A multi-semester classroom demonstration yields "robust" evidence in support of the facial feedback effect

Marsh, A. A., Rhoads, S. A., & Ryan, R. M. A multi-semester classroom demonstration yields evidence in support of the facial feedback effect. Emotion, 19(8), 1500–1504, Dec 2019. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000532

Abstract: The facial feedback effect refers to the influence of unobtrusive manipulations of facial behavior on emotional outcomes. That manipulations inducing or inhibiting smiling can shape positive affect and evaluations is a staple of undergraduate psychology curricula and supports theories of embodied emotion. Thus, the results of a Registered Replication Report indicating minimal evidence to support the facial feedback effect were widely viewed as cause for concern regarding the reliability of this effect. However, it has been suggested that features of the design of the replication studies may have influenced the study results. Relevant to these concerns are experimental facial feedback data collected from over 400 undergraduates over the course of 9 semesters. Circumstances of data collection met several criteria broadly recommended for testing the effect, including limited prior exposure to the facial feedback hypothesis, conditions minimally likely to induce self-focused attention, and the use of moderately funny contemporary cartoons as stimuli. Results yielded robust evidence in favor of the facial feedback hypothesis. Cartoons that participants evaluated while holding a pen or pencil in their teeth (smiling induction) were rated as funnier than cartoons they evaluated while holding a pen or pencil in their lips (smiling inhibition). The magnitude of the effect overlapped with original reports. Findings demonstrate that the facial feedback effect can be successfully replicated in a classroom setting and are in line with theories of emotional embodiment, according to which internal emotional states and relevant external emotional behaviors exert mutual influence on one another.


---
Discussion
The results of this study replicate the facial feedback effect in the type of classroom setting in
which this effect is often taught. In a large sample of undergraduate students beginning an
introductory psychology course, cartoons evaluated during a manipulation that simulates smiling
(holding a pen in the teeth) were rated as more humorous than when the cartoons were evaluated
during a manipulation that inhibits smiling (holding a pen in the lips). These results were
obtained following an analysis plan selected based on clustering of ratings among classes. The
analyses indicated that the manipulation resulted in a small-to-medium effect size, the magnitude
of which overlapped with the effect observed in the original report of the facial feedback effect.
The experimental conditions featured several strengths that may have contributed to the
observed effect. The nature of the testing setting precluded experimenter effects related to
differential treatment by condition, as both conditions were run simultaneously. It also
minimized the likelihood of previous formal exposure to the facial feedback effect, as the
experiment was conducted in introductory psychology students several weeks before the
textbook chapter describing the effect was assigned (it seems safe to assume no students read
several chapters ahead). It is, however, important to note we do not have formal confirmation of
participants’ prior lack of exposure to the feedback effect. Participants were not video recorded,
minimizing self-focused attention, which can alter response styles, affective experiences, and
self-report motivations. And contemporary cartoons rated as moderately funny were used as
stimuli.
The paradigm diverged from the original facial feedback experiment in several respects.
They include the classroom setting in which testing was conducted; the fact that each participant
rated two cartoons rather than four; the fact that it featured a within-subjects rather than betweensubjects design; the absence of a cover story about piloting a study for future research regarding
populations with disabilities to explain the manipulation; the use of a 7-point scale rather than a
10-point scale; the fact that the experiment was part of a classroom lecture about learning
(specifically, about the acquisition of conditioned associations) rather than following a linedrawing task; the fact that correct positioning of pens could be monitored only within the limits
of a group setting; the fact that participants selected but did not write down their ratings with
their pens in their mouths; and the lack of individualized follow-up with participants regarding
their beliefs about the experiment, precluding exclusion of participants for suspicions regarding
the study goals. (It is notable, however, that when the instructor presented students with their
results in the ensuing class, the most commonly verbalized reaction was surprise or disbelief that
the manipulation could have possibly affected their ratings.)
Results of two recent papers (Coles, Larsen, & Lench, 2017; Noah, Schul, & Mayo, 2018)
found that the facial feedback effect can be moderated by various factors. Noah and colleagues
found that the effect can be reduced by video-recording participants. The meta-analysis by Coles
and colleagues determined that another moderator is the choice of question, with evaluations of
the stimulus quality (i.e., how funny the cartoon is) showing larger effect sizes, but also more
evidence of publication bias, than ratings of amusement—although fewer estimates of the effect
on stimulus quality were available for analysis. The most important moderator that could be
accounted for statistically in the meta-analysis was the specific stimuli that were used during
testing. The choice of moderately funny contemporary cartoons in the present study may have
contributed to the effects we observed, as may other variables that have not been identified. The
consistency of the observed effect with original reports despite methodological differences,
however, could be interpreted in support of the effect’s robustness.
Overall, the results of the study are consistent with the notion that unobtrusive manipulations
of facial behavior can reliably shape emotional experiences and outcomes, in line with theories
of emotional embodiment.