MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1999302770 · doi:10.1167/11.11.599

Happy or Sad? Context Does Not Influence Four-Year-Olds' Perception of Happy and Sad Facial Expressions

2011· article· en· W1999302770 on OpenAlexaff
M. Horner, Catherine J. Mondloch, Jasmine Mian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyFacial expressionAngerValence (chemistry)PerceptionEmotional expressionEmotion perceptionDisgustContext (archaeology)Face perceptionDevelopmental psychologyCognitive psychologySocial psychologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adults' perception of facial displays of emotion is influenced by context; they make more errors and take longer to respond when the emotion displayed by the face (e.g., fear) is incongruent with the emotion displayed by the body (e.g., anger) (Meeren et al., 2005). This congruency effect is larger when emotions are similar (Aviezer et al., 2008). Previously, we reported that, like adults, 8-year-olds show congruency effects for sad/fearful facial expressions, but not sad/happy facial expressions, perhaps because happy and sad expressions differ in valence and intensity whereas fearful and sad expressions differ only in intensity (Widen & Russell, 2008). Additionally, happy and sad expressions share fewer physical characteristics than fearful and sad expressions (Aviezer et al., 2008). Because even infants and pre-school children are sensitive to emotional valence (Widen & Russell, 2008) we hypothesized that pre-school children would not show congruency effects for happy and sad facial expressions. Four-year-old participants (n = 12) helped a puppet sort faces into one of two houses (a happy or sad house); faces were presented in isolation, and on congruent/incongruent bodies. They showed no effect of congruency, p > .20, despite sorting isolated bodies almost perfectly. In a control study designed to verify that the lack of congruency effect could not be attributed to our child-friendly method, adults (n = 12) performed this same task with face/body expressions previously shown to elicit a congruency effect - sad/fear. They made more errors on incongruent trials, p < .01. Our data suggest that children's early sensitivity to emotional valence precludes congruency effects for happy/sad expressions, which we are testing in a follow-up study with two to three-year-old children - the youngest children that can reliably sort these facial expressions. Collectively, these results provide novel insights about how and when context influences children's sensitivity to facial expressions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicFace Recognition and Perception→French-language works237,207→