The Effects of Facial Attractiveness and Familiarity ... - Frontiers

Our results show that facial attractiveness influences the recognition of facial expressions in both static and dynamic contexts and highlight ... Articles CarlSenior AstonUniversity,UnitedKingdom MariskaE.Kret LeidenUniversity,Netherlands YipingZhong HunanNormalUniversity,China FangfangWen SchoolofPsychology,CentralChinaNormalUniversity,China Theeditorandreviewers'affiliationsarethelatestprovidedontheirLoopresearchprofilesandmaynotreflecttheirsituationatthetimeofreview. AbstractIntroductionExperiment1aExperiment1bExperiment2aExperiment2bGeneralDiscussionDataAvailabilityStatementEthicsStatementAuthorContributionsFundingConflictofInterestFootnotesReferences SuggestaResearchTopic> DownloadArticle DownloadPDF ReadCube EPUB XML(NLM) Supplementary Material Exportcitation EndNote ReferenceManager SimpleTEXTfile BibTex totalviews ViewArticleImpact SuggestaResearchTopic> SHAREON OpenSupplementalData ORIGINALRESEARCHarticle Front.Psychol.,25November2019 |https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02496 TheEffectsofFacialAttractivenessandFamiliarityonFacialExpressionRecognitionJinhuiLi1,DexianHe1,LingdanZhou1,XueruZhao2,TingtingZhao3,WeiZhang1,4,5andXianyouHe1,4,5*1SchoolofPsychology,SouthChinaNormalUniversity,Guangzhou,China2AcademyofEducationalScienceTalentCapitalBase,BeijingInstituteofEducation,Beijing,China3SchoolofHealthManagement,GuangzhouMedicalUniversity,Guangzhou,China4CenterforStudiesofPsychologicalApplication,SouthChinaNormalUniversity,Guangzhou,China5GuangdongKeyLaboratoryofMentalHealthandCognitiveScience,SouthChinaNormalUniversity,Guangzhou,China Theclassictheoryoffaceperceptionholdsthattheinvariant(e.g.,identityandrace)andvariant(e.g.,expression)dimensionsoffaceinformationareindependentofoneanother.Twoseparateneuralsystemsareinvolvedinfaceprocessing.However,thedynamictheoryoffaceperceptionindicatesthatthesetwoneuralsystemsinteractbidirectionally.Accordingly,byusingtheemotioncategorizationtaskandmorphmoviestask,weinvestigatedtheinfluenceoffacialattractivenessonfacialexpressionrecognitionandprovidedfurtherevidencesupportingthedynamictheoryoffaceperceptioninboththestaticanddynamiccontexts.Inaddition,thisresearchusedfamiliarcelebrities(includingactors,televisionpersonalities,politicians,andcomedians)andexploredtheroleoffamiliarityinfaceperception.Intwoexperiments,theparticipantswereaskedtoassesstheexpressionsoffaceswithdifferentlevelsofattractivenessanddifferentlevelsoffamiliarity.Wefoundthatregardlessofbeinginastaticordynamicfacesituation,happyexpressionsonattractivefacescanberecognizedmorequickly,highlightingtheadvantageofhappyexpressionrecognition.Moreover,instaticanddynamicfamiliarfacesituations,familiarityhasagreaterimpactonexpressionrecognition,andtheinfluenceofattractiononexpressionrecognitionmaybeweakenedorevenunaffected.Ourresultsshowthatfacialattractivenessinfluencestherecognitionoffacialexpressionsinbothstaticanddynamiccontextsandhighlighttheimportanceoffamiliarityinfaceperception. Introduction Facialexpressionscanconveyinformationregardingindividuals’emotionsandsocialintentions,whichisofgreatimportanceforsocialinteraction.Therapidandcorrectidentificationoffacialexpressionsisanecessityforsuccessfulsocialinteraction.Aclassiccognitivemodeloffaceperceptionemphasizesthedifferencebetweentheprocessesinvolvedintherecognitionofidentityandthoseinvolvedintheidentificationofexpression(BruceandYoung,1986).Basedonthismodel,Haxbyetal.(2000)proposedamodelfortheworkingsofthissystemthatemphasizedadifferencebetweentheindicationofconstantandvariantsidesoffaces.Therepresentationoftheconstantcharacteristicsoffaces(e.g.,sex,race,andidentity)underliestherecognitionofindividuals,whereastherepresentationofthevariantcharacteristicsoffaces(e.g.,expression)underliestheperceptionofinformationthatpromotessocialinteraction. Inrecentyears,classicmodelsoffaceperceptionhaveincreasinglybeenchallenged(CalderandYoung,2005;HugenbergandSczesny,2006;Beckeretal.,2007;Fisheretal.,2016).Forexample,onestudyfoundthattheprocessingoffacialidentityandexpressioninvolvesfunctionalinteractionsandthattheirindependenceisnotabsolute(CalderandYoung,2005).Thisstudyproposedthattheinvariantandvariablefeaturesoffacesmaybeencodedbythesameperceptualcharacterizationsystem,followedbyseparation.HugenbergandSczesny(2006)foundthatparticipantscouldidentifyangryfacialexpressionsfasterinmalefacesthanfemalefaces.Beckeretal.(2007)suggestedthatdecisionsregardingthegenderofafaceandfacialexpressionsarenotseparateandfoundthatsubjectswerefasterandmoreaccurateindiscoveringangryexpressionsonmalefacesandhappyexpressionsonfemalefaces.Fisheretal.(2016)identifiedtheinteractionbetweenfacialidentityandexpression.Similarly,otherstudieshaveconcludedthattherearedifferentdegreesofoverlapbetweenthebrainregionsthatprocessfaceinformation(e.g.,Ganeletal.,2005;Foxetal.,2009;RedfernandBenton,2017).Specifically,Foxetal.(2009)foundthattheprocessesinvolvedinfacialidentityandexpressionarenotcompletelyindependentandthatdifferentdegreesofoverlapexistbetweenthebrainregionsprocessingfaceinformation.Ganeletal.(2005)identifiedaninteractivenetworkresponsiblefortheprocessingofexpressionandidentity.RedfernandBenton(2017)usedanidentificationtaskandconcludedthatexpressionsconstituteapartoffacialidentityrepresentation. Giventhedebateregardingtheclassictheoryoffaceperception,QuinnandMacrae(2011)proposedadynamictheoryoffaceperception.Theseauthorsproposedtheexistenceofintegratedprocessingpathwaysresponsibleforfaceprocessing.Facialcharacteristics(includinginvariantandvariantcharacteristics)areprocessedinamultidimensionalfacecodingsystem.Thefacialstructureiscodedintheprimarystage;then,moresophisticatedinformationisprocessedinthesamedynamicsystem,andthereisageneralinteraction.Thisviewthatfacialcharacteristicsareprocessedinamultidimensionalfacecodingsystemhasbeenconfirmedbymanystudies(Ganeletal.,2005;Freemanetal.,2008;Foxetal.,2009).Forexample,Foxetal.(2009)foundthatfacialidentityandexpressionarenotprocessedcompletelyindependentlyandthattherearedifferentdegreesofoverlapbetweenthebrainregionsinvolvedinfaceinformationprocessing.Otherevidencesuggestingthattheinvariantdimensionoffaceinformationaffectsparticipants’recognitionofface’svariantdimensionshasbeenreported(Craigetal.,2012;FitousiandWenger,2013;Smithetal.,2017;CraigandLipp,2018). Althoughpreviousresearchhastypicallyfocusedonhowinvariantandvariantface-relatedinformationisincorporatedintojudgmentsoffacialexpression,limitedresearchhasconsideredtherelevanceandimportanceoffacialattractiveness.Faceprocessingtheorieshavepaidminimalattentiontotheroleofattractivenessandhowattractivenessrelatestootherfacialattributes.Inthefieldoffaceperception,researchershaveincorporatedfacialattractivenessintotheinvariantdimensionoffaceinformation(Rhodes,2006;Winstonetal.,2007;Iariaetal.,2008).Forexample,Iariaetal.(2008)foundthatthefusiformgyrus(FFA)isactivatedwhenmakingfacialattractivenessjudgmentsandthattheFFAmainlyprocessestheinvariantdimensionsoffaces.Additionally,notedattractivenessisbasedmoreonthetemporallyinvariantaspectsthanthedynamicaspectsoffacialstructure.Rhodes(2006)suggestedthatfacialattractivenessmaybemoresimilartothepropertiesofidentityandgenderintermsofitsprocessingdemands.Theattractivenessofafaceisasalientsocialsignalthatreflectstheoveralleffectofallphysicalattributesofaface. Severalstudieshaveconcludedthatourperceptionoftheattractivenessofafaceismoderatedbyitsfacialexpression(MagdaandGoodwin,2008;TracyandBeall,2011;Golleetal.,2014;Sutherlandetal.,2017).Inthesestudies,theparticipantsperceivedfacesasmoreattractivewhenthefacialexpressionwashappyasopposedtootherexpressions.Theapparentlinkbetweenattractivenessandfacialexpressionhasbeenstrengthenedbyrecentneurologicalevidenceemphasizingincreasedactivityinthemedialorbitofrontalcortex(OFC)duringthepresentationofstimulithatareattractiveandpositivelyvalenced(O’Dohertyetal.,2003).Sunetal.(2015)usedtheevent-relatedpotential(ERP)methodtoexplorewhetherfacialattractivenessandfacialexpressionareprocessedsimilarlyinthebrain.Theyfoundthatfacialattractivenessandfacialexpressionwereseparatelyembodiedbytwoearlycomponents,i.e.,N170andP2,whiletheirinteractioneffectwasembodiedbythelatepositivepotential(LPP),whichisalatecomponent(Sunetal.,2015).Giventhatattractivenessisaffectedbyfacialexpressionrecognitionandthatthereisanoverlappingbrainregioninvolvedinfacialattractivenessandfacialexpressionrecognition,weproposethatattractivenessalsoaffectsexpressionrecognition. Tothebestofourknowledge,fewstudieshaveexploredwhetherfacialattractivenesscontributestofacialexpression,andtheresultsofthesestudiesarenotconsistent.TaylorandBryant(2016)foundthattherewasnointeractionbetweenfacialattractivenessandexpression.Intheirstudy,theauthorsaskedtheparticipantstocategorizedifferentfacialexpressions(happy,neutral,orangry)thatvariedwithrespecttofacialattractiveness(attractiveorunattractive).Theirresultssuggestedthatfacialattractivenessdoesnotplayasignificantroleinthejudgmentofhappyorangryfacialexpressions.Anearlierstudyalsofoundnointeractionbetweenfacialattractivenessandfacialexpressionintheratingsofemotionvalence(Jaenschetal.,2014).Incontrast,Lindebergetal.(2018)usedanemotioncategorytaskandfoundthatfacialsocialclassificationcuesinfluencedemotionperception.Thus,theauthorsfoundaninteractionbetweenfacialattractivenessandexpression.Specifically,theyidentifiedagreaterhappyfaceadvantageresultinginmorepositivelyevaluatedattractivefacesthanunattractivefaces.Golleetal.(2014)indicatedthattheattractivenessofafacecouldaffecttheassessmentofthehappyexpression.Wesuspectthatthesedifferentexperimentalresultsmaybecausedbydifferentexperimentalparadigmsselectedfordifferentexperiments.TaylorandBryant(2016)andLindebergetal.(2018)usedanemotionalclassificationtaskinanexperiment,butLindebergetal.(2018)usedalargersamplesize.Golleetal.(2014)utilizedtwoalternativeforcedchoice(2AFC)paradigms.Itisalsopossiblethatdifferentexperimentsuseangryexpressionsasnegativeexpressionsandthatangryexpressionsareoftenconfusedwithotherexpressions(TaylorandJose,2014),leadingtoinconsistentconclusionsindifferentstudies.AlthoughLindebergetal.(2018)verifiedthatfaceattractivenessaffectsexpressionrecognition,thefindingsoftheirstudyareinconsistentwiththefindingsreportedbyTaylorandBryant(2016).Therefore,moreevidenceconcerningwhetherfacialattractivenessaffectsfacialexpressionidentificationshouldbecollected.Inaddition,thefacialexpressionsusedinthisresearcharehappyandsad,whicharenotexactlythesameasthehappyandangryexpressionsusedbyLindebergetal.(2018).WeusedanexperimentconsistentwithLindebergetal.(2018)inExperiment1a.Ontheonehand,theparadigminvestigateswhethertherecognitionoffacialexpressionsisaffectedbyattractiveness.Ontheotherhand,thisstudyisanextensionofexistingresearch.Thesadexpressionrepresentsexperimentalmaterialthatexpandstherangeofexpressionsaffectedbyattractivenessandfurtherverifiestherelationshipbetweenfacialattractivenessandexpressionrecognition. Inaddition,previousresearchillustratesthatfamiliarstimulipromptdiversepositivereactions(Zajonc,1968;Bornstein,1989).Manystudieshavefoundthatfamiliarityaffectstheprocessingoffaceperception(i.e.,facialattractivenessandfacialexpressions)(MorelandandBeach,1992;Duboisetal.,1999;Claypooletal.,2007;Carretal.,2017;Yanetal.,2017).Moreover,studieshaveshownthattherearestronginteractionsbetweenfamiliarityandexpressionrecognition(Claypooletal.,2007;Carretal.,2017).Forexample,Carretal.(2017)concludedthatfamiliarfacesappearhappierandlessangrythanunfamiliarfaces,indicatingthatfamiliarityaffectsfacialexpressionrecognition.Claypooletal.(2007)alsofoundthesameresult.Furthermore,previousstudieshaveexaminedhowmultiplesocialcategorycues,namely,sexandrace(Smithetal.,2017;CraigandLipp,2018)andsexandage(CraigandLipp,2018),simultaneouslymoderateexpressionrecognitionandprovidedevidenceofthecombinedinfluenceofthesesocialcuesonexpressionrecognition.However,nostudieshaveinvestigatedhowfacialattractivenessandfamiliaritysimultaneouslymoderateexpressionrecognition.Thus,inthepresentresearch,wemanipulatefacialfamiliarity. Moreimportantly,mostexistingresearchconcerningfacialexpressionrecognitionhasusedstaticfaceimages(Claypooletal.,2007;Dobeletal.,2008;Carretal.,2017),whereasinreallife,facesaretypicallyseeninmotion.Inaddition,thedynamiccontextismoreecologicallyvalid.Thatis,ininterpersonalcontexts,people’sfacialexpressionsareusuallyinadynamicsituation(Niedenthaletal.,2000;Rubenstein,2005;Ishiietal.,2011).Therefore,inthisresearch,wepresentedbothstaticanddynamicfacestosubjectstojudgefacialexpressions. Asmentionedabove,thepresentresearchusestheemotioncategorizationtask(seeBijlstraetal.,2010;TaylorandBryant,2016;Lindebergetal.,2018)andmorphmoviestask(seeNiedenthaletal.,2000;HugenbergandBodenhausen,2003;Bijlstraetal.,2014)instaticanddynamiccontexts.Accordingly,weinvestigatetheextenttowhichattractivenessandfamiliarityinfluencefacialexpressionprocessing.Weconducttwoexperimentstoexplorethisproblem.Accordingtothedynamictheoryoffaceperception,iftheattractivenessassociatedwithfaceinformationcanaffecttheprocessingofexpressionrecognition,theprocessingoffacialattractivenessandexpressionrecognitionaredependentononeanother.However,accordingtotheclassictheoryoffaceperception,ifthefacialattractivenessrelatedtofaceinformationdoesnotaffecttheprocessingofexpressionrecognition,theprocessingoffacialattractivenessandexpressionrecognitionareindependentofoneanother.Basedonbehavioralevidencesuggestingthatattractivefacesareoftenassociatedwithpositivepersonalitycharacteristics(Dionetal.,1972;Golleetal.,2014;Wangetal.,2015;Lindebergetal.,2018),wehypothesizethatparticipantscanrecognizethehappyexpressionsofattractivefacesmorequicklyandthattheadvantagesofhappyexpressionrecognitiondonotapplytounattractivefacesineitherastaticcontextoradynamiccontext(Experiments1aand1b).Inaddition,inaccordancewithpreviousstudies(Carretal.,2017;Smithetal.,2017;CraigandLipp,2018;Lindebergetal.,2018),weanticipatethatiffamiliarityhasagreaterimpactonfacialexpressionrecognition,underthefamiliarfacecondition,theimpactofattractivenessonfacialexpressionrecognitionmaybeweakenedorevenunaffected.Similarly,comparedtotheotherconditions,iffamiliarityandattractivenesstogetheraffectexpressionrecognition,happyexpressionsonfamiliarattractivefacescanbeidentifiedmorequickly. Ingeneral,themainaimofthisresearchistoinvestigatewhetherfacialattractivenessaffectsexpressionrecognitioninbothstatic(Experiment1a)anddynamic(Experiment1b)contexts.Thisresearchalsoexploreshowfamiliarityandfacialattractivenesscanaffectexpressionrecognitioninstatic(Experiment2a)anddynamic(Experiment2b)contexts. Experiment1a InExperiment1a,wesoughttodeterminewhetherfacialattractivenessinfluencesfacialexpressionrecognitioninstaticfaces.Wepredictedaninteractionbetweenfacialattractivenessandexpressionrecognition,i.e.,wepredictedthattheparticipantswouldrecognizethehappyexpressionsonattractivefacesmorequicklyandthattheadvantagesofhappyexpressionrecognitionwouldnotapplytounattractivefaces. Method Participants Accordingtoselectioncriteriaforparticipantsusedinpreviousresearch(Hugenberg,2005;TaylorandBryant,2016),werecruitedatotalof30ChineseuniversitystudentsfromSouthChinaNormalUniversity(21females,M=21.00years,SD=1.39years)toparticipateinanemotioncategorizationtask.Basedonaposthocpoweranalysis(αof0.05,η2=0.50,G*Power3.1),wefoundthatthissamplesizeyieldedahighpowerof1−β=0.85.Theparticipantsclassifiedhappyandsademotionalexpressionsdisplayedonbothattractiveandunattractivefaces.Allparticipantswereright-handedandhadnormalorcorrected-to-normalvision.Theparticipantswerepaidfortheirparticipation.Newparticipantswererecruitedforeachexperiment.Oncetheparticipantshadcompletedbothexperimentalblocks,theywerethankedanddebriefed. EthicsStatement ThisresearchwasimplementedfollowingapprovalbytheInstitutionalReviewBoardofSouthChinaNormalUniversity,andwritteninformedconsentwasobtainedfromallparticipantsinaccordancewiththeDeclarationofHelsinki. MaterialsandProcedure Materials Wecollected100photographsofunfamiliarChinesemaleandfemalefaces(50male)withaneutralemotionalexpressionfromtheBaiduwebsite,1whichisapublicwebsite.Thesearchkeywordwasimages(Chinesephoto).Thesematerialsareintendedtobeusedforfreeinresearchandarenottobeusedforcommercialpurposes.Thepicturesofrealhumanfaceshaveoftenbeenutilizedinpreviousstudiesconcerningfaceperception.Suchpictureshavehighecologicalvalidity(Hugenberg,2005;Sunetal.,2015),althoughcontrollingfortheirconfoundingelements(e.g.,skintextureandhaircolor)ischallenging.Here,weemployedfabricatedfacialstimulitocontrolforvariablesofnointerest(Bijlstraetal.,2014;Sunetal.,2015).TheimageswereeditedbyusingFaceGensoftware2toobtainavirtual3Dpictureofeachrealface.Thesoftwarepermittedthemanipulationoftheexpressionwithoutchangingthefacialphysiognomiesofthetargets.FifteenadditionalChineseparticipants(sevenfemales)wereaskedtoratethelevelofattractivenessandfamiliarityofeachFaceGenversionofafaceona7-pointscale.Twentyfacialimages(10males)withvaryinglevelsofattractivenesswereselectedastheexperimentalstimuli.Theratingsoftheattractivefaces(M=4.31,SD=0.45)differedfromtheratingsoftheunattractivefaces(M=2.47,SD=0.64,F(1,18)=55.10,p<0.01);however,therewasnodifferenceintheratingsoffamiliaritybetweentheattractivefaces(M=3.05,SD=0.25)andunattractivefaces(M=2.87,SD=0.25,F(1,18)=2.63,p=0.12).Eachofthe20stimulusfaceswasthenfurthermanipulatedtocreatethefollowingtwoversions:aversionwithadistinctlyhappyexpressionandaversionwithadistinctlysadexpression.Allimagesweresizedat400×400pixelsandpresentedonablackbackground.Wealsobalancedthefactorsthatmightaffecttheparticipants’responses,suchasthegreyscaleandcolor.Byusingaseriesofpairedt-tests,wefoundthattherewasnosignificantdifferenceinthelevelsofattractivenessandfamiliaritybetweentheneutralandhappyfacesinthesamestimuliface,t(19)=1.28,p=0.22andt(19)=1.88,p=0.08,respectively.Therewasnosignificantdifferenceinthelevelsofattractivenessandfamiliaritybetweentheneutralandsadfacesinthesamefacestimuli,t(19)=0.43,p=0.67andt(19)=1.97,p=0.06,respectively.Therewasnosignificantdifferenceinthelevelsofattractivenessandfamiliaritybetweenthehappyandsadfacesinthesamefacestimuli,t(19)=1.49,p=0.15andt(19)=0.15,p=0.88,respectively. Procedure Theemotioncategorizationtaskwasconsistentwithexistingresearch(Bijlstraetal.,2010)(seeFigure1).Inthesetasks,thestimuliwerepresentedbyusingE-prime1.1software.TheparticipantswereseatedatdeskswithLenovoPCsapproximately60cmfromthedisplaycomputerinaquietroom.Thestimuliwerepresentedona23.8-inchLENmonitorwithascreenresolutionof1,024×768pixels.Eachtrialconsistedofafixationcross,whichwaspresentedfor1,000ms,followedbyafacethatexhibitedoneemotionalexpressionfor200ms.Theparticipantswereaskedtoidentifytheexpressiondisplayedintheimagesoftheattractiveandunattractivefacesbypressingthe“F”keyforhappyorthe“J”keyforsad;thereactionscreendisappearedautomaticallyafter1,800ms,andtherewasonepicturepertrial.Thetaskconsistedofthreeblocks,namely,onepracticeblockandtwoexperimentalblocks.Thepicturesusedinthepracticeblockwerenotusedintheformalexperimentalblocks.Eachexperimentalblockconsistedofall20photos(onlyoneversionofeachface)exhibitedonceinrandomorder.Thedurationoftheexperimentperparticipantwasapproximately8min. FIGURE1 Figure1.Procedureoftheemotioncategorizationtask.Theimagespresentedonthescreenwereallvirtual3Dpicturesofrealfacesusedintheexperiments,butinthisfigure,weusedblankprofilepicturesinsteadofarealfacialstimulusduetoprivacyconcerns. ResultsandDiscussion Beforetheanalysis,fourparticipantswithmorethan25%missingdata(32.5,27.5,35,and32.5%ofthetrials)wereexcludedfromfurtheranalysis(Lindebergetal.,2018).Therefore,thefinalanalysisincludeddatafrom26participants.Meanwhile,errors(incorrectbuttonpresses;5.29%ofthetrials),invalidresponses(0.29%ofthetrials),andoutliers(responsetimesthatdeviatedfromanindividual’smeanbymorethan3SD;1.06%ofthetrials)wereexcludedfromtheresponsetimeanalysis.SPSS22.0softwarewasusedforthedataanalysis,andtheanalysisonlyincludedcorrecttrials. Theprimarydependentvariableinthisstudywasthemeanresponsetimerequiredtocategorizetheemotionalexpressions.Duetotheskeweddistributionoftheresponselatencies(Whelan,2008;Bijlstraetal.,2010;LoandAndrews,2015),allanalyseswereperformedbasedonthelog-transformedresponselatencies(Bijlstraetal.,2010,2014;LoandAndrews,2015).Tofacilitatetheinterpretationofourfindings,wereportthemeanresponselatenciesinuntransformedmilliseconds.Themeanlog-transformedresponselatenciesweresubjectedtoa2(attractiveness:attractivevs.unattractive)×2(expression:happyvs.sad)mixed-modelANOVA.Inthestatisticaltestresults,thesphericaltestwasp=0.15>0.05,indicatingthatthedatasatisfythesphericalhypothesis.Thisanalysisrevealedamaineffectofexpression,F(1,25)=7.36,p<0.05,η2=0.23.Themaineffectofattractivenesswasnotsignificant(F=0.81,p=0.38).Moreimportantly,theinteractionbetweenattractivenessandexpressionwassignificant,F(1,25)=7.05,p<0.01,η2=0.22(seeFigure2),andafollow-uppairedt-testconfirmedthatthehappyexpression(M=524,SD=97)wasrecognizedfasterthanthesadexpression(M=579,SD=136)ontheattractivefaces,t(25)=3.53,p<0.01,95%confidenceinterval(CI)[0.02,0.06].Nodifferencewasfoundintheresponselatenciesbetweenthehappy(M=557,SD=119)andsad(M=563,SD=118)expressionsdisplayedontheunattractivefaces[t(25)=0.62,p=0.54,95%CI(−0.01,0.03)]. FIGURE2 Figure2.MeanresponselatencyandSEs(standarderrors)inmillisecondsunderdifferentconditionsofattractivenessandexpressionasmeasuredbytheemotioncategorizationtask.**p<0.01. Accuracy Weanalyzedtheerrorratebythesamemethodusedtoanalyzethereactiontimeandfoundthatthemaineffectofattractivenesswassignificant,F(1,25)=30.24,p<0.01,η2=0.55;themaineffectofexpressionwassignificant,F(1,25)=5.20,p<0.05,η2=0.17;andtheinteractionbetweenattractivenessandexpressionwassignificant,F(1,25)=143.87,p<0.001,η2=0.85.Inthefollow-uppairedsamplet-test,theerrorrateofthehappyexpressionrecognitionontheattractivefaces,t(25)=11.92,p<0.001,andsadexpressionrecognitionontheunattractivefaces,t(25)=4.24,p<0.001,waslower. TheresultsofExperiment1ashowaninteractionbetweenfacialattractivenessandexpressionrecognition,suggestingthatfacialattractivenesshasaneffectonexpressionrecognitioninstaticemotionalfaceparadigms.Specifically,theparticipantswereabletorecognizethehappyexpressionsontheattractivefacesmorequickly,andundertheunattractivefacecondition,therewasnodifferencebetweenhappyexpressionrecognitionandsadexpressionrecognition.Thisfindingshowsthatattractivenessaffectsexpressionrecognition.Moreover,theresultscorrespondwiththedynamictheoryoffaceperception. Experiment1b ThepurposeofExperiment1bwastoexplorewhethertheinfluenceoffacialattractivenessonexpressionrecognitionfoundinExperiment1aappearedinadynamiccontext.Simultaneously,toenhancetheecologicalvalidityoftheexperimentalsituation,thisexperimentuseddynamicfacestoreplicateandextendthefindingsofExperiment1a.Similarly,wepredictedthattheparticipantscouldrecognizehappyexpressionsontheattractivefacesmorequicklyandthattheadvantagesofhappyexpressionrecognitiondonotapplytounattractivefaces. Method ParticipantsandDesign Intotal,33newChineseuniversitystudentsfromSouthChinaNormalUniversity(23females,M=21.12years,SD=1.63years)completedanemotionmorphmoviestaskinwhichtheparticipantswatchedshortfilmclipsofattractiveandunattractivefacesthatchangedfromneutral-to-happyorsadexpression.Basedonaposthocpoweranalysis(αof0.05,η2=0.50,G*Power3.1),wefoundthatthissamplesizeyieldedahighpowerof1−β=0.88.Allparticipantswereright-handedandhadnormalorcorrected-to-normalvision. MaterialsandProcedure Materials WeusedtheFaceGenversionsofthefacemodelsfromExperiment1atocreateshortfilmclipsbyFataMorph.3Wecreatedtwofilmclips(neutral-to-happyandneutral-to-sad)foreachofthe20models.Furthermore,fourfilmclipswereestablishedandusedtofamiliarizetheparticipantswiththeexperimentaltaskinaninitialpracticeblock. Procedure Theparticipantswereseatedinindividualcubiclesandinformedthattheywouldbepresentedwithshortfilmclipsoffacesthatdemonstrateaneutralexpressionthatchangedintoasecondexpression.Themorphmoviestaskwasconsistentwithexistingstudies(Niedenthaletal.,2000;Bijlstraetal.,2014).Weinstructedtheparticipantstowatcheachfilmclipofneutralexpressionsandpress“F”or“J”themomentthattheydetectedtheonsetofahappyorsadexpressioninaface.Eachclipwasshownoncepertestblock;thepresentationorderofthefilmclipswasrandomizedforeachparticipant.Thedurationoftheexperimentperparticipantwasapproximately15min. ResultsandDiscussion Beforetheanalysis,oneparticipantwasexcludedduetomissingdataexceeding25%(30%ofthetrials).Meanwhile,errors(incorrectbuttonpresses;5.31%ofthetrials)andinvalidresponses(1.95%ofthetrials)wereexcludedfromtheresponsetimeanalysis. Themeanlog-transformedresponselatenciesweresubjectedtoa2(attractiveness:attractivevs.unattractive)×2(expression:happyvs.sad)mixed-modelANOVA.Thesphericaltestp=0.59>0.05inthestatisticaltestresultsindicatedthatthedatasatisfiedthesphericalhypothesis.Thisanalysisshowedamaineffectofattractiveness,F(1,31)=6.19,p<0.05,η2=0.17.Themaineffectofexpressionwasnotsignificant,F(1,31)=0.63,p=0.43.Moreimportantly,theinteractionbetweenattractivenessandexpressionwassignificant,F(1,31)=7.78,p<0.05,η2=0.20(seeFigure3),andafollow-uppairedt-testconfirmedthatrecognitionofahappyexpression(M=1,611,SD=805)wasfasterthanofasadexpression(M=1,948,SD=1,108)ontheattractivefaces,t(31)=2.37,p<0.05,95%CI[0.01,0.13].Nodifferenceintheresponselatencieswasfoundbetweenthehappy(M=2,022,SD=911)andsad(M=1,930,SD=1,018)expressionsdisplayedontheunattractivefaces[t(31)=1.52,p=0.14,95%CI(−0.01,0.09)]. FIGURE3 Figure3.MeanresponselatencyandSEsinmillisecondsunderdifferentconditionsofattractivenessandexpressionasmeasuredbythemorphmoviestask.*p<0.05. Accuracy Ananalysisoftheerrorraterevealedthatthemaineffectoffacialattractivenesswassignificant,F(1,31)=5.92,p<0.05,η2=0.16;themaineffectofexpressionwasnotsignificant,F(1,31)=0.55,p=0.46;andtheinteractionbetweenattractivenessandexpressionwassignificant,F(1,31)=79.76,p<0.001,η2=0.72.Inthefollow-uppairedsamplet-test,thehappyexpressionrecognitionontheattractivefaces,t(31)=5.83,p<0.001,andtheerrorrateofsadexpressionrecognitionontheunattractivefaces,t(25)=6.26,p<0.001,werelower. TheresultsofExperiment1brevealedaninteractionbetweenfacialattractivenessandexpression;thisfindingsuggeststhatfacialattractivenesshasaneffectonexpressionrecognitionindynamicemotionalfaceparadigms. Experiments1aand1bprovideconfirmatoryevidencethattheabilitytoprocessfacialexpressionsisinfluencedbyfacialattractiveness.Studieshaveshownthatfamiliarityaffectstheinformationprocessingoffaces(Zajonc,1968;Claypooletal.,2007;Carretal.,2017).Previousstudieshaveexaminedhowmultiplesocialcategorycues,sexandrace(Smithetal.,2017;CraigandLipp,2018),andsexandage(CraigandLipp,2018)simultaneouslymoderateexpressionrecognitionandprovidedevidenceofthecombinedinfluenceofthesesocialcuesonexpressionrecognition.However,nostudyhasexaminedhowfacialattractivenessandfamiliaritysimultaneouslymoderateexpressionrecognition.Therefore,Experiments2aand2bweredesignedtoexplorewhetherfacialattractivenessandfamiliaritysimultaneouslymoderateexpressionrecognitioninstaticanddynamiccontexts,respectively. Experiment2a Weaimtoexplorewhetherfacialattractivenessandfamiliaritysimultaneouslymoderateexpressionrecognitioninastaticfacedisplay.Wepredictthatiftheimpactoffamiliarityisgreater,theroleofattractivenessmaybediminishedunderthefamiliarfacecondition.Iffamiliarityandattractivenesscombinetoaffectexpressionrecognition,familiarandattractivehappyexpressionsshouldbeidentifiedmorequickly. Method Participants Previousstudieshaveobservedthereliableeffectsoffacialattributes,suchassexandrace,onthehappyfaceadvantageinsamplesofapproximately30participants(e.g.,CraigandLipp,2018).Thus,intotal,32newChineseuniversitystudentsfromSouthChinaNormalUniversity(26females,M=21.19years,SD=1.91years)completedanemotioncategorizationtaskconsistentwithExperiment1a.Basedonaposthocpoweranalysis(αof0.05,η2=0.50,G*Power3.1),wefoundthatthissamplesizeyieldedahighpowerof1−β=0.87.Allparticipantswereright-handedandhadnormalorcorrected-to-normalvision. MaterialsandProcedure Materials Weusedthe20FaceGenversionsoffacialimagesfromExperiment1aasunfamiliarfaces.Inaddition,weused20facesoffamiliarcelebrities(10malesand10females)withvaryinglevelsofattractivenessfromarangeofprominentfiguresinChina,includingactors,televisionpersonalities,politicians,andcomedians.ThecreationofthetwoversionsofexpressiononthesefaceswasconsistentwiththemethoddescribedinExperiment1a.NineteenadditionalChineseparticipants(10females)wereaskedtoratethelevelofattractivenessandfamiliarityofeachFaceGenversionofeachface.Eachofthe40stimulusfaceswasthenfurthermanipulatedtoproducethefollowingtwoversions:oneversionwithadistinctlyhappyexpressionandasecondversionwithadistinctlysadexpression.Usingaseriesofpairedt-tests,wefoundthattherewerenosignificantdifferencesinthelevelsofattractivenessorfamiliaritybetweentheneutralandhappyfacesinthesamefacestimuli,t(39)=1.63,p=0.11andt(39)=1.18,p=0.24,respectively.Therewerenosignificantdifferencesinlevelsofattractivenessorfamiliaritybetweentheneutralandsadfacesofthesamefacestimuli,t(39)=1.53,p=0.14andt(39)=0.84,p=0.41.Moreover,therewerenosignificantdifferencesinthelevelsofattractivenessorfamiliaritybetweentheneutralandsadfacesinthesamefacestimuli,t(39)=1.53,p=0.14andt(39)=0.84,p=0.41,respectively.Inaddition,therewerenosignificantdifferencesinthelevelsofattractivenessorfamiliaritybetweenthehappyandsadfacesinthesamefacestimuli,t(39)=0.03,p=0.98andt(39)=0.03,p=0.98,respectively. Overall,intheattractivegroup,thedifferenceinthelevelofattractivenessbetweenthefamiliarfaces(M=4.50,SD=0.33)andunfamiliarfaces(M=4.31,SD=0.45)intheneutralstatewasnotobvious,F(1,18)=1.17,p=0.29,andthedifferenceinfamiliarity(familiarfaces,M=4.42,SD=0.40;unfamiliarfaces,M=3.05,SD=0.25)wassignificant,F(1,18)=85.08,p<0.001.Intheunattractivegroup,thedifferenceinthelevelofattractivenessbetweenthefamiliarfaces(M=2.47,SD=0.64)andunfamiliarfaces(M=2.37,SD=0.72)intheneutralstatewasnotobvious,F(1,18)=0.10,p=0.77,andthedifferenceinfamiliarity(familiarfaces,M=4.75,SD=0.67;unfamiliarfaces,M=2.87,SD=0.25)wassignificant,F(1,18)=69.76,p<0.001.Inaddition,thelevelofattractivenessintheattractive(M=4.40,SD=0.40)andunattractive(M=2.42,SD=0.66)groupsintheneutralstatesignificantlydiffered,F(1,18)=131.89,p<0.001. Procedure Experiment2acloselyfollowedtheprocedureusedinExperiment1a,exceptforthefacestimuliused. ResultsandDiscussion Beforetheanalysis,sevenparticipantswithmissingdatawereexcludedfromfurtheranalysisduetomissingmorethan25%ofthedata(32.50,35.00,36.25,36.25,41.25,35,and36.25%ofthetrials).Therefore,thefinalanalysisincludeddatafrom25participants.Meanwhile,errors(incorrectbuttonpresses;4.25%ofthetrials),invalidresponses(0.05%ofthetrials)andoutliers(responsetimesthatdeviatedfromanindividual’smeanbymorethan3SD;1.60%ofthetrials)wereexcludedfromtheresponsetimeanalysis.Theprimarydependentvariableinthepresentstudywastheaveragereactiontimetocategorizeemotionaldisplaysonattractiveandunattractivefaces.Themeanlog-transformedresponselatenciesweresubjectedtoa2×2×2mixed-modelANOVAdevisedwiththefactorsofattractiveness(attractivevs.unattractive),expression(happyvs.sad),andfamiliarity(familiarvs.unfamiliar). Thesphericaltestp=0.90>0.05inthestatisticaltestresultsindicatedthatthedatasatisfiedthesphericalhypothesis.Theanalysisshowednosignificantmaineffectofattractiveness[F(1,24)=0.45,p=0.51]andnosignificantmaineffectofexpression[F(1,24)=0.04,p=0.84].Furthermore,therewasnosignificantmaineffectoffamiliarity[F(1,24)=0.46,p=0.51]. Critically,however,therewasasignificantthree-wayinteractionamongattractiveness,expression,andfamiliarity,F(1,24)=4.98,p<0.05,η2=0.17.Undertheunfamiliarfacecondition,theposthoctestswithaseriesofpairedt-testsshowedthattherecognitionofahappyexpression(M=545,SD=180)wasfasterthanthatofasadexpression(M=637,SD=182)ontheattractivefaces,t(24)=2.83,p<0.01,95%CI[0.02,0.12],andtherecognitionofasadexpression(M=577,SD=194)wasfasterthanthatofahappyexpression(M=630,SD=191)ontheunattractivefaces,t(24)=2.10,p<0.05,95%CI[0.00,0.08].Underthefamiliarfacecondition,therewasnosignificantinteractionbetweenattractivenessandexpression[F(1,24)=1.35,p=0.26](seeFigure4). FIGURE4 Figure4.MeanresponselatencyandSEsinmillisecondsunderdifferentconditionsoffamiliarity,attractiveness,andexpressionasmeasuredbytheemotioncategorizationtask.*p<0.05,**p<0.01. Accuracy Ananalysisoftheerrorrateshowedthatthemaineffectoffamiliaritywasnotsignificant,F(1,24)=0.07,p=0.79;themaineffectofattractivenesswasnotsignificant,F(1,24)<0.01,p=0.99;andthemaineffectofexpressionwassignificant,F(1,24)=9.40,p<0.05,η2=0.28.Theinteractionbetweenfamiliarityandattractivenesswassignificant,F(1,24)=22.46,p<0.001,η2=0.48.Thefollow-uppairedsamplet-testresultsshowedthatwhenpresentedwithfamiliarattractivefaces,expressionrecognitionhadalowererrorrate,t(24)=3.06,p<0.01.Theinteractionbetweenattractivenessandexpressionwassignificant,F(1,24)=84.97,p<0.001,η2=0.78.Thefollow-uppairedsamplet-testfoundthathappyexpressionrecognitionontheattractivefaceshadalowererrorrate,t(24)=8.85,p<0.001;ontheunattractivefaces,sadexpressionrecognitionhadalowererrorrate,t(24)=2.99,p<0.01.Thethreefactorsoffamiliarity,attractiveness,andexpressionwerenotsignificant,F(1,24)=0.04,p=0.85. InExperiment2a,wefoundthatfacialattractivenesshaddifferenteffectsonexpressionrecognitionunderdifferentlevelsoffacialfamiliarity.Underthefamiliarfacecondition,theinfluenceofattractivenessonexpressionrecognitionwasweakenedorevenunaffected.Thisresultsuggeststhatfamiliaritycanmodulatetheeffectsoffacialattractivenessonexpressionrecognitioninastaticcontext,whichisconsistentwithourexpectations. Experiment2b ThepurposeofExperiment2bwastoexplorewhethertheeffectsoffamiliarityandattractivenessonexpressionrecognitionfoundinExperiment2aappearedinadynamiccontext.Similarly,weexpectedthatunderthefamiliarfacecondition,theinfluenceofattractivenessonexpressionrecognitionshouldbeweakenedorevenunaffected.Thus,underthefamiliarfacecondition,theinteractionbetweenattractivenessandtheexpressionrecognitionshouldnotbesignificant. Method Participants Intotal,29newChineseuniversitystudents(18females,M=20.90years,SD=2.47years)completedamorphmoviestaskconsistentwithExperiment1b.Similarly,basedonaposthocpoweranalysis(αof0.05,η2=0.50,G*Power3.1),wefoundthatthissamplesizeyieldedahighpowerof1−β=0.84.Allparticipantswereright-handedandhadnormalorcorrected-to-normalvision. MaterialsandProcedure Materials Weusedthesame40facemodelsusedinExperiment2a.Then,wecreated80filmclipsbyusingthemethoddescribedinExperimental1b. Procedure Experiment2bcloselyfollowedtheprocedureusedinExperiment1b,exceptforthefamiliarfacestimuliused. ResultsandDiscussion Beforetheanalysis,datafromoneparticipantwithover25%missingdatawereexcluded(33.75%ofthetrials).Therefore,thefinalanalysisincludeddatafrom28participants.Inaddition,errors(incorrectbuttonpresses;5.36%ofthetrials)andinvalidresponses(3.57%ofthetrials)wereexcludedfromtheresponsetimeanalysis. Thedependentvariableinthisstudywastheaveragereactiontimetoidentifytheonsetofthesecondexpressioninthefilmclips.Themeanlog-transformedresponselatenciesweresubjectedtoa2(attractiveness:attractivevs.unattractive)×2(expression:happyvs.sad)×2(familiarity:familiarvs.unfamiliar)mixed-modelANOVA.Thesphericaltestp<0.05inthestatisticaltestresultsindicatedthatthedatadidnotsatisfythesphericalhypothesis;therefore,theGreenhouse-Geissercorrectedresultisreported.Theresultsshowedasignificantmaineffectoffamiliarity,F(1,27)=6.85,p<0.05,η2=0.20;asignificantmaineffectofattractiveness,F(1,27)=4.69,p<0.05,η2=0.15;andnosignificantmaineffectofexpression,F(1,27)=3.58,p=0.07,η2=0.12. Importantly,therewasasignificantthree-wayinteractionamongattractiveness,expression,andfamiliarity,F(1,24)=4.28,p<0.05,η2=0.14.Undertheunfamiliarfacecondition,theposthoctests,i.e.,pairedt-tests,showedthattherecognitionofhappyexpressions(M=2,069,SD=958)wasfasterthanthatofsadexpressions(M=2,296,SD=962)ontheattractivefaces,t(27)=4.05,p<0.01,95%CI[0.03,0.09].Thedifferencebetweenthehappy(M=2,379,SD=987)andsad(M=2,334,SD=1,045)expressionrecognitionontheunattractivefaceswasnotsignificant,t(27)=1.30,p=0.21,95%CI[−0.01,0.05].Underthefamiliarfacecondition,therewasnosignificantinteractionbetweenattractivenessandexpression[F(1,27)=1.33,p=0.26](seeFigure5). FIGURE5 Figure5.MeanresponselatencyandSEsinmillisecondsunderdifferentconditionsoffamiliarity,attractiveness,andexpressionasmeasuredbythemorphmoviestask.**p<0.01. Accuracy Ananalysisoftheerrorrateshowedthatthemaineffectofattractivenesswassignificant,F(1,27)=7.90,p<0.01,η2=0.23;themaineffectoffamiliaritywasnotsignificant,F(1,27)=3.12,p=0.09;andthemaineffectofexpressionwasnotsignificant,F(1,27)=0.34,p=0.56.Thethreefactorsoffamiliarity,attractiveness,andexpressionweresignificant,F(1,27)=26.82,p<0.001,η2=0.50.Thefollow-uppairedsamplet-testresultsshowedthatwhenpresentedwithfamiliarattractivefaces,theerrorrateofhappyexpressionrecognitionwaslower,t(27)=3.22,p<0.01.Underthefamiliarunattractivefaceconditions,therewasnodifferenceintheerrorratebetweenhappyandsadexpressionrecognition,t(27)=0.67,p=0.51.Happyexpressionrecognitionontheunfamiliarattractivefacesexhibitedalowererrorrate,t(27)=5.57,p<0.001,andsadexpressionrecognitionontheunfamiliarunattractivefacesexhibitedalowererrorrate,t(27)=8.46,p<0.001. GeneralDiscussion Followingthedebatebetweenclassicanddynamictheoriesoffaceperception,thepurposeofthecurrentresearchwastoinvestigatewhetherfacialattractivenessinfluencedexpressionidentification.Inaddition,weexploredtheroleoffamiliarityinthiseffect. Thefirstgoalofthepresentresearchwastoinvestigatewhetherfacialattractivenessaffectsexpressionrecognitioninbothstaticanddynamiccontexts.Theresultsshowasignificantinteractionbetweenfacialattractivenessandexpressionrecognitionandsuggestthatfacialattractivenessinfluencedtheparticipants’identificationoffacialexpressions,whichwasreflectedinthefactthattheparticipantswereabletorecognizethehappyexpressionsonattractivefacesmorequickly,furtherdemonstratingtheadvantageofhappyexpressionrecognition.Therecognitionofattractivefacesandhappyexpressionsmayofferbenefitsviarewards,whichcouldfacilitatetheirrapidrecognition(Chatterjeeetal.,2009;Golleetal.,2014;Zhangetal.,2017,2019).Intheabsenceofattractivefaces,thisadvantagemaybelackinginbothdynamicandstaticexperimentalcontexts,whichisconsistentwiththepredictionofthedynamictheoryoffaceperception.Inaddition,thepredictedinteractionbetweenfacialattractivenessandfacialexpressionwasfound,whichisconsistentwiththeresultsreportedinpreviousstudies(Golleetal.,2014;Lindebergetal.,2018)andthepredictionofthedynamictheoryoffaceperception. Thesecondgoalofthepresentresearchwastoinvestigatewhethervisualfamiliarityandfacialattractivenesssimultaneouslymoderateexpressionrecognition.Experiments2aand2bfoundthatfamiliarityalteredtheinfluenceoftheattractivenessofthetargetfaceonexpressionrecognition.Specifically,wefoundthatunderthefamiliarfacecondition,attractivenessdidnotaffectexpressionrecognition.Thus,theinfluenceoffamiliarityonexpressionrecognitionwasgreater.Undertheeffectoffamiliarity,theinfluenceofattractivenessonexpressionrecognitionmaybeweakenedorevenunaffected.Wespeculatethatthisfindingmayberelatedtotheeffectoffamiliarityonfacialexpressionrecognitionbecausefamiliarityincreasesthefluencyoffacialexpressionprocessingandmakesiteasiertoprocessexpressionsonfamiliarfacessuchthattheycanberecognizedbytheperceivermorequickly(JacobyandDallas,1981;BornsteinandD’Agostino,1994;Claypooletal.,2007).Onepossiblereasonmightbethatfamiliarityaffectsthesubjectivefeelingsoffacialattractiveness.AccordingtothemereexposureeffectproposedbyZajonc(1968),whenanunattractivefacehasbeenseenforalongperiodoftime,itissubjectivelyperceivedinamannerthatincreasesitslevelofattractiveness.Therefore,whenthevisualfamiliarityofthefaceisenhanced,thedifferenceinthelevelofattractivenessofthefaceisnotparticularlyobvious.Notably,thispossibleexplanationrequiresadditionalinvestigationinfutureresearch.Futureresearchisneededtofurtherexaminetheinteractionbetweenfacialattractivenessandfamiliarityinexpressionrecognitionandverifythispossibility. Ingeneral,thisresearchexamineswhetherattractivenessaffectsexpressionrecognition.Previousstudieshaveusedstaticsituations(TaylorandBryant,2016;Lindebergetal.,2018).Inourresearch,bothstaticanddynamiccontextswereusedtoincreaseecologicalvalidity.Furthermore,theresultsshowthattherelationshipbetweenattractivenessandexpressionrecognitionisalsoconsistentwiththetheoryofdynamicfaceperceptionandprovidesmoreevidencesupportingthistheory.Thisresearchalsoexpandsthecategoryofattractivenessthataffectsexpressionsandmakescertaincontributionstoresearchinthefieldoffaceperception.Inaddition,thisresearchexamineswhetherfamiliarityandattractivenessaffectexpressionrecognition.Itisfoundthatunderthefamiliarfacecondition,theinfluenceofattractivenessonexpressionrecognitionisnotverystrong.Inthisrespect,thisresearchhasacertaindegreeofinnovation. However,thisresearchhasthefollowinglimitations.First,thisresearchonlyexaminedtheexpressionsofhappinessandsadness.Facialexpressionsalsoincludemanyothertypes,suchassurprise,disappointment,andfear.Futureresearchcouldconsiderexploringtherelationshipbetweenfacialattractivenessandexpressionrecognitionandtherichrelationshipbetweenfacialattractivenessandexpressionrecognition.Second,inthisresearch,staticanddynamiccontextswereusedasdifferentexperimentalconditionstoexaminetherelationshipbetweenattractivenessandexpressionrecognition.Eachstudyinvolveddifferentparticipants.Futureresearchcouldalsoconsiderstaticanddynamiccontextsasinternalfactorstoinvestigatetherelationshipsamongattractiveness,familiarity,andexpressionrecognition.Finally,althoughthisresearchprovidesaninitialexaminationoftheimpactoffamiliarityandattractivenessonexpressionrecognition,thespecificmechanismsneedtobefurtherexplored.Forexample,futureresearchcoulddeeplyexplorethecognitiveneuralmechanismoffamiliarityandattractivenessaffectingexpressionrecognitionfromtheperspectiveofcognitiveneuroscience. Inconclusion,thisresearchdemonstratesthattheabilitytocategorizeotherpeople’sfacialexpressionsisinfluencedbytheattractivenessofthefaceinbothstaticanddynamicexperimentalcontexts.Theinteractionbetweenfacialattractivenessandexpressionidentificationsuggeststhatfacialattractivenessmayaffectexpressionidentification,whichisconsistentwiththedynamictheoryoffaceperception.Morespecifically,wefindthathappyexpressionsonattractivefacescanberecognizedmorequickly,highlightingtheadvantageofhappyexpressionrecognitioninbothstaticanddynamiccontexts.However,whenintroducingfamiliarfaces,theadvantageofsuchhappyexpressionrecognitionwasweakened.Thus,instaticanddynamicfamiliarfacecontexts,attractivenessdoesnotstronglyaffectexpressionrecognition,andtheinfluenceoffamiliarityisgreater.Thisfindingalsoreflectsthefactthatundertheinfluenceoffamiliarity,theinfluenceofattractivenessonexpressionrecognitionmaybeweakenedorevenunaffected.Ourresearchisthefirsttoexaminetherelationshipbetweenfacialattractivenessandexpressionrecognitioninadynamiccontext.Inaddition,wefindthatfamiliaritycanmodulatetheeffectsoffacialattractivenessontheidentificationoffacialexpressioninbothstaticanddynamiccontexts,emphasizingtheimportanceoffamiliarityinvisualcognition. DataAvailabilityStatement Alldatasetsgeneratedforthisstudyareincludedinthearticle/supplementarymaterial. EthicsStatement TheInstitutionalReviewBoardofSouthChinaNormalUniversitythatapprovedthestudy.Consentprocedureusedforhumanparticipants.Thisstudywascarriedoutinaccordancewiththerecommendationsof“HumanResearchEthicsCommitteeforNon-ClinicalFaculties,InstitutionalReviewBoardofSouthChinaNormalUniversity”withwritteninformedconsentfromallsubjects.AllsubjectsgavewritteninformedconsentinaccordancewiththeDeclarationofHelsinki.Theprotocolwasapprovedbythe“InstitutionalReviewBoardofSouthChinaNormalUniversity”. AuthorContributions XHandLZconceivedanddesignedtheresearch.LZparticipatedinthedatacollection.JLparticipatedinthedataanalysisanddatainterpretation.JLandDHwrotethepaper.JLandXHparticipatedintherevisionofthearticle.XH,XZ,TZ,andWZhelpedprovideconstructiveadvice.XHsupervisedtheentireproject. Funding ThisresearchwassupportedbytheNationalNaturalScienceFoundationofChina(grantnumber31671132). ConflictofInterest Theauthorsdeclarethattheresearchwasconductedintheabsenceofanycommercialorfinancialrelationshipsthatcouldbeconstruedasapotentialconflictofinterest. Footnotes 1.http://www.baidu.com/ 2.www.facegen.com 3.http://www.fantamorph.com/index.html References Becker,D.V.,Kenrick,D.T.,Neuberg,S.L.,Blackwell,K.C.,andSmith,D.M.(2007).Theconfoundednatureofangrymenandhappywomen.J.Pers.Soc.Psychol.92,179–190.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.179 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Bijlstra,G.,Holland,R.W.,Dotsch,R.,Hugenberg,K.,andWigboldus,D.H.(2014).Stereotypeassociationsandemotionrecognition.Personal.Soc.Psychol.Bull.40,567–577.doi:10.1177/0146167213520458 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Bijlstra,G.,Holland,R.W.,andWigboldus,D.H.J.(2010).Thesocialfaceofemotionrecognition:evaluationsversusstereotypes.J.Exp.Soc.Psychol.46,657–663.doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.03.006 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Bornstein,R.F.(1989).Exposureandaffect:overviewandmeta-analysisofresearch,1968–1987.Psychol.Bull.106,265–289.doi:10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.265 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Bornstein,R.F.,andD’Agostino,P.R.(1994).Theattributionanddiscountingofperceptualfluency:preliminarytestsofaperceptualfluency/attributionalmodelofthemereexposureeffect.Soc.Cogn.12,103–128.doi:10.1521/soco.1994.12.2.103 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Bruce,V.,andYoung,A.(1986).Understandingfacerecognition.Br.J.Psychol.77,305–327.doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1986.tb02199.x CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Calder,A.J.,andYoung,A.W.(2005).Understandingtherecognitionoffacialidentityandfacialexpression.Nat.Rev.Neurosci.6,641–651.doi:10.1038/nrn1724 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Carr,E.,Brady,T.F.,andWinkielman,P.(2017).AreyousmilingorhaveIseenyoubefore?Familiaritymakesfaceslookhappier.Psychol.Sci.28,1087–1102.doi:10.1177/0956797617702003 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Chatterjee,A.,Thomas,A.,Smith,S.E.,andAguirre,G.K.(2009).Theneuralresponsetofacialattractiveness.Neuropsychology23,135–143.doi:10.1037/a0014430 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Claypool,H.M.,Hugenberg,K.,Housley,M.K.,andMackie,D.M.(2007).Familiareyesaresmiling:ontheroleoffamiliarityintheperceptionoffacialaffect.Eur.J.Soc.Psychol.37,856–866.doi:10.1002/ejsp.422 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Craig,B.M.,andLipp,O.V.(2018).Theinfluenceofmultiplesocialcategoriesonemotionperception.J.Exp.Soc.Psychol.75,27–35.doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2017.11.002 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Craig,B.M.,Mallan,K.M.,andLipp,O.V.(2012).Theeffectofposerraceonthehappycategorizationadvantage,dependsonstimulustype,setsize,andpresentationduration.Emotion12,1303–1314.doi:10.1037/a0028622 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Dion,K.,Berscheid,E.,andWalster,E.(1972).Whatisbeautifulisgood.J.Pers.Soc.Psychol.24,285–290.doi:10.1037/h0033731 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Dobel,C.,Geiger,L.,Bruchmann,M.,Putsche,C.,Schweinberger,S.R.,andJunghofer,M.(2008).Ontheinterplaybetweenfamiliarityandemotionalexpressioninfaceperception.Psychol.Res.72,580–586.doi:10.1007/s00426-007-0132-4 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Dubois,S.,Rossion,B.,Schiltz,C.,Bodart,J.M.,Michel,C.,Bruyer,R.,etal.(1999).Effectoffamiliarityontheprocessingofhumanfaces.NeuroImage9,278–289.doi:10.1006/nimg.1998.0409 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Fisher,K.,Towler,J.,andEimer,M.(2016).Facialidentityandfacialexpressionareinitiallyintegratedatvisualperceptualstagesoffaceprocessing.Neuropsychologia80,115–125.doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.11.011 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Fitousi,D.,andWenger,M.J.(2013).Variantsofindependenceintheperceptionoffacialidentityandexpression.J.Exp.Psychol.Hum.Percept.Perform.39,133–155.doi:10.1037/a0028001 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Fox,C.J.,Moon,S.Y.,Iaria,G.,andBarton,J.J.(2009).Thecorrelatesofsubjectiveperceptionofidentityandexpressioninthefacenetwork:anfMRIadaptationstudy.NeuroImage44,569–580.doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.09.011 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Freeman,J.B.,Ambady,N.,Rule,N.O.,andJohnson,K.L.(2008).Willacategorycueattractyou?Motoroutputrevealsdynamiccompetitionacrosspersonconstrual.J.Exp.Psychol.Gen.137,673–690.doi:10.1037/a0013875 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Ganel,T.,Valyear,K.F.,Goshen-Gottstein,Y.,andGoodale,M.A.(2005).Theinvolvementofthe“fusiformfacearea”inprocessingfacialexpression.Neuropsychologia43,1645–1654.doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.01.012 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Golle,J.,Mast,F.W.,andLobmaier,J.S.(2014).Somethingtosmileabout:theinterrelationshipbetweenattractivenessandemotionalexpression.Cognit.Emot.28,298–310.doi:10.1080/02699931.2013.817383 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Haxby,J.V.,Hoffman,E.A.,andGobbini,M.I.(2000).Thedistributedhumanneuralsystemforfaceperception.TrendsCogn.Sci.4,223–233.doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01482-0 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Hugenberg,K.(2005).Socialcategorizationandtheperceptionoffacialaffect:targetracemoderatestheresponselatencyadvantageforhappyfaces.Emotion5,267–276.doi:10.1037/1528-3542.5.3.267 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Hugenberg,K.,andBodenhausen,G.V.(2003).Facingprejudice:implicitprejudiceandtheperceptionoffacialthreat.Psychol.Sci.14,640–643.doi:10.1046/j.0956-7976.2003.psci_1478.x CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Hugenberg,K.,andSczesny,S.(2006).Onwonderfulwomenandseeingsmiles:socialcategorizationmoderatesthehappyfaceresponselatencyadvantage.Soc.Cogn.24,516–539.doi:10.1521/soco.2006.24.5.516 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Iaria,G.,Fox,C.J.,Waite,C.T.,Aharon,I.,andBarton,J.J.(2008).Thecontributionofthefusiformgyrusandsuperiortemporalsulcusinprocessingfacialattractiveness:neuropsychologicalandneuroimagingevidence.Neuroscience155,409–422.doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2008.05.046 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Ishii,K.,Miyamoto,Y.,Niedenthal,P.M.,andMayama,K.(2011).Whenyoursmilefadesaway:culturaldifferencesinsensitivitytothedisappearanceofsmiles.Soc.Psychol.Personal.Serv.2,516–522.doi:10.1177/1948550611399153 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Jacoby,L.L.,andDallas,M.(1981).Ontherelationshipbetweenautobiographicalmemoryandperceptuallearning.J.Exp.Psychol.Gen.110,306–340.doi:10.1037/0096-3445.110.3.306 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Jaensch,M.,vandenHurk,W.,Dzhelyova,M.,Hahn,A.C.,Perrett,D.I.,Richards,A.,etal.(2014).Don’tlookbackinanger:therewardingvalueofafemalefaceisdiscountedbyanangryexpression.J.Exp.Psychol.Hum.Percept.Perform.40,2101–2105.doi:10.1037/a0038078 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Lindeberg,S.,Craig,B.M.,andLipp,O.V.(2018).Youlookprettyhappy:attractivenessmoderatesemotionperception.Emotion19,1070–1080.doi:10.1037/emo0000530 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Lo,S.,andAndrews,S.(2015).Totransformornottotransform:usinggeneralizedlinearmixedmodelstoanalysereactiontimedata.Front.Psychol.6:1171.doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01171 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Magda,L.,andGoodwin,K.A.(2008).Consequencesofnegativeinformationonperceptionsoffacialattractiveness.Percept.Mot.Skills106,508–516.doi:10.2466/pms.106.2.508-516 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Moreland,R.L.,andBeach,S.R.(1992).Exposureeffectsintheclassroom:thedevelopmentofaffinityamongstudents.J.Exp.Soc.Psychol.28,255–276.doi:10.1016/0022-1031(92)90055-O CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Niedenthal,P.M.,Halberstadt,J.B.,Margolin,J.,andInnes-Ker,A.H.(2000).Emotionalstateandthedetectionofchangeinfacialexpressionofemotion.Eur.J.Soc.Psychol.30,211–222.doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(200003/04)30:2<211::AID-EJSP988>3.0.CO;2-3 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar O’Doherty,J.,Winston,J.,Critchley,H.,Perrett,D.,Burt,D.M.,andDolan,R.J.(2003).Beautyinasmile:theroleoforbitofrontalcortexinfacialattractiveness.Neuropsychologia41,147–155.doi:10.1016/S0028-3932(02)00145-8 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Quinn,K.A.,andMacrae,C.N.(2011).Thefaceandpersonperception:insightsfromsocialcognition.Br.J.Psychol.102,849–867.doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02030.x CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Redfern,A.S.,andBenton,C.P.(2017).Expressiondependenceintheperceptionoffacialidentity.i-Perception8:2041669517710663.doi:10.1177/2041669517710663 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Rhodes,G.(2006).Theevolutionarypsychologyoffacialbeauty.Annu.Rev.Psychol.57,199–226.doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190208 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Rubenstein,A.J.(2005).Variationinperceivedattractiveness.Psychol.Sci.16,759–762.doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01610.x PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Smith,J.S.,LaFrance,M.,andDovidio,J.F.(2017).Categorizingintersectionaltargets:an“either/and”approachtorace-andgender-emotioncongruity.Cognit.Emot.31,83–97.doi:10.1080/02699931.2015.1081875 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Sun,D.,Chan,C.C.,Fan,J.,Wu,Y.,andLee,T.(2015).Arehappyfacesattractive?Therolesofearlyvs.lateprocessing.Front.Psychol.6:1812.doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01812 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Sutherland,C.A.,Young,A.W.,andRhodes,G.(2017).Facialfirstimpressionsfromanotherangle:howsocialjudgementsareinfluencedbychangeableandinvariantfacialproperties.Br.J.Psychol.108,397–415.doi:10.1111/bjop.12206 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Taylor,A.J.G.,andBryant,L.(2016).Theeffectoffacialattractivenessonfacialexpressionidentification.SwissJ.Psychol.75,175–181.doi:10.1024/1421-0185/a000183 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Taylor,A.J.G.,andJose,M.(2014).Physicalaggressionandfacialexpressionidentification.Eur.J.Psychol.10,783–797.doi:10.5964/ejop.v10i4.816 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Tracy,J.L.,andBeall,A.T.(2011).Happyguysfinishlast:theimpactofemotionexpressionsonsexualattraction.Emotion11,1379–1387.doi:10.1037/a0022902 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Wang,T.,Mo,L.,Mo,C.,Tan,L.H.,Cant,J.S.,Zhong,L.,etal.(2015).Ismoralbeautydifferentfromfacialbeauty?EvidencefromanfMRIstudy.Soc.Cogn.Affect.Neurosci.10,814–823.doi:10.1093/scan/nsu123 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Whelan,R.(2008).Effectiveanalysisofreactiontimedata.Psychol.Rec.58,475–482.doi:10.1007/BF03395630 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Winston,J.S.,O’Doherty,J.,Kilner,J.M.,Perrett,D.I.,andDolan,R.J.(2007).Brainsystemsforassessingfacialattractiveness.Neuropsychologia45,195–206.doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.05.009 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Yan,X.,Young,A.W.,andAndrews,T.J.(2017).Theautomaticityoffaceperceptionisinfluencedbyfamiliarity.Atten.Percept.Psychophys.79,2202–2211.doi:10.3758/s13414-017-1362-1 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Zajonc,R.B.(1968).Attitudinaleffectsofmereexposure.J.Pers.Soc.Psychol.9,1–27.doi:10.1037/h0025848 CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Zhang,W.,He,X.,Lai,S.,Wan,J.,Lai,S.,Zhao,X.,etal.(2017).Neuralsubstratesofembodiednaturalbeautyandsocialendowedbeauty:anfMRIstudy.Sci.Rep.7,1–12.doi:10.1038/s41598-017-07608-8 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Zhang,W.,He,X.,Liu,S.,Li,T.,Li,J.,Tang,X.,etal.(2019).Neuralcorrelatesofappreciatingnaturallandscapeandlandscapegarden:evidencefromanfMRIstudy.BrainBehav.9,1–10.doi:10.1002/brb3.1335 PubMedAbstract|CrossRefFullText|GoogleScholar Keywords:dynamictheoryoffaceperception,face,attractiveness,expressionrecognition,familiarity Citation:LiJ,HeD,ZhouL,ZhaoX,ZhaoT,ZhangWandHeX(2019)TheEffectsofFacialAttractivenessandFamiliarityonFacialExpressionRecognition.Front.Psychol.10:2496.doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02496 Received:10May2019;Accepted:22October2019;Published:25November2019. Editedby:CarlSenior,AstonUniversity,UnitedKingdom Reviewedby:FangfangWen,CentralChinaNormalUniversity,ChinaMariskaEstherKret,LeidenUniversity,NetherlandsYipingZhong,HunanNormalUniversity,China Copyright©2019Li,He,Zhou,Zhao,Zhao,ZhangandHe.Thisisanopen-accessarticledistributedunderthetermsoftheCreativeCommonsAttributionLicense(CCBY).Theuse,distributionorreproductioninotherforumsispermitted,providedtheoriginalauthor(s)andthecopyrightowner(s)arecreditedandthattheoriginalpublicationinthisjournaliscited,inaccordancewithacceptedacademicpractice.Nouse,distributionorreproductionispermittedwhichdoesnotcomplywiththeseterms. *Correspondence:XianyouHe,[email protected] COMMENTARY ORIGINALARTICLE Peoplealsolookedat SuggestaResearchTopic>