2016
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145643
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Tuning to the Positive: Age-Related Differences in Subjective Perception of Facial Emotion

Abstract: Facial expressions aid social transactions and serve as socialization tools, with smiles signaling approval and reward, and angry faces signaling disapproval and punishment. The present study examined whether the subjective experience of positive vs. negative facial expressions differs between children and adults. Specifically, we examined age-related differences in biases toward happy and angry facial expressions. Young children (5–7 years) and young adults (18–29 years) rated the intensity of happy and angry… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

3
6
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 52 publications
3
6
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In the present study, we used a morphing paradigm in which ambiguous facial expressions were perceived as being happier (and less angry) after participants were exposed to a working memory task using angry facial expressions. To date, this training effect has been observed in a relatively small sample of aggressive adolescents (Penton-Voak et al, 2013) and in younger children (Picardo, Baron, Anderson, & Todd, 2016). In the present study, we were able to replicate this finding in a much larger population of healthy university students, validating and generalizing the previous findings.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…In the present study, we used a morphing paradigm in which ambiguous facial expressions were perceived as being happier (and less angry) after participants were exposed to a working memory task using angry facial expressions. To date, this training effect has been observed in a relatively small sample of aggressive adolescents (Penton-Voak et al, 2013) and in younger children (Picardo, Baron, Anderson, & Todd, 2016). In the present study, we were able to replicate this finding in a much larger population of healthy university students, validating and generalizing the previous findings.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…First, there is an extensive literature documenting systematic individual differences in the direction of biases [for review see (Todd, Cunningham, Anderson, & Thompson, 2012)]. Valence preferences can also vary with developmental stage, such that young children show far more sensitivity and prioritization of happy faces than young adults (Picardo, Baron, Anderson, & Todd, 2016;Todd, Evans, Morris, Lewis, & Taylor, 2011). In the present study, this pattern did not reflect the individual differences in ADRA2B genotype and social anxiety we predicted and measured in this sample.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 55%
“…In addition, from a dimensional approach, the major difference between happy and angry faces is on the valence dimension rather than on the arousal dimension [47, 48]. Accordingly, recent evidence shows that adults rate happy and angry faces very similarly on the arousal dimension [49]. Finally, we used the same objects as targets as in Bayliss et al [10] and collected preference ratings in the third block to assess whether emotional expression and gaze direction affect object preferences even when faces concurrently change gaze direction and emotional expression under cognitive load.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%