Phoebe C. Ellsworth’s research while affiliated with University of Michigan and other places

Following theories of emotional embodiment, the facial feedback hypothesis suggests that individuals’ subjective experiences of emotion are influenced by their facial expressions. However, evidence for this hypothesis has been mixed. We thus formed a global adversarial collaboration and carried out a preregistered, multicentre study designed to specify and test the conditions that should most reliably produce facial feedback effects. Data from n = 3,878 participants spanning 19 countries indicated that a facial mimicry and voluntary facial action task could both amplify and initiate feelings of happiness. However, evidence of facial feedback effects was less conclusive when facial feedback was manipulated unobtrusively via a pen-in-mouth task.

This volume traces the life journeys of a cohort of influential and transformative women in psychology, now in or nearing retirement, who have changed the discipline and the broader world of academia in significant ways. The 26 reflective essays record how these scholars thrived in an academic landscape that was often, at best, unwelcoming, and, at worst, hostile, toward them. They explicitly and implicitly acknowledge that their paths were inextricably linked with the evolution of women's roles in society; they highlight and celebrate their achievements as much as they acknowledge and recognize the obstacles, barriers, and hurdles they overcame. They tell their stories with candor and humor, resulting in a compilation of inspiring essays. The end result of these individual narratives is a volume that provides a unique resource for current and future academics to help them navigate through the crossroads, curves, and challenges of their own careers in academia.

Two studies were conducted to analyze how individuals feel and express their happiness in shared versus non-shared events. We hypothesized that the Japanese (interdependence-fostering culture), unlike Americans (independence-fostering culture), would show higher levels of happiness in shared situations than in non-shared situations. Study 1: participants were asked to describe two types of happy events (shared and non-shared) they had experienced, and then indicate how strongly they had felt and expressed happiness. Results suggest that the Japanese felt and expressed higher degrees of happiness in shared situations than non-shared situations, while Americans did not report this difference. Study 2: participants read the descriptions generated in Study 1 and answered how they would feel and express happiness. Japanese respondents scored higher in feeling and expressing happiness in shared situations than in non-shared situations. Americans showed the same pattern, but with a smaller difference. While the Japanese tend to experience more happiness in shared situations than in non-shared situations, Americans experience happiness similarly in both situations. These results may be related to the function of emotions in each culture.

Research over the past decades has demonstrated the explanatory power of emotions, feelings, motivations, moods, and other affective processes when trying to understand and predict how we think and behave. In this consensus article, we ask: has the increasingly recognized impact of affective phenomena ushered in a new era, the era of affectivism?

Critics have suggested that psychological research is characterized by a pervasive liberal bias, and this problem may be particularly acute in research on issues related to public policy. In this article, I consider the sources of bias in basic and applied research in the evaluation, conduct, and communication of research. Techniques are suggested for counteracting bias at each of these stages.

The facial feedback hypothesis suggests that an individual’s subjective experience of emotion is influenced by their facial expressions. Researchers, however, currently face conflicting narratives about whether this hypothesis is valid. A large replication effort consistently failed to replicate a seminal demonstration of the facial feedback hypothesis, but meta-analysis suggests the effect is real. To address this uncertainty, a large team of researchers—some advocates of the facial feedback hypothesis, some critics, and some without strong belief—collaborated to specify the best ways to test this hypothesis. Two pilot tests suggested that smiling could both magnify ongoing feelings of happiness and initiate feelings of happiness in otherwise non-emotional scenarios. Next, multiple research sites will perform more extensive tests to examine whether there is a replicable facial feedback effect.

Passion is a pervasive concept in the field of work. Workers aspire to be passionate in the hope of finding meaning and satisfaction from their professional lives, whereas employers dream of passionate employees to ensure organizational performance. Are these hopes and aspirations supported by scientific knowledge? Is there a darker side to passion for work that workers and organizations should be aware of? By reviewing the major theories of passion while focusing on the dominant theory, the dualistic model of passion, which distinguishes between two types of passion (harmonious and obsessive), this volume provides a comprehensive understanding of passion for work. In doing so, this book addresses the origin of the concept and its theoretical issues, how passion for work can be developed, what the consequences to be expected at the individual and organizational level are, and how passion for work can shed new light on contemporary issues in the workplace. Passion for Work: Theory, Research, and Applications synthesizes a vast body of existing research in the area, provides insights into new and exciting research avenues, and explores how current knowledge on passion for work can be applied in work settings to fulfill workers’ and employers’ hopes and aspirations about passion.

Some thoughts on the nature of networks, the prevalence of emotional experiences, and the importance of new questions.

Researchers are concerned about whether manipulations have the intended effects. Many journals and reviewers view manipulation checks favorably, and they are widely reported in prestigious journals. However, the prototypical manipulation check is a verbal (rather than behavioral) measure that always appears at the same point in the procedure (rather than its order being varied to assess order effects). Embedding such manipulation checks within an experiment comes with problems. While we conceptualize manipulation checks as measures, they can also act as interventions which initiate new processes that would otherwise not occur. The default assumption that manipulation checks do not affect experimental conclusions is unwarranted. They may amplify, undo, or interact with the effects of a manipulation. Further, the use of manipulation checks in mediational analyses does not rule out confounding variables, as any unmeasured variables that correlate with the manipulation check may still drive the relationship. Alternatives such as non-verbal and behavioral measures as manipulation checks and pilot testing are less problematic. Reviewers should view manipulation checks more critically, and authors should explore alternative methods to ensure the effectiveness of manipulations.