心理學(xué)英文文獻(xiàn)匯報(bào)

TheLiteratureReport1Title:Angry,Disgusted,orAfraid?

StudiesontheMalleabilityofEmotionPerception.Authors:Aviezer,H.etal.(2023)From:

PsychologicalScience,

19(7),724-732.

PrefaceTwomajorviewsabouttheprocessingandperceivingoffacialexpressions:Discretecategoryview:basicfacialexpressionsconveydiscreteandspecificemotions;thereadoutofspecificemotionsfromfacialexpressionsislargelyunaffectedbytheircontext.Dimensionalview:facialexpressionsarenotcategorizeddirectlyintospecificemotioncategories,butratherconveyvaluesonthedimensionsofvalenceandarousal.Thesevaluesarereadoutfromthefacialexpressionsandareusedtoattributeaspecificemotiontotheface;theinitialreadingoutofaffectivedimensionsfromthefacialexpressionsisassumedtobeunaffectedbycontext.Consequently，althoughthediscrete-categoryanddimensionalframeworksholddifferentviewsabouttheinformationconveyedbyfacialexpressions,theysharethenotionthataffectiveinformation(specificemotionsoraffectivedimensions,respectively)isreadoutfromthefacebyaprocessthatisrelativelyimmunetocontext.PrefaceAuthors’views：Inreallife,facesarerarelyencounteredinisolation,andthecontextinwhichtheyappearisoftenveryinformative;Theresultsofearlyresearches（e.g.,Trope,1986;Nakamuraetal.,1990;Carroll&Russell,1996）provedinconsistent,furthermore,therelevanceofthosestudiestotheperceptionoffacialexpressionsisindirectatbest,becauseparticipantswereaskednottodescribetheemotionexpressedintheface,butrathertoattributeemotiontothetargetperson;PrefaceTherearereasonstosuspectthatfacialexpressionsmightbemoresensitivetocontextthanpreviousstudiessuggest.Specifically,priorstudiesmighthaveresultedinequivocalresultsbecausetheydidnottakeintoaccounttheperceptualsimilarityamongfacialexpressions.

PrefaceGoalofthisstudyToaddresstheperceptualsimilarityamongfacialexpressionsandunveilrulesthatgoverncontextualeffectsontheperceptualprocessingoffacialexpressionsandonthemappingoffacialexpressionsintoemotioncategories.PrefaceExperiment1Aim：Toexamineiftheperceptualsimilaritybetweenfacialexpressionsaffectsviewers’susceptibilitytocontextualinfluencesincategorizingtheexpressions,basedonthediscrete-categoryview.Hypothesis：contextualeffectsmightrelyonthesimilaritybetweenthetargetfacialexpressionandthefacialexpressiontypicallyassociatedwiththeaffectivecontext.Experiment1ps:Susskindetal.（2023）establishedthatfacialexpressionsofdisgustshareadecreasingdegreeofsimilaritywithexpressionsofanger,sadness,andfear,inthatorder.Experiment1Method:Participants:

9femaales,7males;StimuliandDesign:

Portraitsof10individuals(5females,5males)posingthebasicfacialexpressionofdisgustweretakenfromEkmanandFriesen’s(1976)set,whichwere

placedonimagesofmodelsinemotionalcontextsthatformedfourlevelsofperceptualsimilarity:(1)fear(lowsimilarity),(2)sadness(mediumsimilarity),(3)anger(highsimilarity),and(4)disgust(fullsimilarity).Experiment1Targetface:disgustContext:disgustContext:sadnessContext:angerContext:fearLowsimilarityHighsimilarityMediumsimilarityFullsimilarityProcedure:“todescribesthefacialexpressionbest”withouttimelimits.sadness disgustanger happinessfear surpriseExperiment1Results:Twomeasures:(1)accuracy,thepercentageoftimesthefacewascategorizedas‘‘disgust,’’and(2)contextualinfluence,thepercentageoftimesthefacewascategorizedasexpressingthecontextemotion(ratherthananyotheremotion).

Experiment1RepeatedmeasuresANOVAshowedasignificantmaineffectofsimilarity(full,high,medium,low),F(3,45)543.7,p<.0001,prep=0.996.Bonferroni-correctedpair-wisecomparisonsbetweenallcontextconditionsconfirmedthatthedeclineinaccuracywassignificantacrossalllevels(allps<.005,prep=0.96)Thesystematicdeclineinaccuracyindicatesthatparticipantsdidnotsimplyignorethefaces,asthatwouldhaveresultedinequaleffectsofcontextforallconditions.FullLowMediumHighTargetface:disgustExperiment1Accuracywasinverselyrelatedtotheperceptualsimilaritybetweenthefacialexpressionofdisgustandthefacialexpressiontypicallyassociatedwiththeemotionalcontext.FullLowMediumFullLowHighMediumFullLowTargetface:disgustHighMediumFullLowTargetface:disgustHighMediumFullLowTargetface:disgustHighMediumFullLowTargetface:disgustHighMediumFullLowThepercentageofresponsesthatcorrespondedtothecontextcategorywaspositivelyrelatedtotheperceptualsimilaritybetweenthefacialexpressionofdisgustandthefacialexpressionassociatedwiththeemotionalcontext.RepeatedmeasuresANOVAdemonstratedthereliabilityofthiseffect,F(3,45)=93.8,p<.0001,prep=0.996;Experiment1Bonferroni-correctedpair-wisecomparisonsbetweentheanger-,sadness-,andfear-contextconditionsconfirmedthatineverycase,decreasingsimilaritywasassociatedwithadecreaseinthetendencytomiscategorizethefacialexpressionasrepresentingthecontext’semotion(ratherthandisgust;allps<.01,prep=

0.95);Furthermore,disgustedfaceswereequallylikelytobecategorizedasexpressingthecontextemotionwhentheyappearedintheangercontextandwhentheyappearedinthedisgustcontext,p>0.7.Experiment1Experiment1FullLowMediumHighMediumHighLowMediumHighFullLowMediumHighFullLowMediumHighTargetface:disgustInaword,Experiment1testedwhetherreadingoutofdiscreteemotionsisaffectedbythesimilaritybetweentheobjectivefacialexpressionsandthefacialexpressiontypicallyassociatedwiththecontext.Experiment1Aim:Experiment2testedthedimensionalview,accordingtowhichreadingoutofvalenceandarousalfromfacialexpressionsshouldnotbeaffectedbycontext.Hypothesis：participants’ratingsofthedimensionsoffacialexpressionswouldbeaffectedbycontextaslongasthetargetfacewasperceptuallysimilartothefacialexpressionassociatedwiththecontext.Experiment2Method:Participants:7females,9males.StimuliandDesign:Experiment2SadnessDisgustTargetfaceLow-arousalsadnessContextHigh-arousalfearPositive-valenceprideNegative-valencedisgustPs:Sadandfearfulfacialexpressionsdifferintheirdegreeofarousal(e.g.,Russell&Bullock,1985),yettheyareperceptuallysimilar(Susskindetal.,2023);Despitetheirdifferenceinvalence,facesexpressingdisgustandprideshareperceptualfeatures(Scherer&Ellgring,2023).Experiment2Experiment2Targetface:sadLow-arousalsadnessHigh-arousalfearTargetface:disgustPositive-valenceprideNegative-valencedisgustExperiment2ProcedureFirstly,toratethevalenceandarousalofthefacialexpressions(embeddedincontext)onscalesfrom1(negative/low)to9(positive/high).Secondly,tocategorizethesamefacialexpressionsasconveyinganger,fear,pride,sadness,disgust,surprise,orhappiness.Results:ArousalRatingsofFaces:Experiment2Targetface:sadTargetface:sadValenceRatingsofDisgustedFace:Experiment2Targetface:disgustTargetface:disgustInaword:

theratingoffacialexpressions’affectivedimensionscanbealteredbythecontextinwhichtheexpressionsareembedded.Experiment2Aim:Totestifthesecontextualeffectsinvolvechangestotheactualprocessingoffacesorarebasedonpost-perceptualinterpretation.Hypothesis：whenthecontext-inducedemotionandthefacialexpressionareincongruent,thescanningofthefaceshouldbeaffectedbythecontext,ratherthanbytheconfigurationofthefacealone.Experiment3Method：Participants:13femals,13males.StimuliandDesign:Targetface(2):anger（10）/disgust（10）Context(3):anger（2）/disgust（2）/neutral(2)120trrialsExperiment3Procedure:Participantswereaskedtocategorizeeachfaceaccordingtowhichoneofsixbasicemotionsitexpressed,usingtheEyeLinkⅡeyetracker.DataAnalysisandDependentVariables：Upperface：eyesandeyebrowsLowerface:noseandmouthThenumberoffixations,thelatencyoffirstgazeintoregionExperiment3Results:Facial-ExpressionCategorization:(1)Neutral:anger:M=56.9%,SD=20;disgust:M=58.9%,SD=23;p>0.7(2)Emotional:showedasignificantinteractionbetweenthefacialexpressionandthecontextemotion(bothps<.0001,prep=0.996)Experiment3Experiment3Accuracydroppedwhenthesamefacesappearedinanincongruentcontext,asparticipantswerehighlypronetoperceivethefacesasconveyingthecontextuallyinducedemotion.EyeScanningofFacesinaNeutralContext:ThenumberoffixationsinthetwoROIswassubmittedtoa2(facialexpression:anger,disgust)×2(ROI:upperface,lowerface)repeatedmeasuresANOVA,whichshowedasignificantinteraction.Experiment3Experiment3Posthoccomparisonsconfirmedthatmorefixationswereallocatedtotheeyeregionintheangryfacesthaninthedisgustedfaces,t(25)=2.19,p<.05,prep=.878,andthatthenumberoffixationstothemouthandnoseregiondidnotdiffersignificantlybetweentheangryanddisgustedfaces,p>.1.EyeScanningofFacesinanEmotionalContext:A2(facialexpression:anger,disgust)×2(contextemotion:anger,disgust)×2(ROI:upperface,lowerface)repeatedmeasuresANOVAonthenumberoffixationsrevealedathree-wayinteraction,F(1,25)=46.3,p<.0001,prep=.996.Experiment3Experiment3Todetermineifcontextchangesthescanningpriorityofdifferentfaceregions,weexaminedhowlongafterstimulusonseteachROIwasenteredforthefirsttime(i.e.,thefirstgaze).TheFace×ContextEmotion×ROIinteractionwassignificant,F(1,25)=5.5,p<.03,prep=.908Experiment3Experiment3Inaword:Facialexpressionsofdisgustandangerarescanneddifferentlywhenplacedinaneutralorcongruentcontextasopposedtoanincongruentcontext.Moreover,anincongruentcontextchangescharacteristiceye-scanningpatternsfromanearlystage,resultinginafixationpatternthatreflectsthenormalscanningofafacialexpressionthatwouldtypicallybeassociatedwiththeemotionexpressedbythecontext.Experiment3GeneralDiscussionThepresentdatachallengeanimportantpostulateofthetwoleadingviewsofhowemotionsareperceivedfromfacialexpressions.Theresultscontrastwiththediscrete-categoryviewinthatitfoundthatfacialexpressionscanbeperceivedasconveyingstrikinglydifferentemotionsdependingonthebodilycontextinwhichtheyappear.Theresultsalsocontrastwiththedimensionalview,ascontextalsomodulatedratingsofthevalenceandarousalofpresentedfacesEmotionseedsAlthoughtheseseedsliedormantinisolatedfaces,theycanbeactivatedbyappropriatecontext.Ifthecontextact