Diversity In Harmony Insights From Psychology Proceedings Of The 31st International Congress Of Psychology Shigemasu Diversity In Harmony Insights From Psychology Proceedings Of The 31st International Congress Of Psychology Shigemasu Diversity In Harmony Insights From Psychology Proceedings Of The 31st International Congress Of Psychology Shigemasu

1. Diversity In Harmony Insights From Psychology
Proceedings Of The 31st International Congress
Of Psychology Shigemasu download
https://ebookbell.com/product/diversity-in-harmony-insights-from-
psychology-proceedings-of-the-31st-international-congress-of-
psychology-shigemasu-9980472
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

2. Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.
Intercultural Dialogue In Search Of Harmony In Diversity 1st Edition
Edward Demenchonok
https://ebookbell.com/product/intercultural-dialogue-in-search-of-
harmony-in-diversity-1st-edition-edward-demenchonok-51334624
Diversity In Intellectual Property Identities Interests And
Intersections 1st Edition Irene Calboli
https://ebookbell.com/product/diversity-in-intellectual-property-
identities-interests-and-intersections-1st-edition-irene-
calboli-46254764
Diversity In Computer Science Design Artefacts For Equity And
Inclusion Pernille Bjrn
https://ebookbell.com/product/diversity-in-computer-science-design-
artefacts-for-equity-and-inclusion-pernille-bjrn-46538226
Diversity In The Eastcentral European Borderlands 1st Edition Eleonora
Fedor
https://ebookbell.com/product/diversity-in-the-eastcentral-european-
borderlands-1st-edition-eleonora-fedor-47161360

3. Diversity In Clinical Practice Lambers Fisher
https://ebookbell.com/product/diversity-in-clinical-practice-lambers-
fisher-47219648
Diversity In Preexilic Hebrew Reprint 1993 Ian Young
https://ebookbell.com/product/diversity-in-preexilic-hebrew-
reprint-1993-ian-young-49162034
Diversity In Narration And Writing The Novel 1st Edition Kornlia
Horvth Editor
https://ebookbell.com/product/diversity-in-narration-and-writing-the-
novel-1st-edition-kornlia-horvth-editor-49423262
Diversity In Archaeology Proceedings Of The Cambridge Annual Student
Archaeology Conference 20202021 Elifgl Dogan Editor
https://ebookbell.com/product/diversity-in-archaeology-proceedings-of-
the-cambridge-annual-student-archaeology-conference-20202021-elifgl-
dogan-editor-50202590
Diversity In Couple And Family Therapy Ethnicities Sexualities And
Socioeconomics Shalonda Kelly
https://ebookbell.com/product/diversity-in-couple-and-family-therapy-
ethnicities-sexualities-and-socioeconomics-shalonda-kelly-50286494

6. Table of Contents
Cover
About the Editors
Preface
Part I: Psychology Approaching New Synergies
1 Social Cognition, the Amygdala, and Autism
1.1 Three Broad Themes
1.2 Impaired Attention to Eyes in Faces Following Human Amygdala Lesions
1.3 Atypical Visual Attention in People with Autism
1.4 Putting it All Together: Singleneuron Responses in the Amygdala
References
2 Artificial Empathy
2.1 Introduction
2.2 What Does Robotics Mean Here?
2.3 What is Human Development?
2.4 Cognitive Developmental Robotics
2.5 Development of Empathy
2.6 Constructive Approaches to Artificial Empathy
2.7 Conclusion
Acknowledgment
References
3 On Space Geckos and Urban Apes
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Two Approaches in the Experimental Study of Animal Cognition
3.3 Psychology as the Science of the Unusual
3.4 Cognitive Flexibility and Adaptation
3.5 Ape Prospective Cognition: Two Case Studies
3.6 Ape Prospective Cognition Revisited
3.7 Concluding Remarks
References
4 Prosocial Primates
4.1 Introduction

7. 4.2 Reciprocal Altruism
4.3 Empathy
4.4 Empathy Mechanism
4.5 From Empathy to Altruism
4.6 Conclusion
References
5 Understanding About Others’ Action in Chimpanzees and Humans
5.1 Comparative Cognition of Chimpanzees and Humans
5.2 Understanding of Goaldirectedness of the Action
5.3 Looking at the Face as a Cue for Understanding Actions
5.4 Comparative Data from Nonhuman Primates
5.5 Eyetracking Study
5.6 Humans and Chimpanzees Attend Differently to Goaldirected Actions
5.7 Facescanning Patterns Depending on Contexts During Action Observation
5.8 Implications of Different Styles of Attention Between Humans and Chimpanzees
Acknowledgements
References
6 Principles of Human–Robot Interaction
6.1 Introduction
6.2 How to Represent Human Presence?
6.3 How Do We Recognize the Robot?
6.4 The Telenoid as a Conversational Partner for an Elderly Person
6.5 Hugvie as the Minimum Robot to Represent Human Presence
6.6 What is Conversation?
6.7 Conclusion
Acknowledgments
References
7 The Origins of Understanding Self and Other
7.1 Origin of a Sense of Self
7.2 Mapping the Bodies of Oneself and Others
7.3 Understanding Others’ Actions
7.4 The Unique Human Ability to Understand Others
7.5 Conclusions
Acknowledgments

8. References
8 Dimensions of Timbre
8.1 The Definition of Timbre
8.2 Methods
8.3 The Relation Between Physical Properties and Sound Quality
8.4 Summary
Acknowledgment
References
Further Reading
9 Illuminating the Evolution of Cultural Cognition Through Comparative Studies of
Humans and Chimpanzees
9.1 Introduction
9.2 The Comparative Method Applied to Culture
9.3 A Framework for Comparing Cultural Cognition Across Species
9.4 Populationlevel Patterning of Traditions
9.5 Linkage of Traditions Through Core Ideas
9.6 Cumulative Culture
9.7 Processes of Social Learning
9.8 Concluding Discussion
References
Part II: Psychology Confronting Societal Challenges
10 PEACEful Interviewing/Interrogation
10.1 The “Old” Way
10.2 Suspects’ Views
10.3 The 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act
10.4 The Principles of the 1992 PEACE Approach
10.5 Is the PEACE Model/Approach Effective?
10.6 Juveniles/Children
10.7 A Recent Overview
10.8 “PEACE” in Our Time?
References
11 Culturally Relevant Personality Assessment
11.1 Introduction
11.2 The Transport and Test Stage

9. 11.3 The Indigenous Psychology Stage
11.4 The Integrative Stage: The Combined Emic–Etic Approach
11.5 Development of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI)
11.6 Revisiting Openness in the Development of the Chinese Personality
Assessment Inventory2 (CPAI2)
11.7 Confirmation of the Emic Factor in the Adolescent Version of the CPAI
(CPAIA)
11.8 Contributions of the CPAI Indigenous Personality Scales
11.9 CrossCultural Relevance of the CPAI
11.10 Contributions of the Combined Emic–Etic Approach to the Development of
the CrossCultural (Chinese) Personality Assessment Inventory
11.11 Opportunities and Challenges for the Future Development of Multicultural
Personality Assessment
11.12 Conclusion
Acknowledgments
References
12 Action Spaces Representation in Social Contexts
12.1 Introduction
12.2 Neurophysiology of Near and Far Spaces
12.3 The Peripersonal Space as an Embodied Action Space
12.4 The Impact of Brain Motor Damage on Peripersonal Space Representation
12.5 The Importance of Stimuli Value on Peripersonal Space Representation
12.6 The Contribution of Peripersonal Space to Social Interactions
12.7 Conclusion
Acknowledgment
References
13 Life Design Paradigm
13.1 Introduction
13.2 Innovation and Career Counseling
13.3 Career Counseling in Search of Singularity
13.4 Conclusion
References
14 Emotionrelated Selfregulation and Children’s Social, Psychological, and
Academic Functioning
14.1 Introduction

10. 14.2 Historical Context
14.3 Theoretical Issues
14.4 Empirical Findings
14.5 Social Competence and Problem Behavior
14.6 EC and Academic Achievement
14.7 Conclusion
Acknowledgments
References
15 CiteSpace Visualizations of Studies on Tai Chi Practice and Mental Health
15.1 Tai Chi as an Empirically Proven Effective and Practicable Health Promotion
Method
15.2 Increasing Studies on TC and Mental Health Have Been Published
15.3 Visualization of Literature on TC and Mental Health
15.4 Discussion
15.5 Conclusions
Acknowledgment
References
16 Development of the Psychology of Music and its Contribution to Psychology
16.1 Introduction
16.2 What is the Psychology of Music? A Definition and History
16.3 The History of the Psychology of Music in Japan
16.4 My Years of Study and the Psychology of Music in Japan
16.5 The Symposium: Do We Need Music?
16.6 New Currents in the Psychology of Music
16.7 Conclusions
Acknowledgments
References
17 On the Prohibition of “Don’t Look”
17.1 Introduction
17.2 Dramatic Point of View in Psychoanalysis
17.3 Learning from Tragedies
17.4 Clinical Cases
17.5 Discussion
17.6 Conclusion

11. 17.7 Final Remarks
References
18 Current Directions in False Memory Research
18.1 Introduction
18.2 Separating Truth from Fiction
18.3 False Memories Caused by Reallife Circumstances and Pursuits
18.4 New Theories
18.5 Disputing Critics
18.6 Applications of False Memory Research: Crime, Witnesses, and Marketing
18.7 Conclusion
References
19 Rethinking Undergraduate Psychology Programs
19.1 Psychology Graduates: Employability and Work Readiness
19.2 Work Readiness: An Overview of the Literature
19.3 Method
19.4 Results
19.5 Discussion
19.6 Future Directions
19.7 Conclusion
Acknowledgments
References
20 Eudaimonic Wellbeing
20.1 Introduction
20.2 A Eudaimonic Model of Wellbeing
20.3 Empirical Highlights: Eudaimonia, Life Challenges, and Health
20.4 The Promotion of Eudaimonia to Improve Lives
20.5 A Future Direction: Eudaimonia and the Arts
Acknowledgments
References
21 A Continuing Controversy
21.1 Introduction
21.2 A Growing Population: Adolescents Worldwide
21.3 Adolescents and Biological Change
21.4 Adolescence and Psychological Development

12. 21.5 Changing Context of Adolescent Lives
21.6 Interventions and Modifying Behaviors
21.7 Meeting Standards of Evidence
21.8 Summary
Acknowledgments
References
22 Dealing with Challenges of Social and Economic Change
22.1 Introduction
22.2 What is Social Change?
22.3 Psychology and Social Change
22.4 Major Insights in Dealing with Uncertainties of Social Change
22.5 Future Avenues
22.6 Conclusion
References
23 Aging of People with Intellectual Disabilities in Bangladesh and Japan
23.1 Introduction
23.2 Health, Medical Care, and Education
23.3 Housing
23.4 Economic Matters
23.5 Social Security
23.6 Caregivers
23.7 Legislation
References
24 Diversity of Learning in the Classroom and the Role of Psychology in Japan
24.1 Introduction
24.2 Brief History
24.3 Present Situation
24.4 Prospects
24.5 Future Issues and Initiatives
24.6 Conclusion
References
Further Reading
Index
End User License Agreement

13. List of Tables
Chapter 02
Table 2.1 Infant development and learning targets
Table 2.2 Summary of the relationship among selfdevelopment, self/other
discrimination, empathy terminology, and imitation terminology
Chapter 08
Table 8.1 List of adjectives, expressed in the mother tongue in each country, used in the
experiment by Namba, Kuwano, Hashimoto et al. (1991)
Table 8.2 Results of factor analysis (helicopter noise) (Namba et al., 1993)
Table 8.3 Results of factor analysis (airconditioner noise) (Namba et al., 1992)
Chapter 15
Table 15.1 Summary of the largest 10 clusters of keywords
Chapter 24
Table 24.1 Ratio of (children) students who demonstrate notable difficulties in learning
and/or behavior, even though they do not have slower intellectual development (data
obtained from teachers’ responses to questionnaire items).
Table 24.2 Ratio of (children) students who demonstrate notable difficulties in learning
and each area of behavior, even though they do not have slower intellectual
development (data obtained from the teachers’ responses to questionnaire items)
Table 24.3 Correlations between A, B, and C (Tables 24.1 and 24.2)
Table 24.4 Ratio of (children) students who demonstrate notable difficulties in each of
the areas of learning and behavior, even though they do not have slower intellectual
development (data obtained from the teachers’ responses to questionnaire items)
Table 24.5 Total by gender of (children) students who demonstrate notable difficulties
in learning and each area of behavior, even though they do not have slower intellectual
development (data obtained from the teachers’ responses to questionnaire items)
Table 24.6 Total by school type and school year (grade) of (children) students who
demonstrate notable difficulties in learning and each area of behavior, even though they
do not have slower intellectual development (data obtained from the teachers’
responses to questionnaire items)
Table 24.7 Changes in the number of students requiring special needs education (2001
and 2015)
List of Illustrations

14. Chapter 01
Figure 1.1 The brain and face processing in patient S.M. Bilateral amygdala lesions
impair the use of the eyes and gaze to the eyes during emotion judgment. (A) A patient
with bilateral damage to the amygdala made significantly less use of information from
the eye region of faces when judging emotion. (B) While looking at whole faces, the
patient (right column of images) exhibited abnormal face gaze, making far fewer
fixations to the eyes than did controls (left column of images). This was observed
across emotions (free viewing, emotion judgment, gender discrimination). (C) MRI
scan of the patient’s brain, whose lesion was relatively restricted to the entire
amygdala, a very rare lesion in humans. The two round black regions near the top
middle of the image are the lesioned amygdalae. (D) When the subject was instructed
to look at the eyes (“SM eyes”) in a whole face, she could do this, resulting in a
remarkable recovery in ability to recognize the facial expression of fear. The findings
show that an apparent role for the amygdala in processing fearful facial expressions is
in fact more abstract, and involves the detection and attentional direction onto features
that are socially informative.
Figure 1.2 Fixations onto faces in S.M. and in people with autism show similarities.
The images show data obtained from how participants fixate features from faces; hot
colors denote higher density of fixations (except in the control–autism difference
image, where red colors indicate that controls fixate more than autism at that location,
and blue colors indicate that people with autism fixate there more than controls). Note
that the images for autism and controls are obtained from groups of participants,
whereas the image from S.M. is from a single individual.
Chapter 02
Figure 2.1 Casting process of the head of the Leonardo da Vinci android ((left:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik3EPgCrDBE) and its remote control (right).
Figure 2.2 The number of participating teams (top) and a scene from RoboCup 2016
(bottom) in Leipzig (http://www.robocup2016.org).
Figure 2.3 Emergence of fetal movements and sense
Figure 2.4 A concept of cognitive developmental robotics.
Figure 2.5 JST ERATO Asada Synergistic Intelligence Project: a group structure (top)
and summary of achievements (bottom).
Figure 2.6 Several robot platforms used in JST ERATO Asada Synergistic Intelligence
Project. Top left: a group of Synchy robots for communication study; top right:
musculoskeletal infant robot “Pneuborn7II” during the learning process for crawling;
bottom left: CB2 (child robot with biomimetic body) during the learning process for
walking; bottom right: Neony (neonatal robot) interacting with a human for imitation
(see Asada et al., 2009).
Figure 2.7 Models for empathy evolution (left: adapted from Figure 2 in de Waal,

15. 2008) and for selfdevelopment (right).
Figure 2.8 Development of artificial empathy
Figure 2.9 Several approaches to artificial empathy.
Figure 2.10 Associating others’ visual facial expressions with internal states.
Chapter 04
Figure 4.1 Interactions over sharable food are generally tolerant and peaceful, such as
here in a cluster of chimpanzees at the Yerkes Field Station. Food sharing is part of
reciprocal exchange for other favors, such as grooming. The female in the top right
corner is the possessor of branches with leaves, whereas the female in the lower left
corner is tentatively reaching out for the first time. Whether or not she will be allowed
to feed will depend on the possessor’s reaction.
Figure 4.2 Sharing of spoils among capuchin monkeys. In a cooperative pulling task,
two monkeys occupy adjacent sections of a test chamber, separated by mesh. The
apparatus consists of a counterweighted tray with two pull bars, with each monkey
having access to one. If both cups are filled, success requires mutualistic cooperation,
whereas if only one cup is filled (as shown here) cooperation is sustained by sharing of
the benefits. Monkeys share more through the mesh after a cooperative effort than after
solo pulling, hence pay for the other’s labor (de Waal & Berger, 2000).
Figure 4.3 The Russian doll model of empathy and imitation. Empathy induces a
similar emotional state in the subject as the object. At the core of emotional contagion
is the perception–action mechanism (PAM). The doll’s outer layers, starting with
preconcern and followed by sympathetic concern and targeted helping, build upon this
hardwired socioaffective basis. The complexity of empathy grows with increased
self/other distinction and perspectivetaking abilities. Even though the doll’s outer
layers depend on learning and prefrontal functioning, they remain fundamentally linked
to its inner core.
Figure 4.4 Consolation behavior is common and similar in humans and apes, and
classified as an otheroriented expression of “sympathetic concern.” A juvenile
chimpanzee puts an arm around a screaming adult male, who has been defeated by a
rival male.
Figure 4.5 Schematic of two chimpanzees in a Prosocial Choice Test (Horner et al.,
2011). While her partner (left) watches through a mesh partition, the actor (right)
reaches into a bucket with 30 tokens, 15 of each color, to select one and hand it to the
experimenter. The token is then placed in full view after which, depending on the
choice, one or two paperwrapped pieces of banana are held up in the air. A reward
is handed to either the actor alone (selfish choice) or both chimpanzees (prosocial
choice). Chimpanzees prefer the prosocial option so long as the partner puts no
pressure on them through begging or intimidation, in which case they turn more selfish.
In the absence of a partner, they fail to prefer the prosocial choice.

16. Chapter 05
Figure 5.1 The experimental setting of the chimpanzee.
Figure 5.2 Selected scenes from the video stimuli used in (a) Experiment 1, (b)
Experiment 2, (c) Experiment 3, and (d) Experiment 4.
Figure 5.3 Selected scenes from the video stimuli used in Experiments 5 and 6. (a)
Congruent action condition of Experiment 5; (b) Incongruent action condition of
Experiment 5; (c) Congruent action condition of Experiment 6; and (d) Incongruent
action condition of Experiment 6.
Chapter 06
Figure 6.1 Personal robots.
Figure 6.2 Applications of personal robots.
Figure 6.3 Human–robot interaction study.
Figure 6.4 Geminoid that resembles Ishiguro.
Figure 6.5 Lecture given by the Geminoid.
Figure 6.6 Recognition based on observation.
Figure 6.7 The uncanny valley.
Figure 6.8 Observation based on imagination.
Figure 6.9 A Telenoid talking with an elderly person.
Figure 6.10 Field tests of the Telenoid in Denmark.
Figure 6.11 The Hugvie.
Figure 6.12 Experiment comparing conversations over a telephone and through a
Hugvie.
Figure 6.13 Experimental results.
Figure 6.14 Experiment in the firstgrade class of an elementary school.
Figure 6.15 Hypothesis on the relation between the number of modalities and the
feeling of human presence.
Figure 6.16 Conversation with two robots.
Figure 6.17 Conversation with two androids.
Figure 6.18 Conversation with an android by using a touch panel display.
Figure 6.19 Touch panel display.
Figure 6.20 Conversational scenario for selling clothes.
Figure 6.21 Conversational system without speaking.

17. Chapter 07
Figure 7.1 The hand–mouth coordination of a newborn 30 minutes after birth. The
newborn’s mouth opens (left) just before its left hand makes contact with its mouth
(right).
Figure 7.2 A human fetus (25 weeks of gestational age) moving its hand towards its
nose.
Figure 7.3 The anticipatory mouth opening of a human fetus (26 weeks of gestational
age) demonstrating hand–mouth coordination (MyowaYamakoshi & Takeshita, 2006).
Figure 7.4 Frequencies of the three gestures (tongue protrusion, mouth opening, and lip
protrusion) between 1 and 8 weeks of age (data obtained from Pal, one of the two
chimpanzees). The xaxis represents the facial gestures shown to the chimpanzee; * p <
.05; †p < .10.
Figure 7.5 The associative sequence learning (ASL) model of imitation. Vertical lines
represent matching vertical associations, i.e. excitatory links between sensory and
motor representations of the same action. Rectangles indicate stimuli, such as words,
that mediate acquired equivalence learning. Curved lines represent “horizontal”
sequence learning processes (Ray & Heyes, 2011).
Figure 7.6 Twelvemonthold infants provided with blindfolded experience
demonstrate the positive influence of such perceptual experiences when considering the
visual status of others engaging in similar goaldirected actions.
Figure 7.7 Experimental situations and eye movement patterns of a 12monthold
infant (right) and a chimpanzee (left) for the stimulus video.
Chapter 08
Figure 8.1 Temporal change of sound quality of the helicopter noise obtained using the
method of continuous judgment by selected description. The temporal change of the
impression can be seen.
Figure 8.2 The relation between LAeq and PSE calculated from the results of absolute
magnitude estimation.
Figure 8.3 CI shows fairly good correlation with the pleasant impression. In this figure,
the sounds A and B were judged unpleasing. The sound quality of these two machines
is supposed to be improved as shown by diamonds in this figure.
Figure 8.4 Relation between the predicted and observed values of the pleasing scale. It
can be seen that both predicted and observed values agree fairly well. It was found that
the unpleasantness was really reduced.
Chapter 09
Figure 9.1 Culture pyramid. The base of the pyramid is broad because it represents
social information transfer, shown to be increasingly widespread in the animal

18. kingdom. Some resulting behavior copying is transient, but other items may be
transmitted repeatedly between individuals to become traditions. A third level
distinguishes the yet smaller set of cultural phenomena defined by multiple traditions.
The fourth level denotes cumulative cultural evolution, the speciality of human culture
(after Whiten & van Schaik, 2007; see Haidle et al., 2015, for an extension of this
series to create an eightstep model to accommodate later stages of human cultural
evolution).
Figure 9.2 Features of culture shared by chimpanzees, humans including children, and
(by inference) the common chimpanzee/human ancestor, and features of culture
distinctive in humans. Features (rows) are nested under three main headings (see text
for extended discussion). Images represent examples discussed in the text: further
explanation for each numbered image is given in supplementary electronic information.
Revised in correspondence with present text, after Whiten (2011).
Chapter 12
Figure 12.1 Illustration of the display used in the target selection task for the three
groups of participants (control, near, far) with the respective probability of getting a
green target in the near and far spaces (one example is provided for each group).
Bottom right: average distance (in cm) corresponding to the targets selected across the
400 trials in the three groups (black cross: control group, black circle: near group, gray
diamond: far group). Note that the three groups did not show differences in the first
block of trials and that performances start diverging following the third block of trials
(Coello et al., 2018).
Figure 12.2 Model of the link between peripersonal space and interpersonal distance.
The peripersonal space is a safe space allowing private social relations. The
extrapersonal space is potentially an unsafe space and the comfortable interpersonal
distance depends on the value (threat) of conspecifics and approach–avoidance
motivation (Cartaud et al., 2018).
Chapter 14
Figure 14.1 A structural equation model of the relations of effortful control (self
regulation) and impulsivity (reactive undercontrol) to externalizing and internalizing
problem behaviors at two times, two years apart. Bold paths are significant.
Chapter 15
Figure 15.1 Number of studies published on TC and mental health over three decades.
Figure 15.2 Author diagram of English literature.
Figure 15.3 Institutions diagram of English TC and mental health literature.
Figure 15.4 Main keywords used in published articles clustered by semantic relation.
Note: The size of a Chinese keyword (English shown by the connected line) indicates
its frequency.

19. Figure 15.5 Timeline of cocitation clusters in Chinese literature of TC and mental
health. Note: Major clusters are labeled on the right.
Chapter 16
Figure 16.1 The early stage of the psychology of music. In the beginning, it was a small
field, drawing on three separate disciplines.
Figure 16.2 In the psychology of music, much research has been accumulated and
connected with other fields. Nowadays, the psychology of music covers and overlaps
with various fields of psychology.
Chapter 19
Figure 19.1 Thematic map.
Chapter 20
Figure 20.1 Core dimensions of psychological wellbeing and their theoretical
foundations.
Chapter 22
Figure 22.1 Jena Model of Social Change and Human Development.

20. Diversity in Harmony – Insights from
Psychology
Proceedings of the 31st International Congress of
Psychology
Edited by
Kazuo Shigemasu, Sonoko Kuwano, Takao Sato, and Tetsuro Matsuzawa

21. This edition first published 2018
© 2018 The International Union of Psychological Science.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by
any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain
permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
The right of Kazuo Shigemasu, Sonoko Kuwano, Takao Sato, and Tetsuro Matsuzawa to be identified as the authors of the
editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with law.
Registered Offices
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
Editorial Office
111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at
www.wiley.com.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by printondemand. Some content that appears in
standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty
While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties
with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including
without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or
extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization,
website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the
publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations
it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The
advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where
appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when
this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other
commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Library of Congress CataloginginPublication Data
Names: International Congress of Psychology (31st : 2016 : Yokohama, Japan) | Shigemasu, Kazuo, 1946– editor.
Title: Diversity in harmony – insights from psychology : proceedings of the 31st International Congress of Psychology / edited by
Kazuo Shigemasu [and three others].
Other titles: Proceedings of the 31st International Congress of Psychology
Description: Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2018. | Includes bibliographical references and index. |
Identifiers: LCCN 2018013158 (print) | LCCN 2018013672 (ebook) | ISBN 9781119362098 (ePub) | ISBN 9781119362074
(cloth)
Subjects: LCSH: Psychology–Congresses.
Classification: LCC BF20 (ebook) | LCC BF20 .I614 2016 (print) | DDC 150–dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018013158
Cover image: © okimo/Shutterstock
Cover design by Wiley

22. About the Editors
Kazuo Shigemasu is Professor Emeritus of the University of Tokyo, Japan, and visiting
Professor of Psychology at Keio University (Tokyo), and has held faculty appointments in
psychology at the University of Tokyo, Teikyo University, Tokyo Institute of Technology, and
Tohoku University. His research focus is methodology in psychology, particularly based on the
Bayesian statistical approach. Shigemasu has served as president of the Japanese
Psychological Association (JPA), the Behaviormetric Society (MS), and Japanese Association
for Research on Testing (JART).
Sonoko Kuwano is Professor Emeritus of Osaka University, Japan. Her main research focuses
on environmental psychology. She is a member of the Science Council of Japan. She has
served as a member of the Executive Committee of the International Union of Psychological
Science, Vice President of the International Commission for Acoustics, President of the
Acoustical Society of Japan, and President of the Japanese Society for Music Perception and
Cognition. She received Commendations for Contributions in Environmental Conservation
from the Minister of the Environment in 2006.
Takao Sato is Dean and Professor of Comprehensive Psychology at Ritsumeikan University,
Osaka, Japan. Formerly Professor of Psychology at the University of Tokyo, his research is
mainly concerned with visual and auditory perception, especially visual perception of spatio
temporal patterns, and of motion and depth. He was President of the Japanese Psychological
Association, President of the Vision Society of Japan, and President of the Japanese
Psychonomic Society.
Tetsuro Matsuzawa is Distinguished Professor at the Kyoto University Institute for Advanced
Study (KUIAS), Kyoto, Japan. His research focuses on the cognition and behavior of
chimpanzees, both in the wild and in the laboratory. Matsuzawa is the former President of
International Primatological Society, and the EditorinChief of the journal Primates.

23. Notes on Contributors
Ralph Adolphs is the Bren Professor of Psychology, Neuroscience, and Biology at the
California Institute of Technology (Caltech), USA. He directs the Caltech Brain Imaging
Center, and his laboratory (emotion.caltech.edu) focuses on social neuroscience. Current
research directions are to understand how emotions and social behavior arise in the brain, and
predicting individual differences in these abilities from functional neuroimaging data. The
laboratory includes studies of patients with focal brain lesions, fMRI, electrophysiology, and
work in people with autism spectrum disorder.
Minoru Asada is Professor at the Department of Adaptive Machine Systems, Graduate School
of Engineering, Osaka University, Japan. He is also a Division Chief of Systems Intelligence,
Open and Transdisciplinary Research Initiatives at the same university. He has been a board
member of the Japanese Society of Baby Science and the Japanese Society of Child Science
since 2013. Since April 2017, he has been Vice President of the Robotics Society of Japan. He
is also President of the NPO Leonardo da Vinci Museum Network, Osaka, Japan.
Ray Bull is Professor of Criminal Investigation at the University of Derby and Emeritus
Professor of Forensic Psychology at the University of Leicester, UK. His major research
interest is the investigative interviewing of suspects, witnesses, and victims, as well as
witness memory, including voice recognition. He was elected Honorary Fellow of the British
Psychological Society in 2010 and has been President of the European Association of
Psychology and Law since 2014. He regularly acts as an expert witness and conducts
workshops/training on investigative interviewing around the world.
Josep Call is a comparative psychologist specializing in primate cognition and cognitive
evolution. He is Professor in the Evolutionary Origins of Mind (School of Psychology and
Neuroscience) at the University of St. Andrews (UK) and Director of the Budongo Research
Unit at Edinburgh Zoo. His research focus is on technical and social problem solving in
animals with a special emphasis on the great apes, including causal and inferential reasoning,
tool use, longterm memory and planning, gestural communication, and mindreading.
Fanny M. Cheung is Vice President for Research and ChohMing Li Professor of Psychology
at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Her research interests include crosscultural
personality assessment and gender equality. After standardizing the MMPI and MMPI2 in
Chinese societies, she noted the need for indigenous measures to fill the gaps in Western
personality theories and assessment. She pioneered the combined emic–etic approach in
personality assessment through the development of the Chinese Personality Assessment
Inventory. This combined emic–etic approach is adopted in the development of other
indigenous measures in South Africa and the Middle East.
Yann Coello is Professor of Cognitive Psychology and Neuropsychology at the University of
Lille, France. He is the Director of the CNRS Laboratory Cognitive and Affective Sciences
and President of the French National Committee of Scientific Psychology (CNFPS), a national

24. member of IUPSyS. He has published numerous influential articles and books on the
sensorimotor foundations of perception, cognition, and social interactions.
Frans B. M. de Waal is the Charles Howard Candler Professor of Primate Behavior in the
Emory University Psychology Department in Atlanta, Georgia, USA, and director of the Living
Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center. He is the author of numerous
books including Chimpanzee Politics and Our Inner Ape. His research centers on primate
social behavior, including conflict resolution, cooperation, inequity aversion, and food sharing.
He is a member of the United States National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Netherlands
Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Maria Eduarda Duarte is Professor of Psychology with the Faculty of Psychology at the
University of Lisbon, Portugal. She is also director of the Masters course in Psychology of
Human Resources, Work, and Organizations. Her professional interests include career
psychology theory and research, with special emphasis on issues relevant to adults and the
world of work.
Nancy Eisenberg Regents’ Professor of Psychology at Arizona State University, USA, is a
developmental psychologist who studies social, emotional, and moral development, with
primary interests in prosocial development and selfregulation and their socialization. She is
a past editor of Psychological Bulletin and Child Development Perspectives, and has
received career contribution awards from the Association for Psychological Science, multiple
divisions of the American Psychological Association, the International Society for the Study of
Behavioral Development, and the Society for Research on Child Development. She has served
as President of the Association for Psychological Science, Division 7 (Developmental
Psychology) of the American Psychological Association, and Western Psychological
Association.
Elaine F. Fernandez is the current Acting Head of the Department of Psychology, HELP
University, Malaysia. She was a graduate of HELP University’s Bachelor of Psychology
program, and obtained an MSc in Social Psychology (Distinction) from the University of
Surrey, UK. She currently lectures in research and social psychology at HELP University, and
is the convener for the Department of Psychology’s Centre for Diversity. At present, she is
leading research projects tackling questions on Malaysian social identity, and the creation,
maintenance, and consequences of social identification, both in general and in organizations.
Buxin Han is Professor of Psychology at the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) Key Lab of
Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, and the University of CAS, Beijing, China. He is
Deputy SecretaryGeneral of the Chinese Psychological Society (CPS), SecretaryGeneral
of the International Association of Applied Psychology (IAAP), and President of the Division
of Aging Psychology in the CPS and the China Society for Gerontology and Geriatrics. His
research is focused on the mental health of the elderly and on cognitive aging. His publications
primarily cover areas of healthy development, mental health, and religious faith.
Satoshi Hirata is Professor at the Wildlife Research Center of Kyoto University, Japan. He
has been conducting research on chimpanzees and other great apes from a comparative

25. cognitive perspective to better understand the evolutionary origins of human behavior and
cognition. He is currently Director of the Kumamoto Sanctuary of Kyoto University, where
exbiomedical chimpanzees are housed.
Yuen Wan Ho is a postdoctoral fellow working in the Department of Psychology at the
Chinese University of Hong Kong, where she received her PhD degree. Her research interests
include personality, aging, and emotion. In particular, she studies how personality and
motivational factors could contribute to age differences in emotion regulation and wellbeing
across cultures.
Etsuko Hoshino is Professor of Psychology at the Faculty of Music, Ueno Gakuen University,
Tokyo, Japan. Her research is aimed at understanding relations between music structures and
musical affect and she is also actively interested in the influence of background music upon
learning contexts, and in music therapy. Hoshino is currently chief editor of the Journal of
Music Perception and Cognition (the journal of the Japanese Society of Music Perception and
Cognition).
Hiroshi Ishiguro received a D. Eng. in systems engineering from Osaka University, Japan, in
1991. He is currently Professor of Department of Systems Innovation in the Graduate School of
Engineering Science at Osaka University (2009–) and Distinguished Professor of Osaka
University (2017–). He is also visiting Director (2014–) (group leader: 2002–2013) of
Hiroshi Ishiguro Laboratories at the Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute and an
ATR fellow. His research interests include sensor networks, interactive robotics, and android
science.
Osamu Kitayama is Professor Emeritus of the Department of Clinical Psychology and
Community Studies, Kyushu University, Japan. He is a training and supervising analyst, and
President of the Japan Psychoanalytic Society. He is author of more than 100 articles, including
publications in the International Journal of PsychoAnalysis in English, and about 15 books
on psychoanalysis and medical communication.
Christopher Klager is a doctoral student and University Distinguished Fellow in the
Education Policy program at Michigan State University, USA. His research focuses on
developing students’ career interest in STEM and STEM teaching. Currently he works on the
Crafting Engagement in Science Environments (CESE) project, investigating how to make high
school chemistry and physics classes more engaging for students.
Cara Laney is an Associate Professor at the College of Idaho in Caldwell, Idaho, USA. Her
research interests include false memory, eyewitness memory, and emotion. She has published
more than 30 peerreviewed articles and book chapters.
Goh Chee Leong is Dean of the Faculty of Behavioural Science at HELP University,
Malaysia. He is former President of ARUPS (ASEAN Regional Union of Psychological
Societies) and the Malaysian Psychology Association (PSIMA), and has served as consultant
for many organizations, including UNICEF, Maxis, Petronas, DiGi, and CIMB. His research
interests include work psychology, stress, and eyewitness memory.
Choong Li Li is presently lecturer at the Department of Psychology at HELP University,

26. Malaysia. Her research interests are in individual and family counseling, with a particular
focus on nonsubstance addiction such as gambling, video, or online gambling. She is actively
involved in voluntary work with orphanages, schools for children with special education
needs, and old folks’ homes.
Elizabeth F. Loftus is Distinguished Professor of Psychology and Social Behavior and
Criminology, Law, and Society, and Professor of Law and Cognitive Science at the University
of California, Irvine, USA. Loftus’s research for the last 40 years has focused on the
malleability of human memory. She has been recognized for this research with seven honorary
doctorates and election to the National Academy of Sciences, the American Philosophical
Society, and the Royal Society of Edinburgh. She is past President of the Association for
Psychological Science, the Western Psychological Association, and the American
PsychologyLaw Society.
Masako Myowa is Professor at the Graduate School of Education of Kyoto University, Japan.
Her research interests include the emergence and development of human intelligence and its
evolutionary foundations. In her work, she has taken the approach of comparative cognitive
developmental science, comparing the development of cognition in humans and nonhuman
primates from their prenatal periods.
Seiichiro Namba is Emeritus Professor at Osaka University, Japan. He is also a member of the
Japan Academy. His main area of research is the psychology of hearing. He has served as
President of the Acoustical Society of Japan and President of the Japanese Society for Music
Perception and Cognition. He received Doctor of Philosophy honoris causa from Oldenburg
University, Germany, in 1996, and Commendations for Contributions in Environmental
Conservation from the Minister of the Environment in 2003.
Carol D. Ryff, PhD is Director of the Institute on Aging and Hilldale Professor of Psychology
at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, USA. Her research centers on the study of
psychological wellbeing, an area in which she has developed multidimensional assessment
scales that have been translated to more than 30 different languages and are used in research
across diverse scientific fields. Her research has addressed how psychological wellbeing
varies by age, gender, socioeconomic status, ethnic/minority status, and cultural context as well
as by the experiences, challenges, and transitions individuals confront as they age. This work
has generated over 200 publications. She currently directs the MIDUS (Midlife in the US)
longitudinal study.
Barbara Schneider is the John A. Hannah Chair University Distinguished Professor in the
College of Education and Department of Sociology at Michigan State University, USA. She has
used a sociological lens to understand societal conditions and interpersonal interactions that
create norms and values that enhance human and social capital for the past 30 years. Her
research focuses on how the social contexts of schools and families influence the academic and
social wellbeing of adolescents as they move into adulthood. She has published 15 books
and over 100 refereed journal articles that focus on the family, social context of schooling, and
sociology of knowledge.

27. Rainer K. Silbereisen Professor Emeritus since early 2017, is former Chair of Developmental
Psychology and Director of the Center for Applied Developmental Science at the University of
Jena, Germany. His main research areas are lifespan human development, with a strong
emphasis on the interaction of personality with ecological conditions, such as cultural contexts
and immigration, and rapid social, economic, and political change.
Tracy L. Spinrad is Professor of Family Studies in the T. Denny Sanford School of Social and
Family Dynamics at Arizona State University, USA. Her program of research focuses on the
socioemotional development of young children, particularly the relations of children’s self
regulation abilities (i.e., effortful control) to children’s social adjustment. Further, much of her
work has examined the role that parenting plays in the development of young children’s moral
development, altruism, and empathy.
Anwarul Hasan Sufi is Professor of Psychology of the University of Rajshahi, Bangladesh,
and Director of the Rajshahi University Mental Health Center. Besides his specialization in
developmental disabilities, his research interests are in aviation psychology and clinical
psychology. He has written books in English and Bengali in the field of psychology, and is co
author of textbooks on basic psychology for college students in Bangladesh. He has served as
consultant for national and international NGOs working in Bangladesh in the areas of health,
education, and disabilities and has been Guest Professor at universities in North America,
Europe, and Asia.
Eugene Y. J. Tee is Senior Lecturer at the Department of Psychology, HELP University,
Malaysia. He attained his PhD in Management from the University of Queensland in 2010 and
has research interests in the study of emotionsrelated processes in social and organizational
interactions. He has published work on emotions in leader–follower interaction in Leadership
Quarterly, Advancing Relational Leadership Theory, and Research on Emotions in
Organizations.
Masayoshi Tsuge is Professor in the Faculty of Human Sciences at the University of Tsukuba,
Japan. His main area of research is on intellectual disability, developmental disabilities, and
behavioral disorders, with a special focus on special needs education.
Carlos Valiente is Professor at Arizona State University, USA. He studies the development of
children’s emotional, social, and academic functioning and is especially interested in
understanding when and why emotion and selfcontrol are related to success in the academic
domain. His main research projects involve a longitudinal study designed to examine the role
of classmates’ temperament on children’s academic functioning and a twin study that aims to
explicate genetic and environmental mechanisms associated with sleep and health behaviors.
Jingjing Wang is a PhD student at the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) Key Lab of
Mental Health at the Institute of Psychology, and the University of CAS, Beijing, China. Her
main area of research is on the cognition, emotion, and mental health of older adults.
Stuart K. Watson is currently a Research Fellow at the University of Zurich, Switzerland. His
research interests span social learning, communication, and cultural transmission in primates
and birds.

28. Andrew Whiten is Wardlaw Professor of Evolutionary and Developmental Psychology at the
University of St. Andrews, UK. His research interests focus on the evolution and development
of social cognition, particularly social learning and culture in human and nonhuman primates.
Lindsey Young is a firstyear doctoral student, Rasmussen Fellow, and Erickson Research
Fellow in the Education Policy program at Michigan State University, USA. Her research
interests include science curriculum development and evaluation.
Liyu Zhan is Associate Professor of Psychology and Deputy Director of the Mental Health and
Guidance Center of Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, China. She has received
awards as an outstanding psychological educator at the university. Her main area of research is
the mental health of college students. She has been a visiting scholar at the Huizhen Ke Lab
(Asia University, Taiwan), working on suicide intervention and problematic Internet use. She
has published several papers in Chinese journals.

29. Preface
This edition of the Proceedings of the International Congress of Psychology comprises
highlights from one of the most successful international psychology conferences since the
beginning of the twentyfirst century. In July 2016, over 8,000 attendees – most from outside
of Japan – met in Yokohama to participate in 7,800 presentations and sessions that were
offered in many formats. Beyond size, the Congress was also highly successful in terms of
scope and quality, offering a wideranging program that covered the most recent
developments in all areas of psychology.
The contents of this Proceedings book have been selected to reflect the ICP 2016 Congress
theme of “Diversity in Harmony: Insights from Psychology.” The editors invited all who
delivered keynote addresses to contribute and selected for inclusion some addresses and
presentations from the invited symposium and open lecture series. In this way, the Proceedings
book is intended to offer a collection of interesting and stimulating readings rather than a set of
refereed research papers.
While the field of psychology is often divided into a number of area specializations, the actual
content of research may not easily be classified into a single category. Often research
breakthroughs involve perspectives and methodologies encompassing a multiplicity of
disciplinary areas. For example, psychology today explores the human mind in the prehistoric
era, compares the minds of primates and contemporary humans, and examines human cognitive
capability using Artificial Intelligence (AI). Recently, a number of books about the entire
history of Homo sapiens have gained a wide readership. In examining human interaction with
others – ranging from humans and primates to bacteria, for example – findings persuasively
conclude that human beings are the result of complex evolution over a very long time, and that
studying the past is essential to understanding the mechanisms and systems of the contemporary
human mind. Contrastingly, human capabilities are being rapidly expanded through progress in
AI and it is already clear that AI technology will inevitably change many aspects of human life.
Primatology and AI are just two examples of psychology’s growing collaborative work with
neighboring fields.
The Proceedings book is divided into two parts. In Part I, “Psychology Approaching New
Synergies,” we have included research that offers recent exciting new insights gained from
multidisciplinary perspectives and methodologies. In Part II, as the title “Psychology
Confronting Societal Challenges” suggests, we have included chapters that put psychology – as
the study of the human mind – at the center of our understanding and ability to address the many
problems facing groups and individuals in modern society. As the chapters included in this
section show, the social problems identified always involve the human factor, but are complex
and often require multidisciplinary approaches. Of course, psychology continues to be useful in
addressing individual problems.
Taken as a whole, the content of the Proceedings book is a reflection of the state of psychology

30. in the second decade of the twentyfirst century and it would seem there is much about which
to be optimistic. Two important characteristics are especially evident: multidisciplinary
approaches are increasingly taking advantage of technological advances, and contributions
from researchers and practitioners from regions beyond Europe and North America are
expanding. The editors of this Proceedings book are both impressed by current achievements in
the field and encouraged by the promise of even greater progress to come.

31. Acknowledgments
The Editors would like to thank all those who have worked so hard to bring this book into
being. First, as the title states, the contents are a reflection of the International Congress of
Psychology (ICP) 2016, held in Yokohama, Japan, and the editors want to express their sincere
gratitude to all those who contributed so much to making it such a highly successful Congress.
Here we would like especially to acknowledge the invaluable help of the office of the
Japanese Psychological Association and of members of the ICP 2016 executive committee,
namely: Toshikazu Hasegawa (secretarygeneral after May 2016 and chair of fund raising),
Masataka Watanabe (secretarygeneral until April 2016), Yuji Hakoda (vice chair of
scientific program), Makiko Naka (covice chair of scientific program and chair of emergent
psychologist/scholar program), Tatsuya Kameda (covice chair of scientific program and vice
chair of general affairs), Kaori Karasawa (covice chair of general affairs), Toshihiko
Hinobayashi (chair of finance), Jiro Gyoba (chair of publicity), Akiyoshi Kitaoka (covice
chair of publicity), Kazuhisa Takemura (covice chair of publicity), Kyoko Noguchi (chair of
local host), Kiyoshi Ando (covice chair of local host), Koji Takenaka (covice chair of
local host), Masuo Koyasu (covice chair of local host), and Atsuko Suzuki (Japanese
Psychological Association liaison). Thanks must also go to the International Union of
Psychological Science (IUPsyS), under whose auspices the Congress was held, especially to
the Officers of IUPsyS and to Rainer K. Silbereisen as IUPsyS/ICP liaison for his continued
support.
In terms of the book itself, our thanks go to the authors for their contributions that offer readers
such a tremendous insight into the diverse and interesting world of psychology. We are truly
grateful for their efforts in support of the ICP and this publication.
With regard to the actual book production, special thanks are due to Verona ChristmasBest,
who took on the role of managing editor and efficiently handled the final stages of bringing the
book together and the many associated editing obligations. Finally, thanks must go to our
publishers, Wiley, for their supportive, generous, and sympathetic handling of this project.

32. Diversity in Harmony – Insights from Psychology

33. Part I
Psychology Approaching New Synergies

34. 1
Social Cognition, the Amygdala, and Autism
Ralph Adolphs
California Institute of Technology, USA
1.1 Three Broad Themes
At the outset, there are three broad themes that are important to consider that will guide the rest
of this chapter. These are that (1) social cognition has enabling, or antecedent conditions; (2)
the social world is complex; and (3) any specific method has fundamental limitations. We will
discuss all these points with a focus on face processing, and through examples of findings in a
psychiatric disease, autism, and in cognitive neuroscience, with a focus on the amygdala. Each
of these three points suggests important ways forward, which we will discuss in further detail.
To help frame the discussion, we begin with a brief introduction to autism; we discuss the
amygdala further below. Autism is a psychiatric disorder recognized since the 1940s, when
Kanner and Asperger contemporaneously identified the disease in children (Kanner, 1943). It
is a disease that arises early in life, and remains pervasive throughout life. Although it is
currently diagnosed around age 3, there are precursors to it that already predict whether a child
will develop autism or not. Autism is highly heritable, although no single gene accounts for a
large percentage of autism; instead the disease arises from polymorphisms across many genes,
each typically contributing only a very small effect size in isolation. These genes in turn code
for protein products that influence many aspects of brain development and function, and in
particular aspects of how neurons make and maintain synaptic connections with one another.
Abnormal connectivity in the brain is currently one leading hypothesis for an intermediate
phenotype that accounts for a substantial fraction of autism (Geschwind & Levitt, 2007). This
abnormal connectivity in turn causes abnormal brain function that manifests as a particular
profile of abilities and disabilities – the ones used to diagnose the disease, which currently can
be diagnosed only on behavioral criteria, not by a medical or genetic test of some kind.
In the psychiatric reference book used to diagnose disorders (the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual, DSM), autism was diagnosed as featuring impairments in three domains: social
interaction, language, and stereotyped and repetitive behaviors. The first two are related, and
have become fused in the transition from DSMIV to DSMV
. The third is a somewhat
heterogeneous category of impairments, including not only repetitive behaviors but also
rigidity, and exceptional focus and attention to highly specific objects or topics. It has long
been recognized that autism is a spectrum, and so it is often referred to as autism spectrum
disorder (ASD), and it covers a very wide range from highfunctioning individuals who have
PhDs and whose primary complaint is skill in social interactions, to lowfunctioning
individuals who are mentally retarded and mute. It remains an open question of considerable
interest whether the processing deficits and behaviors seen in autism are truly continuous with

35. the psychiatrically healthy population, and whether there might be subtypes of autism. It is
hoped that research on the themes described below could help to answer these questions.
1.1.1 Antecedent Causes to Social Cognition
The first theme, that social cognition has antecedent conditions, is fairly obvious once we think
about it. Social cognition does not emerge out of nowhere. It develops; it is caused by other
processes; and it requires embedding in many other psychological processes in order to
generate cognition and social behavior.
Perhaps the two most investigated antecedent conditions for social cognition are attention and
motivation. Attention has long been noted to be critical for filtering sensory information, and
could thus be thought of simply as a filter that determines sensory inputs, on which subsequent
social cognition might be based. Thus, if we pay attention to somebody’s face, we are able to
make judgments about the emotion expressed on the face. If we do not pay attention to the face,
we are unable to make such judgments (or make them much more poorly). But attention is much
more than merely a filter, and should probably be thought of as an active seeking out of socially
relevant information. We explore the visual world with our eyes, for instance, sampling
relevant features as we make fixations onto them. Indeed, eyetracking has often been used to
measure (overt) visual attention. This more active, instrumental view of attention of course
raises a next question: so how do we decide where to attend in the first place? Presumably the
value, salience, and interest of particular features of stimuli motivate us to pay attention to
them. Thus, motivation is another key antecedent process that guides social cognition, together
with attention.
Motivation can be thought of simply as that which causes instrumental behavior. Insofar as
visual attention can be thought of as instrumental behavior, motivation can cause visual
attention. An example would be topdown visual search, as when we are trying to find a
person in a crowd. Conversely, it is also likely that attention influences motivation, since it is
well known that our attention to stimuli influences both our preferences and choices. This
particular association has been quantified with models such as driftdiffusion models, which
model the accumulation of evidence that can cause motivation and choice. For instance, the
more we look at a particular face, the more we are inclined to choose it as the preferred one,
in twoalternative choice tasks with similar faces (Shimojo, Simion, Shimojo, & Scheier,
2003).
There are several specific factors that have been identified that contribute to motivation, and
hence to attention. Perhaps the clearest one, and the one best studied in the laboratory, is
reward value. If we find a particular feature rewarding, or predictive of reward, we will be
motivated to attend there. This would be the simplest kind of explanation to account for why
we like to thumb through magazines that have lots of pictures of people: images of people are
intrinsically rewarding, and our attention is captured by them. But there are also other factors
that can influence attention and motivation: attention can be captured by lowlevel saliency,
such as the distinctiveness of a stimulus, and this in turn can drive motivation. We are also
motivated to seek out information, even when it is not yet known whether that would lead to

36. reward, and even when it is not distinctive. Reward value, saliency, and information are thus at
least three factors that could in turn drive attention and motivation (Gottlieb, Hayhoe,
Hikosaka, & Rangel, 2014), which in turn drive social behavior.
There is evidence to support the operation of all three factors with regard to face processing.
Faces and other visual social stimuli are rewarding (Deaner, Khera, & Platt, 2005), and this
rewarding property just of images of faces seems to be diminished (relative to other rewards,
such as money) in people with autism (Lin, Rangel, & Adolphs, 2012). Their saliency is
evident from the efficiency with which they can be detected in visual search, again an aspect
that is impaired in people with autism (Wang et al., 2014), although the impairment in autism
appears to be broader than just for faces (Wang et al., 2015). Finally, the information content of
regions of the face drives how we attend to those regions. An interesting crosscultural
finding is that Asian observers tend to look more at the eyes in faces and less at the mouth than
do Caucasian observers. A presumptive explanation for this is that the mouth carries less
information in Asian people, because of cultural display rules that lead to reduced emotional
expression around the mouth (Caldara, 2017).
Motivation and attention to social stimuli are thought to be dysfunctional in autism. One highly
influential hypothesis about autism proposes that infants and children with autism do not find
social stimuli (other people, faces) rewarding, and so are not motivated to attend to them
(Chevallier, Kohls, Troiani, Brodkin, & Schultz, 2012). The developmental consequence of
this deficit could then translate into social cognition difficulties later in life: if you do not
attend to faces, you will not process faces as often, and consequently your brain will not
develop expertise with faces, as it does in typically developing individuals. There is recent
evidence that coarse mechanisms for attending to facelike configurations of visual stimuli
may be present already in the womb: fetuses orient preferentially to lights in the configuration
of eyes and mouth, when these are projected onto the abdomen of the mother (bright light can
penetrate into the womb) (Reid et al., 2017).
There is a final important point to make. It is usually assumed that motivation and attention are
domaingeneral processes that come into play at the frontend, so to speak, and that the
apparent domain specificity of social cognition arises from subsequent mechanisms. But as we
noted, motivation and attention can themselves exhibit selectivity for certain stimuli or
features, and so can play a role both in the contemporaneous selective processing of social
stimuli and in the development of domainspecific processes through experience (Spunt &
Adolphs, 2017). It is even possible that attentional and motivational processes are sufficient to
produce apparent category selectivity, if they amount to an intelligent enough filtering
mechanism. For instance, if one combined attention to certain coarse features (the triangular
configuration of eyes and mouth), and certain statistically specified locations in space (e.g.,
usually in the upper visual field, or foveal), and certain conjunctions of context (e.g., faces and
voices), cells responding to such simple cues and their conjunctions might, in the aggregate,
result in selective processing of faces.
1.1.2 The Social World is Complex

37. The second theme mentioned above is that realistic social stimuli are inherently complex.
Other people, if we consider them as stimuli for a moment, are multimodal, moving objects
with many features and attributes that all need to be processed together. They also occur in
context, often involve substantial memory, and engage cognitive and behavioral processes that
are typically bidirectionally interactive. Even just an image of an isolated face is complex,
which is why it has been difficult to design computer vision algorithms to recognize faces.
Many different features, and their relationships amongst one another, need to be represented in
a flexible, viewpointinvariant way, and need to be linked rapidly to the retrieval of often
large amounts of semantic knowledge about the person whose face we are seeing.
The inherent complexity of social stimuli has typically been dealt with in the laboratory by
using vastly impoverished stimuli, since these are easier to analyze and control. However, this
is no longer necessary, since it is possible now to collect large amounts of data quickly, and to
construct computational models that analyze such data. Some examples of this will be
presented below, but it is actually a rather common emerging theme in social neuroscience (see
Adolphs, Nummenmaa, Todorov, & Haxby, 2016).
One way that the brain deals with the complexity of social stimuli is by representing them in a
space with much lower dimensions. The identity of familiar individuals may be represented
efficiently in a space with perhaps as few as 50 dimensions, and can be decoded from small
ensembles of neurons, at least in experiments with monkeys (Chang & Tsao, 2017). More
relevantly here, the social attributions that we make about people from their faces – their
intentions, emotions, potential threat, and so forth – are likely represented in a space with only
a few dimensions. Psychologists who study the impressions we glean from faces have
identified three broad dimensions that account for much of variance in our attributions:
attractiveness, dominance, and valence (or trustworthiness). There is considerable consensus,
at least within a given culture, in the social attributions that we make from faces, and we are
able to make them surprisingly rapidly, with less than 100 ms viewing time. Many of the core
attributions are already seen in infants. It is an intriguing and very important general fact that
we tend to be much more confident of our social attributions than we ought to be: we make the
social judgments automatically and quickly, but they reflect more of our biases and stereotypes
than providing accuracy. Alex Todorov’s book, Face Value, provides a nice review of these
effects (Todorov, 2017).
Two final sources of complexity are context and interaction. The social judgments that we
make about other people depend critically on context, and in the real world involve
interactions. Studying this dynamic and situated aspect of social cognition has been difficult
and typically overlooked (Przyrembel, Smallwood, Pauen, & Singer, 2012), but there is now
considerable interest in interactive experimental protocols, some with facetoface
encounters between people, others using virtual reality. These will be important directions for
future development, conceptually, methodologically, and also in terms of the analysis tools.
1.1.3 Comparing Between Methods
The third and final broad theme of this chapter is that one must make comparisons across

38. multiple approaches. No single approach will suffice, since each approach has limitations and
shortcomings. Thus, the strongest eventual syntheses will come from studies that combine
methods, or even species. Examples would be studies that use the same stimuli, and ask the
same question, with electrophysiology and fMRI; or that ask parallel questions in monkeys and
in humans; or that use correlational methods like fMRI as well as more causal methods like
TMS or lesions. Of course, achieving this in a paper from a single laboratory is typically
impossible. This highlights the need for collaborations as well. Ultimately, we want social
neuroscience to be a cumulative science in which multiple data points can build toward a
convincing story, not isolated snippets that are difficult to compare.
It is worth briefly noting the major limitations with some of the most popular methods. It is
well known that functional neuroimaging has clear advantages and disadvantages, for instance.
Its strengths are its noninvasive nature, and wholebrain fieldofview. Limitations are the
typically very small effect sizes and indirect nature of the primary measure (changes in
magnetic susceptibility due to changes in blood oxygenation), artificial environment, modest
spatiotemporal resolution, and correlational nature of the conclusions that are obtained
(although there are methods that involve causal modeling as well). While electrophysiological
measures such as EEG have similar limitations (but much better temporal resolution), invasive
intracranial recordings in surgical patients provide the best spatiotemporal resolution – we
give an example at the end of this chapter. Yet all these measures are primarily correlational in
nature (although causal inferences can be derived from them with some effort), emphasizing the
importance of perturbative approaches, such as TMS or lesion studies (which we also review
below). The most compelling conclusions are ones that can be drawn from multiple
approaches.
1.2 Impaired Attention to Eyes in Faces Following
Human Amygdala Lesions
The example set of studies from our laboratory emphasize the first of the above three broad
themes: the critical role of attention in social cognition. The story is particularly relevant,
because it shows how an initially rather complexseeming, and unexplained, specific deficit
in one aspect of social perception (an inability to recognize fear in faces) could actually be
explained, and even experimentally “cured,” through understanding attention.
The story begins with a famous patient, a woman named S.M., whom we have studied over
several decades and who has provided the field of affective neuroscience with a wealth of
insights about the necessary role of the amygdala in human social cognition and behavior (see
Feinstein, Adolphs, & Tranel, 2016 for review) (Figure 1.1). S.M. has UrbachWiethe
syndrome, an extremely rare genetic disease that results from deletions or mutations in the gene
coding for extracellular matrix protein 1, a structural protein that is expressed not only in the
brain but in many other organs. This disease, for reasons unknown, causes calcifications and
lesions in the medial temporal lobe in a subset of patients (Hamada et al., 2002; Hofer, 1973).
In S.M.’s case, it resulted in very focal and complete lesions of the amygdala, on both sides of

39. the brain. The consequences of this in S.M.’s life have been profound: she does not seem to
experience fear at all, and thus exhibits behaviors that have often put her at extreme risk
(Feinstein, Adolphs, Damasio, & Tranel, 2011).

42. Figure 1.1 The brain and face processing in patient S.M. Bilateral amygdala lesions impair the
use of the eyes and gaze to the eyes during emotion judgment. (A) A patient with bilateral
damage to the amygdala made significantly less use of information from the eye region of faces
when judging emotion. (B) While looking at whole faces, the patient (right column of images)
exhibited abnormal face gaze, making far fewer fixations to the eyes than did controls (left
column of images). This was observed across emotions (free viewing, emotion judgment,
gender discrimination). (C) MRI scan of the patient’s brain, whose lesion was relatively
restricted to the entire amygdala, a very rare lesion in humans. The two round black regions
near the top middle of the image are the lesioned amygdalae. (D) When the subject was
instructed to look at the eyes (“SM eyes”) in a whole face, she could do this, resulting in a
remarkable recovery in ability to recognize the facial expression of fear. The findings show
that an apparent role for the amygdala in processing fearful facial expressions is in fact more
abstract, and involves the detection and attentional direction onto features that are socially
informative.
Source: © Ralph Adolphs.

43. It is important to say a few words about the amygdala and the human lesion cases here. The
amygdala has long been implicated in fear, and there is substantial evidence across animal
species including humans that it is necessary for many aspects of fear processing (Amaral &
Adolphs, 2016), even though its role in the conscious experience of fear remains debated,
especially in animals (LeDoux, 2017). Two limitations of lesion studies of the amygdala are
noteworthy. First, as with all lesion studies, the loss of function observed in a lesion case does
not warrant the conclusion that the lesioned structure normally causes the function. So although
amygdala lesions impair many aspects of fear processing, this doesn’t mean that the amygdala
normally implements those aspects of fear processing. Luckily, there is considerable evidence
from other approaches that indeed does support that conclusion. Second, the amygdala is a
complex structure consisting of a dozen different nuclei with further intermingled cell
populations that subserve different functions. Lesions and fMRI thus have inadequate spatial
resolution to resolve these populations, an issue that requires techniques like optogenetics, in
which genetically targeted populations of cells can be manipulated. Plenty of those optogenetic
studies have also been done now, and while they provide much more detail to the story, they
largely support the conclusion that the amygdala participates in processing threatrelated
stimuli, although it also participates in processing rewarding stimuli. The modernday
conclusions are thus that the amygdala contains cell populations that implement functions that
contribute to fear and anxiety. It also contains other cell populations that have different
functions, and there are also other structures in the brain that participate in processing fear and
anxiety. Whether a unitary function of some kind can be ascribed to the amygdala remains
unclear, but when this has been attempted, functions related to social cognition have almost
always emerged (Adolphs, 2010; Rutishauser, Mamelak, & Adolphs, 2015).
Across a large number of experiments, it was found that S.M. is selectively impaired in her
ability to recognize fear from facial expressions. Although her basic vision is normal, and
although she can discriminate all faces, even fear faces, normally, she fails to be able to
recognize that a facial expression of fear signals the emotion fear (Adolphs, Tranel, Damasio,
& Damasio, 1994). This deficit was subsequently discovered to be correlated with an inability
to make use of the eye region of faces (Adolphs et al., 2005). To show this, we used a
technique called “bubbles” in which participants were shown small, random pieces of a whole
face and asked to recognize the emotion. Such a task, across many trials, can give us a
“classification image” that shows which regions of the face carry discriminative information
that allows viewers to classify them as fear or another emotion. In S.M.’s case, she had a very
specific impairment on this task: she failed to make use of information from the eye region of
the face. This made a lot of sense, since the eye region is normally the region of the face that is
most informative about fear: wide eyes signal fear (Smith, Cottrell, Gosselin, & Schyns,
2005). So an inability to use this information from the eyes should result in impaired fear
recognition, providing a mechanistic explanation for why S.M. was impaired in recognizing
fear.
This finding still left two possible hypotheses. One hypothesis would state that S.M. looks at
people’s faces normally, and so has available at the level of the retina exactly the same
information that healthy people do when she looks at fear faces. Her impaired ability to utilize

44. information from the eye region of faces in order to recognize fear, then, would be traced to a
mechanism that depends on the amygdala. The amygdala would be necessary for some further
processes that allow the brain to know that wide eyes signal fear.
A second hypothesis, however, would be that S.M. does not even look normally at the face
stimuli in our experiment. That is, she might fixate faces in unusual ways, and thus might indeed
not have available, at the level of the retina, the same information that healthy individuals do
when they look at faces. To distinguish between these two possibilities, we used eyetracking to
measure how S.M. looks at faces.
We found that S.M. indeed does not fixate faces normally. Often, she simply stares at the center
of the image, not exploring it with her eyes. When she does move her eyes, she does not
preferentially look at the eyes in faces, unlike healthy individuals. This finding thus provides a
compelling mechanistic explanation of why S.M. is impaired in recognizing fear in faces.
Normally, people look at the eyes in our face stimuli, and wide eyes signal fear. However,
S.M. fails to look at the eyes in faces, and thus is unable to use information from the eye region
of the face to tell her that the face expresses fear.
This story is particularly nice because it makes some testable further predictions. If true, it
should be possible to help S.M. to recognize fear in faces. We could simply instruct her to look
at faces the way that healthy people look at faces: fixate the eyes in faces. Would this improve
her impaired fear recognition? When we did the experiment, we indeed found that it did.
Unfortunately, the improvement only lasted the duration of the experiment. Without an explicit
instruction to fixate the eyes in faces, S.M. would always revert back to not fixating the eyes,
and to showing impaired recognition of fear.
This set of studies thus illustrates the important role of attention in social perception. It also
raises the question whether we might find similar results in some other clinical populations
that have difficulties in social cognition. One such population are people with autism, who also
report difficulties figuring out how other people feel, and who are also often described as
making poor eye contact. We turn to this clinical population next.
1.3 Atypical Visual Attention in People with Autism
The two antecedent processes that we mentioned as enabling social cognition have both been
reported to be impaired in people with autism, and according to some hypotheses are thought
to be responsible for the development of social difficulties in autism (Chevallier et al., 2012).
It is known that people with autism fixate faces in unusual ways (Pelphrey et al., 2002) and it
has also been reported that people with autism do not find pictures of faces normally
rewarding in guiding their instrumental behavior (Lin et al., 2012). While there is the belief
that these deficits in social attention and social reward are specific, or at least
disproportionate, for social stimuli, establishing this specificity is still an important and open
question. It is possible that there are broader deficits in attention and reward processing, for
all stimuli, and it is also possible that the deficits are specific to certain domains or features of
stimuli, or computations performed on them, that happen to be disproportionately important

45. when we process faces.
Be that as it may, the unusual fixation patterns of people with autism onto faces bear some
intriguing resemblance to those seen in the patient with amygdala lesions, S.M. (Figure 1.2).
Like S.M., people with autism tend to look less at the eyes in faces. While the patterns are far
from identical, and while there are many other differences between patients with amygdala
lesions and patients with autism, this superficial similarity is one piece of support for the
hypothesis that amygdala dysfunction might contribute to autism (BaronCohen et al., 2000).
Indeed, there is now overwhelming evidence that the amygdala is abnormal in autism (mostly
from histological and structural studies), but it is also clear that (a) many other brain regions
are also abnormal in autism, and (b) abnormalities in the amygdala contribute to all
developmental disorders (and probably many adultonset disorders), and not just to autism
(Schumann, Bauman, & Amaral, 2011). Some of the most detailed ongoing studies that examine
amygdala function in autism are using large data sets (such as those from the ABIDE network;
Di Martino et al., 2014) to examine functional connectivity of the amygdala with other brain
structures (often from restingstate fMRI data). It may be possible to diagnose autism just
from the pattern of restingstate functional brain activation, although currently the number of
false positives with such approaches is still too high.
Figure 1.2 Fixations onto faces in S.M. and in people with autism show similarities. The
images show data obtained from how participants fixate features from faces; hot colors denote
higher density of fixations (except in the control–autism difference image, where red colors
indicate that controls fixate more than autism at that location, and blue colors indicate that
people with autism fixate there more than controls). Note that the images for autism and
controls are obtained from groups of participants, whereas the image from S.M. is from a
single individual.
Source: Ralph Adolphs.
A further investigation by us of visual attention in autism illustrates the second of the broad
themes we had outlined at the beginning of this chapter. That is the theme that social stimuli are
complex, but with careful characterization can still be analyzed with sophisticated models and
sufficient data. We asked the question: What features in visual stimuli capture people’s visual
attention, and how might this differ in people with autism? You could think of the answer to this
question as producing something like a “fingerprint” that shows a profile of the weight that

46. each visual feature has in attracting your visual attention.
In our study (Wang et al., 2015), we showed participants many different visual images.
Importantly, all of these were natural scenes, and so were quite complex. They contained many
different objects and features: people, animals, objects, trees, sky, background, and so forth. To
capture all these different features in a computational model, we first used an automated
algorithm to determine lowlevel visual saliency of specific regions on the image. This
algorithm, developed by Christof Koch and Laurent Itti (Itti & Koch, 1998), essentially finds,
in an automated way, regions that will attract visual attention because they are bright, or have
high contrast, or have a particular color. So this aspect of visual saliency is relatively easy to
quantify on our stimuli.
But we also wished to quantify semantic, objectbased features in all our stimuli. You do not
only fixate onto a region because it is bright, but also because of its meaning: whether it is
showing a face, or an interesting animal, or something emotional. To characterize these
semanticlevel properties, we had a large number of students annotate the images (cf. Xu,
Jiang, Wang, Kankanhalli, & Zhao, 2014). This produced a detailed model consisting of
pixelbased (lowlevel saliency), objectbased, and semanticbased features. We could
then train this model on a subset of the eyetracking data, and ask how well it was able to
predict new eyetracking data. The results of this produce a profile across all the different
features, showing us how strong an effect they have on visual attention.
We then carried out exactly this same analysis in people with autism, and asked how their
visual attention might be driven by different factors. Indeed, we found that there was a
difference. Whereas normal controls show fixations that are driven less and less by pixel
based saliency over time, and more and more by semanticbased saliency, people with autism
show much less of this effect and keep looking at lowlevel saliency regions in the image such
as contrast and brightness. Thus, this analysis showed that visual attention in autism is
characterized, at least in part, by an inability to be guided by the semantic meaning of objects
in an image, and instead seems to stick to lowlevel cues.
There are many other examples of such a more datadriven, featurebased approach that uses
relatively complex naturalistic stimuli. One type of stimulus that has become quite popular is
videos or movies, which can be shown to subjects while obtaining fMRI data. Not only are
these stimuli engaging and thus capable of producing strong brain responses, but they offer a
very efficient way of sampling a large range of different features within a context.
Decomposing the complex stimulus of the movie into its constituent features is not trivial, but
even without detailed decomposition it is possible to use such a rich stimulus to find
abnormally activated brain networks in people with autism (Byrge, Dubois, Tyszka, Adolphs,
& Kennedy, 2015), and then work backwards from this finding to ask what it is about the
movie (e.g., which specific lowlevel or semanticlevel features) might be most responsible
for this. For instance, it was found that social awkwardness is one timevarying aspect of the
movie that results in abnormal brain activation in autism (Pantelis, Byrge, Tyszka, Adolphs, &
Kennedy, 2015).

47. 1.4 Putting it All Together: Singleneuron Responses in
the Amygdala
Finally, we turn to putting all three themes together, and in particular to highlighting the third of
the themes, the need to use multiple methods. In this study, we used the “bubbles” method that
was already introduced in Figure 1.1, we recorded from the amygdala, and we investigated
amygdala responses in people with autism. The dependent measure this time, however, was not
eye movements but singleneuron responses recorded from depth electrodes in the brains of
neurosurgical patients.
These patients are all patients who have medically untreatable epilepsy, and whose seizures
cannot be localized adequately with scalp EEG. The clinical goal is to find the region of the
brain from which the seizures originate, so that this could be surgically removed. Often, the
source is in the medial temporal lobe – in the amygdala or hippocampus – and resecting these
tissues in a surgery called a temporal lobectomy can cure the epilepsy. But to decide exactly
where the seizure originates, it is essential to be able to record the electrical activity of a
seizure from electrodes in the brain, permitting a precise determination. For this clinical
reason, neurosurgeons implant depth electrodes into the brains of such patients. They then
spend 1–2 weeks in the hospital, with wires connected to the depth electrodes, so that one can
record when a seizure occurs. During this time, the patients can also elect to participate in
research studies, and one can show them stimuli and record singleneuron responses in the
brain obtained through the depth electrodes. This is a very important and rare source of
recordings from single neurons in the human brain, which has resulted in significant
contributions in cognitive neuroscience (Fried, Rutishauser, Cerf, & Kreiman, 2014).
In our study (Rutishauser et al., 2013), we asked how single neurons in the amygdala would
respond to the features of faces. Are their responses driven more by a specific part of the face,
like the nose, or the eyes? To answer this question, we used the “bubbles” technique in which
small parts of faces, randomly chosen on each trial, were shown to the patients. Instead of
obtaining a behavioral classification image, as we had done with patient S.M. (Figure 1.1), we
now obtained a neuronal classification image, which told us the effect that each face feature
had on eliciting neuronal responses from the amygdala neurons.
The result was quite striking. Whereas the control participants (a group of patients who also
had epilepsy, but who did not have autism) had amygdala neurons that responded strongly to
the eye region of faces, amygdala neurons in two rare patients who had autism (as well as
epilepsy) showed an absence of such a response from the eyes. This finding, while limited by
the very small sample size, and the unavailability of further control conditions, suggests a
provocative hypothesis: neurons in the amygdala represent something like a saliency map.
Normally they respond strongly to eyes in faces, but in people with autism they instead respond
to the mouth. This pattern of response in amygdala neurons in patients with autism mirrors the
pattern of fixations that they make onto faces, and thus suggests a mechanism that explains why
people with autism do not fixate faces normally. Of course, to establish causality here, one
would wish to carry out future experiments that might electrically stimulate the amygdala

48. neurons, to see if this causes changes in fixations onto faces.
A second recent study highlights a similar convergence of approaches. In that study, we
actually combined three different approaches in one paper: behavioral impairments in patients
who have lesions of the amygdala, fMRI studies of the amygdala in healthy individuals, and
singleunit recordings from the amygdala in neurosurgical patients. All three approaches used
identical stimuli and tasks to investigate the question of which dimensions of emotional faces
the amygdala might be responsible for processing. In particular, we asked whether the
amygdala is involved in processing the ambiguity of the emotion, a hypothesis that Paul
Whalen had suggested years earlier (Whalen, 1999) and for which there was some support
(Herry et al., 2007); or whether the amygdala is involved in processing the intensity of fear in
faces, which also had substantial support. We found evidence for both of these hypotheses, and
could trace their origin to the presence of two largely nonoverlapping populations of cells with
the singleneuron recordings: one population encoded ambiguity, the second encoded emotion
intensity (Wang et al., 2017).
Taken together, the set of studies that we have reviewed here illustrate the power of
approaching the study of social cognition with the three broad themes with which we began. To
reiterate them briefly: we should attempt to deconstruct social cognition into its constituent, or
antecedent stimuli; we should use realistic, ecologically valid social stimuli and try to quantify
their full complexity in rich models; and we should strive to make comparisons across multiple
methods. There is one large open domain that has not yet been well exploited: capturing this
richness in features and processes in computational models that aim to make explicit the
processes. This approach has been hugely successful in learning and decision neuroscience,
where sophisticated models are commonly used to estimate parameters such as the expected
reward or the reward prediction error. While a few forays into the social domain have been
undertaken, many of these are derivative to learning and decisionmaking more generically
(Behrens, Hunt, Woolrich, & Rushworth, 2008). Important future topics for further
development will be strategic deception (Hampton, Bossaerts, & O’Doherty, 2008) or social
learning from the expertise of another person (Boorman, O’Doherty, Adolphs, & Rangel,
2013). Application of these models to the study of diseases like autism will be a major future
topic in computational psychiatry.
References
Adolphs, R. (2010). What does the amygdala contribute to social cognition? Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences, 1191, 42–61.
Adolphs, R., Gosselin, F., Buchanan, T. W., Tranel, D., Schyns, P. G., & Damasio, A. (2005).
A mechanism for impaired fear recognition after amygdala damage. Nature, 433, 68–72.
Adolphs, R., Nummenmaa, L., Todorov, A., & Haxby, J. V
. (2016). Datadriven approaches in
the investigation of social perception. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences, 371. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0367

49. Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. (1994). Impaired recognition of emotion
in facial expressions following bilateral damage to the human amygdala. Nature, 372, 669–
672.
Amaral, D. G., & Adolphs, R. (Eds.). (2016). Living without an amygdala. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
BaronCohen, S., Ring, H. A., Bullmore, E. T., Wheelwright, S., Ashwin, C., & Williams, S.
C. R. (2000). The amygdala theory of autism. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 24,
355–364.
Behrens, T. E. J., Hunt, L. T., Woolrich, M. W., & Rushworth, M. F. S. (2008). Associative
learning of social value. Nature, 456, 245–249.
Boorman, E., O’Doherty, J. P., Adolphs, R., & Rangel, A. (2013). The behavioral and neural
mechanisms underlying the tracking of expertise. Neuron, 80, 1558–1570.
Byrge, L., Dubois, J., Tyszka, J. M., Adolphs, R., & Kennedy, D. P. (2015). Idiosyncratic brain
activation patterns are associated with poor social comprehension in autism. Journal of
Neuroscience, 35, 5837–5850.
Caldara, R. (2017). Culture reveals a flexible system for face processing. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 26, 249–255.
Chang, L. J., & Tsao, D. Y. (2017). The code for facial identity in the primate brain. Cell, 169,
1013–1028.
Chevallier, C., Kohls, G., Troiani, V
., Brodkin, E. S., & Schultz, R. T. (2012). The social
motivation theory of autism. TICS, 16, 231–239.
Deaner, R. O., Khera, A. V
., & Platt, M. L. (2005). Monkeys pay per view: Adaptive valuation
of social images by rhesus macaques. Current Biology, 15(6), 543–548.
Di Martino, A., Yan, C.G., Li, Q., Denio, E., Castellanos, F. X., Alaerts, K.,…Milham, M. P.
(2014). The autism brain imaging data exchange: Towards a largescale evaluation of the
intrinsic brain architecture in autism. Molecular Psychiatry, 19, 659–667.
Feinstein, J. S., Adolphs, R., Damasio, A., & Tranel, D. (2011). The human amygdala and the
induction and experience of fear. Current Biology, 21, 34–38.
Feinstein, J. S., Adolphs, R., & Tranel, D. (2016). A tale of survival from the world of patient
S.M. In D. G. Amaral & R. Adolphs (Eds.), Living without an amygdala. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Fried, I., Rutishauser, U., Cerf, M., & Kreiman, G. (2014). Singleneuron studies of the
human brain: Probing cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Geschwind, D. H., & Levitt, P. (2007). Autism spectrum disorders: Developmental

50. disconnection syndromes. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 17, 103–111.
Gottlieb, J., Hayhoe, M., Hikosaka, O., & Rangel, A. (2014). Attention, reward and
information seeking. Journal of Neuroscience, 34, 15497–15504.
Hamada, T., Irwin McLean, W. H., Ramsay, M., Ashton, G. H. S., Nanda, A., Jenkins, T.,…
McGrath, J. A. (2002). Lipoid proteinosis maps to 1q21 and is caused by mutations in the
extracellular matrix protein 1 gene (ECM1). Human Molecular Genetics, 11, 833–840.
Hampton, A. N., Bossaerts, P., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2008). Neural correlates of mentalizing
related computations during strategic interactions in humans. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 6741–6746.
Herry, C., Bach, D. R., Esposito, F., Di Salle, F., Perrig, W. J., Scheffler, K.,…Seifritz, E.
(2007). Processing of temporal unpredictability in human and animal amygdala. Journal of
Neuroscience, 27, 5958–5966.
Hofer, P.A. (1973). UrbachWiethe disease: A review. Acta DermatoVenereologica , 53,
5–52.
Itti, L., & Koch, C. (1998). A model of saliencybased visual attention for rapid scene
analysis. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 20, 1254–1259.
Kanner, L. (1943). Autistic disturbances of affective contact. Nervous Child, 2, 217–250.
LeDoux, J. (2017). Semantics, surplus meaning, and the science of fear. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 21, 303–306.
Lin, A., Rangel, A., & Adolphs, R. (2012). Impaired learning of social compared to monetary
rewards in autism. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 143.
Pantelis, P., Byrge, L., Tyszka, J. M., Adolphs, R., & Kennedy, D. (2015). A specific
hypoactivation of right temporoparietal junction/posterior superior temporal sulcus in
response to socially awkward situations in autism. Social Cognitive and Affective
Neuroscience, 10, 1348–1356.
Pelphrey, K. A., Sasson, N. J., Reznick, J. S., Paul, G., Goldman, B. D., & Piven, J. (2002).
Visual scanning of faces in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 32, 249–
261.
Przyrembel, M., Smallwood, J., Pauen, M., & Singer, T. (2012). Illuminating the dark matter of
social neuroscience: Considering the problem of social interaction from philosophical,
psychological, and neuroscientific perspectives. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, Article
190.
Reid, V
. M., Dunn, K., Young, R. J., Amu, J., Donovan, T., & Reissland, N. (2017). The human
fetus preferentially engages with facelike visual stimuli. Current Biology, 27, 1825–1828.

51. Rutishauser, U., Mamelak, A.N., & Adolphs, R. (2015). The primate amygdala in social
perception: Insights from electrophysiological recordings and stimulation. Trends in
Neurosciences, 38, 295–306.
Rutishauser, U., Tudusciuc, O., Wang, S., Mamelak, A., Ross, I. B., & Adolphs, A. (2013).
Singleneuron correlates of atypical face processing in autism. Neuron, 80, 887–899.
Schumann, C. M., Bauman, M. D., & Amaral, D. G. (2011). Abnormal structure or function of
the amygdala is a common component of neurodevelopmental disorders. Neuropsychologia,
49, 745–759.
Shimojo, S., Simion, C., Shimojo, E., & Scheier, C. (2003). Gaze bias both reflects and
influences preferences. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 1317–1322.
Smith, M. L., Cottrell, G. W., Gosselin, F., & Schyns, P. G. (2005). Transmitting and decoding
facial expressions. Psychological Science, 16, 184–189.
Spunt, R., & Adolphs, R. (2017). A new look at domain specificity: Insights from social
neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18. doi: 10.1038/nrn.2017.76.
Todorov, A. (2017). Face value: The irresistible influence of first impressions. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wang, S., Jiang, M., Duchesne, X. M., Kennedy, D. P., Adolphs, R., & Zhao, Q. (2015).
Atypical visual saliency in autism spectrum disorder quantified through modelbased
eyetracking. Neuron, 88, 604–616.
Wang, S., Xu, J., Jiang, M., Zhao, Q., Hurlemann, R., & Adolphs, R. (2014). Autism spectrum
disorder but not amygdala lesions impairs social attention in visual search. Neuropsychologia,
63, 259–274.
Wang, S., Yu, R., Tyszka, J. M., Zhen, S., Kovach, C. K., Sun, S.,…Rutishauser, U. (2017). The
human amygdala parametrically encodes the intensity of specific facial emotions and their
categorical ambiguity. Nature Communications, 8. doi: 10.1038/ncomms14821.
Whalen, P. J. (1999). Fear, vigilance, and ambiguity: Initial neuroimaging studies of the human
amygdala. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 177–187.
Xu, J., Jiang, M., Wang, S., Kankanhalli, M. S., & Zhao, Q. (2014). Predicting human gaze
beyond pixels. Journal of Vision, 14, 28.

52. 2
Artificial Empathy
Minoru Asada
Osaka University, Japan
2.1 Introduction
Before discussing the topic of artificial empathy, I will first briefly introduce the Leonardo da
Vinci android and the RoboCup.
2.1.1 Leonardo da Vinci’s Spirit: A Pioneer of Interdisciplinary
Research
Leonardo da Vinci had a strong wish for imagination and creation beyond the boundaries
between science, technology, and art. If he were alive today, he would surely be a robotics
researcher. The door to the future will be opened through robots who exhibit all aspects of
human science (Minoru Asada, Autumn, 2000).
As a symbolic project for the past six years’ activities of the NPO Leonardo da Vinci Museum
Network, we created the Leonardo android in 2015 in Japan, and exhibited it at the Museo
della Scienza e della Tecnologia Leonardo da Vinci, Milan, Italy in September 2015. Figure
2.1 shows the casting process of the head of the Leonardo da Vinci android and a behind
thescenes view of a teleoperator controlling the android.
Figure 2.1 Casting process of the head of the Leonardo da Vinci android ((left:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik3EPgCrDBE) and its remote control (right).
2.1.2 RoboCup
RoboCup, of which I am one of the founding members, has as its ultimate goal the building of a
team of 11 humanoids that can win against the FIFA World Cup champions soccer team by

53. 2050. The first official RoboCup games and conference were held in 1997 with great success.
Over 40 teams participated (real and simulation combined), and over 5,000 spectators
attended. Figure 2.2 top shows that the number of participating teams grew by around 400,
which is a limit due to time and space. Figure 2.2 bottom also shows a scene from RoboCup
2016 in Leipzig.

54. Figure 2.2 The number of participating teams (top) and a scene from RoboCup 2016 (bottom)
in Leipzig (http://www.robocup2016.org).

55. Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content

56. When this letter of Col. McNab was read in the House of
Representatives (which it was within a few days after it was written),
Mr. Fillmore (afterwards President of the United States, and then a
representative from the State of New York, and, from that part of
the State which included the most disturbed portion of the border),
stood up in his place, and said:
"The letter just read by the clerk, at his colleague's request,
was written in reply to one from the district attorney as to the
reported intention of the British to invade Grand Island; and in it
is the declaration that there was no such intention. Now, Mr. F.
would call the attention of the House to the fact that that letter
was written on the 29th December, and that it was on the very
night succeeding the date of it that this gross outrage was
committed on the Caroline. Moreover, he would call the
attention of the House to the well-authenticated fact, that, after
burning the boat, and sending it over the falls, the assassins
were lighted back to McNab's camp, where he was in person, by
beacons lighted there for that purpose. Mr. F. certainly
deprecated a war with Great Britain as sincerely as any
gentleman on that floor could possibly do: and hoped, as
earnestly, that these difficulties would be amicably adjusted
between the two nations. Yet, he must say, that the letter of
McNab, instead of affording grounds for a palliation, was, in
reality, a great aggravation of the outrage. It held out to us the
assurance that there was nothing of the kind to be
apprehended; and yet, a few hours afterwards, this atrocity was
perpetrated by an officer sent directly from the camp of that
McNab."
At the time that this was spoken the order of Col. McNab to
Captain Drew had not been seen, and consequently it was not
known that the letter and the order were coincident in their
character, and that the perfidy, implied in Mr. Fillmore's remarks, was
not justly attributable to Col. McNab: but it is certain he applauded

57. the act when done: and his letter will stand for a condemnation of it,
and for the disavowal of authority to do it.
The invasion of New York was the invasion of the United States,
and the President had immediately demanded redress, both for the
public outrage, and for the loss of property to the owners of the
boat. Mr. Van Buren's entire administration went off without
obtaining an answer to these demands. As late as January, 1839—a
year after the event—Mr. Stevenson, the United States minister in
London, wrote: "I regret to say that no answer has yet been given to
my note in the case of the Caroline." And towards the end of the
same year, Mr. Forsyth, the American Secretary of State, in writing to
him, expressed the belief that an answer would soon be given. He
says: "I have had frequent conversations with Mr. Fox in regard to
this subject—one of very recent date—and from its tone, the
President expects the British government will answer your
application in the case without much further delay."—Delay,
however, continued; and, as late as December, 1840, no answer
having yet been received, the President directed the subject again to
be brought to the notice of the British government; and Mr. Forsyth
accordingly wrote to Mr. Fox:
"The President deems this to be a proper occasion to remind
the government of her Britannic majesty that the case of the
"Caroline" has been long since brought to the attention of her
Majesty's principal Secretary of State for foreign affairs, who, up
to this day, has not communicated its decision thereupon. It is
hoped that the government of her Majesty will perceive the
importance of no longer leaving the government of the United
States uninformed of its views and intentions upon a subject
which has naturally produced much exasperation, and which has
led to such grave consequences. I avail myself of this occasion
to renew to you the assurance of my distinguished
consideration."

58. This was near the close of Mr. Van Buren's administration, and up
to that time it must be noted, first, that the British government had
not assumed the act of Captain Drew in destroying the Caroline;
secondly, that it had not answered (had not refused redress) for that
act. Another circumstance showed that the government, in its own
conduct in relation to those engaged in that affair, had not even
indirectly assumed it by rewarding those who did it. Three years
after the event, in the House of Commons, Lord John Russell, the
premier, was asked in his place, whether it was the intention of
ministers to recommend to her Majesty to bestow any reward upon
Captain Drew, and others engaged in the affair of the Caroline; to
which he replied negatively, and on account of the delicate nature of
the subject. His answer was: "No reward had been resolved upon,
and as the question involved a subject of a very delicate nature, he
must decline to answer it further." Col. McNab had been knighted;
not for the destruction of the Caroline on United States territory
(which his order did not justify, and his letter condemned), but for
his services in putting down the revolt.
Thus the affair stood till near the close of Mr. Van Buren's
administration, when an event took place which gave it a new turn,
and brought on a most serious question between the United States
and Great Britain, and changed the relative positions of the two
countries—the United States to become the injured party, claiming
redress. The circumstances were these: one Alexander McLeod,
inhabitant of the opposite border shore, and a British subject, had
been in the habit of boasting that he had been one of the destroyers
of the Caroline, and that he had himself killed one of the "damned
Yankees." There were enough to repeat these boastings on the
American side of the line; and as early as the spring of 1838 the
Grand Jury for the county in which the outrage had been committed,
found a bill of indictment against him for murder and arson. He was
then in Canada, and would never have been troubled upon the
indictment if he had remained there; but, with a boldness of conduct
which bespoke clear innocence, or insolent defiance, he returned to
the seat of the outrage—to the county in which the indictment lay—

59. and publicly exhibited himself in the county town. This was three
years after the event; but the memory of the scene was fresh, and
indignation boiled at his appearance. He was quickly arrested on the
indictment, also sued for damages by the owner of the destroyed
boat, and committed to jail—to take his trial in the State court of the
county of Niagara. This arrest and imprisonment of McLeod
immediately drew an application for his release in a note from Mr.
Fox to the American Secretary of State. Under date of the 13th
December, 1840, he wrote:
"I feel it my duty to call upon the government of the United
States to take prompt and effectual steps for the liberation of
Mr. McLeod. It is well known that the destruction of the
steamboat 'Caroline' was a public act of persons in her Majesty's
service, obeying the order of their superior authorities.—That
act, therefore, according to the usages of nations, can only be
the subject of discussion between the two national
governments; it cannot justly be made the ground of legal
proceedings in the United States against the individuals
concerned, who were bound to obey the authorities appointed
by their own government. I may add that I believe it is quite
notorious that Mr. McLeod was not one of the party engaged in
the destruction of the steamboat 'Caroline,' and that the
pretended charge upon which he has been imprisoned rests
only upon the perjured testimony of certain Canadian outlaws
and their abettors, who, unfortunately for the peace of that
neighborhood, are still permitted by the authorities of the State
of New York to infest the Canadian frontier. The question,
however, of whether Mr. McLeod was or was not concerned in
the destruction of the 'Caroline,' is beside the purpose of the
present communication. That act was the public act of persons
obeying the constituted authorities of her Majesty's province.
The national government of the United States thought
themselves called upon to remonstrate against it; and a
remonstrance which the President did accordingly address to
her Majesty's government is still, I believe, a pending subject of

60. diplomatic discussion between her Majesty's government and
the United States legation in London. I feel, therefore, justified
in expecting that the President's government will see the justice
and the necessity of causing the present immediate release of
Mr. McLeod, as well as of taking such steps as may be requisite
for preventing others of her Majesty's subjects from being
persecuted, or molested in the United States in a similar manner
for the future."
This note of Mr. Fox is fair and unexceptionable—free from
menace—and notable in showing that the demand for redress for
the affair of the Caroline was still under diplomatic discussion in
London, and that the British government had not then assumed the
act of Captain Drew. The answer of Mr. Forsyth was prompt and
clear—covering the questions arising out of our duplicate form of
government, and the law of nations—and explicit upon the rights of
the States, the duties of the federal government, and the principles
of national law. It is one of the few answers of the kind which
circumstances have arisen to draw from our government, and
deserves to be well considered for its luminous and correct
expositions of the important questions of which it treats. Under date
of the 28th of December, and writing under the instructions of the
President, he says:
"The jurisdiction of the several States which constitute the
Union is, within its appropriate sphere, perfectly independent of
the federal government. The offence with which Mr. McLeod is
charged was committed within the territory, and against the
laws and citizens of the State of New York, and is one that
comes clearly within the competency of her tribunals. It does
not, therefore, present an occasion where, under the
constitution and laws of the Union, the interposition called for
would be proper, or for which a warrant can be found in the
powers with which the federal executive is invested. Nor would
the circumstances to which you have referred, or the reasons
you have urged, justify the exertion of such a power, if it

61. existed. The transaction out of which the question arises,
presents the case of a most unjustifiable invasion, in time of
peace, of a portion of the territory of the United States, by a
band of armed men from the adjacent territory of Canada, the
forcible capture by them within our own waters, and the
subsequent destruction of a steamboat, the property of a citizen
of the United States, and the murder of one or more American
citizens. If arrested at the time, the offenders might
unquestionably have been brought to justice by the judicial
authorities of the State within whose acknowledged territory
these crimes were committed; and their subsequent voluntary
entrance within that territory, places them in the same situation.
The President is not aware of any principle of international law,
or, indeed, of reason or justice, which entitles such offenders to
impunity before the legal tribunals, when coming voluntarily
within their independent and undoubted jurisdiction, because
they acted in obedience to their superior authorities, or because
their acts have become the subject of diplomatic discussion
between the two governments. These methods of redress, the
legal prosecution of the offenders, and the application of their
government for satisfaction, are independent of each other, and
may be separately and simultaneously pursued. The avowal or
justification of the outrages by the British authorities might be a
ground of complaint with the government of the United States,
distinct from the violation of the territory and laws of the State
of New York. The application of the government of the Union to
that of Great Britain, for the redress of an authorized outrage of
the peace, dignity, and rights of the United States, cannot
deprive the State of New York of her undoubted right of
vindicating, through the exercise of her judicial power, the
property and lives of her citizens. You have very properly
regarded the alleged absence of Mr. McLeod from the scene of
the offence at the time when it was committed, as not material
to the decision of the present question. That is a matter to be
decided by legal evidence; and the sincere desire of the
President is, that it may be satisfactorily established. If the

62. destruction of the Caroline was a public act of persons in her
Majesty's service, obeying the order of their superior authorities,
this fact has not been communicated to the government of the
United States by a person authorized to make the admission;
and it will be for the court which has taken cognizance of the
offence with which Mr. McLeod is charged, to decide upon its
validity when legally established before it."
This answer to Mr. Fox, was read in the two Houses of Congress,
on the 5th of January, and was heard with great approbation—
apparently unanimous in the Senate. It went to London, and on the
8th and 9th of February, gave rise to some questions and answers,
which showed that the British government did not take its stand in
approving the burning of the Caroline, until after the presidential
election of 1840—until after that election had ensured a change of
administration in the United States. On the 8th of February, to
inquiries as to what steps had been taken to secure the liberation of
McLeod, the answers were general from Lord Palmerston and Lord
Melbourne, "That her Majesty's ministers would take those measures
which, in their estimation, would be best calculated to secure the
safety of her Majesty's subjects, and to vindicate the honor of the
British nation." This answer was a key to the instructions actually
given to Mr. Fox, showing that they were framed upon a calculation
of what would be most effective, and not upon a conviction of what
was right. They would do what they thought would accomplish the
purpose; and the event showed that the calculation led them to
exhibit the war attitude—to assume the offence of McLeod, and to
bully the new administration. And here it is to be well noted that the
British ministry, up to that time, had done nothing to recognize the
act of Captain Drew. Neither to the American minister in London, nor
to the Secretary of State here, had they assumed it. More than that:
they carefully abstained from indirect, or implied assumption, by
withholding pensions to their wounded officers in that affair—one of
whom had five severe wounds. This fact was brought out at this
time by a question from Mr. Hume in the House of Commons to Lord
John Russell, in which—

63. "He wished to ask the noble lord a question relating to a
matter of fact. He believed that, in the expedition which had
been formed for the destruction of the Caroline, certain officers,
who held commissions in her Majesty's army and navy, were
concerned in that affair, and that some of these officers had, in
the execution of the orders which were issued, received
wounds. The question he wished to ask was, whether or not her
Majesty's government had thought proper to award pensions to
those officers, corresponding in amount with those which were
usually granted for wounds received in the regular service of her
Majesty."
This was a pointed question, and carrying an argument along with
it. Had the wounded officers received the usual pension? If not,
there must be a reason for departing from the usual practice; and
the answer showed that the practice had been departed from. Lord
John Russell replied:
"That he was not aware of any pensions having been granted
to those officers who were wounded in the expedition against
the Caroline."
This was sufficiently explicit, and showed that up to the 8th day of
February, 1841, the act of Captain Drew had not been even
indirectly, or impliedly recognized. But the matter did not stop there.
Mr. Hume, a thoroughly business member, not satisfied with an
answer which merely implied that the government had not
sanctioned the measure, followed it up with a recapitulation of
circumstances to show that the government had not answered, one
way or the other, during the three years that the United States had
been calling for redress; and ending with a plain interrogatory for
information on that point.
"He said that the noble lord (Palmerston), had just made a
speech in answer to certain questions which had been put to
him by the noble lord, the member for North Lancashire; but he

64. (Mr. Hume) wished to ask the House to suspend their opinion
upon the subject until they had the whole of the papers laid
before the House. He had himself papers in his possession, that
would explain many things connected with this question, and
which, by-the-bye, were not exactly consistent with the
statement which had just been made. It appeared by the papers
which he had in his possession, that in January, 1838, a motion
was made in the U. S. House of Representatives, calling upon
the President to place upon the table of the House, all the
papers respecting the Caroline, and all the correspondence
which had passed between the government of the United States
and the British government on the subject of the destruction of
the Caroline. In consequence of that motion, certain papers
were laid upon the table, including one from Mr. Stevenson, the
present minister here from the U. States. These were
accompanied by a long letter, dated the 15th of May, 1838, from
that gentleman, and in that letter, the burning of the Caroline
was characterized in very strong language. He also stated, that
agreeably to the orders of the President, he had laid before the
British government the whole of the evidence relating to the
subject, which had been taken upon the spot, and Mr.
Stevenson denied he had ever been informed that the
expedition against the Caroline was authorized or sanctioned by
the British government. Now, from May, 1838, the time when
the letter had been written, up to this hour, no answer had been
given to that letter, nor had any satisfaction been given by the
British government upon this subject. In a letter dated from
London, the 2d of July, Mr. Stevenson stated that he had not
received any answer upon the subject, and that he did not wish
to press the subject further; but if the government of the United
States wished him to do so, he prayed to be informed of it. By
the statement which had taken place in the House of Congress,
it appeared that the government of the United States had been
ignorant of any information that could lead them to suppose
that the enterprise against the Caroline had been undertaken by
the orders of the British government, or by British authority.

65. That he believed was the ground upon which Mr. Forsyth acted
as he had done. He takes his objections, and denies the
allegation of Mr. Fox, that neither had he nor her Majesty's
government made any communication to him or the authorities
of the United States, that the British government had authorized
the destruction of the Caroline. He (Mr. Hume) therefore hoped
that no discussion would take place, until all the papers
connected with the matter were laid before the House. He
wished to know what the nature of those communications was
with Mr. Stevenson and her Majesty's government which had
induced him to act as he had done."
Thus the ministry were told to their faces, and in the face of the
whole Parliament, that for the space of three years, and under
repeated calls, they had never assumed the destruction of the
Caroline: and to that assertion the ministry then made no answer.
On the following day the subject was again taken up, "and in the
course of it Lord Palmerston admitted that the government approved
of the burning of the Caroline." So says the Parliamentary Register
of Debates, and adds: "The conversation was getting rather warm,
when Sir Robert Peel interposed by a motion on the affairs of
Persia." This was the first knowledge that the British parliament had
of the assumption of that act, which undoubtedly had just been
resolved upon. It is clear that Lord Palmerston was the presiding
spirit of this resolve. He is a bold man, and a man of judgment in his
boldness. He probably never would have made such an assumption
in dealing with General Jackson: he certainly made no such
assumption during the three years he had to deal with the Van
Buren administration. The conversation was "getting warm;" and
well it might: for this pregnant assumption, so long delayed, and so
given, was entirely gratuitous, and unwarranted by the facts. Col.
McNab was the commanding officer, and gave all the orders that
were given. Captain Drew's report to him shows that his orders were
to destroy the vessel at Navy Island: McNab's letter of the same day
to the United States District Attorney (Rodgers), shows that he
would not authorize an expedition upon United States territory; and

66. his sworn testimony on the trial of McLeod shows that he did not do
it in his orders to Captain Drew. That testimony says:
"I do remember the last time the steamboat Caroline came
down previous to her destruction; from the information I
received, I had every reason to believe that she came down for
the express purpose of assisting the rebels and brigands on
Navy Island with arms, men, ammunition, provisions, stores,
&c.; to ascertain this fact, I sent two officers with instructions to
watch the movements of the boat, to note the same, and report
to me; they reported they saw her land a cannon (a six or nine-
pounder), several men armed and equipped as soldiers, and
that she had dropped her anchor on the east side of Navy
Island; on the information I had previously received from highly
respectable persons in Buffalo, together with the report of these
gentlemen, I determined to destroy her that night. I intrusted
the command of the expedition for the purposes aforesaid, to
Capt. A. Drew, royal navy; seven boats were equipped, and left
the Canadian shore; I do not recollect the number of men in
each boat; Captain Drew held the rank of commander in her
Majesty's royal navy; I ordered the expedition, and first
communicated it to Capt. Andrew Drew, on the beach, where
the men embarked a short time previous to their embarkation;
Captain Drew was ordered to take and destroy the Caroline
wherever he could find her; I gave the order as officer in
command of the forces assembled for the purposes aforesaid;
they embarked at the mouth of the Chippewa river; in my
orders to Captain Drew nothing was said about invading the
territory of the United States, but such was their nature that
Captain Drew might feel himself justified in destroying the boat
wherever he might find her."
From this testimony it is clear that McNab gave no order to invade
the territory of the United States; and the whole tenor of his
testimony agrees with Captain Drew's report, that it was "expected"
to have found the Caroline at Navy Island, where she was in fact

67. immediately before, and where McNab saw her while planning the
expedition. No such order was then given by him—nor by any other
authority; for the local government in Quebec knew no more of it
than the British ministry in London. Besides, Col. McNab was only
the military commander to suppress the insurrection. He had no
authority, for he disclaimed it, to invade an American possession;
and if the British government had given such authority, which they
had not, it would have been an outrage to the United States, not to
be overlooked. They then assumed an act which they had not done;
and assumed it! and took a war attitude! and all upon a calculation
that it was the most effectual way to get McLeod released. It was in
the evening of the 4th day of March that all Washington city was
roused by the rumor of this assumption and demand: and on the
12th day of that month they were all formally communicated to our
government. It was to the new administration that this formidable
communication was addressed—and addressed at the earliest
moment that decency would permit. The effect was to the full extent
all that could have been calculated upon; and wholly reversed the
stand taken under Mr. Van Buren's administration. The burning of
the Caroline was admitted to be an act of war, for which the
sovereign, and not the perpetrators, was liable: the invasion of the
American soil was also an act of war: the surrender of McLeod could
not be effected by an order of the federal government, because he
was in the hands of a State court, charged with crimes against the
laws of that State: but the United States became his defender and
protector, with a determination to save him harmless: and all this
was immediately communicated to Mr. Fox in unofficial interviews,
before the formal communication could be drawn up and delivered.
Lord Palmerston's policy was triumphant; and it is necessary to show
it in order to show in what manner the Caroline affair was brought to
a conclusion; and in its train that of the northeastern boundary, so
long disputed; and that of the north-western boundary, never before
disputed; and that of the liberated slaves on their way from one
United States port to another: and all other questions besides which
England wished settled. For, emboldened by the success of the
Palmerstonian policy in the case of the Caroline, it was incontinently

68. applied in all other cases of dispute between the countries—and with
the same success. But of this hereafter. The point at present is, to
show, as has been shown, that the assumption of this outrage was
not made until three years after the event, and then upon a
calculation of its efficiency, and contrary to the facts of the case; and
when made, accompanied by large naval and military
demonstrations—troops sent to Canada—ships to Halifax—
newspapers to ourselves, the Times especially—all odorous of
gunpowder and clamorous for war.
This is dry detail, but essential to the scope of this work, more
occupied with telling how things were done than what was done:
and in pursuing this view it is amazing to see by what arts and
contrivances—by what trifles and accidents—the great affairs of
nations, as well as the small ones of individuals, are often decided.
The finale in this case was truly ridiculous: for, after all this
disturbance and commotion—two great nations standing to their
arms, exhausting diplomacy, and inflaming the people to the war
point—after the formal assumption of McLeod's offence, and war
threatened for his release, it turned out that he was not there! and
was acquitted by an American jury on ample evidence. He had slept
that night in Chippewa, and only heard of the act the next morning
at the breakfast table—when he wished he had been there. Which
wish afterwards ripened into an assertion that he was there! and,
further, had himself killed one of the damned Yankees—by no means
the first instance of a man boasting of performing exploits in a fight
which he did not see. But what a lesson it teaches to nations! Two
great countries brought to angry feelings, to criminative diplomacy,
to armed preparation, to war threats—their governments and people
in commotion—their authorities all in council, and taxing their skill
and courage to the uttermost: and all to settle a national quarrel as
despicable in its origin as the causes of tavern brawls; and
exceedingly similar to the origin of such brawls. McLeod's false and
idle boast was the cause of all this serious difficulty between two
great Powers.

69. Mr. Fox had delivered his formal demand and threat on the 12th
day of March: the administration immediately undertook McLeod's
release. The assumption of his imputed act had occasioned some
warm words in the British House of Commons, where it was known
to be gratuitous: its communication created no warmth in our
cabinet, but a cold chill rather, where every spring was immediately
put in action to release McLeod. Being in the hands of a State court,
no order could be given for his liberation; but all the authorities in
New York were immediately applied to—governor, legislature,
supreme court, local court—all in vain: and then the United States
assumed his defence, and sent the Attorney-General, Mr. Crittenden,
to manage his defence, and General Scott, of the United States
army, to protect him from popular violence; and hastened to lay all
their steps before the British minister as fast as they were taken.
The acquittal of McLeod was honorable to the jury that gave it;
and his trial was honorable to the judge, who, while asserting the
right to try the man, yet took care that the trial should be fair. The
judges of the Supreme Court (Bronson, Nelson, and Cowan) refused
the habeas corpus which would take him out of the State: the Circuit
judge gave him a fair trial. It was satisfactory to the British; and put
an end to their complaint against us: unhappily it seemed to put an
end to our complaint against them. All was postponed for a future
general treaty—the invasion of territory, the killing of citizens, the
arson of the boat, the impressment and abduction of a supposed
British subject—all, all were postponed to the day of general
settlement: and when that day came all were given up.
The conduct of the administration in the settlement of the affair
became a subject of discussion in both Houses of Congress, and was
severely censured by the democracy, and zealously defended by the
whigs. Mr. Charles Jared Ingersoll, after a full statement of the
extraordinary and successful efforts of the administration of Mr. Van
Buren to prevent any aid to the insurgents from the American side,
proceeded to say:

70. "Notwithstanding, however, every exertion that could be and
was made, it was impossible altogether to prevent some
outbreaks, and among the rest a parcel of some seventy or
eighty Canadians, as I have understood, with a very few
Americans, took possession of a place near the Canadian shore,
called Navy Island, and fortified themselves in defiance of
British power. If I have not been misinformed there were not
more than eight or ten Americans among them. An American
steamboat supplied them with a cannon and perhaps other
munitions of war: for I have no disposition to diminish whatever
was the full extent of American illegality, but, in this statement
of the premises, desire to present the argument with the most
unreserved concessions. I am discussing nothing as the member
of a party. I consider the Secretary of State as the
representative of his government and country. I desire to be
understood as not intending to say one word against that
gentleman as an individual; as meaning to avoid every thing like
personality, and addressing myself to the position he has
assumed for the country, without reference to whether he is
connected with one administration or another; viewing this as a
controversy between the United States and a foreign
government, in which all Americans should be of one party,
acknowledging no distinction between the acts of Mr. Forsyth
and Mr. Webster, but considering the whole affair, under both
the successive administrations, as one and indivisible; and on
many points, I believe this country is altogether of one and the
same sentiment concerning this controversy. It seems to be
universally agreed that British pirates as they were, as I will
show according to the strictest legal definition of the term, in
the dead of night, burglariously invaded our country, murdered
at least one of our unoffending fellow-citizens, were guilty of the
further crime of arson by burning what was at least the
temporary dwelling of a number of persons asleep in a
steamboat moored to the wharf, and finally cutting her loose,
carried her into the middle of the stream, where, by romantic
atrocity, unexampled in the annals of crime, they sent her over

71. the Falls of Niagara, with how many persons in her, God only
will ever know.
"Now Mr. Speaker, this, in its national aspect, was precisely
the same as if perpetrated in your house or mine, and should be
resented and punished accordingly. Some time afterwards one
of the perpetrators, named McLeod, in a fit of that sort of
infatuation with which Providence mostly betrays the guilty,
strayed over from Canada to the American shore, like a fool, as
he was, and there was soon arrested and imprisoned by that
popular police, which is always on the alert to administer justice
upon malefactors. First proceeded against, as it appears, for
civil redress for the loss of the vessel, he was soon after indicted
by the appropriate grand jury, and has remained ever since in
custody, awaiting the regular administration of justice. Guilty or
innocent, however, there he was, under the ægis of the law of
the sovereign State of New York, with the full protection of
every branch of the government of that State, when the present
administration superseded the last, and the first moment after
the late President's inauguration was ungenerously seized by
the British minister to present the new Secretary of State with a
letter containing the insolent, threatening, and insufferable
language which I am about to read from it:
"'The undersigned is instructed to demand from the
government of the United States, formally, in the name of the
British government, the immediate release of Mr. Alexander
McLeod. The transaction in question may have been, as her
Majesty's government are of opinion that it was, a justifiable
employment of force for the purpose of defending the British
territory from the unprovoked attack of a band of British rebels
and American pirates, who, having been permitted to arm and
organize themselves within the territory of the United States,
had actually invaded and occupied a portion of the territory of
her Majesty; or it may have been, as alleged by Mr. Forsyth, in
his note to the undersigned of the 26th of December, a most

72. unjustifiable invasion in time of peace, of the territory of the
United States.'"
"Finally, after a tissue of well elaborated diplomatic
contumely, the very absurdity of part of which, in the application
of the term pirates to the interfering Americans, is
demonstrated by Mr. Webster—the British minister reiterates,
towards the conclusion of his artfully insulting note—that 'be
that as it may, her Majesty's government formally demands,
upon the grounds already stated, the immediate release of Mr.
McLeod; and her Majesty's government entreats the President
of the United States—I pray the House to mark the sarcasm of
this offensive entreaty—to take into his deliberate consideration
the serious nature of the consequences which must ensue from
a rejection of this demand.'
"Taken in connection with all the actual circumstances of the
case—the tone of the British press, both in England and
Canada, the language of members in both Houses of
Parliament, and the palpable terms of Mr. Fox's letter itself, it is
impossible, I think, not to see we cannot wink so hard as not to
perceive that Mr. Fox's is a threatening letter. It surprises me
that this should have been a subject of controversy in another
part of this building, while I cannot doubt that Mr. Webster was
perfectly satisfied of the menacing aspect of the first letter he
received from the British minister. Anxious—perhaps laudably
anxious—to avoid a quarrel so very unpromising at the very
outset of a new administration, he seems to have shut his eyes
to what must flash in every American face. And here was his
first mistake; for his course was perfectly plain. He had nothing
to do but, by an answer in the blandest terms of diplomatic
courtesy, to send back the questionable phrases to Mr. Fox, with
a respectful suggestion that they looked to him as if conveying a
threat; that he hoped not, he believed not; he trusted for the
harmony of their personal relations, and the peace of their
respective nations, that he was laboring under a mistake; but he
could not divest his mind of the impression, that there were in

73. this note of Mr. Fox, certain phrases which, in all controversies
among gentlemen as well as nations, inevitably put an end to
further negotiation. Mr. Fox must have answered negatively or
affirmatively, and the odious indignity which now rankles in the
breast of at least a large proportion of the country, interpreting
it as the meaning of the British communication, would have
been avoided. Mr. Webster had Mr. Fox absolutely in the hollow
of his hand. He had an opportunity of enlisting the manly feeling
of all his countrymen, the good will of right-minded Englishmen
themselves, to a firm and inoffensive stand like this, on the
threshold of the correspondence. Why he did not, is not for me
to imagine. With no feeling of personal disparagement to that
gentleman, I charge this as an obvious, a capital, and a
deplorable lapse from the position he should have assumed, in
his very first attitude towards the British minister.
"The British argument addressed to him was, that 'the
transaction in question was a justifiable employment of public
force, with the sanction, or by order of the constituted
authorities of a State, engaging individuals in military or naval
enterprises in their country's cause, when it would be contrary
to the universal practice of civilized nations to fix individual
responsibility upon the persons engaged.' This, as I do not
hesitate to pronounce it, false assumption of law, is, at once,
conceded by Mr. Webster, in the remarkable terms, that the
'government of the United States,' by which he must mean
himself, entertains no doubt of the asserted British principle. Mr.
Webster had just before said, that 'the President is not certain
that he understands precisely the meaning intended to be
conveyed by her Majesty's government,' 'which doubt,' he adds,
'has occasioned with the President some hesitation.' Thus while
the President entertained a doubt, the government entertained
no doubt at all; which I cannot understand, otherwise, than that
while the President hesitated to concede, the Secretary of State
had no hesitation whatever to concede at once the whole British
assumption, and surrender at discretion the whole American

74. case. For where is the use of Mr. Webster's posterior, elaborated
argument, when told by the British minister that this transaction
was justifiable, and informed by the public prints that at a very
early day, one of the British Secretaries, Lord John Russell,
declared in open Parliament that the British government justified
what is called the transaction of McLeod. The matter was ended
before Mr. Webster set his powerful mind to produce an
argument on the subject. The British crown had taken its
position. Mr. Webster knew it had; and he may write the most
elegant and pathetic letters till doomsday, with no other effect
than to display the purity of his English to admiring fellow-
citizens, and the infirmity of his argument to Great Britain and
the world. By asserting the legal position which they assume,
and justifying the transaction, together with Mr. Webster's
concession of their legal position, the transaction is settled.
Nothing remains to be done. Mr. Webster may write about it if
he will, but Mr. Fox and the British minister hold the written
acknowledgment of the American Secretary of State, that the
affair is at an end. I call this, sir, a terrible mistake, a fatal
blunder, irrecoverable, desperate, leaving us nothing but Mr.
Webster's dreadful alternative of cold-blooded, endless,
causeless war.
"Our position is false, extremely and lamentably false. The
aggrieved party, as we are, and bound to insist upon redress, to
require the punishment of McLeod, Drew, and McNab, and the
other pirates who destroyed the Caroline, we have been brought
to such a reverse of the true state of things, as to be menaced
with the wrong-doer's indignation, unless we yield every thing. I
care not whose fault it is, whether of this administration or that.
In such an affair I consider both the present and the past, as
presenting one and the same front to one and the same
assailant. I cannot refrain, however, from saying, that whatever
may have been our position, it has been greatly deteriorated by
Mr. Webster's unfortunate concession.

75. "Never did man lose a greater occasion than Mr. Webster cast
away, for placing himself and his country together, upon a
pinnacle of just renown. Great Britain had humbled France,
conquered Egypt, subdued vast tracts of India, and invaded the
distant empire of China—there was nothing left but our
degradation, to fill the measure of her glory, if it consists in such
achievements; and she got it by merely demanding, without
expecting it. And why have we yielded? Was there any occasion
for it? Did she intend to realize her threat? Were the
consequences which Mr. Webster was entreated to take into his
consideration, the immediate and exterminating warfare, servile
war and all, which belligerent newspapers, peers, and other
such heralds of hostilities have proclaimed? No such thing. We
may rely, I think, with confidence, upon the common good
sense of the English nation, not to rush at once upon such
extremities, and for such a cause. Mr. Fox took Mr. Webster in
the melting mood, and conquered by a threat; that is to say,
conquered for the moment; because the results, at some distant
day, unless his steps are retraced, will and must be
estrangement between kindred nations, and cold-blooded
hostilities. I have often thought, Mr. Speaker, that this affair of
McLeod is what military men call a demonstration, a feint, a
false attack, to divert us from the British design on the State of
Maine; of which I trust not one inch will ever be given up. And
truly, when we had the best cause in the world, and were the
most clearly in the right, it has been contrived, some how or
other, to put us in false position, upon the defensive, instead of
the offensive, and to perplex the plainest case with vexatious
complication and concession."
The latter part of this speech was prophetic—that which related to
the designs on the State of Maine. Successful in this experiment of
the most efficacious means for the release of McLeod, the British
ministry lost no time in making another trial of the same experiment,
on the territory of that State—and again successfully: but of this in
its proper place. Mr. John Quincy Adams, and Mr. Caleb Cushing,

76. were the prominent defenders of the administration policy in the
House of Representatives—resting on the point that the destruction
of the Caroline was an act of war. Mr. Adams said:
"I take it that the late affair of the Caroline was in hostile
array against the British government, and that the parties
concerned in it were employed in acts of war against it: and I
do not subscribe to the very learned opinion of the chief justice
of the State of New York (not, I hear, the chief justice, but a
judge of the Supreme Court of that State), that there was no
act of war committed. Nor do I subscribe to it that every nation
goes to war only on issuing a declaration or proclamation of
war. This is not the fact. Nations often wage war for years,
without issuing any declaration of war. The question is not here
upon a declaration of war, but acts of war. And I say that in the
judgment of all impartial men of other nations, we shall be held
as a nation responsible; that the Caroline, there, was in a state
of war against Great Britain; for purposes of war, and the worst
kind of war—to sustain an insurrection; I will not say rebellion,
because rebellion is a crime, and because I heard them talked
of as patriots."
Mr. Cushing said:
"It is strange enough that the friends of Mr. Van Buren should
deny that the attack on the Caroline was an act of war. I reply
to them not only by exhibiting the reason and the principle of
the thing, but by citing the authority of their own President. I
hold in my hand a copy of the despatch addressed by Mr.
Stevenson to Lord Palmerston, under the direction of Mr. Van
Buren, making demand of reparation for the destruction of the
Caroline, and in that despatch, which has been published, Mr.
Stevenson pursues the only course he could pursue; he
proceeds to prove the hostile nature of the act by a full
exhibition of facts, and concludes and winds up the whole with
declaring in these words: 'The case then is one of open,

77. undisguised, and unwarrantable hostility.' After this, let no one
complain of Mr. Webster for having put the case of the Caroline
on the same precise ground which Mr. Van Buren had assumed
for it, and which, indeed, is the only ground upon which the
United States could undertake to hold the British government
responsible. And when the gentleman from Pennsylvania is
considering the first great negotiation of Mr. Webster, how does
he happen to forget the famous, or rather infamous, first great
negotiation undertaken by Mr. Van Buren? And is it not an act of
mere madness on the part of the friends of Mr. Van Buren, to
compel us to compare the two? Here is a despatch before us,
addressed in a controversy between the United States and Great
Britain, containing one of the ablest vindications of the honor
and integrity of the United States that ever was written. Mr. Van
Buren began, also, with the discussion of the question between
us and Great Britain. And in what spirit?—that of a patriot, a
man of honor, and an American? Is not that despatch, on the
contrary, a monument of ignominy in the history of the United
States? Instead of maintaining the interests of this country, did
not Mr. Van Buren, on that occasion, utterly sacrifice them? Did
he not dictate in that despatch, a disposition of the great
question of the colony trade between the United States and
Great Britain, which, from that time to this, has proved most
disastrous in its effects on the commercial and navigating
interests of the United States? And pernicious as was the object
of the despatch, was not the spirit of it infinitely worse? in
which, for the first time, party quarrels of the people of the
United States were carried into our foreign affairs—in which a
preceding administration was impliedly reproached for the zeal
with which it had defended our interests—in which it was
proclaimed that the new administration started in the world with
a set purpose of concession toward Great Britain—in which the
honor of the United States was laid prostrate at the foot of the
British throne, and the proud name of America, to sustain which
our fathers had carried on a first and a second war, as we may
have to do a third—that glory which the arms of our enemy

78. could not reach, was, in this truckling despatch, laid low for the
first, and, I trust in God, the last time, before the lion of
England."
The ground taken by Mr. Adams and Mr. Cushing for the defence
of Mr. Webster (for they seemed to consider him, and no doubt truly,
as the whole administration in this case) was only shifting the
defence from one bad ground to another. The war ground they
assumed could only apply between Great Britain and the insurgents:
she had no war with the United States: the attack on the Caroline
was an invasion of the territory of a neutral power—at peace with
the invader. That is a liberty not allowed by the laws of nations—not
allowed by the concern which any nation, even the most
inconsiderable, feels for its own safety, and its own self-respect. A
belligerent party cannot enter the territory of a neutral, even in fresh
pursuit of an enemy. No power allows it. That we have seen in our
own day, in the case of the Poles, in their last insurrection, driven
across the Austrian frontier by the Russians; and the pursuers
stopped at the line, and the fugitive Poles protected the instant they
had crossed it: and in the case of the late Hungarian revolt, in which
the fugitive Hungarians driven across the Turkish frontier, were
protected from pursuit. The Turks protected them, Mahometans as
they were; and would not give up fugitive Christians to a Christian
power; and afterwards assisted the fugitives to escape to Great
Britain and the United States. The British then had no right to invade
the United States even in fresh pursuit of fugitive belligerents: but
the Caroline and crew were not belligerents. She was an American
ferry-boat carrying men and supplies to the insurgents, but she was
not a combatant. And if she had been—had been a war-vessel
belonging to the insurgents, and fighting for them, she could not be
attacked in a neutral port. The men on board of her were not
Canadian insurgents, but American citizens, amenable to their own
country for any infraction of her neutrality laws: and if they had
been Canadian insurgents they could not have been seized on
American soil; nor even demanded under the extradition clause in
the treaty of 1796, even if in force. It did not extend to political

79. offences, either of treason or war. It only applied to the common law
offences of murder and forgery. How contradictory and absurd then
to claim a right to come and take by violence, what could not be
demanded under any treaty or the law of nations. No power gives up
a political fugitive. Strong powers protect them openly, while they
demean themselves orderly: weak powers get them to go away
when not able to protect them. None give them up—not even the
weakest. All the countries of Europe—the smallest kingdom, the
most petty principality, the feeblest republic, even San Marino—scorn
to give up a political fugitive, and though unable to chastise, never
fail to resent any violation of its territory to seize them. We alone,
and in the case of the Caroline, acknowledge the right of Great
Britain to invade our territory, seize and kill American citizens
sleeping under the flag of their country, to cut out an American
vessel moored in our port, and send her in flames over the Falls of
Niagara. We alone do that! but we have done it but once! and
history places upon it the stigma of opprobrium.
Mr. William O. Butler of Kentucky, replied to Mr. Cushing, especially
to his rehash of the stale imputations, worn out at the time of Mr.
Van Buren's senatorial rejection as minister to Great Britain, and
said:
"He expected from the gentleman a discussion on national
law; but how much was he astonished the next day, on reading
his speech in the Intelligencer, and finding him making a most
virulent attack on the conduct and reputation of Mr. Van Buren.
The gentleman referred to the letter of instructions of Mr. Van
Buren to our Minister at the Court of St. James, and compared it
with the instructions of Mr. Webster to the Attorney-general;
speaking of the latter as breathing the statesman and patriot
throughout, while he characterizes the former as infamous. Mr.
B. said he would not repeat the harsh and offensive terms in
which the gentleman had spoken of Mr. Van Buren's letter; he
would read what the gentleman said from his printed speech, in
order that the House might see the length to which his

80. invectives were carried. [Here Mr. B. read extracts from Mr.
Cushing's speech.] The gentleman spoke of comparing the two
letters together. But did he think of comparing the thing we
complain of with the thing he complains of? No: that would be
next to madness. The gentleman shrinks from that comparison,
and goes on to compare not the thing we complain of with the
letter of Mr. Van Buren, but the beautiful composition of Mr.
Webster, written forty days after complying with the British
minister's insulting demands, and intended to cover over the
instructions to Mr. Crittenden, after which he characterizes Mr.
Van Buren's letter as a monument of ignominy. Now Mr. B. said
he would make the same reply that a dignified farmer of
Kentucky did to a lawyer. The lawyer prosecuted the farmer for
a slander, and in the course of the trial took occasion to heap on
him all the abuse and invective of which the Billingsgate
vocabulary is capable. Yet the jury, without leaving their box,
pronounced a verdict of acquittal. The verdict of an honest and
intelligent jury, said the farmer, is a sufficient answer to all your
abuse. Just so it was with Mr. Van Buren. His letter had made a
great noise in the country; had been extensively circulated and
read, and had been assailed with the utmost virulence by the
opposite party. Yet the highest jury on earth, the American
people, had pronounced the acquittal of Mr. Van Buren by
electing him to the Chief Magistracy. The gentleman complained
that the patriotism of Mr. Webster not only had been assailed,
but that the gentleman from Pennsylvania had had the temerity
to attack that most beautiful of letters which the patriotic
Secretary wrote to Mr. Fox. Now he (Mr. B.) would admit that it
was a beautiful piece of composition, and he knew of but one
that would compare with it, and that was the proclamation of
General Hull, just before surrendering the Northwestern army to
the British."
The friends of Mr. Webster had a fashion of extolling his intellect
when his acts were in question; and on no occasion was that fashion
more largely indulged in than on the present one. His letter,

81. superscribed to Mr. Fox—brought out for home consumption forty
days after the satisfactory answer had been given—was exalted to
the skies for the harmony of its periods, the beauty of its
composition, the cogency of its reasons! without regarding the
national honor and interest which it let down into the mud and mire;
and without considering that the British imperious demand required
in the answer to it, nerve as well as head—and nerve most. It was a
case for an iron will, more than for a shining intellect: and iron will
was not the strong side of Mr. Webster's character. His intellect was
great—his will small. His pursuits were civil and intellectual; and he
was not the man, with a goose quill in his hand, to stand up against
the British empire in arms. Throughout the debate, in both Houses
of Congress, the answer to Mr. Fox was treated by Mr. Webster's
friends, as his own; and, no doubt, justly—his supremacy as a jurist
being so largely deferred to.
The debate in the House was on the adoption of a resolution
offered by Mr. John G. Floyd, of New York, calling on the President
for information in relation to the steps taken to aid the liberation of
McLeod; and the fate of the resolution was significant of the temper
of the House—a desire to get rid of the subject without a direct vote.
It was laid upon the table by a good majority—110 to 70. The nays,
being those who were for prosecuting the inquiry, were:
Messrs. Archibald H. Arrington, Charles G. Atherton, Linn
Banks, Henry W. Beeson, Benjamin A. Bidlack, Samuel S.
Bowne, Linn Boyd, Aaron V. Brown, Charles Brown, Edmund
Burke, Reuben Chapman, James G. Clinton, Walter Coles,
Edward Cross, John R. J. Daniel, Richard D. Davis, Ezra Dean,
William Doan, Andrew W. Doig, Ira A. Eastman, John C.
Edwards, Charles G. Ferris, John G. Floyd, Charles A. Floyd,
Joseph Fornance, James Gerry, William O. Goode, Samuel
Gordon, William A. Harris, John Hastings, Samuel L. Hays, Isaac
E. Holmes, Jacob Houck, jr., George S. Houston, Edmund W.
Hubard, Charles J. Ingersoll, William Jack, Cave Johnson, John
W. Jones, George M. Keim, Abraham McClellan, Robert

82. McClellan, James J. McKay, John McKeon, Albert G. Marchand,
Alfred Marshall, John Thompson Mason, James Mathews,
William Medill, John Miller, Christopher Morgan, Peter Newhard,
William Parmenter, Samuel Patridge, William W. Payne, Arnold
Plumer, John Reynolds, Lewis Riggs, Tristram Shaw, John
Snyder, Lewis Steenrod, George Sweeny, Thomas A. Tomlinson,
Hopkins L. Turney, John Van Buren, Aaron Ward, Harvey M.
Watterson, John Westbrook, James W. Williams, Henry A. Wise,
Fernando Wood.
The same subject was largely debated in the Senate—among
others by Mr. Benton—some extracts from whose speech will
constitute the next chapter.

83. Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
ebookbell.com