PSY331 - 5. Facial Expression Flashcards
The Origin of Facial Expressions
All humans have same facial muscles and nerves that control them.
darwin noticed facial expressions were shared by different species
The Origin of Facial Expressions
Independent motor systems:
i. Subcortical (extrapyramidal): automatic
ii. Cortical (pyramidal): control - more implicated in cultural differences
A. Measuring Facial Expressions
Strategic smiles (social smiles) - fake smiles
zygomaticus major
Duchenne smile (enjoyment smile) - true smile of happiness
zygomaticus major + orbicularis oculi
Facial Affect Scoring Technique (FAST)
77 descriptors from three parts of the face
Describe facial movements
pictures of three parts of the face
Facial Affect Scoring Technique (FAST)
surprise: should have up eyebrows, open eyes, gaping mouth
judgement approach: use prototypical components of facial expression
Facial Affect Scoring Technique (FAST)
limitation: No measure of intensity/facial changes over time
static procedure
Facial Action Coding System (FACS)
Anatomically based coding system based on minimal
facial muscle actions involved in expressions
minute muscular movement
Facial Action Coding System (FACS)
so other ppl can replicate study
coding for intensity and movement and time course
way eyes are looking
Provides 44 facial action units (AUs)
Judgment approach
Can an observer determine others’ emotions from their facial expression? innate or learned?
Judgment approach
if everyone is making same expression then it should be nature, not nurture
way easier
accurate when agree on emotion greater than chance
Darwin’s thesis of universality
must be adaptive functioning
evolution wasn’t the norm back then
over time, seeing that all cultures are able to discern emotion
born deaf or blind show same facial expressions
Ekman – cross-cultural judgment approach research
asked what is happening in this picture; look at this pic, what are they feeling (open or scenario based)
across cultures, even with no contact, same expressions
B. Nature vs. Culture
Different patterns of brain activation when perceiving
distinct facial expressions
we’re noticing diff in diff configurations of face
even if diff race (europeans), they recognized it
Nature vs. Culture
- All stimuli at once: compare/contrast - inflating differentiation ability
- Strong, conventional, + prototypical: not often showing this emotion, overstating how well we can disambiguate
Nature vs. Culture
- Implies mutual exclusivity: removes possibility there is more than 1 - able to use process for elimination
- Does not allow “not on this list”/“situationally dependent”
Nature vs. Culture
- Standard chance level questionable: only 1 positive emotion, changes are increased
deflated chance level, stimuli showed 1 at a time, added not on this list = still same findings
Frank and Stennett (2001)
Used modified forced-choice format with “none of these terms is correct” option
chose none of the above
second study, removed “correct” facial expression from list
Frank and Stennett (2001)
In another study, added additional plausible labels:
alarmed, bored, contempt, and excited
still correctly recognized
Nature vs. Culture
Typical procedures might underestimate ppl’s ability to interpret emotional expression
notice bunch of things: tears, posture, tone of voice, smell
Adams and Kleck (2003)
showed different eye positions
better at discerning fear when looking away from us, because not likely looking at us when they are scared
Nature vs. Culture: Haidt and Keltner (1999)
American and Indian samples
Identified 14 facial expressions using own words & forced-choice procedure
Nature vs. Culture
Included extra facial expressions: embarrassment,
shame, compassion, amusement, tongue biting, face
covering, and gaping.
seven ekman expressions
anger, fear, happiness, sadness, disgust, surprise, contempt
Haidt and Keltner (1999)
ppl are discerning anger, disgust, happiness, surprise, sadness
not as problematic as thought to be
Nature vs. Culture
In-group advantage - more accuracy when viewing
members of same culture
Cultural differences in display rules - cultural rules
about expressing emotions
Nature vs. Culture
women allowed to show sadness
who you’re allowed to show emotions to
Nature vs. Culture: Interactionist perspective
Strong innate component for several facial expressions of emotions
Cultural rules influence which facial expression individuals exhibit
interaction of nature and nurture
Nature vs. The Purpose of Facial Expressions: Emotion-Expression View
just release of muscle energy
displays of internal states of emotion
ekman: natural reaction to emotion
The Purpose of Facial Expressions: Emotion-Expression View
distinct facial expression for eeg, F.A.C.T.S
pleasant/negative stimuli - seperate muscle movements
The Purpose of Facial Expressions
-
The Purpose of Facial Expressions: Behavioural Ecology View
Functions: Informative (e.g., emotional state, behavioural intentions, relational status)
Evocative: how other ppl treat you (e.g., others’ anger - avoidance; fear - approach)
The Purpose of Facial Expressions
Incentive (i.e., respond to demands/opportunities in
the environment)
Video
can’t control facial expressions
concentrating on video games
Individuals Smiling While Bowling
facing others: smiling even when they get a bad score
social effect on emotions
% Fans Smiling While Watching Hockey
even in bad play smile with others
% Pedestrians Smiling
social reason for showing facial expression even when not in line with internal emotion
smile at strangers even in bad weather
Sociality and Facial Expressions
Chovil (1991) Ps learned “close call” stories: on an audiotape in the same room, but sitting behind a screen over the telephone face-to-face
Sociality and Facial Expressions
Expression of social smiles increases with sociality, but
reported feelings of enjoyment do not increase
Sociality and Facial Expressions
least to most amount of facial reaction
signals to others ppl
as sociality increases, more fake smiling we do
Emotion Recognition/Microexpressions
Emotion recognition ability linked to emotional intelligence
Ability to recognize microexpressions linked with lie
detection ability
Micro Expression Training Tool - shown to cops
Emotion Recognition/Microexpressions
can we leak out emotions we try to hide
emotional intelligence - awareness of emotions
see if we can catch ppl with their lie through leaks
want to lie, but facial expressions are coming out
Context in Emotion Recognition
context gives us indication of what emotion is shown
can change understanding of expression
Context in Emotion Recognition: Knudsen and Muzekari (1983)
Ps see sad facial expression; told person just received large increase in salary…
when they matched, more likely to agree that person was sad
Context in Emotion Recognition
Vulnerability to reinterpretation - when cues conflict,
reinterpret one to bring it in line
now they weren’t coming to a confident conclusion
could be lying
disambiguate by making sense of it based on context
understand emotion based on event
Context in Emotion Recognition: Thayer (1980)
Ps saw 5 pictures: 4 had same expression; last one was contrasting
Context in Emotion Recognition: Thayer (1980)
looks more sad after a bunch of happy ppl
we are interpreting facial expression based on context
seeing emotion in neutral face when you give them a contrast
Context in Emotion Recognition: Schiffbauer (1974)
Ps put into states of disgust, amusement, no emotion
Judged emotions in facial expressions in photos
Context in Emotion Recognition
when in disgusted state, they say disgust
your mood impacts how you see other ppl’s expressions
similar studies based on odour - pleasant or unpleasant
Context in Emotion Recognition: Niedenthal et al. (2000)
Ps put into happy, sad, no mood
Viewed faces going from happy/sad to neutral
Ps said when the face shifted to neutral
Niedenthal et al. (2000) Results
demarcation earlier when it matched your mood
takes longer for happy ppl to say happy face disappeared and shorter for sad ppl
IV. Facial Feedback Hypothesis
facial expressions can cause us to feel emotion
effects are always very small
A. Modulating hypothesis - influence intensity of felt emotion initiated by some stimulus
IV. Facial Feedback Hypothesis
B. Initiating hypothesis - generate corresponding
emotion when nothing in environment to induce emotion
no emotion to experiencing emotion by creating facial configution
Facial Feedback: Niedenthal et al. (2001)
Ps watched facial expressions morph into other
expressions + detected when expression changed
Facial Feedback: Niedenthal et al. (2001)
Some Ps allowed to mimic expressions
watched the face, mirror neurons allowed us to mimic
facial feedback to own brains
Facial Feedback: Niedenthal et al. (2001)
Others held a pencil in their mouths, stopping them
from mimicking the expressions
stopping ppl from mimicking slows them down from recognizing facial expression of other person
Facial Feedback – Measure
Amplification-suppression paradigm – exaggerate or conceal felt emotion
Muscle-to-muscle instruction paradigm – directly manipulate individuals’ face muscles
not telling them that they’re faking an emotion
for initiating hypothesis
Facial Feedback
lower eyelid: subcortical
if we can’t do them, then we can’t create emotion
for modulating you can use either
Modulating Hypothesis: Lanzetta, Cartwright-Smith, and Kleck (1976)
Received electric shocks of varying intensity
IV: Do nothing/suppress/amplify reaction to shocks
DV: Aversiveness of shock
Inhibition - decrease in arousal/self-reported painfulness of shocks
Amplification - increase
Modulating Hypothesis
can control pain
when tried to surpress, felt less pain
physiological symptoms showed ppl felt more pain when they showed more pain
Modulating Hypothesis: Laird (1974)
Ps contracted facial muscles involved in smiling/frowning while looking at slides:
Ku Klux Klan/kids playing
Smiling Ps - happier when viewing + slides
Frowning Ps fet angrier when viewing – slides
Modulating Hypothesis: Laird (1974)
angry: put electrodes between eyebrows
when put in happy expression - modulated happiness level when viewing slides
when in angry position more angry or less angry
Initiating Hypothesis: Duclos et al. (1989)
Ps contracted/relaxed facial muscles to make expressions of fear, anger, disgust, and sadness while listening to neutral tones (no emotion)
Rated emotions
Initiating Hypothesis
more fearful faces - felt fear
disgust - felt disgust
went from nothing to some kind of emotion
muscle to muscle paradigm
Initiating Hypothesis
Zajonc et al. (1989) - similar results pronouncing German vowels, such as ü and e
zajonc: e - happier/u - sadder
Flack, Laird, and Cavallaro (1999)
muscle to muscle paradigm - feel sad - rated sadness as higher only without elevating other emotions
muscle to muscle paradigm - reported elevated fear and surprise
Flack, Laird, and Cavallaro (1999)
muscle to muscle paradigm - higher than usual anger and also disgust
muscle to muscle paradigm - on avg ps reported greater happiness
Flack, Laird, and Cavallaro (1999)
=
Potential Mechanisms Behind Facial Feedback
Direct afferent feedback loop
feedback from facial muscles/skin link to motor cortex through afferent feedback loops
Activating one part of feedback loop influences rest Vascular theory of emotional efference (VTEE)
Potential Mechanisms Behind Facial Feedback
facial muscle activity regulates blood flow to brain, affecting brain temperature
Brain temperature affects neurotransmitter release emotional experience
Potential Mechanisms Behind Facial Feedback
-
Potential Mechanisms Behind Facial Feedback
-
Potential Mechanisms Behind Facial Feedback
Bem’s self-perception theory (1972)
Observe own behaviour and context to infer attitudes, preferences, feelings
Potential Mechanisms Behind Facial Feedback
Laird (1974) - use facial feedback cues through self-perception
Potential Mechanisms Behind Facial Feedback
=
Potential Mechanisms Behind Facial Feedback
Classical conditioning
expressions frequently paired with emotional state become conditioned to the state
Facial Feedback
Spinal cord injuries
Facial muscle paralysis
Facial Feedback
=
Facial Feedback
Möbius syndromeunable to smile
Botox (Hunnenlotter et al., 2009)
Facial Feedback
=