| Literature DB >> 27784749 |
Alberto Acosta1, Reginald B Adams2, Daniel N Albohn2, Eric S Allard3, Titia Beek4, Stephen D Benning5, Eve-Marie Blouin- Hudon6, Luis Carlo Bulnes7, Tracy L Caldwell8, Robert J Calin-Jageman6, Colin A Capaldi6, Nicholas S Carfagno5, Kelsie T Chasten8, Axel Cleeremans9, Louise Connell10, Jennifer M. DeCicco11, Laura Dijkhoff4, Katinka Dijkstra12, Agneta H Fischer13, Francesco Foroni14, Quentin F Gronau4, Ursula Hess15, Kevin J Holmes16, Jacob L H Jones16, Olivier Klein9, Christopher Koch17, Sebastian Korb14, Peter Lewinski18, Julia D Liao16, Sophie Lund10, Juan Lupiáñez1, Dermot Lynott10, Christin N Nance5, Suzanne Oosterwijk13, Asil Ali Özdog˘ru19, Antonia Pilar Pacheco-Unguetti1, Bethany Pearson10, Christina Powis10, Sarah Riding10, Tomi-Ann Roberts16, Raffaella I Rumiati14, Morgane Senden9, Noah B Shea-Shumsky16, Karin Sobocko6, Jose A Soto2, Troy G Steiner2, Jennifer M Talarico20, Zack M vanAllen6, E-J Wagenmakers21, Marie Vandekerckhove7, Bethany Wainwright10, Joseph F Wayand22, Rene Zeelenberg12, Emily E Zetzer3, Rolf A Zwaan12.
Abstract
According to the facial feedback hypothesis, people's affective responses can be influenced by their own facial expression (e.g., smiling, pouting), even when their expression did not result from their emotional experiences. For example, Strack, Martin, and Stepper (1988) instructed participants to rate the funniness of cartoons using a pen that they held in their mouth. In line with the facial feedback hypothesis, when participants held the pen with their teeth (inducing a "smile"), they rated the cartoons as funnier than when they held the pen with their lips (inducing a "pout"). This seminal study of the facial feedback hypothesis has not been replicated directly. This Registered Replication Report describes the results of 17 independent direct replications of Study 1 from Strack et al. (1988), all of which followed the same vetted protocol. A meta-analysis of these studies examined the difference in funniness ratings between the "smile" and "pout" conditions. The original Strack et al. (1988) study reported a rating difference of 0.82 units on a 10-point Likert scale. Our meta-analysis revealed a rating difference of 0.03 units with a 95% confidence interval ranging from -0.11 to 0.16.Entities:
Keywords: facial feedback hypothesis; many-labs; preregistration; replication
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27784749 DOI: 10.1177/1745691616674458
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Perspect Psychol Sci ISSN: 1745-6916