Upload
leda
View
33
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Low Recognition of Emotion from Spontaneous Facial Expressions of New Guineans. Pamela Naab & James Russell* Boston College. *Contact: [email protected]. Limitations of these studies: Small number of emotions studied Blends not included Results cannot specify whether - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Pamela Naab & James Russell*
Boston College Abstract
The current study (N=50) examined recognition from 20 spontaneous expressions from Papua New Guinea photographed, coded, and labeled by Ekman (1980). For the 16 faces with a single predicted label, average endorsement was 24.2%. For four faces with two predicted labels (blends), average endorsement was 38.8%. Spontaneous expressions do not achieve the level of recognition achieved by posed expressions.
IntroductionCan emotions be easily read from facial expressions? (e.g., Ekman, 1980; Tomkins, 1962; Izard, 1971).
Limitations of these studies:Small number of emotions studiedBlends not includedResults cannot specify whether
Emotions not translated into facial expressions in the first place? Or, could it be that observers failed to recognize the emotion?
The Study
Stimuli- Spontaneous facial expressions photographed, analyzed, and labeled by Paul Ekman (1980).
South Fore of Papua New GuineaIsolated from Western culture:
“There was an enormous advantage to being with a people who were not
camera-shy. They did not know what a camera did so they were not self-conscious about it, and much of
their social life was outdoors and easily seen” (Ekman, 1980, p.11).
Ekman (1980) labeled the emotion conveyed by each expression, based on:
Knowledge of the expresser’s situation Analysis of the facial muscle movements visible in the photograph
Emotions:Emotions: States:States: happiness anger contempt hesitationhappiness anger contempt hesitation sadness fear interest sadness fear interest perplexednessperplexedness surprise disgust embarrassment relaxationsurprise disgust embarrassment relaxation
Offered observers a greater than usual number of emotion labels
Included blended expressions
Ekman (1980) provided a clear prediction about the level of agreement to be expected:
“Since these pictures show universal facial expressions, the message conveyed by each face will usually be quite obvious. In the captions to the plates I have
added brief explanations of exactly how these emotions are registered on these faces (or for that matter,
any face)” (p. 11).
Method
Participants
50 Boston College undergraduates.
Materials
Facial expressions were shown as still black and white 5” x 7” photographs of 20 spontaneous facial expressions of members of the South Fore of New Guinea from Face of Man (Ekman, 1980).
Selection of Photographs- We selected facial expressions in an effort to include as many different emotions as possible.
Intensity Ratings. We asked whether there was a significant difference between the intensity ratings of Ekman’s predicted label and a comparison label
For 2 faces, Ekman’s term was selected most often For 8 faces, the comparison label was selected most oftenAnd the remaining 12 faces showed no differences
Consensus ScoringEndorsement of Modal Responses. Another measure of “recognition” sets aside the predicted label and simply relies on the modal response within this sample.
Modal response endorsement = 42.2%Chance = 8.3%.
Discussion
Low Recognition of discrete emotion from spontaneous facial expression raises questions about past research using posed expressions.
Endorsements were higher than chance, showing that our judges were not random.
Perhaps they were able to assess the positivity of an expression and select emotion labels based on those criteria.
Because recognition of emotion and non-emotion states (perplexed, hesitant, relaxed) did not differ, this suggests that the face may portray information beyond emotion.
Procedure
Instructions:1. Circle the single best word for that emotion.2. Please respond to every emotion word by circling a number. Each number represents the intensity to which the emotion is present in the face, ranging from 0 (none) to 4 (maximum intensity).
None None Maximum Maximum Intensity Intensity I------------------------------------------II------------------------------------------I1. Happiness1. Happiness 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 42. Fear2. Fear 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 43. Interest3. Interest 0 0 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 44. Anger 04. Anger 0 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 45. Embarrassment 05. Embarrassment 0 1 2 3 1 2 3 446. Disgust6. Disgust 0 0 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 47. Sadness7. Sadness 0 0 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 48. Contempt8. Contempt 0 0 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 49. Relaxed9. Relaxed 0 0 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 410. Surprise10. Surprise 0 0 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 411. Perplexed11. Perplexed 0 0 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 412. Hesitant 012. Hesitant 0 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 4
ResultsEkman’s PredictionsEndorsement. The most common method for assessing ‘recognition’ is the percent of participants who endorse the predicted label, in this case Ekman’s label.
Single Emotion Mean Endorsement = 24.2%Random selection = 8.3%
Blends 38.8% selected one of the two predicted labels Random selection = 16.7%.
Modal Responses. Another measure of recognition is whether the modal response corresponded to Ekman’s predicted label.
Single Emotions- 5 modal responses matched Ekman’s label (out of 16)
With the 4 blended expressions, the two most frequently chosen labels matched
two predicted labels for one faceone of the predicted labels for two facesneither predicted labels for one face
*Contact: [email protected]
Study Description Induction Emotions Recognition
Motley & Camden (1988)
Posed & Spontaneous Photos
Elaborate interactions & posed
Happiness Sadness Anger Surprise Disgust Confusion
Posed- 81.4% All spontaneous- 26%
Wagner, MacDonald, & Manstead (1986)
Dynamic spontaneous expressions
Emotion-eliciting slides
HappinessSadnessAngerSurpriseDisgustFearNeutral
-Above chance:Happy- 48.4%Disgust- 22.69%-Chance levels (anger, sadness, fear, neutral)-Below chance (surprise)
Yik, Meng, & Russell (1995)
Chinese babies spontaneous expressions
Lab-eliciting procedures
Happiness Sadness Anger Surprise Disgust Fear
Happiness- 74%Other emotions- 23%
31.542.2
84.4
0102030405060708090
100
Ekman's Term ModalResponse
PosedExpressions
Chance 8.3%
Perc
en
t of
Ss
Point of Comparison
Endorsement for a Particular Term
Spontaneous expressions have obtained lower recognition than posed expressions:
Which are representative of the facial expressions encountered everyday?
Spontaneous vs. Posed Expressions
Embarrassment
0102030405060
Happiness
Relaxed
Interest
Surprise
Perplexed
Hesitant
Contempt
Sadness
Embarras
Disgust
Fear
Anger
Emotion Label
% E
nd
ors
emen
t
Perhaps there are other things people read into a face, such as
social messages (Fridlund, 1997)
or action tendencies (Frijda & Tscherkassof, 1997).
ReferencesEkman, P. (1980). The Face of Man. New York, NY: Garland Publishing, Inc.Fridlund (1997). The new ethology of human facial expressions. In J.M. Russell, & J.M. Fernandez-Dols (Eds.), The psychology of facial expression (pp.78-102). New York: Cambridge University Press.Frijda, N. & Tcherkassof, A. (1997). Facial expressions as modes of action readiness. In Russell, J. & Fernandez-Dols, J. (Eds.), The psychology of facial expression (pp. 103-129). New York: Cambridge University Press.Izard, C. (1971). The face of emotion. CT, US: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Motley, M. & Camden, C. (1988). Facial expression of emotion: A comparison of posed expressions versus spontaneous expressions in an interpersonal communication setting.Western Journal of Speech Communication, 52, 1-22.Russell, J., Lewicka, M., & Niit, T. (1989). A cross-cultural study of a circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 848-856.Tomkins, S. (1962). Affect, imagery, consciousness: The positive affects. Oxford, England: Springer.Wagner, H., MacDonald, C., & Manstead, A. (1986). Communication of individual emotions by spontaneous facial expressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 37-743.Yik, M., Meng, Z., & Russell, J. (1998). Adults’ freely produced emotion labels for babies’ spontaneous facial expressions. Cognition and Emotion, 12, 723-730.
24.3
40.6
24
29.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Ekman's Term Modal Response
EmotionStates
Emotion attributions for
Ekman’s ‘embarrassment’
face (2 faces)
Anger
0102030405060
Happiness
Relaxed
Interest
Surprise
Perplexed
Hesitant
Contempt
Sadness
Embarrass
Disgust
Fear
Anger
Emotion Label
% E
nd
ors
emen
t
Results Across Facial Expressions with the Same Predicted Emotion
Emotion attributions for
Ekman’s ‘anger’ face (1
face)
Recognition of Emotion and Non-Emotion States
%
End
ors
em
ent