situations, when negative emotions are not

expressed or mildly expressed. It has been shown that the types of responses individuals

engaged in during conflict differ depending on the intensity of the conflict (Gottman and

Krokoff 1989). It may be difficult for individuals to engage in positive behaviors during

conflict when their relationship partners express intense negative emotions. Therefore the

ability to recognize negative emotions may not be relevant for positive problem solving

behaviors. For withdrawal behaviors (e.g., shutting down, tuning the partner out), research

has found that unhappy couples engaged in mutual withdrawal behavior, in that individ-

uals engaged in withdrawal in response to their partners’ withdrawal (Noller and White

1990). As such, it is possible that individuals who engage in withdrawal during conflict do

not need the ability to recognize negative facial expressions because their partners would

not be expressing negative emotions, but instead would be withdrawn and not be

expressing much emotion. It has also been shown that there are individual difference

predictors such as personality and attachment styles that predict the types of responses to

conflict (Caughlin and Vangelisti 2000; Newton et al. 1995). It is possible that we did not

find a relationship between negative facial expression recognition ability and positive

problem solving and withdrawal because it may have been moderated by one of these

individual difference predictors. Future studies should examine these moderators and other

types of responses to conflict that may benefit from negative facial expression recognition

ability.

We found that recognition of facial expressions of positive emotions (happiness and

surprise) did not predict relationship satisfaction nor responses to conflict. This may have

been because most of the participants in our study scored high on the recognition task for

happiness and surprise (77 % of the participants got a score of .75 or above for recognition

of positive emotions [the scores ranged from 0 to 1] compared to 13 % for recognition of

negative emotions). As a result, there may have been a ceiling effect. The high accuracy

rates for positive facial expression recognition ability are consistent with past research

(Matsumoto and Hwang 2011; Surcinelli et al. 2006). It has been proposed that it is the

recognition of emotions that are difficult to recognize and discriminate (such as the neg-

ative emotions) that plays a role in social relationship outcomes (Leppanen and Hietanen

2001). Also, recognition of facial expressions of happiness and surprise most likely did not

predict constructive responses to conflict because these positive emotions would not be

experienced or expressed much during times of conflict. Therefore the ability to recognize

facial expressions of positive emotions would not be relevant for how individuals respond

to conflict.

Limitations

The present research had several limitations that should be considered when interpreting

the results. We used self-report measures to assess responses to conflict. We also only

obtained assessment of relationship related variables from one member of the couple. To

get a better understanding of romantic relationship processes, future studies should obtain

reports from both members of the couples and supplement self-report data with observa-

tional data by having participants engage in a conflict in the lab and examine how they

respond during the conflict (e.g., Gottman and Levenson 1992).

Causality cannot be inferred due to the correlational nature of the present study. The

association between emotion recognition and relationship satisfaction may be complex and

bi-directional. It is possible that individuals who are highly satisfied with their romantic

J Nonverbal Behav (2016) 40:1–12 9

123

relationships may be more motivated to accurately recognize negative emotions. Boyatzis

and Satyaprasad (1994) proposed that individuals who are high on relationship satisfaction

have more opportunities to practice and improve their nonverbal skills.

In the present study, we used a validated and widely used measure of recognition of

facial expressions, which assess participants’ ability to recognize facial expressions of

strangers. Assessing the ability to recognize facial expressions of actual romantic partners

may be a stronger predictor of romantic relationship behaviors and satisfaction. However,

this may be difficult to do because of the challenges of creating a validated measure that

would assess recognition of emotional expressions that are displayed on the participants’

romantic partners’ faces.

Conclusion

The present study makes two contributions to the current literature on the benefits of the

ability to recognize facial expressions. The present study is the first to show that the ability

to recognize facial expressions of negative emotions is related to romantic relationship

satisfaction and that constructive responses to conflict such as less conflict engaging

behaviors, mediate this process. We extended on previous research that found that the

ability to recognize facial expression is related to better relationships with family and

friends by demonstrating that the ability to recognize facial expressions is also relevant in

romantic relationships. Furthermore, we provided the first empirical support for the theory

that accurate recognition of facial expressions helps individuals engage in behaviors that

are constructive for the relationship (Custrini and Feldman 1989; Hall et al. 2009; Marsh

et al. 2007).

The results from the present study suggest that training the ability to recognize facial

expressions, particularly those of negative emotions, may help individuals effectively

interact with their romantic partners. Matsumoto and Hwang (2011) have demonstrated

that the ability to recognize facial expressions can be improved with training using the MiX

measure. Future research is needed to see if training produces benefits in romantic

relationships.

Acknowledgments This research was supported in part by a Small Grant FOA 2012-02 from the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs at San Francisco State University awarded to the first author.

References

Arellano, C. M., & Markman, H. J. (1995). The managing affect and differences scale (MADS): A self- report measure assessing conflict management in couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 319–334.

Baron, R. B., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Boyatzis, C. J., & Satyaprasad, C. (1994). Children’s facial and gestural decoding and encoding—relations between skills and with popularity. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18, 37–55.

Brackett, M. A., Warner, R. M., & Bosco, J. S. (2005). Emotional intelligence and relationship quality among couples. Personal Relationships, 12, 197–212.

Carrère, S., & Gottman, J. M. (1999). Predicting divorce among newlyweds from the first three minutes of a marital conflict discussion. Family Process, 38, 293–301.

Cartensen, L. L., Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1995). Emotional behavior in long-term marriage. Psychology and Aging, 10, 140–149.

10 J Nonverbal Behav (2016) 40:1–12

123

Carton, J. S., Kessler, E. A., & Pape, C. L. (1999). Nonverbal decoding skills and relationship well-being in adults. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 23, 91–100.

Caughlin, J. P., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2000). An individual differences explanation of why married couples engage in the demand/withdraw pattern of conflict. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 523–551.

Cherniss, C. (2010). Emotional intelligence: Towards clarification of a concept. Industrial and Organiza- tional Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 110–126.

Christensen, A., & Walczynski, P. T. (1997). Conflict and satisfaction in couples. In R. J. Stenberg & M. Hojjat (Eds.), Satisfaction in close relationships (pp. 249–274). New York, NY: Gilford Press.

Clark, M. S., & Finkel, E. J. (2005). Willingness to express emotion: The impact of relationship type, communal orientation, and their interaction. Personal Relationships, 12, 169–180.

Custrini, R. J., & Feldman, R. S. (1989). Children’s social competence and nonverbal encoding and decoding of emotions. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 18, 336–342.

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1978). Facial action coding system: Investigator’s guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Fitness, J. (2001). Emotional intelligence and intimate relationships. In J. Ciarrochi, J. P. Forgas, & J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Emotional intelligence in everyday life (pp. 98–112). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gottman, J. M., & Krokoff, L. J. (1989). Marital interaction and marital satisfaction: A longitudinal view. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 47–52.

Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 221–233.

Gottman, J. M., & Porterfield, A. L. (1981). Communicative competence in the nonverbal behavior of married couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 817–824.

Graham, S. M., Huang, J. Y., Clark, M. S., & Helgeson, V. S. (2008). The positives of negative emotions: Willingness to express negative emotions promotes relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 394–406.

Hall, J. A., Andrzejewski, S. A., & Yopchick, J. E. (2009). Psychosocial correlates of interpersonal sen- sitivity: A meta-analysis. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 33, 149–180.

Hall, J. A., & Bernieri, F. J. (2001). Interpersonal sensitivity. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hanzal, A., & Segrin, C. (2009). The role of conflict resolution styles in mediating the relationship between

enduring vulnerabilities and marital quality. Journal of Family Communication, 9, 1–20. Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family,

50, 93–98. Johnson, M. D., Cohan, C. L., Davila, J., Lawrence, E., Rogge, R. D., Karney, R. D., et al. (2005). Problem-

solving skills and affective expressions as predictors of change in marital satisfaction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 15–27.

Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34.

Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (1999). Social functions of emotions at four levels of analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 13, 505–521.

Kurdek, L. A. (1994). Conflict resolution styles in gay, lesbian, heterosexual nonparent, and heterosexual parent couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 56, 705–722.

Leppanen, J. M., & Hietanen, J. K. (2001). Emotion recognition and social adjustment in school-aged girls and boys. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 42, 429–435.

Marsh, A. A., Kozak, M. N., & Ambady, N. (2007). Accurate identification of fear facial expressions predicts prosocial behavior. Emotion, 7, 239–251.

Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H. S. (2011). Evidence for training the ability to read microexpressions of emotion. Motivation and Emotion, 35, 181–191.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3, 97–105.

Myers, D. G., & Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science, 6, 10–19. Newton, T. L., Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Glaser, R., & Malarkey, W. B. (1995). Conflict and withdrawal during

marital interaction: The roles of hostility and defensiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bul- letin, 21, 512–524.

Noller, P., & Feeney, J. A. (1994). Relationship satisfaction, attachment, and nonverbal accuracy in early marriage. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18, 199–221.

J Nonverbal Behav (2016) 40:1–12 11

123

Noller, P., & White, A. (1990). The validity of the Communication Patterns Questionnaire. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2, 478–482.

Nowicki, S., & Duke, M. P. (1994). Individual differences in the nonverbal communication of affect: The Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy Scale. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18, 9–35.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.

Sternberg, R. J., & Hojjat, M. (Eds.). (1997). Satisfaction in close relationships. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Surcinelli, P., Codispoti, M., Montebarocci, O., Rossi, N., & Baldaro, B. (2006). Facial emotion recognition in trait anxiety. Anxiety Disorders, 20, 110–117.

Van Kleef, G. A. (2009). How emotions regulate social life: The emotions as Social Information (EASI) Model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 184–188.

12 J Nonverbal Behav (2016) 40:1–12

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.