Your face and moves seem happier when I smile. Facial action influences the perception of emotional faces and biological motion stimuli

Abstract

In this research, we replicated the effect of muscle engagement on perception such that the recognition of another’s facial expressions was biased by the observer’s facial muscular activity (Blaesi & Wilson, 2010). We extended this replication to show that such a modulatory effect is also observed for the recognition of dynamic bodily expressions. Via a multi-lab and within-subjects approach, we investigated the emotion recognition of point-light biological walkers, along with that of morphed face stimuli, while subjects were or were not holding a pen in their teeth. Under the ‘pen-in-the-teeth’ condition, participants tended to lower their threshold of perception of ‘happy’ expressions in facial stimuli compared to the ‘no-pen’ condition; thus replicating the experiment by Blaesi and Wilson (2010). A similar effect was found for the biological motion stimuli such that participants lowered their threshold to perceive ‘happy’ walkers in the ‘pen-in-the-teeth’ compared to the ‘no-pen’ condition. This pattern of results was also found in a second experiment in which the ‘no-pen’ condition was replaced by a situation in which participants held a pen in their lips (‘pen-in-lips’ condition). These results suggested that facial muscular activity not only alters the recognition of facial expressions but also bodily expression.

Fact or artifact? Demand characteristics and participants’ beliefs can moderate, but do not fully account for, the effects of facial feedback on emotional experience.

“…Perhaps not surprisingly, then, researchers have examined the role of facial feedback in a variety of social and emotional processes. This includes emotion recognition (Marmolejo-Ramos et al, 2020; Niedenthal et al, 2010; Wood et al, 2016), social perception (Niedenthal, Barsalou, Winkielman, et al, 2005), the experience of empathetic and vicarious emotions (Hatfield et al, 1992; Hoffman, 2001; Holland et al, 2021), attitude contagion (Skinner et al, 2020), the processing of emotional words and concepts (Neal & Chartrand, 2011; Niedenthal, 2007; Niedenthal et al, 2009; Winkielman et al, 2018), and decision-making (Carpenter & Niedenthal, 2020). Despite interesting advancements, though, a key issue remains unresolved: Are facial feedback effects mere methodological artifacts?…”

Facial feedback effect on the sense of body ownership during the rubber hand illusion

“…Facial muscular movements can influence emotional states. The growing literature has suggested that feedback information from facial movements (such as raising the cheeks with a pen) can in turn be crystallized into a specific emotion or can influence the perception of emotionally valenced stimuli via interoceptive changes, which is called Facial Feedback Hypothesis ( Strack et al, 1988 ; Zajonc et al, 1989 ; Izard, 1990 ; Coles et al, 2019 ; Marmolejo-Ramos et al, 2020 ). It has been investigated whether simple manipulation of facial muscle activity by holding a pen in a mouth ( Strack et al, 1988 ) can modulate the ongoing emotional feelings and affective judgments on stimuli ( Niedenthal, 2007 ; Hyniewska and Sato, 2015 ; Coles et al, 2019 ; Yu and Kitayama, 2021 ).…”

Facial mimicry is not modulated by dopamine D2/3 and opioid receptor antagonism

“…This claim that facial feedback contributes to emotion recognition (also called the ‘matched motor’ hypothesis of mimicry) has received considerable support from empirical studies (e.g. Marmolejo-Ramos et al 2020 ; Niedenthal et al 2001 ; Rychlowska et al 2014 ; Stel and van Knippenberg 2008 ; Wood et al 2016a ), but has recently come under attack, largely due to the failed replication of certain prominent findings (Wagenmakers et al 2016 ). A meta-analysis, and a recent multi-laboratory pre-registered collaboration involving nearly 4000 participants, has however confirmed that facial feedback effects exist and can initiate and amplify feelings of happiness (Coles et al 2022a , b , 2019 ).…”