Evaluating past emotions in changing facial expressions: The role of current emotions and culture.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
expressions. While researchers have recently focused on perceptions of current expressions, little is known about how past expressions are gauged and about cultural differences in this process. The present research investigated whether and how evaluations of past facial expressions are influenced by subsequent expressions, and whether this process varies across East Asian and Western cultures. Specifically, Chinese and Canadian participants judged the degree of positivity/negativity of past expressions after viewing expressions that changed from past emotions-low-intensity smiles (Experiment 1), high-intensity smiles (Experiment 2), and anger (Experiment 3)-to current positive or negative emotions (collected between 2019 and 2020). All three experiments consistently found an assimilation effect, whereby past expressions were rated more positively when the current expression was positive than when the current expression was negative. Moreover, this assimilation effect was consistently greater in Chinese than in Canadian participants. Together, these findings suggest that the interpretation of past facial expressions assimilates toward the valence of subsequent expressions and that the impact of this temporal emotional context is more pronounced in Eastern relative to Western cultures. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".