General Psychology

ORIGINAL PAPER

Attuned to the positive? Awareness and responsiveness to others’ positive emotion experience and display

Belinda Campos1 • Dominik Schoebi2,3 • Gian C. Gonzaga4 • Shelly L. Gable5 •

Dacher Keltner6

Published online: 26 May 2015

� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract Positive emotions are implicated in affiliation

and cooperation processes that are central to human social

life. For this reason, we hypothesized that people should be

highly aware of and responsive to the positive emotions of

others. Study 1 examined awareness by testing the accu-

racy with which perceivers tracked others’ positive emo-

tions. Study 2 examined responsiveness by testing whether

positive emotions were predictive of perceivers responding

to new relationship opportunity. In Study 1, multilevel

analyses of dating couples’ estimates of their partner’s

emotions across four semi-structured interactions revealed

that both women and men tracked partner positive emo-

tions with considerable accuracy. Additional analyses

indicated that tracking accuracy was most pronounced for

positive emotions whose display is known to include the

Duchenne smile. In Study 2, multilevel analyses of dyads

who watched a set of positive and negative emotion-elic-

iting film clips with a stranger indicated that only positive

emotion display predicted subsequent closeness. Together,

these findings show that people are highly attuned to the

positive emotions of others and can be more attuned to

others’ positive emotions than negative emotions.

Keywords Emotion � Positive emotion � Social interaction � Duchenne smiles

Introduction

Human survival and reproduction depend heavily on social

bonds characterized by affiliation and cooperation (e.g.,

Frank 1988; Hrdy 1999). Positive emotions are implicated

in affiliation and cooperation processes; they invite ap-

proach to new relationships and contribute to satisfaction

and commitment in on-going relationships (Fredrickson

1998; Gonzaga et al. 2001; Shiota et al. 2004). While the

important role of positive emotions in relational processes

is increasingly recognized, little work has examined mo-

tivated orientation to others’ positive emotion. We rea-

soned that because positive emotions are signals of

affiliation and cooperation that are vital to relationships,

people should be particularly aware of others’ positive

emotions and, when there is an opportunity to form a new

relationship, particularly responsive to others’ positive

emotions. We termed this process positive emotion at-

tunement. The goal of this work was to examine positive

emotion attunement in typical social settings. Study 1 ex-

amined the awareness element of attunement by testing the

accuracy with which perceivers tracked a partner’s positive

emotion. Study 2 examined the responsiveness element of

attunement by testing whether positive emotions were

predictive of perceivers responding to a new relationship

opportunity.

& Belinda Campos [email protected]

1 Department of Chicano/Latino Studies, University of

California, 3151 Social Science Plaza A, Irvine,

CA 92697-5100, USA

2 Department of Psychology, University of California,

Los Angeles, CA, USA

3 Department of Psychology, University of Fribourg, Fribourg,

Switzerland

4 Science and Algorithms, Netflix, Beverly Hills, CA, USA

5 Department of Psychological and Brian Sciences, University

of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

6 Department of Psychology, University of California,

Berkeley, CA, USA

123

Motiv Emot (2015) 39:780–794

DOI 10.1007/s11031-015-9494-x

Positive emotions as signals of affiliation and cooperation

Emotions are fundamentally social processes that com-

municate information about feeling states, relational ori-

entation, and behavioral intentions to both self and others

(e.g., Buck 1984; DePaulo 1992; Keltner and Kring 1998;

Van Kleef 2009). As such, emotions enable individuals to

respond adaptively to social problems and take advantage

of social opportunities (Barrett and Campos 1987; Campos

et al. 1989; Frank 1988; Keltner and Haidt 2001; Tooby

and Cosmides 1990). As a class of emotion, positive

emotions are tightly linked with reward, approach, and the

building of resources associated with affiliation and coop-

eration in relationships (Algoe et al. 2008; Cohn et al.

2009; Fredrickson 1998; Shiota et al. 2004).

Perceivers obtain important information from others’

experience and display of positive emotions. When there is

an opportunity to form a new relationship, others’ positive

emotion experience and display signal the likelihood that

an individual possesses an affiliative and cooperative dis-

position that is desirable in relationships. In an on-going

relationship, others’ positive emotion experience and dis-

play can signal the direction of affiliation and cooperation

(e.g., toward oneself or toward another). Various lines of

research support these claims. Individuals who report fre-

quent and intense positive emotion report greater feelings

of connection to new relationships and more commitment

in their on-going relationships than people who report less

positive emotion (e.g., Clark and Taraban 1991; Gonzaga

et al. 2001; Huston et al. 2001; Waugh and Fredrickson

2006). At the dyadic level, couple positive emotional ex-

changes predict relationship stability and satisfaction (e.g.,

Gable et al. 2006). Individuals high in positive emotion-

ality have also been observed to have greater ability to

solve relationship problems constructively than those high

in negative emotionality (e.g., Berry and Hansen 1996;

Berry and Willingham 1997). In contrast, individuals high

in negative emotionality are more likely to report that their

relationships have more frequent conflict and are shorter in

duration (Berry and Willingham 1997). In sum, there is

ample reason for perceivers to be highly aware of and re-

sponsive to others’ positive emotions.

Perhaps due to the important relational information they

signal, there is also evidence that positive emotion displays

readily attract perceiver attention. Happiness, which is

signaled by the Duchenne smile 1 and frequently occurs in

affiliative social contexts, is the most reliably recognized of

the six basic facial expressions of emotion (90 % or higher

recognition rate) identified by Ekman et al. (Ekman 1972;

Russell 1994). In addition to expressing felt positive

emotion, Duchenne smiles appear to play a role in sig-

naling affiliation and cooperation. They are likely to be

displayed during affiliative social interaction (e.g., Mes-

singer et al. 1999) and cooperative behavior (Mehu et al.

2007a). For example, Mehu et al. (2007a) found that people

spontaneously displayed more Duchenne smiles when

sharing resources with a friend than when not sharing.

There is also evidence that positive emotion displays are

recognized quickly and accurately under certain conditions.

In a ‘‘faces in the crowd’’ task, where multiple faces dis-

playing positive and negative emotion are shown simulta-

neously, happiness is detected more quickly and accurately

than anger or fear displays when photographs of real faces

are used (e.g., Juth et al. 2005).

Altogether, research has shown that positive emotions

provide perceivers with important information about the

likelihood of affiliation and cooperation from others and

that positive emotion displays are among the most highly,

and quickly, recognized emotion displays. The body of

research establishing this evidence has used a range of

methodologies that span across experimental protocols that

standardize and control emotion displays to naturalistic

social interaction that allows for spontaneous emotion ex-

perience. Many of these studies also included measures of

both self-reported emotion and observed emotion behavior.

It is not yet known, however, whether perceivers respond

to the important information that positive emotions provide

by being particularly attuned to these emotions. Theorists

have long suggested that affiliation and cooperation are

central to human social life. These claims, however, have

been primarily studied through the lens of negative emo-

tion. An extensive literature suggests that attunement to

negative emotions is important for identifying and re-

sponding to threats or the need of others for caregiving and

support (e.g., Baumeister et al. 2001; Graham et al. 2008).

It is not yet known, however, if perceiver attunement to

others’ positive emotions is comparable to that of negative

emotions. It is also not yet known whether perceiver at-

tunement to others’ positive emotions is focused on those

emotions most likely to signal affiliation and cooperation

or on positive emotions more broadly. Research on positive

emotion differentiation is still new but the evidence to date

indicates that positive emotions displayed with Duchenne

smiles signal affiliation and cooperation (e.g., amusement,

happiness, and love) whereas others do not (e.g., pride)

(e.g., Campos et al. 2013; Tracy and Robins 2007). In the

present research, we sought to contribute to the literature

by answering these questions that have important impli-

cations for better understanding the role of positive emo-

tion in human social life.

1 The experience of positive emotion is predominantly displayed by

the Duchenne smile (e.g., Campos et al. 2013; Ekman 2003; Frank

et al. 1993). This distinct smile involves the simultaneous movement

of two facial muscles, orbicularis oculi pars lateralis and zygomaticus

major, that respectively raise the cheeks and widen the lips.

Motiv Emot (2015) 39:780–794 781

123

The present research

We examined the extent of perceiver attunement to others’

positive emotions in typical social settings in two studies.We

defined attunement in two parts: (a) awareness of others’

positive emotions and (b) responsiveness to others’ positive

emotions when there is an opportunity to form a new rela-

tionship. Study 1 examined the awareness element of at-

tunement by testing the accuracy with which perceivers

tracked partners’ positive emotion in a sample of dating

couples. Study 2 examined the responsiveness element of

attunement by testing whether positive emotions were pre-

dictive of perceivers responding to a new relationship op-

portunity among strangers in a neutral setting. The methods

of both studies capitalized on known variation in positive

emotion displays to test the role of Duchenne smiles and

included the live presence, and spontaneous emotion be-

havior, of another person. Both studies also compared

positive with negative emotions to situate positive emotion

attunement in the broader context of emotion and provide a

strong test of the extent of positive emotion attunement.

Study 1: awareness of others’ positive emotions

Study 1 used a social interaction research design wherein a

sample of dating couples engaged in a series of semi-

structured interactions that evoked both positive and

negative emotions. After each interaction, both partners

reported their own emotions and estimated their partner’s

emotions. This design thus captured perceiver awareness of

partner emotion and allowed us to assess perceiver tracking

of partner positive and negative emotions over the course

of the interactions, as well as whether tracking accuracy

was more pronounced for positive emotions whose display

includes Duchenne smiles. 2

Method

Participants

Sixty-six heterosexual dating couples were recruited from

the University of California, Berkeley and the surrounding

community via flyers, the psychology department subject

pool, and university organizations (e.g., sororities, cultural

groups). Participating couples were required to be of the

same cultural background and have been monogamously

dating for at least 3 months. Couples self-reported Euro-

pean (27 couples), Asian (24 couples), or Latino (15 cou-

ples) cultural backgrounds. Couples were in their early 200s (M = 20.4 years, SD = 3.59 for women; M = 21.3 years,

SD = 4.04 for men) and had been dating for an average of

17.6 months. There were no differences across cultural

background groups in average age or the amount of time

the couple had been dating. All procedures were approved

by the University of California, Berkeley IRB.

Procedure

Upon arriving at the lab, each member of the couple was

led through the study procedures and asked to sign consent

forms. Each member of the couple was then taken to a

separate private room to complete demographic, person-

ality, and relationship questionnaires. After finishing the

questionnaires, the couple was reunited and led to the video

laboratory where they were seated facing each other to

engage in a series of social interactions. After finishing the

interaction tasks (described in detail below), couples were

debriefed and compensated. Each member of the couple

received either partial class credit or a payment of $15 or

$25 for his/her participation. All procedures took ap-

proximately 90 min.

Interactions

Each member of the couple reported their initial baseline

emotions as they acclimated to the study and the couple then

engaged in four semi-structured interactions designed to

mimic typical, emotion-laden relationship experience. The

first involved teasing, the second involved talking about a

current personal concern, the third involved talking about a

past relationship, and the fourth involved talking about their

first date together. Experimenters gave instructions to the

couple through an intercom. One member of the couple was

randomly assigned to speak first in the teasing, concern, and

past partner interactions. There was no turn-taking during the

first date interaction. Couples were instructed to act as they

normally would outside the lab and respond to their partner in

whatever manner they saw fit. Couples sat facing each other

in chairs approximately 3 feet apart. Cameras were placed in

cabinets behind and above the participants to provide an

unobstructed view of each partner.

Teasing Each member of the couple was given a set of

initials (A. D. or L. I.) and asked to create a nickname, and

a story justifying the nickname, for their partner using the

initials (see Keltner et al. 1998). Couples were given a few

minutes to come up with their nicknames and stories and

were provided a piece of paper to write notes as needed.

2 We did not test whether accurate tracking would be associated with

relationship satisfaction because the consequences of accuracy are

complex; both accuracy and inaccuracy have been associated with

relationship satisfaction (Hawkins et al. 2002; Simpson et al. 1995).

Further, perceived empathic effort appears to be more strongly

associated with couple relationship satisfaction than accuracy per se

(Cohen et al. 2012).

782 Motiv Emot (2015) 39:780–794

123

The couple then took turns delivering the nickname and

story to each other.

Current personal concern In the initial questionnaire

packet, each member of the couple listed three personal,

non-relationship, current concerns and rated (a) the seri-

ousness of the concern (1 = not serious; 5 = very serious)

and (b) how much they had discussed the concern with

their romantic partner (1 = not at all; 5 = extensively).

The experimenter used these ratings to select the concern

that was the most serious and least discussed. Priority was

given to finding the balance between the concern listed as

most severe and the concern listed as least discussed. Thus,

if two concerns were rated as equally severe but one was

less discussed, the latter was chosen. Each member of the

couple was given 5 min to talk about their most serious and

least discussed concern.

Past partner Each member of the couple was asked to

discuss their most important past romantic relationship

(excluding the current relationship). They were asked to

talk about: (a) what was best, (b) what was worst, and

(c) the most important thing they learned from the past

relationship. Again, each partner was given 5 min to talk.

First date Couples were asked to talk about their first

date. Couples most often discussed what they considered to

be their first date, why they considered it their first date,

described what they did on the date, and how the date

changed their relationship.

Measures

Positive and negative emotions Before and after each

partner’s speaking turn, each member of the couple re-

ported their own emotions and estimated their partner’s

emotions. Couples reported on the following 21 emotions

(0 = no emotion; 8 = extreme emotion): amusement,

anger, anxiety, arousal, concern, contempt, desire, dis-

comfort, disgust, embarrassment, fear, guilt, happiness,

jealousy, love, pride, sadness, shame, shyness, sympathy,

and tension. From these, positive and negative emotion

composites were created. For the positive emotion com-

posite, we used amusement, happiness, love, and pride. For

the negative emotion composite, we used anger, fear,

sadness, contempt. These emotions were selected because

all have clear positive or negative valence, previous work

has shown that these emotions are commonly felt in at least

one of the interactions described above, and all have a

documented nonverbal display (Campos et al. 2013; Ek-

man 1972; Gonzaga et al. 2001; Keltner et al. 1998; Tracy

and Robins 2007). The latter element ensured the emotions

we analyzed were comparable in their likelihood of

providing signaling cues to the partner in the course of the

interaction. The four positive emotions also vary in the

extent to which their display is characterized by Duchenne

smiles. Amusement, happiness, and love displays have all

been associated with the Duchenne smile, with amusement

and happiness being most strongly linked to Duchenne

smiles (Campos et al. 2013; Gonzaga et al. 2001; Keltner

1995). Most research, however, has suggested that pride is

not associated with the Duchenne smile (e.g., Tracy and

Robins 2007). Means and standard deviations for emotion

composites and specific positive emotions are reported in

Table 1.

Emotion composite reliability at the within-person and

between-person levels was assessed following Geldhof

et al. (2014) using Mplus 7.3. For the positive and negative

emotion self-report composites, we found satisfactory re-

liability within-persons (positive: x = .89; negative: x = .90) and between-persons (positive: x = .81; nega- tive: x = .94). Similarly, reliability was satisfactory for partner positive emotion composites within-persons

(x = .89) and between-persons (x = .87). For partner negative emotion composites, reliability was satisfactory

between-persons (x = .86), but only moderate at the within-persons level (x = .53).

Relationship satisfaction Each member of the couple

completed a 22-item version of the Marital Adjustment

Test (MAT) modified for dating relationships (Locke and

Wallace 1959; Keltner et al. 1998). For married couples,

satisfaction typically averages 115 (e.g., Karney and

Bradbury 1997) and scores \100 indicate some distress. The dating couples in this sample were highly satisfied and

a paired sample t test showed that women (M = 134.42;

SD = 13.22) and men (M = 134.55; SD = 11.26) did not

differ in their relationship satisfaction, t(65) = .08, ns.

Table 1 Study 1: Perceiver tracking accuracy of partner emotion for (a) positive and negative emotions across interactions and (b) specific

positive emotions across interactions

Overall sample Women Men

M (SD) b SE b SE

Overall emotion, across interactions

Positive emotions 3.56 (1.51) .44*** .03 .44*** .02

Negative emotions .81 (.77) .15*** .03 .16*** .03

Specific positive emotions, across interactions

Amusement 3.92 (2.74) .68*** .04 .74*** .04

Happiness 3.78 (2.69) .74*** .04 .65*** .04

Love 4.65 (2.84) .50*** .05 .41*** .04

Pride 2.01 (2.52) .18*** .05 .17** .05

** p\ .01; *** p\ .001; Emotion ratings on 0 (no emotion) through 8 (extreme emotion). Beta values are reported as unstandardized coefficients

Motiv Emot (2015) 39:780–794 783

123

Results

Data analysis approach

We operationalized perceiver awareness of others’ emotion

as tracking accuracy—the extent to which variation in a

partner’s emotion report was predicted by perceiver esti-

mates of the partner’s emotion over the course of the in-

teractions. We centered the ratings of each emotion at the

mean of the four emotions in a category (positive or nega-

tive) for a person at a particular interaction. This approach

eliminated variance due to differences between persons or

interactions, and the resulting predictors represented pro-

files across the four positive or negative emotions in a

category. This approach also provided a strong test of the

hypothesis because it required perceivers to be aware of

their partner’s specific positive (amusement, happiness,

love, and pride) and negative (anger, fear, sadness, con-

tempt) emotions, as opposed to one emotion or the general

valence of emotion, over the course of the interactions. For

example, Carlos may have reported strong amusement and

happiness but no love or pride during the teasing interaction

and strong happiness, love, and pride but no amusement

during the first date interaction. If so, his partner Estela was

tracking accurately to the extent that she estimated Carlos’

higher amusement and happiness than love and pride during

the teasing interaction and higher happiness, love, and pride

than amusement during the first date interaction.

These data—of two individuals belonging to a couple

who provided estimates on several emotions within the

same situation and across several interactions—have a

complex structure and multiple dependencies. To deal with

these dependencies, we ran a dyadic multivariate multi-

level model, considering women and men’s partner ratings

as belonging to one of four reports of a particular emotion

category (positive or negative) in a given interaction, with

eight interactions (two teasing, two current concern, two

past partner, one first date, plus baseline). Thus, we si-

multaneously estimated coefficients for positive and

negative emotions in a single model.

How aware were perceivers of partner positive emotions?

Using the strategy described above to test this hypothesis,

the following level-1 model was estimated (Eq. 1):

EMO Pijk ¼ b1jk WOMANð Þ þ b2jk MANð Þ þ b3jk P EMO Wð Þiþb4jk P EMO Mð Þi þ rwijk þ rmijk ð1Þ

EMO_Pijk is an individual’s partner’s self-reported

emotion type i reported for interaction j of couple k. The

estimate for b1jk and b2 jk represent the intercepts of couple

k’s women and men’s partner emotions in interaction j, and

b3jk and b4jk reflect the extent to which couple k’s women and men’s reports about their partner’s emotion i in inter-

action j covary with their partner’s self-reported emotion

i. These coefficients were used to reflect perceiver tracking

of the partner’s emotions. Finally, rwijk ? rmijk are the

level-1 residuals of the woman and the man, which are

correlated over time.

An examination of this model’s fixed effects showed

that both women and men perceivers significantly pre-

dicted their partner’s self-reported positive and negative

emotions (see Table 1). To compare whether positive

emotions were tracked more accurately than negative

emotions, the deviance statistics of the current model were

compared with the deviance of an alternative model where

tracking accuracy for positive and negative emotions was

constrained to be equal. This analysis revealed that partner

positive emotions were tracked with significantly more

accuracy than negative emotions, v2(2) = 114.742, p \ .001, and women and men did not differ in this regard (positive emotions, v2(1) = .231, p [ .50; negative emo- tions, v2(1) = .461, p [ .50).

Was accurate tracking of positive emotions more

pronounced for positive emotions whose display includes

Duchenne smiles?

We examined this possibility with a model that estimated

accurate tracking from the covariance of within-person

fluctuations of self and partner reports for each of the

specific emotions in the positive emotion category—a-

musement, happiness, love, and pride—across the eight

couple interactions, and examined differences among these

estimates of emotion tracking accuracy. We used a multi-

variate model to simultaneously estimate accuracy scores

for amusement, happiness, love, and pride, for women and

men. The basic level-1 model, estimated for each of the

four positive emotions, is shown in Eq. 2:

EMO Pij ¼ b1j WOMANð Þ þ b2j MANð Þ þ b3j P EMO Wð Þ þ b4j P EMO Mð Þ þ rwj þ rmj

ð2Þ

EMO_Pij is a partner’s self-reported amusement, hap-

piness, love or pride, in interaction i in couple j. The es-

timate for b1j and b2 j represent the intercepts of couple j’s women and men’s partner emotions, and b3j and b4j reflect the extent to which couple j’s women and men’s reports

about their partner’s emotions covary with their partner’s

self-reported emotions. Finally, rwj ? rmj are the level-1

residuals of the woman and the man, which are correlated

over time.

784 Motiv Emot (2015) 39:780–794

123

As hypothesized, positive emotions whose displays are

known to include Duchenne smiles were tracked with

significantly more accuracy than positive emotions whose

display does not include the Duchenne smile (Table 1).

Specifically, tracking accuracy for amusement and happi-

ness was significantly higher than for love, v2(2) = 31.241, p \ .001, and tracking accuracy for love was significantly higher than tracking accuracy for pride, v2(2) = 15.404, p \ .001.

Discussion

As hypothesized, the awareness element of positive emo-

tion attunement was evident in the accuracy with which

others’ positive emotions were tracked during the emotion-

laden interactions of a sample of dating couples. There was

also evidence that tracking accuracy was most pronounced

for emotions whose display is most strongly linked with

Duchenne smiles (e.g., amusement, happiness, and love vs.

pride). These findings emerged despite perceivers general

awareness of partner emotions, including negative emo-

tions. Mean levels of positive emotion were higher than

negative emotion but negative emotions had sufficient

variability for comparable tracking comparisons. Alto-

gether, these findings are consistent with our theorizing that

people are motivated to be particularly aware of others’

positive emotions.

An alternative explanation for the observed pattern of

partner emotion tracking is that our sample of highly sat-

isfied couples tended to perceive their partners in rela-

tionship enhancing ways that attuned them only to partner

positive emotions. Indeed, it may be the case that positive

emotion attunement is most likely to occur during early

stage relationships. Like the ‘‘marriage shift,’’ wherein

people prefer to be seen by dating partners in more positive

ways but by marriage partners in more realistic ways

(Swann et al. 1994), dating couples may be particularly

motivated to perceive one another’s positive emotion.

Another possibility is that the interactions elicited too little

negative emotion for perceivers to accurately track. The

significant tracking accuracy for negative emotions, how-

ever, makes either of these alternatives unlikely.

A strength of Study 1 was the comparison of specific

positive and negative emotions, and within specific positive

emotions whose display is known to vary in the extent to

which it is characterized by Duchenne smiles, as they oc-

curred over the course of on-going social interaction. Our

analyses provided a strong test of awareness of others’

positive emotion because perceivers had to be aware of

their partner’s specific positive emotions, rather than any

one emotion or the general valence of emotion, in our

tracking index. Study 1 also had limitations. The sample

was already in an on-going relationship and thus not suited

for assessing attunement responsiveness to new relation-

ship opportunity. Positive emotions characterized by

Duchenne smiles were tracked with greater accuracy than

positive emotions not characterized by Duchenne smiles,

but we did not code emotion displays to assess the relative

contribution of self-reported and displayed emotion for

tracking accuracy. However, we are confident that the

sample readily displayed positive emotions because other

research has documented emotion display in this dataset

(Gonzaga et al. 2006).

To test the responsiveness element of attunement and

address the limitations of Study 1, Study 2 elicited positive

and negative emotion via film clips in a neutral setting,

randomly assigned participants to a social context that

provided an opportunity for a new relationship, and

assessed both self-reported and displayed emotion.

Study 2: responsiveness to others’ positive emotions

Study 2 used a 3 (social context: alone, stranger, room-

mate) 9 2 (emotion: positive, negative) mixed factor ex-

perimental design to test the responsiveness element of

positive emotion attunement: that others’ positive emotions

would predict perceiver responsiveness to a possible new

relationship. The stranger condition was the key condition

that represented an opportunity for a new relationship; the

other two conditions allowed us to assess whether emotion

experience and display in the stranger condition were in-

fluenced by the presence of another (e.g., Buck et al. 1992;

Fridlund 1991). Same-gender dyads of women were re-

cruited to control for the additional variability that could be

introduced by mixed-gender stranger dyads. Emotion

elicitation via film clips in a neutral laboratory setting

standardized emotion experience across conditions and

constrained the possibility of other processes (e.g., self-

disclosure) that are known to influence relationship for-

mation. Self-reported and displayed emotions were asses-

sed over the course of the study, and closeness was

assessed at the end of the study as a measure of respon-

siveness to the new relationship opportunity. We also

assessed personality to rule out the possibility that per-

sonality differences accounted for the hypothesized effects.

To ensure a neutral context, participants were not told

about the relational focus of the study until the end of the

study session and care was taken to ensure that all par-

ticipants had independent study experiences. For this rea-

son, we did not assess roommate emotion tracking; to do so

may have alerted participants of our interest in relational

processes.

Motiv Emot (2015) 39:780–794 785

123

Method

Participants

Ninety-one women were randomly assigned to view six

emotion eliciting film clips alone (n = 27), with a stranger

(n = 28), or with a roommate (n = 36). Participant mean

age was 21 years old and the diverse sample reported

European (32 %), Asian (47 %), Latino (12 %), African

(1 %), and ‘‘other’’ (8 %) cultural backgrounds.

Procedure

Participants were recruited through the psychology de-

partment participant pool or advertisements posted

throughout campus for a study on emotion experience. A

research assistant coordinated scheduling and randomly

assigned participants to the alone, stranger, or roommate

conditions at the time of first contact with a potential

participant who expressed interest in taking part in the

study. Participants assigned to the alone condition were

scheduled at a time of their convenience. Participants as-

signed to the stranger condition were scheduled at the same

time as an already scheduled participant they did not pre-

viously know. Participants in the roommate condition were

requested to ask a roommate to take part in the study with

them. All participants received partial class credit in return

for taking part in the study with the exception of room-

mates. Roommates brought in at researcher request were

compensated $10.

Participation took place in a two phase laboratory ses-

sion. In Phase 1, participants completed consent forms and

questionnaires containing demographic and personality

measures. In Phase 2, participants were taken to a quiet

room and seated at a table in front of a widescreen tele-

vision to watch six emotion eliciting clips. Two video

cameras were positioned behind the television and set up to

capture the head and torso of each participant on a split

screen as they watched the emotion eliciting clips. Par-

ticipants viewed one baseline clip and six emotion eliciting

clips in partially counterbalanced order: positive clips

preceded negative clips but clip order within these cate-

gories was varied. This order was chosen to mimic typical

life experience that is characterized by a baseline norm of

positive emotion with negative emotions being less fre-

quent, less normative, and more disruptive (e.g.,

Baumeister et al. 2001; Diener and Diener 1996; Rozin

et al. 2010). After each clip, participants self-reported the

emotions they experienced during the clip. After the final

clip, participants in the stranger and roommate conditions

completed a self-report measure of the closeness they felt

toward the other person in the study. Participants were then

debriefed and informed of the videotaping. The option of

consenting to have their video coded for research purposes

or having the research assistant destroy the videotape in

their presence was carefully explained. No participant

chose to have her video destroyed. All procedures were

approved by the UCLA IRB.

Measures

Emotion elicitation The positive emotions were amuse-

ment, awe, interest, and love; the negative emotions were

fear and sadness. Again, emotions were selected to have

clear positive or negative valence and a documented non-

verbal display (Campos et al. 2013; Ekman 1972; Gonzaga

et al. 2001; Keltner et al. 1998; Tracy and Robins 2007).

Sadness and fear provided a strong test of our predictions

because the distress signals associated with these two

emotions can elicit caregiving responses (e.g., Buss and

Kiel 2004) that could also promote relationship building.

Film clips are widely used in the emotion literature to

induce emotion. We pilot tested each 1–4 min clip to en-

sure elicitation of the intended state. Pilot testing occurred

with small groups of undergraduate students in a class and

members of the 4th author’s laboratory to ensure relevance

to potential participants. The final clips chosen were those

that received a combination of high ratings for the target

emotion and low ratings for other target emotions (e.g.,

high amusement ratings but lower ratings on awe, interest,

and love). Additional information can be provided by the

authors upon request. For amusement, two short clips were

shown in sequence. The first showed a comic skit where an

actor wore inappropriate clothing and seemed oblivious to

the reactions of his coworkers. The second showed a

monkey comically falling from a tree. For awe, we used a

clip from a PBS documentary that showed people reaching

Mt. Everest. For interest, we used a clip from the

documentary ‘‘Step Into Liquid’’ that showed a demon-

stration of tow surfing. For love, we used a clip from the

‘‘Princess Bride’’ that showed the princess and her stable

boy realizing they were in love. For fear, we used a clip

from ‘‘Vertical Limit’’ that showed family members about

to fall off of a mountain while rock climbing. For sadness,

we used a clip from ‘‘My Girl’’ that showed a young girl

overwhelmed with grief upon learning that her best friend

had died. To establish a neutral baseline, all participants

first viewed a clip that showed a yoga instructor demon-

strating the correct use of props.

Self-reported emotion experience After each clip, par-

ticipants indicated whether they felt any of 21 emotions

during the clip and then rated the intensity of the emotions

they felt on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = no emotion;

7 = intense emotion). The 21 emotions were: amusement,

anger, anxiety, awe, compassion, contentment, contempt,

786 Motiv Emot (2015) 39:780–794

123

discomfort, disgust, embarrassment, enjoyment, fear, gra-

titude, interest, love, pleasure, pride, sadness, shame,

sympathy, and tension.

Nonverbal emotional displays Emotion displays were

coded by a team of five research assistants. All were blind

to hypotheses but received extensive training by the first

author (B. Campos), who is certified in the Facial Action

Coding System (FACS) developed by Ekman and Friesen

(1978). Coders overlapped on 26 % of the videos (24 of

91), evenly distributed across social context, to establish

reliability.

Display codes were drawn from existing literature

documenting the displays associated with each emotion.

Amusement displays were defined as facial movements

resulting in Duchenne smiles such that there was an up-

turning of lip corners, cheeks lifting, eye corners crinkling

and a slight lower jaw drop that may or may not have

occurred with laughter, j = .69–.79 (Campos et al. 2013; Keltner 1995). Due to their similarities, awe and interest

were coded together and defined as facial movements re-

sulting in raising of the inner eyebrows, eyes widening, and

jaw dropping that showed visible space between teeth,

j = .66–94 (Reeve 1993; Shiota et al. 2003). Love dis- plays were defined as facial and body movements resulting

in the body leaning toward partner, Duchenne smiles such

that there was an upturning of lip corners, cheeks lifting,

eye corners crinkling, use of hands to point, gesture, or

communicate with imagined or real other, and up and down

head nodding (Gonzaga, et al. 2001). The love display was

found to occur too infrequently to calculate reliability and

was dropped. Fear displays were defined as facial move-

ments resulting in the raising of the inner and outer eye-

brows, with crinkling in space between eyebrows, and eyes

widening, j = .44–.77. Sadness displays were defined as facial movements resulting in raising of the inner eye-

brows, lips corners turning down, and chin center raising to

give the appearance of wrinkling, j = .50–.78. Coders watched the video continuously, stopping when

the video showed the participant’s face and body shifting

from neutral. At that point, coders used a 1 to indicate that

a code occurred and 0 to indicate that a code had not oc-

curred. Coders then went back to the video as necessary

until they were satisfied that all relevant codes had been

documented. Only displays that occurred during corre-

sponding film clips (e.g., amusement during amusing clip;

fear during the fear clip) were used in analyses.

Closeness We operationalized responsiveness to new re-

lationship opportunity as felt closeness to the stranger at

the end of the study. Participants indicated closeness to the

stranger at the end of the study using the Inclusion-of-

Other-in-the-Self (IOS) measure. The IOS measures

closeness in terms of perceived overlap between self and a

specific other with a single item (Aron et al. 1992). This

well-validated closeness measure consists of seven circles

(1 = non-overlapping; 7 = almost completely overlap-

ping) that represent the extent to which the self overlaps

with a relationship target. Participants were instructed to

‘‘please choose the pair of circles that best represents your

relationship with the other person who you viewed the film

clips with.’’ Stranger mean closeness was 2.52 with a

standard deviation of 1.37.

Personality Participants completed a 44-item self-report

measure of the five-factor model of personality (John et al.

1991). Participants indicated the extent to which items that

measured extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,

neuroticism, and openness were self-characteristic on a

5-point Likert scale (1 = disagree strongly, 5 = agree

strongly). All five subscales were reliable (a’s = .73–.87).

Results

Emotion elicitation and experience check

First, we assessed whether the film clips successfully

elicited the intended emotions. For all clips, at least 70 %

of participants chose to rate the target emotion (Table 2).

All other emotions were chosen infrequently. Next, we

collapsed the separate emotion variables into self-report

and display composites for further analysis. The positive

emotion composites consisted of amusement, awe, interest,

and love (love was only included in the self-report com-

posite) across the four positive emotion film clips. The

between-subject reliability of the emotion self-reports was

moderate (x = .62), mainly due to a lack of correlation of awe with other positive emotions (reliability without awe:

x = .75). The negative emotion composites consisted of fear and sadness across the two negative emotion film clips

(self-reports: x = .64). The correlation of self-reported emotion and displayed emotion (across emotions) was

moderate for awe (r = .23, p \ .05) and sadness (r = .24, p \ .05), and close to zero for all other emotions (r \ .04).

As Table 3 shows, one-way ANOVAs indicated that self-

reported positive emotion, self-reported negative emotion,

and negative emotion displays did not differ by social con-

text (all F’s \ 1). There was an effect for displayed positive emotion by social context, F(2,77) = 32.42, p \ .001. Fol- low up t-tests showed that roommates displayed more posi-

tive emotion than strangers, t(43.36) = 5.94, p \ .001, or those who were alone, t(42.23) = 6.06, p \ .001. Impor- tantly for our study, however, the displays of strangers were

not influenced by the presence of another (e.g., Buck et al.

1992; Fridlund 1991); strangers displays did not differ from

alone displays.

Motiv Emot (2015) 39:780–794 787

123

Did others’ positive emotions predict perceiver

responsiveness to new relationship opportunity?

We tested this hypothesis by comparing the extent to which

self-reported and displayed positive and negative emotion

predicted closeness in stranger dyads using the actor-part-

ner interdependence model (APIM) within a multilevel

model where interaction partners (level 1) were nested

within dyads (level 2). As appropriate for APIM (e.g.,

Cook and Kenny 2005), we tested and report both actor

effects (does own positive emotion experience or display

predict own closeness rating?) and partner effects (does

partner positive emotion experience or display predict own

closeness rating?). We used one-tailed tests of statistical

significance due to the high likelihood that our small Study

2 sample was underpowered for hypothesis testing. One-

tailed tests reduce the likelihood that meaningful effects

might be obscured by an overly conservative significance

level.

The results of this analysis are presented in Table 4 and

illustrated in Fig. 1. Significant coefficients emerged only

for positive emotion display, for which we found both an

actor and a partner effect. Both own and partner display of

positive emotion were significantly associated with close-

ness reports. 3 A comparison of the deviance statistic for

this model with that of a model where actor and partner

effects of positive emotion display were constrained to

equality indicated that these two coefficients did not differ

significantly(v2 (1) = .15, p = .70). We used an analo- gous strategy to test whether the size of the estimate for

partner positive emotion display differed from that of the

estimate for partner negative emotion display [a compar-

ison of an unconstrained model with a model where the

estimates for positive and negative emotion displays in the

stranger condition were constrained to be of the same size

but inverse valence (e.g., 1 vs. -1)]. Tests indicated that

the size of the effects for the partner’s positive emotion

display was significantly greater than that for the partner’s

negative emotion display (v2(1) = 2.998, one-tailed p = .04). A comparison of the size of actor effects,

Table 2 Study 2: Frequency of target emotion experience

during each film clip

Film clips All conditions (N = 91) Alone (n = 27) Strangers (n = 28) Roommates (n = 36)

Positive emotions

Amusement clip

Amusement 85 25 26 34

Love clip

Love 69 18 22 29

Awe clip

Awe 66 19 21 26

Interest clip

Interest 72 23 22 27

Negative emotions

Fear clip

Fear 85 24 28 33

Sadness clip

Sadness 88 27 27 34

Table 3 Study 2: Self-reported and displayed positive and negative emotion across social context conditions

Alone (n = 27) Strangers (n = 28) Roommates (n = 36) Social context differences?

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Self-reported

Positive emotion 2.96 (.71) 2.98 (.73) 2.90 (.77) No

Negative emotion 3.78 (.83) 3.81 (.92) 3.97 (1.14) No

Displayed

Positive emotion .46 (.37) .47 (.40) 1.52 (.78) R [ S & A Negative emotion .74 (.77) .45 (.50) .86 (.91) No

N = 91; Self-reported emotion ratings on a 1-7 scale (1 = no emotion; 7 = intense emotion)

R Roommate, S Stranger, A Alone

3 This pattern held when all non-significant predictors were dropped

from the model and only the actor’s and the partner’s positive

emotion display were used as predictors.

788 Motiv Emot (2015) 39:780–794

123

(v2(1) = .76, one-tailed p = .19), found no significant difference.

Testing discrete emotion self-reports in a joint model

was not appropriate in Study 20s small sample due to de- grees of freedom constraints. We therefore ran separate

tests for discrete emotion self-reports and displays (both

actor and partner effects for self-reports and displays in one

model). These analyses indicated that own display of awe

(B = 3.517, ES r = .526; p = .011) was significantly as-

sociated with perceived closeness and partner display of

amusement was a significant predictor of perceived

closeness (B = .780, ES r = .403; p = .039). All other

coefficients were nonsignificant (p [ .135).

Did personality account for the positive emotion findings?

We considered whether personality could have accounted

for the predictive value of positive emotion display for

strangers’ felt closeness. For example, people high in ex-

traversion or neuroticism vary in their comfort with ex-

pressing emotion in the presence of known and unknown

others (John and Srivastava 1999). One-way ANOVA’s on

extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientious-

ness, and openness showed no mean differences by social

context (all F’s \ 1) and the five factors were not corre- lated with self-reported emotion, emotion display, or

closeness (all p’s [ .05).

Discussion

Only positive emotion displays during positive emotion

film clips predicted closeness among strangers who pre-

sented an opportunity for a new relationship in a neutral

setting. This was true for others’ positive emotion displays

as well as own positive emotion displays. Further, others’

positive emotion display was significantly more predictive

of perceiver felt closeness than others’ negative emotion

display. Negative emotion, self-reported or displayed,

during the relevant film clips did not predict closeness.

These patterns emerged even though participants reported

similar emotion experience across contexts, strangers dis-

played positive and negative emotion with almost equal

frequency (see Table 3), and the film clips for the negative

emotions were relationally relevant (e.g., loss of a loved

one; family in danger) and could have reasonably elicited a

desire to comfort, nurture, and be close among stranger

dyads. Importantly, the effect for displayed positive emo-

tion could not be attributed to differences in personality or

level of response to the film clips, which were similar

across contexts. We were limited in our ability to test the

role of the Duchenne smile for the closeness findings, but

our results indicated that others’ positive emotion display

that is chiefly signaled by a Duchenne smile (amusement)

was a significant predictor of perceived closeness among

strangers.

Although own positive emotion was not the focus of this

work, the finding that own positive emotion displays, and

specifically awe, predicted closeness is consistent with

other research (Van Cappellen and Saroglou 2012; Waugh

and Fredrickson 2006). Unexpectedly, others’ self-reported

positive emotion did not predict stranger closeness. Ex-

pressive displays are the more socially visible and re-

sponse-evoking emotion information (Ekman 2003). There

is also some indication that Duchenne smiles in particular

Table 4 Study 2: Summary of APIM multilevel analysis for positive and negative self-reported and displayed emotion as predictors of

closeness in stranger condition

Predictor B Estimates

SE B ES r

Intercept 2.500*** .206 .870

Self-reported positive emotion (actor) .122 .271 .009

Self-reported positive emotion (partner) -.167 .270 -.017

Self-reported negative emotion (actor) .344 .234 .089

Self-reported negative emotion (partner) -.135 .234 -.015

Displayed positive emotion (actor) 1.313* .686 .143

Displayed positive emotion (partner) 1.766** .695 .227

Displayed negative emotion (actor) -.775 .492 -.101

Displayed negative emotion (partner) -.676 .499 -.077

n = 28. ES r = Effect size r. Positive emotion and negative emotion

experience and display were centered at their social context group

means

* p \ .05. ** p \ .01.*** p \ .001. (one-tailed tests)

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

positive emotion negative emotion positive emotion negative emotion

self-reported displayed

C lo

se ne

ss (E

ff ec

t S iz

e r)

actor effect partner effect

Fig. 1 Study 2: Associations between self-reported and displayed positive and negative emotion and closeness in stranger condition

Motiv Emot (2015) 39:780–794 789

123

are a reliable signal of cooperation and affiliation (Mehu

et al. 2007a; Messinger et al. 1999). Thus, it is reasonable

that expressive displays of positive emotion would be more

salient and predictive of closeness than internal state in-

formation alone among strangers. Few studies have

separately examined both internal feelings and expressive

display for multiple positive emotions in the context of

relationship formation; future research will be needed to

better understand their relative or combined importance.

We also considered the possibility that the observed

effects on closeness might have originated from psycho-

logical processes activated during the study incidental to

heightened responsiveness to others’ positive emotions.

For example, closeness ratings after the emotion-eliciting

film clips may have been influenced by misattribution of

arousal (e.g., Fraley and Aron 2004), emotion contagion

(e.g., Parkinson 2011), or transference processes (e.g.,

Andersen and Glassman 1996). None of these possibilities,

however, explains why effects were only observed for

positive emotions when the negative emotions that we

studied were also relationally relevant.

The strengths of Study 2 were experimental control and

measures of both emotion experience and emotion display in

a neutral setting. There were also limitations. Our small

sample was all women. Not all positive emotions were dis-

played. Perhaps due to the social contexts studied, love

displays were scarcely observed. Positive emotion film clips

were shown first and closeness ratings may have been af-

fected by primacy of exposure. We note, however, that

negative emotion film clips were shown last and it was just as

likely that closeness ratings could have been affected by

recency of exposure. On balance, this makes it unlikely that

order effects could account for the observed data patterns.

Further, positivity is considered a baseline of sorts that is

more frequent and normative than negativity (Baumeister

et al. 2001; Rozin et al. 2010). Thus, our emotion film clip

order was ecologically valid. Of perhaps greater importance,

fear and sadness, the two negative emotions studied, could

have elicited a desire to comfort and be close to a person

feeling and displaying these emotions, but they did not.

General discussion

In two studies we found evidence of positive emotion at-

tunement—that perceivers are highly aware of others’

positive emotions and that perceivers are responsive to

others’ positive emotions when there is opportunity to form

a new relationship. In Study 1, awareness of others’ posi-

tive emotion was evident in the accuracy with which per-

ceivers’ tracked their partners’ positive emotions in a

sample of dating couples. In Study 2, responsiveness to

others’ positive emotions under conditions of new

relationship opportunity was evident in the closeness that

perceivers felt toward strangers who displayed positive

emotion. In both studies, attunement to positive emotions

exceeded attunement to negative emotions. There was also

evidence that Duchenne smiles were the signal to which

perceivers were most attuned. These findings provide new

evidence of the motivated salience of positive emotions in

social settings and highlight the role of positive emotion

display in the development of new social connections.

What information are positive emotions providing to

perceivers? Our interpretation is that others’ positive

emotions provide uniquely important information regard-

ing the likelihood of affiliation and cooperation that hu-

mans depend on for survival and successful reproduction.

Awareness of others’ positive emotions helps individuals

monitor on-going relationships for affiliation and coop-

eration that people are motivated to obtain. Responsiveness

to others’ positive emotions, particularly their displays,

helps individuals obtain new relationships that may have a

high likelihood of being characterized by affiliation and

cooperation. This interpretation is consistent with a large

body of theory and research that has implicated positive

emotions in affiliation, cooperation, and satisfying long-

term close relationships (e.g., Algoe et al. 2008; Cohn et al.

2009; Fredrickson 1998; Shiota et al. 2004).

Are there particular signals that facilitate positive

emotion attunement? Based on our read of the literature on

positive emotion display, we suspected that Duchenne

smiles play a critical role in positive emotion attunement.

Duchenne smiles, however, are complex phenomena. They

signal felt enjoyment (Ekman and Friesen 1978; Ekman

et al. 1987), can signal affiliation and cooperation (Mehu

et al. 2007b), and are most likely to occur in social inter-

action marked by affiliative positive emotion (Gonzaga

et al. 2001; Messinger et al. 1999). At the same time,

Duchenne smiles are absent in positive emotions whose

functions appear to be primarily cognitive, such as awe and

interest, or status-focused, such as pride (Campos et al.

2013; Shiota et al. 2007; Tracy and Robins 2007). We

found that others’ pride was tracked with less accuracy

than happiness, amusement, and love in Study 1. One

possibility is that positive emotions whose display includes

Duchenne smiles signal a unique and potent combination

of enjoyment, affiliation, and willingness to cooperate.

Another is that Duchenne smiles occur when positive

emotion is felt in the context of affiliation, which in turn,

signals a high likelihood of cooperation to perceivers. This

latter possibility would be consistent with Scherer’s (1994)

proposal that expressive displays may be response elements

rather than emotion specific patterns. These possibilities

can be teased apart by future research to refine current

understanding of the functions that positive emotions, and

their expressive displays, serve.

790 Motiv Emot (2015) 39:780–794

123

Does positive emotion attunement extend to all positive

emotions? In the last 20 years, great variation in positive

emotions has been documented, including multiple states

and multiple social functions (e.g., Campos et al. 2013;

Fredrickson 1998; Shiota et al. 2004). Although many of

these positive emotions signal affiliation and cooperation,

some do not. Pride, for example, signals status and is

neither theorized nor empirically linked with affiliation and

cooperation (e.g., Tracy and Robins 2007). We found that

pride was tracked with less accuracy than a set of com-

parison emotions that have been strongly linked with af-

filiation and cooperation (i.e., happiness, amusement, and

love) in previous research. This pattern may indicate that

positive emotion attunement is primarily driven by positive

emotions that reliably signal affiliation and cooperation.

However, pride was still tracked with significant accuracy

by our sample of dating partners. Future research will be

needed to establish whether attunement to positive emotion

is a general phenomenon or, as our theoretical rationale and

empirical evidence suggest, particularly evident in positive

emotions that signal affiliation and cooperation.

These two studies demonstrate that people are highly at-

tuned to others’ positive emotions but future work will be

needed to better understand the contexts in which people may

be most attuned to the positive emotions of others. We suspect

that positive emotion attunement is most relevant in the two

contexts we studied—in on-going relationships and when

there is a possibility of forming a new relationship. In these

contexts, awareness of others’ positive emotions can provide

important information about whether a relationship is char-

acterized by affiliation and cooperation; responsiveness to

others’ positive emotions may lead to the formation of new

relationships characterized by affiliation and cooperation. In

both cases, attunement to the positive emotions of others can

helppeople pursueand maintain themutuallybeneficialsocial

relations that humans depend upon for survival and successful

reproduction. It is also possible that positive emotion attune-

ment may matter more in early stage relationships, when

people are assessing the long-term potential of a relationship.

In contrast, longstanding partners may be more equally at-

tuned to partner positive and negative emotions because both

are important for long-term stability and satisfaction. New

research indicates that one partner’s daily positive emotion

can reduce the psychological distress of the other partner in

long-term couples (Randall and Schoebi 2015). We also note

that positive emotion attunement may be less relevant in

competitive or task-oriented contexts that rely less on af-

filiation and cooperation to generate desired outcomes. Future

research can address these possibilities.

Awareness of others’ positive emotions may provide

important information about the likelihood of affiliation

and cooperation, but the consequences of this awareness

for on-going relationships is likely to be complex and not

always desirable. Attunement to a partner’s positive emo-

tion can let one know that a partner feels love for you or for

a rival. In the first example, positive emotion attunement

may lead an individual to feel valued and secure in their

relationship whereas in the second example, positive

emotion attunement may lead to feelings of threat and the

possibility of relationship dissolution. In both scenarios,

however, attunement to others’ positive emotions would

provide important information regarding the likelihood of

affiliation and cooperation that people should be motivated

to obtain.

An alternative explanation for the observed findings is

that the contexts we studied were more evocative of posi-

tive emotion than negative emotion. Certainly, our dating

couples were highly satisfied but the semi-structured in-

teractions they participated in were selected to be evocative

of both positive and negative experience and couples did

track their partners’ negative emotions with considerable

accuracy. The strangers we studied came together in a

neutral laboratory setting and took part in a standardized

emotion induction procedure. These settings are not more

or less evocative of positive and negative emotion than is

typical of everyday life.

In both studies, attunement to others’ positive emotion

exceeded attunement to negative emotion. Positive and

negative emotions both serve important, independent, so-

cial functions (e.g., Diener and Emmons 1984; Gable et al.

2000). Indeed, negative emotions may be of heightened

importance in particular relationship situations that have

implications for whether a relationship thrives or dissolves

(e.g., conflict resolution). Negative emotions, however are

more tightly linked to both beneficial and detrimental re-

lational processes. For example, others’ negative emotions

can elicit care and support (e.g., Graham et al. 2008) but

can also escalate conflict and aggression (e.g., Levenson

and Gottman 1983). Further, the absence of negative

emotions does not equal the presence of affiliation and

cooperation. In our view, just as attunement to negative

emotions is important for identifying and responding to

threats or the need of others for caregiving and support

(Baumeister et al. 2001; Graham et al. 2008), attunement to

positive emotions is important for identifying and re-

sponding to opportunities for affiliation and cooperation.

The present work has a number of important strengths.

Affiliation and cooperation are theorized to be central to

human survival but most emotion research has examined

this question through the lens of negative emotion (e.g.,

who poses a threat to affiliation and cooperation?). Here,

we drew on that theorizing to test the prediction that there

is a motivated attunement to positive emotion. This focus

yielded unique new findings for positive emotion attune-

ment, including the finding that positive emotion attune-

ment can exceed negative emotion attunement. These

Motiv Emot (2015) 39:780–794 791

123

results have important implications for better understand-

ing relationship formation and maintenance processes. Our

findings also raise important questions for future study

(e.g., what is the role of Duchenne smiles in positive

emotion attunement? what are the relational contexts in

which people are most attuned to others’ positive emo-

tion?). Our research also had methodological strengths. We

examined emotion at multiple levels—self-reported, part-

ner perceived, and behaviorally displayed—using social

interaction and experimental methods that captured spon-

taneous emotion behavior in the live presence of others.

This multi-method approach is key to understanding

emotions, which are inherently social processes.

Our work also had limitations. The Study 1 sample

consisted solely of dating couples, who may be particularly

attuned to one another’s positive emotions, and Study 2 did

not include men. To better understand the extent to which

positive emotion attunement is a human universal, future

research will need to examine these processes across

varying social contexts. For example, it may be useful to

study positive emotion attunement in cultures that em-

phasize elevated positive emotion expressivity, as is true of

U.S. Latino culture (Holloway et al. 2009), or more mod-

erated positive emotion, as is true of East Asian cultures

(Tsai 2007).

We hope that the findings reported in this paper generate

additional research on positive emotion attunement. Human

social life depends on affiliation and cooperation. Positive

emotions are a salient index of the possibility of affiliation

and cooperation. As such, people should be highly attuned

to others’ positive emotions. Without the rewards of af-

filiation and cooperation with others, successfully avoiding

threat, predation, or exploitation would be a hollow victory.

Acknowledgments Portions of this work were completed while Belinda Campos was supported by a National Science Foundation

Graduate Fellowship and a Graduate Opportunity Fellowship at UC

Berkeley; National Institute of Mental Health Training Grant

T32MH15750-25 for the study of biobehavioral issues in physical and

mental health at UCLA; and the UCLA Sloan Center on the Everyday

Lives of Families. Dominik Schoebi’s work was supported by Grant

PA001-10899 from the Swiss National Science Foundation. We are

thankful to the team of Berkeley RAs who assisted with the Study 1 data

collection. We are also thankful to Noah Fast, Ronit Menasche, Eileen

Pitpitan, and Sid Tsai for their assistance in Study 2 data collection and

to Ronit Menasche, Eileen Pitpitan, Sid Tsai, DaniMae Mundo, Mishell

Hyun, and Kelvin O for their contribution as coders in Study 2.

References

Algoe, S. B., Haidt, J., & Gable, S. L. (2008). Beyond reciprocity:

Gratitude and relationships in everyday life. Emotion, 8,

425–429. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.8.3.425.

Andersen, S. M., & Glassman, N. S. (1996). Responding to significant

others when they are not there: Effects on interpersonal

inference, motivation, and affect. In R. M. Sorrentino & E.

T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (Vol.

3, pp. 262–321). New York: Guilford Press.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the

self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612. doi:10.1037/

0022-3514.63.4.596.

Barrett, K. C., & Campos, J. J. (1987). Perspectives on emotional

development II: A functionalist approach to emotions. In J.

D. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of infant development (2nd ed.,

pp. 555–578). New York: Wiley-Interscience.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D.

(2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psy-

chology, 5, 323–370. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323.

Berry, D. S., & Hansen, J. S. (1996). Positive affect, negative affect

and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 71, 796–809. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.4.796.

Berry, D. S., & Willingham, J. K. (1997). Affective traits, responses

to conflict, and satisfaction in romantic relationships. Journal of

Research in Personality, 31, 564–576. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1997.

2198.

Buck, R. (1984). The communication of emotion. New York: Guilford

Press.

Buck, R., Losow, J. I., Murphy, M. M., & Costanzo, P. (1992). Social

facilitation and inhibition of emotional expression and commu-

nication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63,

962–968. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.63.6.962.

Buss, K. A., & Kiel, E. J. (2004). Comparison of sadness, anger, and

fear facial expressions when toddlers look at their Mothers.

Child Development, 75, 1761–1773. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.

2004.00815.x.

Campos, J. J., Campos, R. G., & Barrett, K. C. (1989). Emergent

themes in the study of emotional development and emotion

regulation. Developmental Psychology, 25, 394–402. doi:10.

1037/0012-1649.25.3.394.

Campos, B., Shiota, M. N., Keltner, D., Gonzaga, G. C., & Goetz, J.

(2013). What is shared, what is different? Core relational themes

and behavioral displays of eight positive emotions. Cognition

and Emotion, 27, 37–52. doi:10.1080/02699931.2012.683852.

Clark, M. S., & Taraban, C. (1991). Reactions to and willingness to

express emotion in communal and exchange relationships.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 324–336.

doi:10.1016/0022-1031(91)90029-6.

Cohen, S., Schulz, M. S., Weiss, E., & Waldinger, R. J. (2012). Eye of

the beholder: The individual and dyadic contributions of

empathic accuracy and perceived empathic effort to relationship

satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 26, 236–245. doi:10.

1037/a0027488.

Cohn, M. A., Fredrickson, B. L., Brown, S. L., Mikels, J., & Conway,

A. M. (2009). Happiness unpacked: Positive emotions increase

life satisfaction by building resilience. Emotion, 9, 361–368.

doi:10.1177/0023830909103181.

Cook, W., & Kenny, D. (2005). The actor–partner interdependence

model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental

studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29,

101–109. doi:10.1080/01650250444000405.

DePaulo, B. M. (1992). Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation.

Psychological Bulletin, 111, 203–243. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.

111.2.203.

Diener, E., & Diener, C. (1996). Most people are happy. Psycho-

logical Science, 7, 181–185. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.

tb00354.x.

Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). The independence of positive

and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology, 47, 1105–1117. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.47.5.110.

Ekman, P. (1972). Universals and cultural differences in facial

expressions of emotion. In J. Cole (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on

792 Motiv Emot (2015) 39:780–794

123

motivation, 1971 (pp. 207–283). Lincoln, NE: University of

Nebraska Press.

Ekman, P. (2003). Emotions revealed. New York: Times Books.

Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1978). Facial action coding system: A

technique for the measurement of facial movement. Palo Alto,

CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

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.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 712–717.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.4.712.

Fraley, B., & Aron, A. (2004). The effect of a shared humorous

experience on closeness in initial encounters. Personal Rela-

tionships, 11, 61–78. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00071.x.

Frank, R. H. (1988). Passions within reason: The strategic role of the

emotions. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Frank, M. G., Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1993). Behavioral

markers and recognizability of the smile of enjoyment. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 83–93. doi:10.1037/

0022-3514.64.1.83.

Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review

of General Psychology, 2, 300–319. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.

300.

Fridlund, A. J. (1991). Sociality of solitary smiling: Potentiation by an

implicit audience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

60, 229–240. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.60.2.229.

Gable, S. L., Gonzaga, G. C., & Strachman, A. (2006). Will you be

there for me when things go right? Supportive responses to

positive event disclosures. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 91, 904–917. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.904.

Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Behavioral activation

and inhibition in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 78, 1135–1149. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.78.6.1135.

Geldhof, G. J., Preacher, K. J., & Zyphur, M. J. (2014). Reliability

estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis frame-

work. Psychological Methods, 19, 72. doi:10.1037/a0032138.

Gonzaga, G. C., Keltner, D., Londahl, E. A., & Smith, M. D. (2001).

Love and the commitment problem in romantic relations and

friendship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81,

247–262. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.247.

Gonzaga, G. C., Turner, R. A., Keltner, D., Campos, B., & Altemus,

M. (2006). Romantic love and sexual desire in close relation-

ships. Emotion, 6, 163–179. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.6.2.163.

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 Psy-

chology Bulletin, 34, 394–406. doi:10.1177/0146167207311281.

Hawkins, M. W., Carrere, S., & Gottman, J. M. (2002). Marital

sentiment override: Does it influence couples’ perceptions?

Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 193–201. doi:10.1111/j.

1741-3737.2002.00193.x.

Holloway, R. A., Waldrip, A. M., & Ickes, W. (2009). Evidence that a

simpático self-schema accounts for differences in the self-

concepts and social behavior of Latinos versus Whites (and

Blacks). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96,

1012–1028. doi:10.1037/a0013883.

Hrdy, S. B. (1999). Mother nature: A history of mothers, infants, and

natural selection. New York: Pantheon.

Huston, T. L., Caughlin, J. P., Houts, R. M., Smith, S. E., & George,

L. J. (2001). The connubial crucible: Newlywed years as

predictors of marital delight, distress, and divorce. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 237–252. doi:10.1037/

0022-3514.80.2.237.

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. P. (1991). The ‘‘Big Five’’

inventory: Versions 4a and 54 (Tech. Rep.). Berkeley: University

of California Press, Institute of Personality and Social Research.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy:

History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L.

A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory

and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York, NY: The

Guilford Press.

Juth, P., Lundqvist, D., Karlsson, A., & Ohman, A. (2005). Looking

for foes and friends perceptual and emotional factors when

finding a face in the crowd. Emotion, 5, 379–395. doi:10.1037/

1528-3542.5.4.379.

Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Neuroticism, marital

interaction, and the trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1075–1092. doi:10.1037/

0022-3514.72.5.1075.

Keltner, D. (1995). Signs of appeasement: Evidence for the distinct

displays of embarrassment, amusement and shame. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 441–454. doi:10.1037/

0022-3514.68.3.441.

Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2001). Social functions of emotions. In T.

J. Mayne & G. A. Bonanno (Eds.), Emotions: Current issues and

future directions (pp. 192–213). New York: The Guilford Press.

Keltner, D., & Kring, A. (1998). Emotion, social function, and

psychopathology. Review of General Psychology, 2, 320–342.

doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.320.

Keltner, D., Young, R. C., Heerey, E. A., Oemig, C., & Monarch, N.

D. (1998). Teasing in hierarchical and intimate relations. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1231–1257. doi:10.

1037/0022-3514.75.5.1231.

Levenson, R. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1983). Marital interaction:

Physiological linkage and affective exchange. Journal of Per-

sonality and Social Psychology, 45, 587–597. doi:10.1037/0022-

3514.45.3.587.

Locke, H. J., & Wallace, K. M. (1959). Short marital adjustment and

prediction tests: Their reliability and validity. Marriage and

Family, 21, 251–255. doi:10.2307/348022. Mehu, M., Grammer, K., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2007a). Smiles when

sharing. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 415–422. doi:10.

1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.05.010.

Mehu, M., Little, A. C., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2007b). Duchenne smiles

and the perception of generosity and sociability in faces. Journal

of Evolutionary Psychology, 5, 133–146. doi:10.1556/JEP.5.

2007.1-4.11.

Messinger, D. S., Fogel, A., & Dickson, K. L. (1999). What’s in a

smile? Developmental Psychology, 35, 701–708. doi:10.1037/

0012-1649.35.3.701.

Parkinson, B. (2011). Interpersonal emotion transfer: Contagion and

social appraisal. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5,

428–439. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00365.x.

Randall, A. K., & Schoebi, D. (2015). Lean on me: Susceptibility to

partner affect attenuates psychological distress over a 12-month

period. Emotion, 15, 201–210. doi:10.1037/emo0000043.

Reeve, J. (1993). The face of interest. Motivation and Emotion, 17,

353–375. doi:10.1007/BF00992325.

Rozin, P.,Berman, L., & Royzman, E.B.(2010). Biases in use of positive

and negative words across twenty natural languages. Cognition and

Emotion, 24, 536–538. doi:10.1080/02699930902793462.

Russell, J. A. (1994). Is there universal recognition of emotion from

facial expression? A review of the cross-cultural studies.

Psychological Bulletin, 115, 102–141. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.

115.1.102.

Scherer, K. R. (1994). Toward a concept of ‘‘modal emotions.’’ In P.

Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion: Funda-

mentalquestions (pp.25–31).Oxford,NY:OxfordUniversityPress.

Shiota, M. N., Campos, B., & Keltner, D. (2003). The faces of

positive emotion: Prototype displays of awe, amusement, and

pride. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1000,

296–299.

Motiv Emot (2015) 39:780–794 793

123

Shiota, M. N., Campos, B., Keltner, D., & Hertenstein, M. J. (2004).

Positive emotion and the regulation of interpersonal relationships.

In P. Philippot & R. S. Feldman (Eds.), The regulation of emotion

(pp. 127–155). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Shiota, M. N., Keltner, D., & Mossman, A. (2007). The nature of awe:

Elicitors, appraisals, and effects on self-concept. Cognition and

Emotion, 21, 944–963. doi:10.1080/02699930600923668.

Simpson, J. A., Ickes, W., & Biackstone, T. (1995). When the head

protects the heart: Empathic accuracy in dating relationships.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 629–664.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.629.

Swann, W. B., Delaronde, C., & Hixon, J. G. (1994). Authenticity and

positivity strivings in marriage and courtship. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 857–869. doi:10.1037/

0022-3514.66.5.857.

Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1990). The past explains the present:

Emotional adaptations and the structure of ancestral environ-

ments. Ethology and Sociobiology, 11, 375–424. doi:10.1016/

0162-3095(90)90017-Z.

Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007). The prototypcial pride

expression: Development of a nonverbal behavior coding

system. Emotion, 7, 789–801. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.7.4.789.

Tsai, J. L. (2007). Ideal affect: Cultural causes and behavioral

consequences. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2,

242–259. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00043.x.

Van Cappellen, P., & Saroglou, V. (2012). Awe activates religious

and spiritual feelings and behavioral intentions. Psychology of

Religion and Spirituality, 4, 223–236. doi:10.1037/a0025986.

Van Kleef, G. A. (2009). How emotions regulate social life: The

emotions as social information (EASI) model. Current Direc-

tions in Psychological Science, 18, 184–188. doi:10.1111/j.1467-

8721.2009.01633.x.

Waugh, C. E., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2006). Nice to know you: Positive

emotions, self-other overlap, and complex understanding in the

formation of a new relationship. The Journal of Positive

Psychology, 1, 93–106. doi:10.1080/17439760500510569.

794 Motiv Emot (2015) 39:780–794

123

Copyright of Motivation & Emotion is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.