The Effect of Pen Holding Conditions on the Humour Rating of Funny Cartoons
Essay Preview: The Effect of Pen Holding Conditions on the Humour Rating of Funny Cartoons
Report this essay
THE EFFECT OF PEN HOLDING CONDITIONS ON THE HUMOUR RATING OF FUNNY CARTOONS
ABSTRACT
Previous research concerning the facial feedback hypothesis contends that manipulation of facial expression induces emotional arousal. The aim of the experiment was to determine whether holding a pen in the mouth in way that resembles certain facial expression effect humour rating of cartoons rated by participants under one of three conditions. A sample of 60 naпve second year students from Monash University was divided into the three treatment conditions to test the hypothesis. There were two separate hypotheses to be tested.
Results were not statistically significant and alternative hypotheses were not supported however, results did indicate a trend supporting the notions of the hypotheses. Implications of this study show that there are trends to support the facial feedback hypothesis however, inconclusively. Future research should be undertaken to effectively ascertain the validity of the facial feedback hypothesis, an extension of the James – Lange theory of emotion.
The James – Lange theory suggests that there are three stages related to the experience of an emotion. The first stage is the physiological response to the stimuli mediated by the autonomic nervous system and can include increased heart beat, sweat forming on the palms and similar symptoms. Following the physiological response is the emotional or cognitive aspect of actually realising the emotion which is then followed by the behavioural aspect which denotes what is actually done in response to the stimulus, for example running away. (Buck, 1980, p.811)
The facial feedback hypothesis is an extension of the James – Lange theory of emotion and contends that emotions are the result of physiological input rather than physiological reactions being the result of experienced emotions. According to the theory, feedback is taken from muscle activity in the body and is then interpreted by the brain and translated into the feeling of various emotions. For example, rather than a smile being elicited from a feeling of happiness, the facial feedback hypothesis suggests that it is the smile which has caused the feeling of happiness. (Dalton, 2000, p.60)
In the past there has been research carried out to test the validity of the facial feedback hypothesis. Laird (1974, cited in Strack, Martin & Stepper. 1988, p. 769) attempted to manipulate facial expression without informing participants of the true nature of certain tasks, thus avoiding their awareness of the fact that they were actually making facial expressions. Moreover, awareness of the relevance of facial expression was eradicated through the use of a diversionary story about needing to measure facial muscular activity. The diversion was substantiated by placing surface electrodes on certain parts of the face such as between the eyebrows, at corners of the mouth and on the jaw. When the experimenter touched these electrodes, participants would contract the relevant muscles, thus eliciting certain facial expressions inadvertently. Participants were then required to rate affective responses to slides and it was found that participants felt happier when their facial features resembles smiles and less happy when their facial features represented frowns.
Moreover, Lanzetta, Cartwright-Smith & Kleck (1976, cited in Strack et al, 1988, p. 769) performed various experiments that analysed the association between the non-verbal display of emotional affect and indices of the emotional state. Subjects were influenced to hide or to exaggerate the facial expressions associated with painful shocks. Participants facial expressions were not altered at all for this experiment, rather were requested to alter the expression that would normally have been elicited. This unnatural modification of facial expression resulted in corresponding subjective responses which ultimately supported the facial feedback hypothesis. (Strack et al, 1988)
Much later, Strack et al. (1998) in another attempt to analyse the facial feedback hypothesis, devised a study in which participants were made to imitate facial expression by holding a pen in various positions in their mouths. These positions include holding a pen with ones teeth, which would imitate the facial position of a smile or holding the pen with ones lips to limit the facial position of a smile. Some participants were asked to hold a pen in their non-dominant hand to serve as a control. Subjects were then asked to rate the humour of cartoons while holding the pens in the predetermined position. More cartoons were rated as amusing by participants in the smile facilitating position rather than by those in the smile inhibiting position. These results seem to support that facial expression influences emotion and the facial feedback hypothesis.
Furthermore, Larsen, Kasimatis and Frey (1992) aimed to inadvertently enact a facial pose of anger by placing golf tees between the eyebrows of participants and requesting that they attempt to touch the tees together. Researches deluded participants by claiming that the task was to test abilities of divided attention, thus participants were not aware of the facial expressions they were making. Participants reported feeling added discomfort when presented with aversive photographs while in the forced frowning position holding golf tees together.
The aim of the current experiment was to build on the research of Strack et al. (1988) and to further explore the extent to which the facial feedback hypothesis impacted on humour ratings for a series of cartoons, comparing the smile condition and the frown condition to the control.
It was hypothesised that the participants in the teeth holding condition would rate the four humorous cartoons higher on a scale of 1-9 than those in the teeth and lips holding condition. Moreover it was hypothesised that participants in the lip balancing condition would rate humorous cartoons lower on a scale of 1-9 than those in the teeth and lips holding condition. The null hypothesis was that the position in which the pen was held to the mouth or nose would have no impact on the participants rating of the cartoons.
METHOD
Participants:
60 second year psychology students from both Clayton and Caulfield campuses participated in this experiment. There were 49 females and 11 males and there was an age range from the oldest participant being 54 and the youngest participant being 18. The participants were completely naпve to the purpose of this study.
Materials:
The materials used