Literature Review for Observational Study Smiling in Same Sex Vs Mixed Sex Groups
Introduction
Much inquiry has been conducted to assess and meliorate people's ability to distinguish authentic from inauthentic facial emotion expressions. This literature presents a few important characteristics. First, it most often focuses on the concrete properties of the face (Ekman, 1992c); how these properties map onto bones or universally recognized emotion expressions (Ekman, 1992a; Tracy and Robins, 2008) as well as how they let an observer to assess the actuality of a facial emotion expression (Ekman et al., 1988; Ekman et al., 1990). The neuroscience literature has investigated the office of various encephalon structures in the perception and processing of emotions (e.g., Van den Stock et al., 2015) as well as how bodily expressions and other contextual cues impact facial perception and processing (run across Van den Stock and de Gelder, 2014; Van den Stock et al., 2014a,b) merely surprisingly, every bit it has been recently argued (Niedenthal et al., 2010; Barrett et al., 2011), the role that contextual factors play in emotion perception has all the same received relatively piddling attention, despite these factors conspicuously having an impact on how observers ultimately guess facial emotion expressions.
While expression actuality tin can occasionally exist detected from markers such as the Duchenne grin (encounter Ekman et al., 1988), these markers are non always reliable and context may provide additional useful authenticity cues (Hess and Hareli, 2015). What is more than, empirical findings also advise that a reliance on the physical expressions of the face alone is not sufficient to adequately recognize emotion when context is properly acknowledged and assessed. When an observer is asked to evaluate someone else'due south emotion expression, the observer will normally rely besides on contextual cues in order to observe the emotional data expressed on the sender's confront (Barrett et al., 2011). Individuals may translate the meaning of an emotional expression in terms of the specific situations, events and behaviors that they know to be associated with that expression. For instance, a person might hold the belief that smiles are likely inauthentic during a sales interaction, but genuine if they occur as a result of a successful sale (Maringer et al., 2011). In like manner, anger is more likely to be perceived as fear when the aroused facial expression is displayed within a frightening context, and sadness is more likely to be interpreted as disgust when embedded in a icky context (Carroll and Russell, 1996).
Second, this literature has often relied on relatively contrived procedures. This is particularly notable when the research questions focus on the differences between 18-carat vs. fake expressions. In these settings, participants are either instructed to brandish a given emotional reaction to specific (often neutral) stimuli or are simply observed displaying a spontaneous facial expression after exposure to an emotional stimulus. Then, the (in)authentic expressions are videotaped and coded—or observed by other participants—in search of differences in the concrete properties of the face across conditions (Ekman et al., 1988; Hess and Kleck, 1990; Smith et al., 1996; Krumhuber and Manstead, 2009). This paradigm allows the sender to decide, for instance, how to exhibit a fake grin after seeing a neutral stimulus. However, it does not help them decide whether to smile, frown or maintain a neutral expression. That is, it leaves little room for participants to strategically make up one's mind which signal to send, if whatsoever. The paradigm is also most often one-sided. Given the absence of an online dyadic interaction, senders have no need to depict inferences near the observer'due south beliefs regarding the pregnant of the sender's own facial expressions, which could in turn impact the sender's decision nearly which emotion to brandish in the first place.
Finally, it is well-established that observers often do slightly better than chance when assessing the truthfulness of a sender's indicate (i.e., the person who expresses the emotion; Kraut, 1980; Vrij, 2000; Bond and De Paulo, 2006), though this effect tends to weaken when the sender's indicate comes from facial expression just relative to facial and verbal cues combined (Bond and De Paulo, 2006). All the same, observers attempting to guess the authenticity of a sender's indicate rarely perform worse than take chances. Put just, a review of extant literature suggests that senders are unlikely to 'outsmart' observers.
This paper presents a new research image—a not-exact zero-sum game—to test the function of contextual factors (e.grand., beliefs about the meaning of a facial emotion expression) and strategic displays of facial emotion expressions in dyadic interactions. It also assesses whether or non conditions exist nether which senders can systematically perform better than observers.
Given that this game is relatively novel, we adopt an inductive, exploratory approach for report 1. That is, no specific hypothesis is elaborated a priori. In one case a given pattern of results is obtained, subsequent confirmatory studies will assess its reliability and underlying process.
Materials and Methods – Overview
This paper proposes a new inquiry paradigm—a not-verbal zip-sum game called the Face X Game—to appraise the role of contextual beliefs and strategic displays of facial emotion expressions in interpersonal interactions.
Since participants must "stare" at each other in a competitive setting, this game has the potential to be slightly uncomfortable when played with strangers. Every bit a outcome, throughout all 3 studies, intendance has been taken to perform each experimental session in an environment where most participants were of similar age and at to the lowest degree acquaintances (i.due east., classmates). Thereafter, the sample was comprised mostly of classmates. The volunteers were invited to participate in this study in exchange for course credit and monetary payment (based on task operation). Prior to each experimental session, tables and chairs in the classroom were arranged in pairs and then participants could be placed face-to-face. A set containing instructions for the game, a thespian and observer'southward sheet, as well as a histrion and observer'south concluding questionnaire was placed on each tabular array. Each set was numbered such that even numbers were assigned to observers and odd to players. Each pair was comprised of sequential numbers (e.1000., one and 2; 3 and 4; and so on). After this initial preparation, participants were immune to enter into the classroom, ane at a time. Next, each participant randomly selected a numbered piece of newspaper from a bag held by the experimenter. They were and so instructed to sit at the tabular array respective to the number on the paper. This exercise assigned them to their part (i.due east., player or observer). Each session lasted 30 min and was conducted in classrooms with infinite for 10–15 pairs. Care was taken to avoid participants that had either already played the game or even simply heard of it. Once all the participants were seated, the experimenter asked them to put away anything they had brought with them (apart from a pen), and told them to read the instructions in front of them on their tables. Consent forms were then signed. Participants explicitly agreed to participate and to confirm that they had never been to the same report or similar studies in the past 6 months. Then, the experimenter read the following text out loud: "This is an experiment on decision making. The instructions are simple. If you lot follow the rules carefully and make adept decisions, you can earn a considerable amount of money that will be paid in cash at the terminate of the experiment. Dissimilar participants can earn unlike amounts of money. What you earn today depends in part on your decisions, in part on the decisions of others and in office on luck. It is of import that you do not expect to the decisions of others, you do non talk or brand loud noises, and yous strictly follow the task instructions. You will be advised if you lot violate the rules the first fourth dimension. If yous violate it a second fourth dimension, yous will be asked to leave the room and you lot will non receive payment. Then read the rules in the instruction sheet and wait for the betoken to outset the game."
Earlier handing out the cards for the trial, the examiner additionally explained all details and steps of the game, reminding participants to avoid showing their notes to their partners throughout the game. Participants were instructed from that moment on to avoid talking to their partners.
The Confront X Game is very unproblematic. In this task 2 participants are matched at random, placed face-to-face, and asked to play the role of the player1 or the observer. Two cards are distributed per pair and sit down face down on the tabular array betwixt them. When flipped, each card has either a currency symbol ($) or a zero (0) on its face, which signal "money" vs. "no money" respectively (time to come card$ and card0). The role player's main task is to slowly, sequentially look at each card before returning it confront down to the table. The observer's chief chore is to choose 1 of the two cards. Both players are informed that the purpose of the game is to decide the extent to which the observer is capable of guessing which of the 2 cards has money on it (i.e., which bill of fare is card$) solely by observing the player's facial expression during and after s/he looks at each of the 2 cards. Any verbal advice is strictly prohibited. Call up that this is a nada-sum game. If the observer correctly chooses card$, the observer wins. Otherwise, the histrion wins. It is worth noting that, in gild to encourage participants to human action naturally, instructions made no mention of facial expressions nor gave whatsoever indication that players might try to deceive observers. In addition, despite having already received a questionnaire, participants were told non to read it until the end of the game.
In order to test participants' agreement of the game, a moneyless preliminary practice round precedes the actual job. No feedback is provided during this trial—that is, participants are not made aware of their functioning. Both parties take notes almost the carte du jour that is seen past the player, too as the observer's choice, but they are not allowed to substitution this information with each other. The examiner does not verify this preliminary round's outcome since no coin is involved. The purpose of the trial is just to familiarize participants with the procedure rather than provide an opportunity for the thespian to adjust his or her behavior in the calorie-free of the observer's response. After the exercise round is completed and all questions near the procedure are answered, the experimenter places a R$10 neb (exchange rate of Brazilian currency at the fourth dimension: R$1.00 ≈ U$0.50) on each pair's table, and the actual game begins. All participants have complete data about the rules of the game. The game progresses in the post-obit way: Beginning, the examiner gives a signal and the player looks at card one to bank check if it is carte$ or card0. The player must wait at the observer (center-to-eye) for a few seconds before he puts the card back on the table. The observer so takes the pen from the tabular array, indicates on the observer's canvas his or her guess as to which bill of fare information technology might be and puts the pen back downwardly. The observer'southward options are (1) I am certain this is the $x Menu, (2) I recall this is the $ten Card, (3) I take no thought, (4) I think this is the $0 Card, or (5) I am certain this is the $0 Card. At the same time, the player takes the pen, indicates on the actor's sheet whether card1 was menu$ or card0, and ends the round by placing the pen back on the table. The same process is repeated for the second card (see Supplementary Material for a more detailed clarification of the procedure). Note that the observer forms his or her impression of each carte du jour and reports it, afterward both rounds. At the end of the second actual round (i.e., afterwards card two), the observer must then betoken which of the cards southward/he believes has the $10 printed on information technology. If s/he guesses correctly, s/he receives the R$10 nib. If due south/he gets it incorrect, his or her partner volition receive the R$10 pecker. Only one option is immune for the last choice. The main purposes of the initial assessments were to (a) force participants to course an impression based on the facial expression after each card and (b) keep a constant menstruum to the game. Observers are aware that only the final choice matters. At the end of the game, both participants are asked to fill out a questionnaire and told that only complete questionnaires will be accepted. Note that all participants begin each of their tasks throughout the game at the same time and in accord with the examiner's signal to begin. They are able to see the outcome of the game only after completing this final task. To ensure accuracy, the experimenter additionally double-checks the effect of the game for each dyad. In all three studies conducted winners actually receive R$ten.00 whereas losers leave with $0.
All iii studies took place in two cities. Amongst 217 pairs, 30 (xiii.8%) were from Berkeley, California (United states of america) and 187 (86.ii%) were from Curitiba, Paraná (Brazil). Participants in Brazil received a R$x bill whereas those in the United States were given a U.s.$x neb. While it is possible that culture differences be betwixt Brazil and the Usa, care was taken to ensure that there were no noticeable dissimilarities in the materials, process or pedagogy sets. Importantly, no differences in the effect of the game were detected between locations.
Conceptually, this task presents three unique characteristics compared to past tasks conducted in the literature. First, the player can strategically choose which facial expression to display and how to display it after each positive (carte$) or negative (card0) upshot. Second, the observer's beliefs about the likelihood that the player volition brandish a given facial expression (e.g., grin after seeing card$) is expected to impact the observer'south menu choice. Finally, the dyadic and online face-to-face nature of the task also prompts the thespian to make a estimate every bit to the observer'due south behavior in an endeavor to 'outsmart' the partner, and vice-versa.
The following iii studies use the Face 10 Game to appraise the role of strategic facial emotion expression and contextual factors on dyadic interactions. Report ane focuses on the upshot of the game itself, report two examines the strategic display of facial emotion expressions, and report 3 investigates the function of contextual factors. Exact procedures used in each of the studies can be found in Supplementary Material.
Study i
Study one examined the event of the game with reference to the sex of the pair.
Participants
1 hundred sixty-four undergraduate students (40.4% female person; hateful age = 23.3, SD = 4.68) participated in this study in commutation for course credit and monetary payment (based on chore operation). Prior to the starting time of the report all participants were given a consent form to read and sign (pending agreement). The study was approved by the Ideals Research Committee CEP/SD at Federal University of Paraná, Brazil, and the Committee for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Process
Participants in each experimental session were randomly paired, assigned to either the role of thespian or observer, and instructed to play the Face X Game. In each pair, i participant concluded the game with R$10.00 whereas the other earned aught. At the end of the game, all participants completed a short survey. They were asked about their expected outcome ($0 or $10); the strategy they used to maximize their payoff (open-concluded question); perceived level of friendship with their paired-partner (nine-point calibration ranging from 0 = I have never talked to this person before to 8 = I collaborate with this person on a daily basis) and experience as a poker thespian (one = never/rarely; two = sometimes; iii = e'er). Nosotros also gathered data near their personality traits and their affective states during the game. Besides these control variables, our main dependent variable is the winner of the game and the independent variable is the pair's sex activity mix.
Results and Discussion
The p-value cutoff used in all statistical assay throughout this piece of work is p = 0.05. Following the recommendation of some statisticians, we did not right for multiple comparisons while analyzing data, since nosotros study all of the individual p-values (Rothman, 1990; Saville, 1990).
Statistical analyses uncovered two intriguing findings. First, out of the 82 pairs, observers just won the game 31 times. Put another style, 62.2% of players were able to mislead their observers. A z-test revealed a statistically significant difference of players' wins compared to chance (z = 2.21, p < 0.05). A Chi-square exam showed that this outcome was not contingent upon whether the starting time card seen in the practise or actual game was card$ or card0 [practice game: χ2(1, North = 82) = 2.02, p > 0.10; actual game: χ2(1, Due north = 82) = 1.17, p > 0.10]. In short, contrary to the bulk of findings in the emotion expression literature demonstrating that observers perform slightly better than chance on average (Kraut, 1980; Vrij, 2000; Bond and De Paulo, 2006), our first report shows that players were more than probable to win at this not-exact zero-sum game.
2d, a Chi-square exam revealed that the outcome of the game varied significantly by sex-pair [χ2(3, Due north = 80) = 12.31, p = 0.006]. Players won more frequently when the pair was comprised of at least one female. The just status in which observers were more frequent winners was when ii men played against each some other (come across Table 1-study 1).
Table 1. Frequency and per centum of winners in the Face X Game across the studies.
Assuming that performance is at to the lowest degree somewhat related to the facial emotion expressions displayed (since it is a not-exact process), it is possible that individual variation in facial expressions led to the observed results. All the same, this does not explicate either the overall histrion's authorization or sex interaction.
Judging a grin as genuine is the normative judgment. A true smile denotes positive feelings or intentions (Niedenthal et al., 2010). Thus, it is likely that an observer, regardless of sex, will tend to believe that a grin ways that the player has received a stimulus with positive valence (card$). One may fence that, since this is a competitive game and non representative of a naturalistic state of affairs, observers might simply adjust their behavior and start guessing that smiles indicate an attempted deception. However, as mentioned above, participants were given no indication that players would be trying to deceive observers via facial expressions. We therefore argue that observers have kept their prior belief, i.e., a smile means that a player has seen card$. What is more, women tend to encode facial expressions of emotion better than men (Fujita et al., 1980), and smile more than men (Haviland, 1977; Hall, 1984; Hall and Halberstadt, 1986; Burgoon et al., 1989; LaFrance et al., 2003; Ellis, 2006). This could explain in function why female players had such an advantage over observers. For example, female players may take as well smiled afterward receiving a stimulus with negative valence. Whereas observers (both male and female person) might hold on to their contextual beliefs that smiles are the representation of a stimulus with positive valence, female players in this job were able to systematically mislead observers.
If we suppose that smiles were a central factor in explaining the players' outcome, the results of this first study signal that players probably smiled more in all pairs that included at least one woman. Since the alone condition where observers won more than frequently (61.three%) were male-only pairs, information technology is possible that male players just smiled less in that condition. Several studies indicate that men do smile less in the presence of other men (LaFrance et al., 2003). One possible explanation for this behavior is that smiling norms are more apparent when people interact with partners of the aforementioned sex. Men grinning less in the presence of other men considering any expression that does not include a grin is often classified as more dominant than an expression containing a smile (Keating, 1985). Consequently, male players in our study may have engaged in say-so-seeking in the presence of male observers, which acquired them to grin less under these atmospheric condition. Notwithstanding, in the presence of female person observers, it is likely that this attitude changes, causing male players to smile more compared to when they are paired with male observers. This could explicate, in part, the apparent advantage obtained past male person players (lxxx% win) compared to when they are paired with female observers.
A short survey was given at the end that sought game-related information (e.thousand., expected outcome, strategy used to maximize payoff, level of friendship, experience as a poker player, also as personality traits and affective country). None of these control variables had whatsoever impact on the outcome of the game in study i.
We did not collect observers' anecdotal assessments of players' facial expressions in study 1. Therefore, information technology is impossible to conclusively determine whether smiles indeed varied past status. Farther, given the sample size per sex-pair, it is worth further assessing the robustness of these findings. Study 2 tackles the issues above. Moreover, in the second study, nosotros investigate the possibility that players who have smiled more than often after seeing card0 end up deceiving observers (who may believe that a smile ways the histrion saw card$ in that context).
Report two
The purpose of study 2 is twofold. First, it tests the robustness of the findings observed in study one for same-sex pairs. We focus on same-sex pairs because that is where differences in emotion expression, and peculiarly smiles, are well-nigh pronounced. In an extensive meta-analysis, LaFrance et al. (2003) showed that the result size for same-sex pairs on smile was significantly larger than for contrary-sex pairs. Second, nosotros appraise perceived differences in facial emotion expressions across these two groups past directly asking observers to report on the players' facial expressions. Observational evidence from study one indicated that players' expressions varied from very serious to smiley, both while looking at the cards as well every bit after, with a significant portion of them maintaining what could be anecdotally described equally a "poker confront" (i.e., neutral expression). We therefore asked participants in report 2 to judge the players' expression on a scale from very serious to very smiley (encounter Process for more than details of this scale). To appraise whether different expressions as well change the perceived authenticity of the expression, observers were also asked to judge the genuineness of the thespian'southward expression.
Participants
One hundred l-eight undergraduate students (55.seven% female person; mean historic period = 27.5, SD = 5.14) participated in this written report in exchange for grade credit and monetary payment (based on task functioning). Prior to the beginning of the report all participants were given a consent form to read and sign (pending understanding). The study was approved by the Ideals Research Committee CEP/SD at Federal Academy of Paraná, Brazil, and the Commission for Protection of Human Subjects at the Academy of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Procedure
The process closely paralleled study 1. Participants were randomly paired, assigned to their roles every bit player or observer, and instructed to the play the Face X Game. Study 1 and study two differed in 2 primary ways. Starting time, in this study, only aforementioned-sexual practice pairs were formed. 2d, after observers had made their card choice (the main DV), they were asked to betoken the expressed emotional valence of the player subsequently the actor had seen the first and second cards on 2 seven-point scales (one for each menu): from -3 (Serious) to +3 (Smiley), with a midpoint 0 = Neutral. As mentioned in a higher place, observers were also asked to indicate on ii seven-indicate scales (one calibration for each bill of fare) the perceived authenticity of the expression of the player after the player had seen the get-go and second cards: from -3 (Clearly fake) to +iii (Clearly 18-carat), with a midpoint 0 = Can't tell. To go on the flow identical during and after the game to both players and observers, we as well asked players to report what emotion they thought they had expressed, too every bit how genuine they thought their expression appeared to be to observers. The same 4 vii-bespeak scales were used. At the cease of the game, all participants filled out a questionnaire. Some of the questions were the same as study 1: expected outcome ($0 or $10); the strategy they used to maximize their payoff (open-ended question); perceived level of friendship with their paired-partner (nine-betoken scale ranging from 0 = I have never talked to this person earlier to eight = I interact with this person on a daily basis) and experience equally a poker player (one = never/rarely; 2 = sometimes; 3 = always). 2 new questions were inserted: Their preferred role if they could cull (i.due east., player or observer) and the extent to which they cared virtually the money at stake (nine-point scale ranging from 0 = I exercise not care at all to 8 = I care a lot). Once again, our dependent variable is the winner of the game and the contained variable is the pair'southward sex mix. The mediator variable is the (in)congruency index.
Results
Outcome of the game
A Chi-foursquare test revealed that the outcome of the game was again contingent upon the sexual activity of the pair [χ2(1, N = 79) = four.05, p = 0.044]. When female players and observers played against one another, players won the game more frequently, replicating the pattern of results from study 1. A z-test revealed a statistically meaning divergence of players' wins (68.2%) compared to chance (z = 2.41, p < 0.01). Among male person pairs, still, players won only 45.7% of the time. A z-exam indicated no meaning difference of players' wins compared to chance (z = -0.50, p > 0.10; encounter Table i-study ii).
Emotion expression
A GLM Univariate Analysis was conducted to explore if the congruency of facial emotion expression varies by the sexual activity of the pair (male vs. female) and by carte (card0 vs. card$). The players' emotion expressions as judged by the observers varied marginally by card and sex [F(1,152) = 3.42, p = 0.07; = 0.02]. Among female pairs, players were more than prone to display an incongruent expression—to grin more after seeing card0 than after seeing menu$ [M 0 = i.00, SD = 1.83 vs. M $ = 0.nineteen, SD = i.94; F(ane,152) = 4.17, p = 0.049; = 0.03]. Amidst male person pairs, however, there was no difference between these 2 means. Male players seemed more inclined to display a congruent expression—that is, to smile slightly more afterwards seeing card$ (One thousand 0 = 0.09, SD = 1.72 vs. M $ = 0.37, SD = 1.86; F < 1). Female players were also more inclined to grin subsequently card0 than males players [F(ane,152) = 4.72, p = 0.028; = 0.03] – See Figure 1. Information technology is worth noting that the players' self-assessed facial emotion expressions were collected. The relationship between the observers' perception of the players' facial expression and the players' perception of their own facial expression was investigated using Pearson production-moment correlation coefficient. Preliminary analyses were performed to ensure no violation of the assumptions of normality, linearity and homoscedasticity. At that place was a strong, positive correlation between the two variables, r = 0.50, p < 0.0001.
Effigy 1. Histrion'south facial emotion expression (equally reported past the observers) – report 2. Mistake confined represent standard errors.
Authenticity on the outcome of the game
There was no interaction between card content and sex on the perceived authenticity of the expression and none of the main effects were significant (Fsouth < 1). These null effects advise, for case, that independent of whether the player had seen a positive (card$) or a negative (card0) result, observers saw like levels of actuality in both male and females' smiles.
Emotion expression on the outcome of the game
An alphabetize was created to assess congruency or incongruency betwixt the valence of the card and the emotion expression of the observer. The index was calculated as the sum of the intensity of the player'southward (in)congruent expressions reported past the observer throughout the game (-half dozen = maximal incongruency to +half-dozen = maximal congruency). For example, a thespian who displayed a level 3 smile after card0 and a level two seriousness afterward carte$ would score -v on the alphabetize, whereas a player who displayed a level ane seriousness afterward card0 and a level 2 smiling after card$ would exist categorized as +three on the same alphabetize. Note as well that a histrion who displayed the very aforementioned expression after seeing both cards (whatever the expression), would land on "0" on the (in)congruency index.
Results from a one-way analysis of variance were consequent with previous analyses, indicating that female person players showed higher levels of incongruency (1000 = -0.81; SD = 1.91) relative to male players [M = 0.29; SD = 1.99; F(1,76) = six.16, p = 0.01], who, on average, displayed but slightly congruent expressions during the game. A one-sample t-test was conducted to compare the incongruency scores with null in each grouping. There was a significant difference from zero in scores for female pairs [M = -0.81, SD = 1.91; t(42) = -2.lxxx, p = 0.01, two-tailed]. The magnitude of the differences in the means (mean deviation = -0.814, 95% CI: -1.40 to -0.23) was very large (ηtwo = 0.sixteen). For male pairs, there was no significant difference from nada in incongruency scores [M = 0.29, SD = 1.99; t(34) = 0.85, p = 0.29, two-tailed]. Of importance, a mediation analysis was also conducted to assess whether this divergence in congruency could at least in function explain the impact of sex on the result of the game. Following Preacher and Hayes (2008), an INDIRECT exam was conducted with sex as the IV (i = female; 0 = male), the (in)congruency alphabetize of emotion expression as the mediator (-vi = maximum incongruency; +half dozen = maximum congruency), and the outcome of the game every bit the DV (winner: 1 = actor; 0 = observer). The relationship betwixt sex of the pair and winner of the game was mediated by the (in)congruency alphabetize of the emotion expression (i.e., players' facial emotion expressions). Every bit Figure 2 illustrates, results indicated that sex was a pregnant predictor of the players' facial emotion expressions, b = -i.ten, SE = 0.44, p = 0.01, and that the players' facial emotion expressions were a significant predictor of who won the game, b = -0.26, SE = 0.14, p = 0.05. In this study, the sex of the pair was no longer a significant predictor of winner of the game after controlling for the mediator, b = 0.77, SE = 0.fifty, p = 0.12, consistent with full mediation. The indirect event was tested using a bootstrap estimation arroyo with yard samples. Results from this test indicated the indirect coefficient was significant, b = 0.314, SE = 0.223, 95% CI = 0.0274, 0.9417. In sum, the direct impact of sexual activity on the outcome of the game was mediated by the players' facial emotion expression during the game. Female players were more likely to express a signal that was incongruent with the card, which in turn increased their take a chance of winning the game.
FIGURE 2. Mediation analysis – study 2. Statistics – coefficient (SE), p-value. Coding – Sex: i = female, 0 = male person; Facial Emotion Expression:-6 = maximum incongruency, +6 = maximum congruency; Winner: 1 = player; 0 = observer. Normal theory test is not allowed for models with dichotomous outcomes (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). 1Total effect (c path); 2Direct upshot (c' path).
Another mediation assay was performed with sex as the 4, the perceived authenticity as the mediator, and the issue of the game equally the DV. In line with the pattern obtained previously, results indicated that perceived authenticity did not mediate the bear upon of sexual activity on the issue of the game. In other words, the observer's perception of the player's expression did non affect the final result of the game.
Discussion
Study two replicates study one's results with regards to sex-pair, which one time over again significantly impacted the upshot of the game. Among male pairs, observers still seem to possess a small advantage over players, consistent with the literature (Ekman and O'Sullivan, 1991; Ekman, 1992b; Ekman et al., 1999; Bond and De Paulo, 2006; Bernstein et al., 2008; Porter and Brinke, 2008). This trend was, still, non-pregnant. More than interestingly, and in line with report ane, players performed significantly ameliorate than observers among female person pairs. These results seem to rely on female players' trend to display incongruent emotion expressions (eastward.one thousand., grin after seeing card0).
Overall, this written report'due south findings are in harmony with several researches showing that women are significantly more likely to grin in an inauthentic manner – likewise as use these fake smiles to mask negative emotions – than men (Prkachin and Silverman, 2002; LaFrance et al., 2003; Woodzicka, 2008). Despite these observations, facial expressions (enjoyment smiles, not-enjoyment smiles, and neutral expressions) from female players are by and large perceived as more approachable (Miles, 2009) and women may be perceived more than favorably when smiling (Hack, 2014). It is worth noting that women typically grinning more often than men when social tension is loftier (Hall and Halberstadt, 1986). With reference to the above, it is possible that participants in this job did feel some degree of tension while staring at their partner. This tension might and so assist to explain why women smiled more than than men, particularly after having seen card0. Finally, the literature suggests that smiling could be overall more than beneficial for women (Mehu et al., 2008). For men, smiles and facial expressions seem to exist less positively received than for women (Fujita et al., 1980).
Although, rating facial expressions on a Likert scale rather than objective assessors or video recording may be considered a limitation, for the purpose of this written report it is quite useful. We decided a priori that we were non interested in measuring circuitous facial expressions nor micro expressions since the presence of this type of equipment might distract participants, add uncontrolled variables, brand them enlightened that their facial expressions could indeed play a major role in the consequence of the game, or otherwise generally cause them to alter their behavior. Instead, we decided to measure just three elementary facial expressions—enough to assess the congruency or incongruency between the valence of the card and the emotion expression of the observer. These expressions were 'smiley,' 'neutral' (poker face), and 'serious' (the opposite of 'smiley').
Similar to study 1, none of the command variables (expected outcome; strategy used to maximize payoff; level of friendship; experience every bit a poker player; preferred part; attitude toward the money at stake) impacted the outcome of the game in study 2. After study 1, we stopped asking about personality traits and affective states, simply because the questions added unnecessary length to the experiment and, more importantly, did not impact the results.
If sending an incongruent signal (i.e., smiling subsequently card0) helps to explain why female players win more frequently, it logically follows that female observers were more prone to concord a congruent, and therefore inaccurate, belief (east.m., "if the role player smiles, it means that she has seen card$"). This prospect seems quite interesting. Information technology implies that while female players are willing and/or capable of displaying simulated smiles, paired-female observers are not taking this into account. Report iii tackles this issue past manipulating female person observers' behavior.
Report 3
But female pairs were recruited for study 3. To test the role of behavior, female observers were prompted to form either coinciding or incongruent behavior about the meaning of a given facial emotion expression. Some were led to form a belief that players tend to frown later on seeing the card0 and to smile after seeing card$ (i.e., a congruent conventionalities), whereas others were led to form incongruent beliefs. The impact of formed beliefs on the outcome of the game was then assessed. It was expected that when thinking in an incongruent manner, which is most frequently the accurate way of thinking, female observers would significantly improve their performance.
Participants
1 hundred twelve female person undergraduate students (hateful historic period = 21.7, SD = three.27) participated in this study in exchange for course credit and budgetary payment (based on task functioning). Prior to the beginning of the study all participants were given a consent form to read and sign (pending agreement). The report was approved by the Ethics Enquiry Committee CEP/SD at Federal University of Paraná, Brazil, and the Commission for Protection of Homo Subjects at the University of California, Berkeley.
Procedure
Similar to study ii, participants were randomly paired, assigned to their roles, and instructed to the play the Face 10 Game. However, a main difference from the previous procedure was implemented. After practicing, but before playing the actual game, observers were prompted to answer to three questions regarding their beliefs near what their paired-player's serious vs. smiley expression might mean. For instance, participants read: "In your stance, what does information technology mean when a player smiles while/after looking at a given card?" An ostensibly "right" answer was positioned at the lower correct corner subsequently each question was introduced in an try to persuade participants into forming either a congruent belief (i.east., a smiley (serious) face up means a $ (0) sign on the card) or an incongruent belief (i.due east., a smiley (serious) confront means a 0 ($) sign on the card)—see Supplementary Material for complete details. We used the same procedure every bit the previous studies with regards to the assignment of roles (i.e., a numbered piece of newspaper selected from a pocketbook held by the experimenter), observers were randomly assigned to either the congruent belief induction or to the incongruent conventionalities induction, with one-half in each condition. The difference betwixt these groups was how the "correct" reply on the observer'south sheet was written. Questions 1 and two discussed the potential meaning of smiles and serious expressions, respectively, while question 3 contained no manipulation. This last question was included to ensure that participants would differentiate serious from neutral expressions. If, as had occurred in the previous studies, female observers lose because they hold coinciding beliefs while female players express incongruent emotions, observers should be more than likely to win the game subsequently forming an incongruent, and therefore more likely authentic, belief. It is also important to note that players were non explicitly aware of this manipulation. The procedure regarding the player was identical to the one used in the standard Confront X Game. At the terminate of the game, all participants filled out a questionnaire that contained the same questions as study 2. Our dependent variable is the winner of the game and the independent variable is the contextual belief (congruent vs. incongruent belief).
Results
The belief induction worked as expected. A Chi-square test revealed that when prompted to class a coinciding belief (i.e., when congruent conventionalities answers appeared next to the questions), 63% of observers reported that a smile meant card$ and a serious face meant card0, whereas when prompted to form an incongruent belief (i.e., when incongruent belief answers appeared next to the questions), only 31% formed congruent beliefs [χ2(2, Due north = 56) = 9.54, p = 0.008].
Critical to our hypothesis, the observer'due south beliefs had a significant touch on the observer'due south likelihood of winning. A Chi-square test indicated that observers who held a congruent belief won the Face X Game but 38.v% of the time, whereas those who held an incongruent conventionalities won 67.9% of the fourth dimension [χ2(1, N = 54) = four.69, p = 0.030; see Tabular array ane-study iii].
Since nosotros also gathered information about perceived facial expressions, we were able to assess the extent to which the observer's belief and the (in)congruency index interacted on the effect of the game. A logistic regression was conducted where the outcome of the game (0 = observer winner; 1 = player winner) was regressed on the observer'southward belief (0 = congruent; 1 = incongruent), the (in)congruency index (-6 = maximal incongruent signal; +6 = maximal coinciding betoken), and the interaction term. The jitney test of the model was meaning [χii(3) = x.38, p = 0.016]. Equally already demonstrated, there was a primary outcome of belief, such that observers were more likely to win when they held an incongruent belief (b = 1.272, SE = 0.61, p = 0.037). Further, there was a significant interaction between the (in)congruency index and the observer's beliefs on the effect of the game (b = -0.87, SE = 0.41, p = 0.042). For observers who held a coinciding belief, the more incongruent the expression of the histrion (e.k., smiling later seeing card0), the higher the likelihood that the histrion would win the game. For observers who held an incongruent belief, all the same, the outcome reversed—the more than incongruent the expression of the thespian, the higher the likelihood that the observer would win the game.
Give-and-take
Results from written report iii show that female observers were more prone to concur a congruent belief, which lessened their chances of winning the game. When prompted to recall in an incongruent fashion, their functioning significantly improved. These findings emphasize the role of contextual factors on emotion perception—observers' beliefs practice indeed affect their judgment about facial emotion expressions (run across also Carroll and Russell, 1996; Niedenthal et al., 2010; Barrett et al., 2011; Maringer et al., 2011).
Information technology is worth noting that 63% of observers in the coinciding bias induction actually formed a congruent belief. The ideal situation would exist 100% of that grouping of observers. In this platonic scenario, i could look a strengthening of the rate of players' success. Since we did not attain that ideal status, our results evidence that in report three players won a little less frequently (61.5%) than in the comparable pairs in study 1 (75%) and study 2 (68.2%). All the same, what is relevant is that players won more oftentimes than observers in the congruent belief condition, as expected.
At the end of the game, all participants completed a short survey containing the aforementioned questions as the previous study: the expected outcome; the strategy they used to maximize their payoff; perceived level of friendship with their paired-partner; feel as a poker actor; preferred office and attitude toward the money at stake. Every bit expected, none of these control variables impacted the outcome of the game in report 3.
General Discussion
Nosotros have presented a novel paradigm, the Face Ten Game, to test the office of beliefs and strategic displays of facial emotion expression in interpersonal interactions. This newspaper also shows some of the conditions under which players perform better than observers. Different by research, the Face X Game allows players to freely cull their facial expressions after seeing each card, and observers are able to grade their ain beliefs about the meaning of those expressions. That is, they tin decide for themselves whether a grinning is the result of either a positive or negative event. Results from iii studies show that female person players frequently express an emotion incongruent with the valence of the event (e.g., to smiling afterwards seeing a negative issue) and, every bit a consequence, can systematically mislead observers, who tend to concord a congruent conventionalities near the meaning of this emotion expression (due east.1000., a smile signals a positive effect). When prompted to think in an incongruent mode, female person observers significantly better their functioning in the game. In a recent article, Schlicht et al. (2010) showed that people fabricated more mistakes in a simplified version of Texas Hold'em when their virtual opponents' facial expression was positive (vs. threatening). Similarly, our findings suggest that "observers" seem also more than likely to hold a congruent belief – higher folding rates after perceiving a positive emotional display on their opponent's confront.
This piece of work naturally has some caveats and, every bit a effect, some interesting avenues for future inquiry. First, no truly objective measures of participants' facial expressions were recorded. Information technology is possible that players relied on other cues, whether consciously or unconsciously, to conceal the truth. The same logic might apply to observers in their attempt to interpret the meaning of the player's expression. While non measured, middle gaze might also play an important role. All of the studies' tasks were synchronized by the experimenter, which means that the duration of eye gaze should take been most the same for all participants. However, a video recording of these interactions could provide useful information near how facial data is processed past observers. In short, we concede that videotaping participants while they play the game might help to address these concerns, only with the following caveat: Equally mentioned above, the human action of being videotaped could itself alter participants' behavior and add additional noise.
The fact that sex affected results is, at least in hindsight, not a consummate surprise. The experimental economics (Croson and Gneezy, 2009; Mussel et al., 2014) and emotion expression literatures (LaFrance et al., 2003) oft observe sex every bit a primal moderator. Still, we are left to but speculate equally to the precise reasons that led to sex differences in emotion expressions in the Face X Game. Ane possibility may rely on people'due south propensity to express a item emotion in a given context and the ease to implement a given strategy. For case, females appear to exist more likely to smile than males generally, and it is possible that men are more likely to smile at women than at other men. If true, this tendency may lead to the implementation of an incongruent strategy in the right conditions (e.thou., smile subsequently seeing card0). Another factor may exist differences in level-grand thinking inside and across pairs (Camerer et al., 2004). Note, however, that the game prevents united states from making direct claims well-nigh the participants' thought processes. For instance, we do not know whether an observer who appears to agree a coinciding belief (e.g., a smiling means that south/he holds bill of fare$) is beingness "too naïve" (level-0) or "too smart" (level-2). In either case, southward/he would likely lose the game if the role player adopted a level-one strategy. Given the nature of the job, whatever mismatch betwixt the role player's strategy and the observer's beliefs volition benefit the onetime (eastward.g., player level-0 or ii and observer level-1 or iii). Information technology requires a lucifer betwixt the player's strategy and the observer'southward beliefs to return the observer the winner (eastward.g., player level-0 or two and observer level-0 or 2; player level-1 or 3 and observer level-1 or three).
As previously mentioned, across all 3 studies, a short survey at the end of each experimental session sought information not only about participants' sex, but also age, level of friendship with their paired-partner, preferred role, expected effect, experience equally a poker role player, and the extent to which they cared about the coin at pale. Apart from sex, none of these other variables consistently impacted the issue of the game. Information technology is possible that a larger variance in the sample may lead some of these items to interact with the outcome of the game (e.yard., age discrepancy or level of friendship). Tabular array 2 offers a descriptive snapshot of the samples' characteristics beyond the studies. Lastly, it remains possible that other untested variables might as well conform to this design of results. For example, would participants modify their strategy if the money payout was ten times higher? Or, if there was no money at all? Did participants share their prize? If so, did this alter their behavior during the game? These questions are interesting avenues to be addressed in futurity research.
TABLE 2. Descriptive characteristics of the samples across the studies.
In a broad, open up-ended question, participants were also asked to explicate the strategy they used to maximize their payoff (i.e., to win the game), but these responses were ultimately of little employ: Players provided by and large intuitive answers (eastward.1000., "I tried to display a neutral/identical facial expression") whereas observers provided mostly intuitive, but vague answers (due east.chiliad., "I tried to detect the player'south facial expression").
Finally, it is important to annotation that most of the data were nerveless in Brazil. In studies ane and 2 supplementary data were gathered in the US to cheque for noticeable dissimilarities. No differences in the outcome of the game were observed. That being said, we suspect that region-specific cultural differences in emotion expression and/or behavior could nevertheless emerge, which differences might subsequently impact the outcome of the game.
Future research could too address the office of learning (e.thousand., what would happen if participants were to play the game in multiple-rounds?), verbal signals (due east.g., what would happen if players were asked to verbally land, truthfully or not, the content of the card?) and culture (e.thou., what would happen if the game were played in a civilisation where neutral facial expressions are more than prevalent?). These potential moderating variables, we suspect, could lead to meaningful, interesting changes in the outcome of game and give united states broader insight into the role of contextual factors and strategic displays of facial emotion expressions in dyadic interactions.
Author Contributions
FP: substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work; procedure design; data collection; data analysis. Revising the piece of work critically for important intellectual content. Concluding approval of the version to exist published. Agreement to exist accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. EA: substantial contributions to the conception and pattern of the work; procedure design; data analysis. Drafting and revising the work critically for important intellectual content. Final approval of the version to be published. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the piece of work are appropriately investigated and resolved. PP: substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work; procedure design; data analysis. Revising the work critically for important intellectual content. Final approval of the version to be published. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the piece of work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. SR: substantial contributions to data collection; information assay. Revising the work critically for important intellectual content. Final approval of the version to be published. Understanding to exist answerable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any role of the work are accordingly investigated and resolved.
Funding
Dr. FP Pádua Júnior received a CAPES scholarship.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare that the enquiry was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could exist construed as a potential conflict of involvement.
Supplementary Material
The Supplementary Material for this article can exist plant online at: https://world wide web.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00534
Footnotes
- ^ The label "player" rather than "sender" was used in the procedure and from at present on information technology will exist used throughout the remainder of the text.
References
Barrett, L. F., Mesquita, B., and Gendron, M. (2011). Context in emotion perception. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 20, 286–290. doi: x.1177/0963721411422522
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Bernstein, M. J., Young, S. M., Brown, C. M., Sacco, D. F., and Claypool, H. M. (2008). Adaptive responses to social exclusion: social rejection improves detection of real and fake smiles. Psychol. Sci. 19, 981–983. doi: ten.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02187.x
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Burgoon, J. Chiliad., Buller, D. B., and Woodall, W. Thousand. (1989). Nonverbal Communication: The Unspoken Dialogue. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Google Scholar
Camerer, C. F., Ho, T.-H., and Chong, J.-K. (2004). A cognitive hierarchy model of games. Q. J. Econ. 119, 861–898. doi: 10.1162/0033553041502225
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Carroll, J., and Russell, J. A. (1996). Do facial expressions betoken specific emotions? Judging emotion from the face in context. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 70, 205–218.
PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar
Ekman, P. (1992b). Facial expressions of emotion: new findings, new questions. Psychol. Sci. three, 34–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00253.x
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Ekman, P. (1992c). Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Market, Politics, and Marriage, second Edn. New York, NY: W.Westward. Norton.
Google Scholar
Ekman, P., Davidson, R., and Friesen, W. Five. (1990). The duchenne smile: emotional expression and encephalon physiology 2. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58, 342–353. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.58.2.342
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Ekman, P., Friesen, W. Five., and O'Sullivan, Chiliad. (1988). Smiles when lying. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 54, 414–420. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.3.414
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Ekman, P., O'Sullivan, Thou., and Frank, Chiliad. G. (1999). A few can catch a liar. Psychol. Sci. 10, 263–266. doi: x.1111/1467-9280.00147
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Fujita, B. N., Harper, R. G., and Wiens, A. H. (1980). Encoding-decoding of nonverbal emotional messages: sex differences in spontaneous and enacted expressions. J. Nonverbal Behav. four, 131–145. doi: 10.1007/BF00986815
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal Sexual activity Differences: Communication Accurateness and Expressive Style. Baltimore, Dr.: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Google Scholar
Hall, J. A., and Halberstadt, A. K. (1986). "Smile and gazing," in The Psychology of Gender: Advances Through Meta-Analysis, eds J. S. Hyde and M. C. Linn (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Academy Press), 136–158.
Google Scholar
Hess, U., and Hareli, Southward. (2015). "The role of social context for the interpretation of emotional facial expressions," in Understanding Facial Expressions in Advice, eds G. K. Mandal and A. Awasthi (New Delhi: Springer), doi: 10.1007/978-81-322-1934-7_7
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Hess, U., and Kleck, R. E. (1990). Differentiating emotion elicited and deliberate emotional facial expressions. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. xx, 369–385. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420200502
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Keating, C. F. (1985). Gender and the physiognomy of dominance and bewitchery. Soc. Psychol. Q. 48, 61–70. doi: x.2307/3033782
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Kraut, R. (1980). Humans as lie detectors: some 2nd thoughts. J. Commun. 30, 209–216. doi: ten.1111/j.1460-2466.1980.tb02030.x
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
LaFrance, M., Hecht, G., and Paluck, E. 50. (2003). The contingent smiling: a meta-analysis of sex differences in smiling. Psychol. Bull. 129, 305–334. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.ii.305
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Maringer, M., Krumhuber, E. Thou., Fischer, A. H., and Niedenthal, P. Yard. (2011). Across smile dynamics: mimicry and beliefs in judgments of smiles. Emotion 11, 181–187. doi: 10.1037/a0022596
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Mehu, M., Little, A. C., and Dunbar, R. I. M. (2008). Sex differences in the effect of smiling on social judgments: an evolutionary approach. J. Soc. Evol. Cult. Psychol. 2, 103–121. doi: 10.1037/h0099351
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Mussel, P., Hewig, J., Allen, J. J. B., Coles, G. G. H., and Miltner, W. (2014). Smiling faces, sometimes they don't tell the truth: facial expression in the ultimatum game impacts decision making and event-related potentials. Psychophysiology 51, 358–363. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12184
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Niedenthal, P. M., Mermillod, Thousand., Maringer, M., and Hess, U. (2010). The Simulation of Smiles (SIMS) model: embodied simulation and the meaning of facial expression. Behav. Brain Sci. 33, 417–480. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X10000865
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Porter, S., and Brinke, L. (2008). Reading between the lies: identifying curtained and falsified emotions in universal facial expressions. Psychol. Sci. xix, 508–514. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02116.x
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Preacher, G. J., and Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods xl, 879–891. doi: 10.3758/BRM.forty.3.879
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Prkachin, K. M., and Silverman, B. E. (2002). Hostility and facial expression in young men and women: is social regulation more important than negative affect? Health Psychol. 21, 33–39. doi: ten.1037/0278-6133.21.ane.33
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Rothman, Yard. J. (1990). No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology 1, 43–46. doi: 10.1097/00001648-199001000-00010
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Saville, D. J. (1990). Multiple comparing procedures: the practical solution. Am. Statistician 44, 174–180. doi: 10.2307/2684163
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Schlicht, Eastward. J., Shimojo, S., Camerer, C. F., Battaglia, P., and Nakayama, K. (2010). Human wagering behavior depends on opponents' faces. PLoS ONE 5:e11663. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011663
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Smith, M. C., Smith, M. K., and Ellgring, H. (1996). Spontaneous and posed facial expression in Parkinson's disease. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 2, 383–391. doi: 10.1017/S1355617700001454
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Tracy, J. Fifty., and Robins, R. W. (2008). The nonverbal expression of pride: prove for cross-cultural recognition. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 94, 516–530. doi: ten.1037/0022-3514.94.3.516
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Van den Stock, J., Hortensius, R., Sinke, C., Goebel, R., and de Gelder, B. (2015). Personality traits predict brain activation and connectivity when witnessing a violent disharmonize. Sci. Rep. five, 13779. doi: ten.1038/srep13779
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Van den Stock, J., Vandenbulcke, One thousand., Sinke, and de Gelder, B. (2014a). Melancholia scenes influence fear perception of individual torso expressions. Hum. Encephalon Mapp. 35, 492–502. doi: 10.1002/hbm.22195
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Van den Stock, J., Vandenbulcke, M., Sinke, C. B., Goebel, R., and de Gelder, B. (2014b). How affective information from faces and scenes interacts in the brain. Soc. Cogn. Bear on. Neurosci. 9, 1481–1488. doi: 10.1093/scan/nst138
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting Lies and Deceit: The Psychology of Lying and the Implications for Professional Practice. New York, NY: Wiley.
Google Scholar
Woodzicka, J. A. (2008). Sex differences in self-sensation of smiling during a mock chore interview. J. Nonverbal Behav. 32, 109–121. doi: 10.1007/s10919-007-0046-2
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00534/full
0 Response to "Literature Review for Observational Study Smiling in Same Sex Vs Mixed Sex Groups"
Post a Comment