Authors
E-J Wagenmakers, Titia Beek, Laura Dijkhoff, Quentin F Gronau, A Acosta, RB Adams Jr, DN Albohn, ES Allard, Stephen D Benning, E-M Blouin-Hudon, Luis Carlo Bulnes, TL Caldwell, RJ Calin-Jageman, CA Capaldi, NS Carfagno, KT Chasten, A Cleeremans, L Connell, JM DeCicco, K Dijkstra, AH Fischer, Francesco Foroni, U Hess, KJ Holmes, JLH Jones, O Klein, C Koch, S Korb, P Lewinski, JD Liao, S Lund, J Lupianez, Dermot Lynott, CN Nance, S Oosterwijk, AA Ozdoğru, AP Pacheco-Unguetti, B Pearson, C Powis, S Riding, T-A Roberts, RI Rumiati, M Senden, NB Shea-Shumsky, K Sobocko, JA Soto, TG Steiner, JM Talarico, ZM Van Allen, Marie Vandekerckhove, B Wainwright, JF Wayand, R Zeelenberg, EE Zetzer, RA Zwaan
Publication date
2016/11
Journal
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Volume
11
Issue
6
Pages
917-928
Publisher
Sage Publications
Description
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 …
Scholar articles
EJ Wagenmakers, T Beek, L Dijkhoff, QF Gronau… - Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2016