Psychology 110 Barbara Briscoe

FACIAL EXPRESSIONS (EMOTION)

Methods we use to decipher peoples' emotions are reading bodies, listening to tone of voice and studying faces. Some people are better emotion detectors than others are. Psychologist Paul Ekman and his team have concluded through research that there are six universal emotions that can be detected throughout groups from differing cultures. Those emotions are: anger, fear, happiness, sadness, disgust and surprise. There is evidence to suggest that the universal emotions are detected with greater ease than non-universal emotions. In my experiment on facial expressions (emotions), I used these concepts and then expanded the ideas with my own hypothesis in relation to the results I expected and the procedures that I used.

To complete the experiment; as instructed, I selected two subjects to pose for photos using four universal emotions and four other emotions that I felt would be good for expression in a photograph. In addition to the eight emotions, I came up with three distracter emotions that the subjects posing for the emotions would not have any awareness of during their part of the experiment. The distracter emotions were used in the next step of the experiment. In part two, five subjects were asked to label the photos with emotions I had cut into individual labels. The labels consist of the eight emotions plus three distracter emotions. My hypothesis in this experiment relates directly to the subjects I chose. My sister and my husband are the facial expression models. The five labeling subjects are immediate family members of both people split three on my husband's side and two on my sister's. Doing the experiment in this manner brought me to my hypothesis. Before collecting my data, I concluded that immediate family members of a subject in the photos would be more likely to correctly guess the emotion of the person whom they know very well. I expected the frequency of accurate labeling to consistently have the outcome relevant to my hypothesis. I chose not to inform the participants involved in labeling of my hypothesis during the experiment. I wanted to be sure nothing would interfere with the manner they used to label the photos. I began the experiment by simply taking pictures of the expressions I requested my subjects to make. I asked the subjects to close their eyes before making the expression and to think about a life experience when they had felt the emotion. Neither of the participants expressed any difficulty in the process. In the second part of the experiment; I simply gave the other five subjects labels and asked them to place them directly on the photographs. I collected the data by writing the individual results under the name of each labeler. ft was important at the time to be sure to keep track of names of all involved because my hypothesis relied on that data.

In addition to the lists of data collection by name of subject, I input the data into a table consisting of right and wrong answers. The right and wrong data table is useful in studying the effects of universal versus non-universal emotion detection. Although universal versus non-universal is not a part of my main hypothesis, the results are important to the understanding of emotions relating to this experiment. The table is as follows:

Data Collected

The results regarding universal versus non-universal were the first but not the last unexpected finding. From the data chart above, I discovered that the non-universal emotions were guessed correctly more often than the universal. I believe that the results were affected by the distracter emotions. I feel that without the distracter labels, the participants correctly would label the emotions more often than with the distracter labels involvement. The distracter emotions I used were; excitement, shame and worry. I now can see that excitement and surprise are in the same emotion realm. I also believe shame and disgust are very similar, as well as the pair worry and sadness.

The findings regarding my main hypothesis were perplexing at first sight. Throughout the collection of data I held the logical belief that the more time a labeler had spent with the participant, the better their judgement on picking the correct emotions. I was certain that the participants would have little difficulty recognizing their own family members expressions (emotions). I assumed that my parents had experienced every emotion my sister is capable of expressing over the last twenty years and as a result of the close relationship, the would have more accuracy identifying her emotions. The same assumption would prevail for my husband and his family. In reality, the contrary to my hypothesis is true. The labeling subjects guessed correctly more often the emotions of the person not in their immediate family. The percentage of answers consistent with my hypothesis is 40%. The percentage inconsistent with my hypothesis is 60%.

I have a couple of areas that may have affected the results. When looking back at the data collection chart, I find that overall there were more correct answers than correct. This brings me to thought that it is possible the labeling subjects had great difficulty with the task: If that is true, it is likely that the end result was affected by that difficulty in recognition. Here again, I am thinking that distracter emotions may add confusion to the task of identification. Another area that could have ironically impacted the findings is familiarity. When labeling subjects label their own family member, overconfidence could impact the time spent analyzing the photos of the individual they know well. To further explore this idea, I asked the five subjects if they felt knowing one subject very well had impact on their decisions at the time of the task. In general, the answer is "no." The subjects feel that they were not more confident during the experiment, nor did they find that one persons emotions were any easier to decipher than the others. After listening to the comments made by the five subjects, I have thought about the familiarity concept even more. I still think overconfidence due to familiarity could greatly affect the results. Talking to the subjects and analyzing their responses brings me to the possible conclusion that the process of being overconfident with the familiar subjects' expressions is unconscious. If that concept is true then it would certainly explain the answers I received from them and a possible answer for the unexpected findings of this experiment.

This experiment is both challenging and creative because of the vast amount of choice regarding a direction and hypothesis. if I was to repeat the experiment I might omit the' distracter emotions and expect to reveal more stable and consistent labeling answers. I also would be curious to find out how things may turn out using five subjects who are unfamiliar with the two photo participants.

Being involved in this project has awakened my awareness of the emotions I see in people I encounter. I feel that I am more likely to differentiate emotions within the same range, i.e.; joy and amusement or annoyance and disgust. I also have gained an understanding of all that goes into the process of experimentation.