![Sample our Behavioral Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110801/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Behavioral-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
People spontaneously mimic a variety of behaviors, including emotional facial expressions. Embodied cognition theories suggest that mimicry reflects internal simulation of perceived emotion in order to facilitate its understanding. If so, blocking facial mimicry should impair recognition of expressions, especially of emotions that are simulated using facial musculature. The current research tested this hypothesis using four expressions (happy, disgust, fear, and sad) and two mimicry-interfering manipulations (1) biting on a pen and (2) chewing gum, as well as two control conditions. Experiment 1 used electromyography over cheek, mouth, and nose regions. The bite manipulation consistently activated assessed muscles, whereas the chew manipulation activated muscles only intermittently. Further, expressing happiness generated most facial action. Experiment 2 found that the bite manipulation interfered most with recognition of happiness. These findings suggest that facial mimicry differentially contributes to recognition of specific facial expressions, thus allowing for more refined predictions from embodied cognition theories.
Notes
1Readers familiar with social psychology literature should note the difference between the above methods from manipulations aimed at temporarily inducing a specific emotional expression for the purpose of changing mood. Thus, Strack, Martin, and Stepper (Citation1988) used a pen placed in a mouth like a writing instrument to induce a temporary increase in mood (when held in teeth and causing a light smile) and a decrease in mood (when held in lips so that it causes an expression of sadness). Note also that in our lip manipulation, the pen rests on the lips horizontally, not forming any particular expression.
2Very high recognition rates for happiness might account for variation in findings in some neuropsychological studies (e.g., Adolphs, Damasio, Tranel, & Damasio, Citation1996; Adolphs et al., 2000).