Cited by 10Face Recognition and PerceptionAesthetic Perception and AnalysisEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior

An examination of the Kuleshov effect using still photographs

Open access
Mullennix, John, Barber, Jeremy, Cory, Trista·2019·PLOS ONE

Abstract

The goal of the present study was to examine whether the effect of visual context on the interpretation of facial expression from an actor's face could be produced using isolated photographic stills, instead of the typical dynamic film sequences used to demonstrate the effect. Two-photograph sequences consisting of a context photograph varying in pleasantness and a photograph of an actor's neutral face were presented. Participants performed a liking rating task for the context photograph (to ensure attention to the stimulus) and they performed three tasks for the face stimulus: labeling the emotion portrayed by the actor, rating valence, and rating arousal. The results of the labeling data confirmed the existence of a visual context effect, with more faces labeled as "happy" after viewing pleasant context and more faces labeled "sad" or "fearful" after viewing unpleasant context. This effect was demonstrated when no explicit connection between the context stimulus and face stimulus was invoked, with the contextual information exerting its effect on labeling after being held in memory for at least 10 seconds. The results for ratings of valence and arousal were mixed. Overall, the results suggest that isolated photograph sequences produce a Kuleshov-type context effect on attributions of emotion to actors' faces, replicating previous research conducted with dynamic film sequences.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0224623

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Mullennix, J., Barber, J., & Cory, T.
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown (US)
Corresponding author
Mullennix, John
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2019-10-31
Volume
14
Issue
10
Pages
e0224623
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2982638734
Cited by
10
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Aesthetic Perception and Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Keywords
Kuleshov effect, visual context, facial expression interpretation, emotion labeling, emotional valence, emotional arousal, context effects, liking ratings
MeSH terms
Facial Recognition, Adult, Attention, Emotions, Facial Expression, Fear, Female, Happiness, Humans, Male, Motion Pictures, Photic Stimulation, Photography, Social Perception, Visual Perception, Young Adult

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