Facial and Body Expressions on Approachability (#189)
How to Cite this Report
APA StyleRandall T. Meza, Kaitlin M. O’Brien, Jacquelyn E. Scherer, Desirée C. Cheney, Chérie E. Owen, Kim W. Schaeffer. Facial and Body Expressions on Approachability. (2014, May 06). Retrieved 02:01, June 25, 2016 from http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTg5
MLA Style"Facial and Body Expressions on Approachability" Randall T. Meza, Kaitlin M. O’Brien, Jacquelyn E. Scherer, Desirée C. Cheney, Chérie E. Owen, Kim W. Schaeffer. 06 May 2014 15:29 25 Jun 2016, 02:01 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTg5>
MHRA Style'Facial and Body Expressions on Approachability', Randall T. Meza, Kaitlin M. O’Brien, Jacquelyn E. Scherer, Desirée C. Cheney, Chérie E. Owen, Kim W. Schaeffer, , 06 May 2014 15:29 <http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTg5> [accessed 25 June 2016]
Chicago Style"Facial and Body Expressions on Approachability", Randall T. Meza, Kaitlin M. O’Brien, Jacquelyn E. Scherer, Desirée C. Cheney, Chérie E. Owen, Kim W. Schaeffer, , http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTg5 (accessed June 25, 2016)
CBE/CSE StyleFacial and Body Expressions on Approachability [Internet]. Randall T. Meza, Kaitlin M. O’Brien, Jacquelyn E. Scherer, Desirée C. Cheney, Chérie E. Owen, Kim W. Schaeffer; 2014 May 06, 15:29 [cited 2016 Jun 25]. Available from: http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTg5
|Reference to Original Report of Finding||Willis, M. L., Palermo, R., & Burke, D. (2011). Judging approachability on the face of it: The influence of face and body expressions on the perception of approachability. Emotion, 11, 514-523. doi:10.1037/a0022571|
|Title||Facial and Body Expressions on Approachability|
|If the original article contained multiple experiments, which one did you attempt to replicate? e.g., you might respond 'Study 1' or 'Experiment 4'.||Experiment 1|
|Link to PDF of Original Report|
|Brief Statement of Original Result||Willis et al. (2011) found happy facial expressions were more approachable than neutral facial expressions which were more approachable than angry facial expressions. They found that neutral body expressions were more approachable than happy body expressions which were more approachable than angry body expressions.|
|Type of Replication Attempted||Highly Direct Replication|
|Result Type||Successful Replication|
|Number of Subjects||75|
|Number of Subjects in Original Study||8|
|Year in which Replication Attempt was Made||2012|
|Name of Investigators (Real Names Required)||Randall T. Meza, Kaitlin M. O’Brien, Jacquelyn E. Scherer, Desirée C. Cheney, Chérie E. Owen, Kim W. Schaeffer|
|Detailed Description of Method/Results||
The participants (n = 75) were undergraduate students from a private university located in the southwestern region of the United States. The mean age of the participants in years was 21.06 + .70 SD. The study was comprised of sixty-one (78%) females and 17 (22%) males. The majority of the participants were Caucasian (75%), followed by Asian (12%), Pacific Islander (10%), Latino/Hispanic (10%), and Native American (2%). All participants completed an informed consent sheet for their involvement in the study.
Participants were administered faces from the Karolinska Directed Emotional Faces Database (KDEF), a database created by Lundqvist, Flykt, and Öhman (1998). The KDEF consists of 4,900 pictures of facial expressions with different emotions to assess perception, attention, emotion and memory. The current study used the KDEF to determine how participants would rate facial expressions on approachability. We used the same stimuli as the original Willis et al. (2011) study. This included 30 facial stimuli (10 angry, 10 neutral, and 10 happy facial expressions). Out of the 30 stimuli, 15 were male faces and 15 were female faces. Goeleven, De Raedt, Leyman, & Verschuere (2008) found KDEF to be a reliable and valid instrument. For example, 87.96% of the emotion ratings of the pictures were consistent between Time 1 and Time 2.
To measure approachability, participants were administered stimuli selected from the Bodily Expressive Action Stimulus Test (BEAST). The BEAST is composed of 254 body expressions displaying anger, fear, happiness, and sadness. The BEAST has been used in previous research (Van den Stock et al., 2007; van de Riet, Grèzes, & de Gelder, 2009). In the current study, we used the same stimuli as the original study. We showed participants full-body photographs of 10 different people (five female bodies and five male bodies) displaying angry, happy, and neutral affective expressions. The face was obscured from the body stimuli in order to ensure that the body expressions were the only influences on the approachability rating. The BEAST is a valuable addition to currently available tools for assessing recognition of affective information. de Gelder and Van den Stock (2011) found a 92.5% accuracy of all stimuli.
The participants were randomly selected from the student population. Emails were sent out to the sample requesting their participation in the research study. In the email, a link was provided which directed participants to our Qualtrics survey that contained both consent sheet and experimental stimuli. Once consent was given to participate in the study, individuals were directed to the Approachability Task. Participants were instructed to imagine being lost, in a hurry, and in an unfamiliar place. Thirty pictures of facial expressions were then presented in random order, which included 10 pictures for each of the three emotions (happy, neutral, and angry). The steps were then repeated for body expressions. The participants were asked to rate the various stimuli on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from -2 (“Strongly Disagree”) to +2 (“Strongly Agree”) to the extent they agreed with the statement, “I would approach this person and ask for directions.” Once participants completed the survey, they were presented with a debriefing page and contact information if they had any questions or concerns.
See Table 1 for mean values and standard deviations of the response measures. Approachability ratings were examined using an Emotion (angry, neutral, happy) x Part (face, body) within subjects ANOVA design. The analysis yielded a significant Emotion main effect, F(2, 148) = 314.81, p < .001, a significant Part main effect, F(1, 74) = 65.74, p < .001; and a significant Emotion x Part interaction, F(2, 148) = 34.97, p < .001 (see Figure 1).
The “face” part condition showed a significant emotion main effect, F(2, 148) = 325.80, p < .001. The Duncan’s post hoc analysis found that the mean approachability rating of the angry face condition was rated significantly less approachable than the mean of the neutral face condition; the neutral face condition was rated significantly less approachable than the happy face condition.
The test for the simple main effects of the interaction in the “body” part condition showed a significant emotion main effect, F(2, 148) = 154.99, p < .001. We conducted a Duncan’s post hoc analysis that found the mean approachability rating for the happy and neutral body conditions were significantly greater than the approachability ratings for the angry body condition (see Table 1). The neutral body condition was not significantly different from the happy body condition.
|Any Known Methodological Differences |
(between original and present study)?
|Email of Investigator|
|Name of individuals who |
actually carried out the project
|Randall T. Meza, Kaitlin M. O’Brien, Jacquelyn E. Scherer, Desirée C. Cheney, Kim W. Schaeffer|
|Location of Project||Point Loma Nazarene University, San Diego, California|
|Characteristics of Subjects |
(subject pool, paid, etc.)
|University students from subject pool|
|Where did these subjects reside?||United States|
|Was this a Class Project?||Yes|
|Further Details of Results as pdf||
|Email of Original Investigator|
|I have complied with ethical standards for experimentation on human beings and, if necessary, have obtained appropriate permission from an Institutional Review Board or other oversight group.|
|TAG: Attention TAG: JDM TAG: Language TAG: Learning TAG: Memory TAG: Perception TAG: Performance TAG: Problem Solving TAG: Social Cognition TAG: Social Psychology TAG: Thinking|