Facial Feedback Hypothesis

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The facial feedback hypothesis states that facial muscle movements influence one's own emotional experience. For example, people who are encouraged to smile during an event are likely to find the event more positive and enjoyable in hindsight than people who have raised their eyebrows.

Scientific studies (Strack et al., 1988) show that emotions are initiated and modulated by facial muscle movements. However, there is no need for facial movements for emotions (example: poker face ). Previous research (Buck, 1980; McCanne et al., 1987) mainly uses two facial expressions to test facial feedback theory: the happy and the angry / angry facial expressions. With a happy facial expression, the "Zygomaticus major" and the "Risorius" muscles are activated. The annoyed / angry facial expression is caused by the activity of the "Corrugator" muscle and the "Orbicularis oris" muscle.

Emergence

Charles Darwin
William James

Charles Darwin contributed significantly to the development of the facial feedback theory by postulating in 1872 that the promotion or inhibition of an emotion expression influenced the intensity of the emotion felt. William James added a physical component to this theory in 1890 by claiming that physical changes, including facial movements, were emotions. According to James, the changes in the body are then followed by the subjective experience of emotions.

Based on these two hypotheses, the following versions of the facial feedback hypothesis were created:

  1. The weak version: Facial feedback strengthens or weakens the experience of an already used emotion.
  2. The strong version: Facial feedback creates the full emotion.

Ambiguities

Despite specific research since around 1970, there is still uncertainty and disagreement about how facial expressions affect emotional responses. A basic distinction can be made between two explanatory approaches:

  1. The approach of the conscious cognitive process according to Laird (1974) states that the physical reaction, i.e. muscle activation, takes place first. After the conscious self-perception of the emotion expression, a cognitive inference takes place, which says, for example, "I smile, therefore I am happy". This cognitive processing then ultimately triggers the emotion (here: joy).
  2. The approach of the unconscious physiological processes states that an unconscious process is set in motion by the facial expression, which links the experience of facial muscle activation with the experience of the emotion and thus evokes the emotion (Zajonc, 1989).

Strack, Martin and Steppers methodical approach

Fritz Strack and his colleagues developed a new manipulation to correct methodological shortcomings of previous studies. This only included the contraction of facial muscles and not, as before, the imitation of facial expressions.

The manipulation involved three experimental groups:

The subjects of the "teeth condition" were asked to hold a pencil only with their teeth, not with their lips, which resulted in the contraction of the zygomaticus major and risorius muscles . These muscles are involved in a smiling facial expression. The test subjects of the "lip condition" were asked to hold a pencil only with their lips, not with their teeth, which caused the orbicularis oris muscle to contract . This muscle activity is incompatible with a smiling expression. The control group should complete the tasks with the pen in their non-dominant hand. With the special pen-holding technique, everyone was supposed to assess, among other things, how funny comics were.

The results show that subjects with the “teeth condition” rated the comics as significantly more fun than subjects in the control group. These in turn judged the comics to be funnier than the people with the "lip condition". This result confirms the facial feedback hypothesis and shows that both reinforcing and inhibitory mechanisms are at work. New evidence shows that facial feedback only affects the affective (i.e., how amused you felt while viewing it) not the cognitive component (i.e., how funny the comics themselves are rated) of comedy. Furthermore, it could be shown that the influence of the manipulation can only be seen if the pen was held in the respective position both while viewing and assessing the comics. If the pen-holding technique was only used during the assessment, the opposite effect was found. Now test subjects who were actually in the inhibitory “lip condition” gave a more positive rating. The authors explain this contrast effect by the fact that the test subjects used the affect during the assessment as a reference for the reported affect while viewing the comics. For example, people who only held the pencil between their teeth during the evaluation were more positive during the evaluation. They probably inferred that they were less positive while watching the comics (No smile-enhancing pen hold). This leads to the more negative assessment of the comics in this condition.

Study by Ito et al.

The spreading attitude effect

A process of indirect conditioning in which a positive or negative, unconditioned stimulus affects not only the evaluation of the conditioned stimulus that is directly paired with the US, but also the evaluation of other stimuli that were only previously associated with the conditioned stimulus.

study

The authors suspect that the well-known preference of Americans for white versus black faces was caused by a face configuration task based on the method of Strack et al. (1988) can be influenced: In two studies by Ito et al. (2006), test subjects were shown photographs of black or white faces under a pretext, while they were using either the face configurations according to Strack et al. (1988) ingested: You bit a pencil with your teeth without touching the lips (contraction of the zygomaticus major, which is also activated when you smile) or without manipulation. Implicit biases were then measured using the Implicit Association Test (IAT) and explicit biases using the Attitudes Toward Blacks Scale.

Participants who took the smile-congruent facial configuration while they saw black faces, implicitly (in the IAT) rated them significantly less negative than test subjects who showed the facial configuration while they saw white faces. Both the explicit assessment by the ATB and the assessment of well-being by the PANAS , however, remained unchanged: the test subjects did not feel happier. This indicates that facial feedback has a greater effect on implicit than on explicit prejudice.

Critical discussion

The study by Strack et al. (1988) supports the facial feedback hypothesis and shows that a manipulation of the purely physical muscle activity can influence the emotional experience. Ito et al. (2006) show that this manipulation can lead to a changed assessment of other people without affecting one's own emotional experience.

Strack et al.

Methodologically, to Strack et al. (1988) it should be noted that it has not been conclusively clarified what influence the pure duration of “holding the pen” has on the results. Processes such as accessibility bias could also have an impact. The idea behind this is that the contraction of the muscles is linked to the cognitive construct of emotion, activates it and makes it more accessible in the further course.

Ito et al.

In Ito et al. (2006) is a relatively artificial experimental setup, the general applicability of which has yet to be proven in the everyday world. On the basis of their data, no information can be given about the influence of the change in the implicit racial bias on behavior. However, if it turns out that it is possible to manipulate ethnic prejudices through the contraction of the facial muscles, this would be an important finding for two reasons: Firstly, this would be a methodologically relevant indication that implicit biases are less stable than previously assumed. Second, it could be used in application projects that aim to break down prejudices and stereotypes.

Further research questions

Further research is required, for example, for the following research questions : Do feedback processes also show up with other emotions such as B. Trouble? How does the underlying neural processing work and what role do mirror neurons play in this ? How does facial feedback relate to findings that indicate that people have a tendency to automatically mimic others? Can the interaction of automatic imitation and facial feedback processes explain empathy or the social learning of emotions? Research on the facial feedback hypothesis has contributed important findings to experimental emotion research and offers many research ideas for the future.

Replication attempts

In terms of the increasingly important reproducibility of study results in psychology , the facial feedback hypothesis was tested in a large-scale replication project. The experiment by Strack et al. (1988 ) repeated on the basis of 17 direct replications (i.e. following a standardized experimental protocol). The effect originally reported in Strack et al. (1998) could not be replicated. As a result, the validity of the facial feedback hypothesis is controversial. In the following years, however, it could be clarified why the findings of Strack et al. (1988) could not be replicated. This is mainly due to the fact that Wagenmakers et al. (2016) pointed a camera at the test subjects, which had a direct influence on the judgment processes. This is confirmed by Noah, Mayo and Schul (2018) by experimenting with varying camera usage and finding that the original effect replicates without a camera while disappearing under the camera condition. In addition, a meta-analysis was published in 2019 which confirmed the validity of the facial feedback hypothesis. Subsequent studies provide further evidence.

See also

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Strack, F, Martin, L. L & Stepper, S. (1988). Inhibiting and Facilitating Conditions of the Human Smile: A Nonobtrusive Test of the Facial Feedback Hypothesis, Journal of Personality an Social Psychology, 54, 768-777.
  2. ↑ Buck, R. (1980). Nonverbal behavior and the theory of emotion: the facial feedback hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 811-824.
  3. ↑ McCanne, TR & Anderson, JA (1987). Emotional responding following experimental manipulation of facial electromyographic activity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 759-768.
  4. ^ Laird, JD (1974). Self-attribution of emotion: The effects of expressive behavior on the quality of emotional experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 475-486.
  5. ^ Zajonc, RB, Murphy, ST & Inglehart, M. (1989). Feeling and facial efference: Implications for the vascular theory of emotion Psychological Review, 96, 395-416.
  6. ↑ Ito, TA, Chiao, KW, Devine, PG, Lorig, TS, & Cacioppo, TT (2006). The Influence of Facial Feedback on Race Bias. Psychological Science, 17, 256-261. doi : 10.1111 / j.1467-9280.2006.01694 .
  7. ↑ Wagenmakers, E.-J., Beek, T., Dijkhoff, L., Gronau, QF, Acosta, A., Adams, RB, Jr., Albohn, DN, Allard, ES, Benning, SD, Blouin-Hudon , E.-M., Bulnes, LC, Caldwell, TL, Calin-Jageman, RJ, Capaldi, CA, Carfagno, NS, Chasten, KT, Cleeremans, A., Connell, L., DeCicco, JM, Dijkstra, K ., Fischer, AH, Foroni, F., Hess, U., Holmes, KJ, Jones, JLH, Klein, O., Koch, C., Korb, S., Lewinski, P., Liao, JD, Lund, S., Lupiáñez, J., Lynott, D., Nance, CN, Oosterwijk, S., Özdoğru, AA, Pacheco-Unguetti, AP, Pearson, B., Powis, C., Riding, S., Roberts, T .-A., Rumiati, RI, Senden, M., Shea-Shumsky, NB, Sobocko, K., Soto, JA, Steiner, TG, Talarico, JM, van Allen, ZM, Vandekerckhove, M., Wainwright, B ., Wayand, JF, Zeelenberg, R., Zetzer, EE, Zwaan, RA (2016). Registered Replication Report: Strack, Martin, & Stepper (1988). Perspectives on Psychological Science. Manuscript submitted for publication. PDF
  8. ↑ Sad Face. Another classic finding in psychology — that you can smile to happiness — just blew up. Is it time to panic yet? Retrieved October 5, 2016 .
  9. ↑ Noah, T., Schul, Y., & Mayo, R. (2018). When both the original study and its failed replication are correct: Feeling observed eliminates the facial feedback effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114 (5), 657.
  10. ↑ Coles, NA, Larsen, JT, & Lench, HC (2019). A meta-analysis of the facial feedback literature: Effects of facial feedback on emotional experience are small and variable. Psychological Bulletin, 145 (6), 610-651.
  11. ^ Marsh, AA, Rhoads, SA, & Ryan, RM (2018). A multi-semester classroom demonstration yields evidence in support of the facial feedback effect. Emotion, 19 (8), 1500-1504.