Expression Authenticity: The Role of Genuine and Deliberate Displays in Emotion Perception

Abstract

People dedicate significant attention to others’ facial expressions and to deciphering their meaning. Hence, knowing whether such expressions are genuine or deliberate is important. Early research proposed that authenticity could be discerned based on reliable facial muscle activations unique to genuine emotional experiences that are impossible to produce voluntarily. With an increasing body of research, such claims may no longer hold up to empirical scrutiny. In this article, expression authenticity is considered within the context of senders’ ability to produce convincing facial displays that resemble genuine affect and human decoders’ judgments of expression authenticity. This includes a discussion of spontaneous vs. posed expressions, as well as appearance- vs. elicitation-based approaches for defining emotion recognition accuracy. We further expand on the functional role of facial displays as neurophysiological states and communicative signals, thereby drawing upon the encoding-decoding and affect-induction perspectives of emotion expressions. Theoretical and methodological issues are addressed with the aim to instigate greater conceptual and operational clarity in future investigations of expression authenticity.

Sitting in Judgment: How Body Posture Influences Deception Detection and Gazing Behavior

“…The lack of a relationship between the microexpression scores and empathy may also be explained by the artificial nature of the task (see [61]). Microexpressions are brief flashes of prototypical expressions of emotions, whereas most studies employ recognition tasks using clear valence (positive-negative) facial expressions presented for longer periods (e.g., [45]).…”

The Influence of Facial Asymmetry on Genuineness Judgment

“…However, an event-elicited and genuinely expressed emotion does not guarantee that the Emotional Facial Expression (EFE) will be judged as genuine by the perceiver ( Dawel et al, 2017 ). Zloteanu and Krumhuber (2021 , p.4) referred to a “demeanor bias”: although the emotion and intent are genuinely expressed, other factors can influence the perceiver’s judgment in the sense of fakeness. The determinants of perceived genuineness, however, are still relatively unexplored in the literature.…”

“…In this vein, some authors conceptualize the function of facial expressions as 2-fold: either reflecting a genuine emotional state or communicating signals of affect and intent (Zloteanu and Krumhuber, p.2). The “demeanor bias” ( Zloteanu and Krumhuber, 2021 ) could therefore be fostered when the perceiver guesses the social function of the EFE. Based on the well-known expressions of smirk (i.e., an asymmetrical smile that only involves the left or right lips) or the “Non-Duchenne” smile (i.e., a false smile that only involves the lower face; Ekman et al, 1990 ), participants might judge a facial expression of happiness as less genuine by suspecting social desirability intent.…”

“…The current study investigates how asymmetry and emotional display of the expresser might affect genuineness judgment by the perceiver (operationally defined as “whether the emotional expression displayed by another person is a genuine reflection of its underlying affect”; Zloteanu and Krumhuber, 2021 , p.2). We specifically predict that individuals will judge (a) symmetrical faces as more genuine than asymmetrical faces due to a subjective gap with EFEs prototypes and (b) happy faces as less genuine than angry and fearful faces due to their socially conditioned nature.…”

AC-WGAN-GP: Augmenting ECG and GSR Signals using Conditional Generative Models for Arousal Classification

“…For all other uses, contact the owner/author(s). [8]. Emotional states are accompanied by certain involuntary responses in different parts of the body, such as in the brain, heart and skin.…”