THE HAPPINESS/ANGER SUPERIORITY EFFECT

37 Pages·2013·0.72 MB·English

by  Sophia Peaco

THE HAPPINESS/ANGER SUPERIORITY EFFECT: THE INFLUENCE OF THE
GENDER OF PERCEIVER AND POSER IN FACIAL EXPRESSION RECOGNITION

by

Sophia Peaco

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of
The Charles E. Schmidt College of Science
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Arts

Florida Atlantic University
Boca Raton, FL
May 2013
THE HAPPINESS/ANGER SUPERIORITY EFFECT: THE INFLUENCE OF THE GENDER OF PERCEIVER AND
POSER IN FACIAL EXPRESSION RECOGNITION

by
Sophia A. Peaco

This thesis was prepared under the direction of the candidate’s thesis advisor, Dr. Sang Wook Hong, Psychology Department,
and it has been approved by all members of her supervisory committee. It was submitted to all appropriate faculty of the
Charles E. Schmidt College of Science, and it was accepted for meeting its requirements toward completing a Master of Arts
degree in Psychology.

SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE:

___________________________
Sang Wook Hong, Ph.D.
Thesis Advisor

___________________________
Howard Hock, Ph.D.

__________________________
Elan Barenholtz, Ph.D.
________________________________________
David L. Wolgin, Ph.D
Chair, Department of Psychology

________________________________________
Gary W. Perry, Ph.D.
Dean, The Charles E. Schmidt College of Science

________________________________________
Barry T. Rosson, Ph.D
Dean, Graduate College
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author expresses her gratitude to God and for the tireless support of her
mother, Jacqueline Peaco, her grandmother, Ollie Mayes, and her sister, Natasha Peaco.
She also appreciates the contributions made by her advisor, Dr. Song Wook Hong, and
fellow members of her supervisory committee in the completion of this thesis. She
would also like to thank the students of Florida Atlantic University for their participation
in these experiments.

iii
ABSTRACT
Author: Sophia Peaco
Title: The Happiness/Anger Superiority Effect: the Influence of the Gender of
Perceiver and Poser in Facial Expression Recognition

Institution: Florida Atlantic University
Thesis Advisor: Dr. Sang Wook Hong
Degree: Master of Arts
Year: 2013

Two experiments were conducted to investigate the impact of poser and perceiver
gender on the Happiness/Anger Superiority effect and the Female Advantage in facial
expression recognition. Happy, neutral, and angry facial expressions were presented on
male and female faces under Continuous Flash Suppression (CFS). Participants of both
genders indicated when the presented faces broke through the suppression. In the second
experiment, angry and happy expressions were reduced to 50% intensity. At full
intensity, there was no difference in the reaction time for female neutral and angry faces,
but male faces showed a difference in detection between all expressions. Across
experiments, male faces were detected later than female faces for all facial expressions.
Happiness was generally detected faster than anger, except when on female faces at 50%
intensity. No main effect for perceiver gender emerged. It was concluded that happiness
is superior to anger in CFS, and that poser gender affects facial expression recognition.
iv
THE HAPPINESS/ANGER SUPERIORITY EFFECT: THE INFLUENCE OF THE
GENDER OF PERCEIVER AND POSER IN FACIAL EXPRESSION RECOGNITION

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . vi
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Experiment 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .10
Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . .11
Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 11
Stimulus and Apparatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. .. .. . 11
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Experiment 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
General Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 29

v
FIGURES
Figure 1. Figure 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .13
Figure 2. Results from Experiment 1a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . .16
Figure 3. Results from Experiment 1a (continued) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 4. Results from Experiment 1b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Figure 5. Results from Experiment 1b (continued) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Figure 6. Results from Experiment 2a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
Figure 7. Results from Experiment 2a (continued). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Figure 8. Results from Experiment 2b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

v i
INTRODUCTION
From very early in life, we begin to process a plethora of stimuli. As social
creatures, one thing to which we pay particular attention is facial expressions. From
these, we give and extract information that can benefit us in several ways. For example,
we use facial expressions to tell whether we want to interact with each other or be left
alone. We can establish relationships, or we can evade conflict. The ability to read and
display emotion on the face is a useful skill which is honed, in large by part, by the desire
to achieve these last two goals.
Happiness and anger are emotions that are considered most important in everyday
life. Rapid and accurate recognition of both happiness and anger on the face has
evolutionary benefits. For example, on one hand, perceiving anger gives a person the
chance to avoid bodily harm. On the other hand, happiness indicates to the perceiver that
there is a possible opportunity to share resources and establish a relationship with the
poser (Becker, Kenrick, Neuberg, Blackwell, & Smith, 2007). Accordingly, people have
tried to find out which of these emotions is the more quickly and accurately recognized
than the other (Pixton, 2011; Grimshaw, Bulman-Fleming & Ngo, 2004). In this respect,
they have asked which of these emotions is superior to the other when reading facial
expressions. The answer to the question of Happiness/Anger Superiority Effect is not
consistent among studies. Some suggest that happy facial expressions are most quickly
1
and accurately recognized (Grimshaw et al, 2004), but some suggest angry facial
expressions are superior to happy facial expressions (Pinkham, Griffen, Baron, Sasson, &
Gur, 2010). Pixton (2011) hypothesized that this inconstancy may be due to, first,
differences in the methodologies used to study the perception of these emotions. For
example, experiments with recognition tasks (in which one face is presented at a time,
and the participant indicates the recognized facial expression) tend to yield a Happiness
Superiority Effect (Grimshaw et al., 2004). Contrarily, the visual search paradigm often
yields an Anger Superiority effect, although this finding is somewhat less consistent than
those yielded by recognition tasks. One possible explanation for this inconsistency in
results, yielded from different methodologies, is the dissimilar cognitive processes that
the different tasks demand. In recognition tasks, the faces generally receive more
detailed scanning because the stimuli are presented one at a time (Leppänen & Hietanen,
2004). In their own study, Leppänen & Hietanen (2004) found that happy facial
expressions were recognized more quickly than negative facial expressions when faces
were presented individually and, therefore, given individual attention. They suggest that
their findings may reflect a greater ability to generally recognize positive signals rather
than negative ones. Contrarily, faces are given little individual attention in visual search
tasks, where the goal is to identify the facial expression that differs from the others.
Anger is often more quickly recognized in this case. A possible explanation for differing
results from visual research to recognition tasks is that angry faces receive priority
processing over happy faces when both faces are presented at the same time (de Jong,
2
Koster, van Wees, & Martens, 2010), but people may generally prefer happy facial
expressions individually presented.
Pixton (2011), on second, suggests that the inconstancy in results for the
Happiness/Anger Superiority Effect may be due to expectations for women to wear
happy facial expressions more often than they do angry ones. Further, it has been shown
that people more often imagine a female face when asked the think of a happy face and
picture a male face when asked to imagine an angry face (Becker et al., 2007). However,
this bias for female faces with happy facial expressions did not reach significance for
female participants. Furthermore, both the male and female perceivers judged anger more
quickly and accurately in male faces when looking at photographs of posers on a
computer monitor. Because men are the more aggressive of either gender (Kret, 2012;
Becker et al., 2007), anger should be most easily detected in male faces. In addition,
because women are the weaker gender and intuitively should try to avoid fighting, they
should display submissive emotions, such as happiness fear, or sadness. Together, these
results indicate that both gender of poser and gender of perceiver are important factors in
facial expression recognition.
The Socio-Relational Framework of expressive Behavior (SRFB) posits that the
purpose of making facial expressions is to tell the perceiver what the poser wants without
using words (Vigil, 2009). Under this SRFB, facial expressions show the poser’s desire to
begin (or end) a relationship with the perceiver. Posers display either cues of capacity or
cues of trustworthiness. Cues of capacity are intense and dominant and used to show
3
what resources the poser has to offer (if any). Cues of trustworthiness are submissive and
less intense than capacity cues. They are used in order to show the perceiver that the
poser wants to share whatever resources both the perceiver and the poser have. According
to the SRFB, males mainly display (and look for) dominant cues. Females display cues of
trustworthiness, but they look for both kinds of cues. Females, therefore, become experts
in judging both types of cues. They develop an advantage over males in facial expression
recognition. This is a beneficial advantage because, in many cultures, women are not only
responsible for protecting themselves, but also for protecting children (Goos &
Silverman, 2002; Kret, 2012; Hampson et al, 2006). This is consistent with numerous
studies showing the ‘female advantage’ in facial expression recognition (Hoffmann
Kessler, Eppel, Rukavina, & Traue, 2010; Montagne, Kesseks, Frigerio, de Haan, &
Perrett, 2005, Hampson, van Anders, & Mullin, 2006).
Goos and Silverman (2002) posited that the ability to accurately judge anger may
be the result of cognitive mechanisms that have developed to help humans and primates
to survive. They hypothesized that anger could be more accurately judged in male faces
than it is in female faces because a male has potential to cause more harm to either
gender than a female does. They also hypothesized that high levels of testosterone (T)
increased perceivers’ attention to angry faces. They tested their hypotheses by looking at
T levels at different times of the day (high: 8:00-9:00am, low: 11:30am to 12:30pm).
Each photograph was shown for 30ms in a three field Harvard Tachistoscope. The
participants were asked to verbally judge which of four emotions (sadness, anger, fear,
and disgust) they saw after the display of each stimulus. Results showed that T levels did
4