How and why head position changes the perception of facial expressions of emotion.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A large body of research on emotion communication has demonstrated that facial muscle movements (i.e., facial expressions) influence social perceptions made from faces. However, new research suggests that head position can also affect the way that faces are perceived, by systematically changing the appearance of the face. More specifically, according to the action-unit imposter account, tilting one's head downward causes the eyebrows to appear lower and take on a V shape-the same appearance cues associated with a particular facial muscle movement (corrugator activity, or Action Unit 4 [AU4]). Drawing on this account, four studies (two of which were preregistered) tested whether a downward head tilt intensifies perceptions of facial expressions of emotion that include V-shaped eyebrows from AU4 but weaken perceptions of expressions that do not. Supporting this hypothesis, findings showed that (a) when the head is tilted downward, anger expressions-which include V-shaped eyebrows from AU4-are perceived as more intense, whereas expressions of happiness, disgust, fear, and surprise-which do not include V-shaped eyebrows from AU4-are perceived as less intense; (b) visually apparent changes to the eyebrows caused by the action-unit imposter effect account for the effect of a downward head tilt on perceptions of anger; and (c) this head movement is spontaneously used by individuals seeking to encode facial expressions of anger. Together, findings suggest that head movements play an important role in communicating emotion expressions from the face, especially anger. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".