Embodied Emotion Perception: Amplifying and Dampening Facial Feedback Modulates Emotion Perception Accuracy
Abstract
How do we recognize the emotions other people are feeling? One source of information may be facial feedback signals generated when we automatically mimic the expressions displayed on others' faces. Supporting this “embodied emotion perception,” dampening (Experiment 1) and amplifying (Experiment 2) facial feedback signals, respectively, impaired and improved people’s ability to read others' facial emotions. In Experiment 1, emotion perception was significantly impaired in people who had received a cosmetic procedure that reduces muscular feedback from the face (Botox) compared to a procedure that does not reduce feedback (a dermal filler). Experiment 2 capitalized on the fact that feedback signals are enhanced when muscle contractions meet resistance. Accordingly, when the skin was made resistant to underlying muscle contractions via a restricting gel, emotion perception improved, and did so only for emotion judgments that theoretically could benefit from facial feedback.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Automatic mimicry is a potential mechanism that allows humans to recognize and share emotions.
“The current literature argues that a potential mechanism that allows humans to recognize (Neal and Chartrand, 2011;Stel and van Knippenberg, 2008;Wood et al., 2016) and share emotions is automatic mimicry (Decety and Lamm, 2006;Schuler et al., 2016;Singer and Lamm, 2009).”
From Connecting minds and sharing emotions through mimicry: A neurocognitive model of emotional contagion (2017) · cites this paper as Neal and Chartrand, 2011
Botox administration blocked automatic facial mimicry and impaired subjects' ability to recognize other people's emotions.
“In line with emotion contagion theories, this study revealed that Botox administration blocked automatic facial mimicry and impaired subjects' ability to recognize other peoples' emotions.”
From Connecting minds and sharing emotions through mimicry: A neurocognitive model of emotional contagion (2017) · cites this paper as Neal and Chartrand, 2011
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 27 · Cited by 293
- Authors
- Neal, D. T., & Chartrand, T. L.
- Affiliations
- University of Southern California (US)
- Duke University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Neal, David T.
- ORCID
- Chartrand, Tanya L.
- Venue
- Social Psychological and Personality Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2011-04-21
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 673-678
- ISSN
- 1948-5506 (ISSN-L)
- 1948-5514
- OpenAlex
- W2133708093
- Cited by
- 293
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 6.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Social Psychological and Personality Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
- Keywords
- facial feedback, emotion recognition, facial expressions, onabotulinumtoxinA, dermal fillers, facial muscle contraction, skin resistance
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
