A Smile Really Is Contagious

[Guest guest]

A Smile Really Is Contagious

 

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/a_smile_really_is_contagious

 

Scientists in Sweden have figured out why it's so difficult to keep a straight face if others around you are grinning away. It's your unconscious mind taking control. The researchers at Uppsala University had volunteers look at pictures of expressionless, happy, and angry faces. In return they were told to adopt blank, happy, or angry expressions. When they had to meet a smile with a frown, or a frown with a smile, they had trouble. Twitching in the subjects' faces -- measured with electronic equipment -- indicated they simply didn't have control of their muscles. It's believed that there's a shortcut to the part of the brain that recognizes faces and expressions that bypasses the area responsible for conscious processing

 

 

Sure faces are special, but why?

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/sure-faces-are-special-why-15650.html

 

 

Submitted by coglanglab on Mon, 2008-03-10 19:27. Topic:

brain and behavior

Faces are special. There appears to be a dedicated area of the brain for processing faces. Neonates just a day or two old prefer looking at pictures of faces to looking at non-faces.

This has led many researchers to claim humans are born with innate knowledge about faces. Others, however, have claimed that these data are not the result of nature so much as nurture. Pawan Sinha at MIT attached a video camera to his infant child and let the tape roll for a few hours. He found that faces were frequently the most salient objects in the baby's visual field, and (I'm working from memory of a talk here) also found that a computational algorithm could fairly easily learn to recognize faces. Similarly, a number of researchers have claimed that the brain area thought to be specialized for face detection is in fact simply involved in detecting any object for which one has expertise, and all humans are simply face experts.

Things have seemed to be at an impass, but today, Yoichi Sugita from AIST spoke at both Harvard and MIT. The abstract itself was enough to catch everybody's attention:

 

Infant monkeys were reared with no exposure to any faces for 12 months. Before being allowed to see a face, the monkeys showed preference for human- and monkey faces in photographs. They still preferred faces even when presented in reversed contrast. But, they did not show preference for faces presented in upside-down. After the deprivation period, the monkeys were exposed first to human faces for a week. Soon after, their preference changed drastically. They preferred upright human faces but lost preference for monkey faces. Furthermore, they lost preference for human faces presented in reversed contrast. These results indicate that the interrelated features of the face can be detected without experience, and that a face prototype develops abruptly when flesh faces are shown.

Just to parse this: the monkeys were raised individually without contact with other monkeys. They did have contact with a human caregiver who wore a mask that obstructed view of the face. The point about not preferring upside down faces is important, as this is a basic feature of face processing.

This seems pretty decisive evidence for an innate face module in the brain, though one that requires some tuning (the monkeys' face preferences evolved with experience). However, Sugita apparently noted during the talk -- I heard this second-hand -- that perhaps the monkeys in question did in fact have some experience with faces prior to the face preference test; they could have learned by touching their own faces. This strikes me as a stretch, since that doesn't explain why they would become face experts.

 

Hidden smiles influence consumption and judgment

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/8017

Psychology studies confirm 'unfelt' emotion can alter consequential behaviorCurrent research makes no comment on horses, but it seems that humans can be made to drink.

In studies led by Piotr Winkielman, associate professor of psychology at the University of California, San Diego, people altered their consumption behaviors after exposure to subliminal facial expressions.

Hidden smiles persuaded thirsty subjects to pour more and drink more of an unidentified beverage than did neutral expressions. Frowns had the opposite effect.

Study participants who were unconsciously "primed" with happy faces also reported being willing to pay up to triple the price for the mystery drink. And they reported wanting another half cup instead of just a sip or two more.

Remarkably, the test subjects, whose actions had been influenced by these emotional cues, were not aware of their feelings having changed.

"This is the first demonstration that you can influence consequential, real-world behavior without affecting conscious feeling. We can change what you do, without changing how you feel," Winkielman said.

Winkielman, coeditor of the forthcoming book Emotion and Consciousness, believes the findings, presented at the American Psychological Society annual convention in Los Angeles, May 26-29, support the existence of unconscious or "unfelt" emotion.

"Emotional states operating outside conscious awareness can drive behavior. The subjective experience of a feeling is not always necessary to the process," said Winkielman.

"Feelings are often slow," he said. "In a frightening situation, you run first, feel afraid later."

To tease apart emotional reaction and subjective feeling, Winkielman and colleagues devised two different experiments.

In both studies, subjects were first asked to rate how thirsty and hungry they were. Next, they were subliminally exposed to a series of photographs of happy, angry or neutral faces – masked each time by a neutral face. Consciously, the subjects were aware only of seeing the second, neutral image, which they were then asked to classify as male or female. Immediately afterwards, they were asked (in varying order) to interact with the beverage and rate their moods.

Happy and angry expressions were selected as primes, Winkielman said, because it is easy to extract a simple positive and negative interpretation from them: Grins and glowers are flashed at us in approval and reproach since Day 1 and are essentially equivalent to "stop" and "go" signs.

The researchers chose drinking in part because ingesting an unknown substance can have obvious biological consequences and is therefore not a trivial act – even if, as in this case, the drink is made of nothing more than water, sugar and lemon-lime Kool-Aid.

In the first experiment, 39 undergraduates freely helped themselves and drank as much as they wanted. Unknown to them, the amounts poured and consumed were recorded using an electronic scale. Thirsty participants poured and drank more than twice the amount of the beverage after happy primes than after angry primes.

In the second experiment, 29 undergraduates tasted a small, predetermined sample and were then asked to evaluate it after one sip. Those at the high level of thirst reported willingness to pay 38 cents (U.S.) after happy primes and only 10 cents after angry ones. They also expressed desire for an additional half cup instead of one to two sips.

In both studies, thirst proved a necessary precondition for influence. Moderately thirsty participants were only moderately affected. And those not thirsty, not at all. Thirst also correlated positively with ratings of the beverage's deliciousness and thirst-quenching abilities.

"Motivation matters," Winkielman said. "Your motivational state – your level of need – prepares you to process relevant information and gives value to the stimulus. Otherwise, the emotional message falls on deaf ears."

To business-people or politicians tempted to apply these findings to advertising, Winkielman says: It won't work. The effects of subliminal expressions were too short-lived. By the time people arrived at the store or polling booth, all influence would have worn off.

From UC San Diego

[Guest guest]

At 01:53 AM 3/14/2008, you wrote:

It's true - have you ever notices when you smile at people, they often

smile back? Not everyone, of course, but many? That when you're friendly,

lots of people tend to talk with you, as opposed to say, when you're

feeling down? How we're drawn to people who have more pleasant looks on

their faces, as opposed to those who look grumpy?

Lynn

 

A Smile Really Is

Contagious

 

 

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/a_smile_really_is_contagious

 

Scientists in Sweden have figured out why it's so

difficult to

keep a straight face if others around you are grinning away. It's

your unconscious mind taking control. The researchers at Uppsala

University had volunteers look at pictures of expressionless, happy, and

angry faces. In return they were told to adopt blank, happy, or angry

expressions. When they had to meet a smile with a frown, or a frown with

a smile, they had trouble. Twitching in the subjects' faces -- measured

with electronic equipment -- indicated they simply didn't have control of

their muscles. It's believed that there's a shortcut to the part of the

brain that recognizes faces and expressions that bypasses the area

responsible for conscious processing

 

Sure faces are special, but

why?

 

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/sure-faces-are-special-why-15650.html

 

 

Submitted by coglanglab on Mon, 2008-03-10 19:27. Topic:

brain

and behavior

Faces are special. There appears to be a

dedicated area

of the brain for processing faces. Neonates just a day or two old

prefer looking at pictures of faces to looking at non-faces.

This has led many researchers to claim humans are born with innate

knowledge about faces. Others, however, have claimed that these data are

not the result of nature so much as nurture.

Pawan Sinha at MIT

attached a video camera to his infant child and let the tape roll for a

few hours. He found that faces were frequently the most salient objects

in the baby's visual field, and (I'm working from memory of a talk here)

also found that a computational algorithm could fairly easily learn to

recognize faces. Similarly, a number of researchers have claimed that the

brain area thought to be specialized for face detection is in fact simply

involved in detecting any object for which one has expertise, and all

humans are simply face experts.

Things have seemed to be at an impass, but today, Yoichi Sugita from AIST

spoke at both Harvard and MIT. The abstract itself was enough to catch

everybody's attention:

 

 

Infant monkeys were reared with no exposure to any faces for 12

months. Before being allowed to see a face, the monkeys showed preference

for human- and monkey faces in photographs. They still preferred faces

even when presented in reversed contrast. But, they did not show

preference for faces presented in upside-down. After the deprivation

period, the monkeys were exposed first to human faces for a week. Soon

after, their preference changed drastically. They preferred upright human

faces but lost preference for monkey faces. Furthermore, they lost

preference for human faces presented in reversed contrast. These results

indicate that the interrelated features of the face can be detected

without experience, and that a face prototype develops abruptly when

flesh faces are shown.

Just to parse this: the monkeys were raised individually without

contact with other monkeys. They did have contact with a human caregiver

who wore a mask that obstructed view of the face. The point about not

preferring upside down faces is important, as

this is a basic

feature of face processing.

This seems pretty decisive evidence for an innate face module in the

brain, though one that requires some tuning (the monkeys' face

preferences evolved with experience). However, Sugita apparently noted

during the talk -- I heard this second-hand -- that perhaps the monkeys

in question did in fact have some experience with faces prior to the face

preference test; they could have learned by touching their own faces.

This strikes me as a stretch, since that doesn't explain why they would

become face experts.

 

Hidden smiles influence consumption and

judgment

 

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/8017

Psychology studies confirm 'unfelt' emotion can alter consequential

behavior

Current research makes no comment on horses, but it seems that humans can

be made to drink.

In studies led by Piotr Winkielman, associate professor of psychology at

the University of California, San Diego, people altered their consumption

behaviors after exposure to subliminal facial expressions.

Hidden smiles persuaded thirsty subjects to pour more and drink more of

an unidentified beverage than did neutral expressions. Frowns had the

opposite effect.

Study participants who were unconsciously " primed " with happy

faces also reported being willing to pay up to triple the price for the

mystery drink. And they reported wanting another half cup instead of just

a sip or two more.

Remarkably, the test subjects, whose actions had been influenced by these

emotional cues, were not aware of their feelings having changed.

" This is the first demonstration that you can influence

consequential, real-world behavior without affecting conscious feeling.

We can change what you do, without changing how you feel, "

Winkielman said.

Winkielman, coeditor of the forthcoming book Emotion and Consciousness,

believes the findings, presented at the American Psychological Society

annual convention in Los Angeles, May 26-29, support the existence of

unconscious or " unfelt " emotion.

" Emotional states operating outside conscious awareness can drive

behavior. The subjective experience of a feeling is not always necessary

to the process, " said Winkielman.

" Feelings are often slow, " he said. " In a frightening

situation, you run first, feel afraid later. "

To tease apart emotional reaction and subjective feeling, Winkielman and

colleagues devised two different experiments.

In both studies, subjects were first asked to rate how thirsty and hungry

they were. Next, they were subliminally exposed to a series of

photographs of happy, angry or neutral faces – masked each time by a

neutral face. Consciously, the subjects were aware only of seeing the

second, neutral image, which they were then asked to classify as male or

female. Immediately afterwards, they were asked (in varying order) to

interact with the beverage and rate their moods.

Happy and angry expressions were selected as primes, Winkielman said,

because it is easy to extract a simple positive and negative

interpretation from them: Grins and glowers are flashed at us in approval

and reproach since Day 1 and are essentially equivalent to

" stop " and " go " signs.

The researchers chose drinking in part because ingesting an unknown

substance can have obvious biological consequences and is therefore not a

trivial act – even if, as in this case, the drink is made of nothing more

than water, sugar and lemon-lime Kool-Aid.

In the first experiment, 39 undergraduates freely helped themselves and

drank as much as they wanted. Unknown to them, the amounts poured and

consumed were recorded using an electronic scale. Thirsty participants

poured and drank more than twice the amount of the beverage after happy

primes than after angry primes.

In the second experiment, 29 undergraduates tasted a small, predetermined

sample and were then asked to evaluate it after one sip. Those at the

high level of thirst reported willingness to pay 38 cents (U.S.) after

happy primes and only 10 cents after angry ones. They also expressed

desire for an additional half cup instead of one to two sips.

In both studies, thirst proved a necessary precondition for influence.

Moderately thirsty participants were only moderately affected. And those

not thirsty, not at all. Thirst also correlated positively with ratings

of the beverage's deliciousness and thirst-quenching abilities.

" Motivation matters, " Winkielman said. " Your motivational

state – your level of need – prepares you to process relevant information

and gives value to the stimulus. Otherwise, the emotional message falls

on deaf ears. "

To business-people or politicians tempted to apply these findings to

advertising, Winkielman says: It won't work. The effects of subliminal

expressions were too short-lived. By the time people arrived at the store

or polling booth, all influence would have worn off.

From UC San

Diego