Table 4:

Reliability and specificity: A summary of the evidence

	Reliability	Specificity
Expression Production
Adults, Developed, Spontaneous, Lab	weak	unknown
Adults, Developed, Spontaneous, Naturalistic	weak	unknown
Adults, Developed, Posed	weak to strong	unknown
Adults, Remote, Spontaneous	unclear	unknown
Adults, Remote, Posed	weak to strong	unknown
Newborns, Infants, Toddlers	unsupported	unsupported
Congenitally Blind	unsupported to weak	unsupported
Emotion Perception
Adults, Developed, Choice-From-Array	moderate to strong	unknown
Adults, Developed, Reverse Correlation (with Choice-From-Array)	moderate	moderate
Adults, Developed, Free-Labeling	weak to moderate	weak
Adults, Developed, Virtual Humans	unknown	unknown
Adults, Remote, Choice-From-Array (before 2008)	moderate to strong	unknown
Adults, Remote, Choice-From-Array (after 2008)	weak to moderate	unsupported
Adults, Remote, Free-Labeling (before 2008)	unsupported to strong	variable
Adults, Remote, Free-Labeling (after 2008)	unsupported	unsupported
Infants, Young Children	unsupported	unsupported

Note. Criteria were adopted from Haidt & Keltner (1999), who suggest that reliability rates of 70±90% are considered strong evidence for universal emotion perception (following Ekman, 1994a); presumably, this would also hold for studies of expression production. Weak evidence is in the range of 20±40% (following Russell, 1994). By interpolation, reliability between 41% and 69% would be considered moderate evidence for reliability. Reliability estimates below 20% are interpreted as findings that clearly do not support the reliability hypothesis. We also adopted these criteria for specificity findings. Developed = studies of participants from the U.S. and other more urban countries. Spontaneous = spontaneous facial movements. Posed = posed facial configurations. Remote = studies of participants from small-scale, remote samples.