3. E MPIRICAL PART
3.2. Temporal dynamics of neural evaluative processes: Event-related potentials
3.3.5. General discussion
The Component Process Model proposes a theoretical framework for a production mechanism of emotional facial expressions. The model distinguishes five emotion
components. The central component is appraisal and one of the other components is facial expression. Contrasting with other appraisal theories, the Component Process Model makes the unique assumption that appraisal (or appraisal checks) is processed in a fixed sequence, and that the results of the appraisal checks drive facial expressions. In particular, each consecutively processed appraisal check differentially and cumulatively affects the response pattering in facial expressions. The hypothesized sequence of processed appraisal checks is organized into four major appraisal objectives, namely, Relevance, Implication, Coping, and Normative Significance. The appraisal-driven response patterning in facial expressions is
CHAPTER 3.3:APPRAISAL PATTERNS IN FACIAL EXPRESSIONS 144 predicted in the componential patterning theory. In order to pursue empirical investigation of the validity of the model’s predictions, in two experiments, we tested the following
predictions: (1) that appraisal checks of Coping (control check and power check) have efferent effects in facial expressions, (2) that efferent effects of these appraisal checks are subsequent to efferent effects of the goal conduciveness check (an appraisal check of Implication), and (3) that the manipulation of appraisal checks that are categorized into different appraisal objectives (i.e., Implication and Coping) results in cumulative effects in facial expressions.
In the two experiments, the appraisal check of goal conduciveness, control, and power were manipulated simultaneously in feedback-stimuli and presented in a gambling task.
Moreover, also for the first time facial expressions were investigated in response to those feedback-stimuli. The two experiments yielded a set of consistent results regarding the three tested predictions. Concerning prediction (1), for the first time, efferent effects of the power check and the control check were found in facial expressions. In both experiments, efferent effects of the power check were found over the cheek region, interacting with efferent effects of the goal conduciveness check. The repeatedly found interactive response patterning was as follows: in response to losses, when participants had no power to reject these losses (i.e.,
“low power losses”), muscle activity over the cheek region was increased in contrast to wins that participants could freely accept (i.e., “high power wins”). This response patterning is compatible with prediction (3) that each consecutively processed appraisal check
differentially and cumulatively affects facial expressions. In turn, supporting prediction (1) for the goal conduciveness check, in both experiments efferent effects of the goal
conduciveness check were obtained over the corrugator and the cheek region.
Results partly supported prediction (2) that efferent effects of the manipulated appraisal checks unfold sequentially. In Experiment 1 and Experiment 2, the response
CHAPTER 3.3:APPRAISAL PATTERNS IN FACIAL EXPRESSIONS 145 patterning unfolded differently. In Experiment 1, the first efferent effects was a main effect of the goal conduciveness check over the corrugator region at 400 ms after feedback-stimulus onset, whereas in Experiment 2, the first efferent effect was an interaction between all three manipulated appraisal checks over the cheek region at 1,300 ms after feedback-stimulus onset. Based on these findings over the corrugator and the cheek region, it seems that appraisal checks partially unfolded within 1,400 after stimulus onset. Moreover, this latter finding supports prediction (3). At 1,300 ms and also at 1,400 ms the efferent effects showed cumulative patterning of all three manipulated appraisal checks. As predicted, when appraisal checks of two appraisal objectives—Implication and Coping—were manipulated cumulative effects were found. Given that in the ERP data, the processing of appraisal checks reached preliminary closure between 230 and 600 ms after feedback-stimulus onset, the investigated time period was sufficient to find first efferent effects. Notwithstanding, it is possible that in the 1.4-s long time period only a fraction of the entire unfolding of effects was captured. In future studies, the underlying mechanism should be further examined that determines whether cognitive processes drive main effects or cumulative (interaction) effects in facial
expressions. Furthermore, in these studies, ideally, time intervals that yield first efferent effects can be more specifically related to particular cognitive processes.
Comparing the setup of both experiments and taking previous experiments that tested the sequence hypothesis in facial expressions into account (Aue et al., 2007; Delplanque et al., 2009; Lanctot & Hess, 2007), it is possible that the complexity of efferent effects of appraisal checks, or more generally of cognitive processes, is affected by (a) the contextual effects of stimulus-frequency, and (b) the neural processes that underlie the processing of the stimuli. In order to conclusively interpret the response patterning in facial expressions, it is useful to compare the findings of the facial EMG to the findings in the concurrently recorded brain activity.
CHAPTER 3.3:APPRAISAL PATTERNS IN FACIAL EXPRESSIONS 146 The experimental setup of Experiment 2 differed from Experiment 1 in the frequency with which high power feedback was presented, the reduced monetary magnitude of wins and losses, and the discarding of the break-even condition. According to the ERP data, the
frequency manipulation had a clear impact on the feedback-related negativity, which is consistent with a previous study. In this study, highest negative deflections were found for unexpected (infrequent) negatively evaluated stimuli (Holroyd, Nieuwenhuis, Yeung, &
Cohen, 2003). Despite this effect of the frequency manipulation in the ERP data, in the facial EMG data, the cheek region was the only facial region that was affected by the frequency manipulation. In line with a previous study (Schacht et al., 2009), it seems that the corrugator region is insensitive to frequency variations of experimental stimuli. Furthermore, the
findings in the two experiments suggest that the neural processes associated with the
feedback-related negativity were related to the response patterning over the corrugator region.
The reduced monetary magnitudes of the gambling outcomes (Experiment 1: wins = 0.25 CHF, losses = -0.25 CHF; Experiment 2: wins = 0.05; losses = -0.05 CHF) might have affected the appraisal check of task/goal relevance. As a result, wins were evaluated as less task/goal relevant to participants in Experiment 2 than in Experiment 1, which made having a free choice about gambling outcome (high power) more important to participants in
Experiment 2 than in Experiment 1. Future studies should examine the impact of monetary magnitudes associated with task stimuli on the efferent effects of the goal/task relevance check and the goal conduciveness check of the stimuli.
In conclusion, the response patterning over the corrugator and the cheek region showed differentiated effects of the manipulated appraisal checks. Facial expressions to gambling outcomes suggest that the corrugator region communicates motivational significance, indicating that this facial region is influenced by appraisals of task/goal relevance and goal conduciveness. In comparison, the cheek region seems to be affected
CHAPTER 3.3:APPRAISAL PATTERNS IN FACIAL EXPRESSIONS 147 additionally by other cognitive processes such as the degree of choice to decide about the gambling outcome (power check) and the frequency of these choices (control check).
Regarding the underlying neuroanatomical network, the upper face receives more input from subcortical regions in comparison to the cheek region, which receives relatively more cortical input (Rinn, 1984). Subcortical regions (e.g., brain stem, limbic system) might be related to the processing of task/goal relevance, whereas the processing of stimuli’s goal
conduciveness, control, and power are carried out by cortical structures, probably of the parietal cortex. For example, the processing of goal conduciveness is associated with the processing of reward and the detection of conflict (when the event is obstructive in reaching a current goal). These processes are both related to the anterior cingulate cortex (Baker &
Holroyd, 2011; Nieuwenhuis, Holroyd, Mol, & Coles, 2004). Based on the results of the response patterning of the goal/task relevance check and the goal conduciveness check, Aue, Flykt, and Scherer (2007) proposed that the corrugator region might be implicated in the processing of this appraisal check, whereas the cheek region communicates the results of the task/goal relevance check. Our results in both experiments extend this idea, muscle activity over the corrugator region seems to be implicated in the processing of task/goal relevance and also of goal conduciveness, whereas activity over the cheek region is affected by the
(cumulated) results of all processed appraisal checks. Nonetheless, more research is needed to replicate and to extend the present results to test the validity of this idea.
To conclude, the two experiments showed that cognitive processes can be linked to facial expressions; although the findings did not support the prediction of sequential single appraisal check (main) effects that additively affect the response patterning of a facial region (see Figure 2). Nonetheless, the present findings encourage pursuing further investigation of the nature of cumulative effects and associated response patterning. Moreover, both
experiments promote the general approach to experimentally manipulating appraisal
CHAPTER 3.3:APPRAISAL PATTERNS IN FACIAL EXPRESSIONS 148 information and to measure its effects in psychophysiological variables. This approach
proposes a theoretical framework of a production mechanism of emotional facial expressions.
The term appraisal summarizes various mechanisms involved in the immediate and automatized subjective meaning analysis of events. With respect to research on basic emotions or on classifying emotions by broad terms of valence and arousal, the present results strengthen the viewpoint that there is no situation that per se elicits positive and negative emotions. Else responses to the gambling outcomes should have constantly resulted in an invariant pattern of positive expressions to wins (i.e., presence of smiles and absence of frowns) and negative expressions to losses (i.e., presence of frowns and absence of smiles).
CHAPTER 3.3:APPRAISAL PATTERNS IN FACIAL EXPRESSIONS 149
3.3.6. References
Aue, T., Flykt, A., & Scherer, K. R. (2007). First evidence for differential and sequential efferent effects of stimulus relevance and goal conduciveness appraisal. Biological Psychology, 74, 347–357. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2006.09.001
Baker, T. E., & Holroyd, C. B. (2011). Dissociated roles of the anterior cingulate cortex in reward and conflict processing as revealed by the feedback error-related negativity and N200. Biological Psychology, 87, 25–34. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.01.010 Bennett, D. S., Bendersky, M., & Lewis, M. (2005). Does the organization of emotional
expression change over time? Facial expressivity from 4 to 12 months. Infancy, 8, 167–187. doi: 10.1207/s15327078in0802_4
Biner, P. M., Huffman, M. L., Curran, M. A., & Long, K. R. (1998). Illusory control as a function of motivation for a specific outcome in a chance-based situation. Motivation and Emotion, 22, 277–291. doi: 10.1023/A:1021300306318
Cacioppo, J. T., Bush, L. K., & Tassinary, L. G. (1992). Microexpressive facial actions as a function of affective atimuli: Replication and Extension. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 515–526. doi: 10.1177/0146167292185001
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Losch, M. E., & Kim, H. S. (1986). Electromyographic activity over facial muscle regions can differentiate the valence and intensity of affective reactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 260–268. doi:
10.1037//0022-3514.50.2.260
Camras, L. A. (1992). Expressive development and basic emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 6, 269–283. doi: 10.1080/02699939208411072
Camras, L. A., Oster, H., Bakeman, R., Meng, Z. L., Ujiie, T., & Campos, J. J. (2007). Do infants show distinct negative facial expressions for fear and anger? Emotional expression in 11-month-old European American, Chinese, and Japanese infants.
Infancy, 11(2), 131–155. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
Delplanque, S., Grandjean, D., Chrea, C., Coppin, G., Aymard, L., Cayeux, I., . . . Scherer, K.
R. (2009). Sequential unfolding of novelty and pleasantness appraisals of odors:
Evidence from facial electromyography and autonomic reactions. Emotion, 9, 316–
328. doi: 10.1037/a0015369
Dimberg, U., & Karlsson, B. (1997). Facial reactions to different emotionally relevant stimuli. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 38, 297–303. doi: 10.1111/1467-9450.00039
CHAPTER 3.3:APPRAISAL PATTERNS IN FACIAL EXPRESSIONS 150 Dimberg, U., Thunberg, M., & Grunedal, S. (2002). Facial reactions to emotional stimuli:
Automatically controlled emotional responses. Cognition & Emotion, 16, 449–471.
doi: 10.1080/02699930143000356
Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 6, 169–200. doi:
10.1080/02699939208411068
Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & Hager, J. C. (2002). Facial action coding system: The manual:
Research Nexus devision of Network Information Research Corporation, Salt Lake City, UT.
Ellsworth, P. C., & Scherer, K. R. (2003). Appraisal processes in emotion. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 572–
595). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Fernandez-Dols, J. M. (2013). Advances in the study of facial expression: an introduction to the special section. Emotion Review, 5, 3–7. doi: 10.1177/1754073912457209
Fridlund, A. J., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Guidelines for human electromyographic research.
Psychophysiology, 23, 567–589. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1986.tb00676.x
Galati, D., Miceli, R., & Sini, B. (2001). Judging and coding facial expression of emotions in congenitally blind children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25(3), 268–278. Retrieved from http://jbd.sagepub.com/content/225/263/268.
Galati, D., Scherer, K. R., & RicciBitti, P. E. (1997). Voluntary facial expression of emotion:
Comparing congenitally blind with normally sighted encoders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1363–1379. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1363
Gentsch, K., Grandjean, D., & Scherer, K. (2013). Temporal dynamics of event-related potentials related to goal conduciveness and power appraisals. Psychophysiology, xx, xx–xx. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12079
Grandjean, D., & Scherer, K. R. (2008). Unpacking the cognitive architecture of emotion processes. Emotion, 8, 341–351. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.8.3.341
Hajcak, G., Holroyd, C. B., Moser, J. S., & Simons, R. F. (2005). Brain potentials associated with expected and unexpected good and bad outcomes. Psychophysiology, 42, 161–
170. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2005.00278.x
Hajcak, G., MacNamara, A., & Olvet, D. M. (2010). Event-related potentials, emotion, and emotion regulation: An integrative review. Developmental Neuropsychology, 35, 129–155. doi: 10.1080/87565640903526504
CHAPTER 3.3:APPRAISAL PATTERNS IN FACIAL EXPRESSIONS 151 Hajcak, G., Moser, J. S., Holroyd, C. B., & Simons, R. F. (2006). The feedback-related
negativity reflects the binary evaluation of good versus bad outcomes. Biological Psychology, 71, 148–154. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2005.04.001
Holroyd, C. B., Hajcak, G., & Larsen, J. T. (2006). The good, the bad and the neutral:
Electrophysiological responses to feedback stimuli. Brain Research, 1105, 93–101.
doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2005.12.015
Holroyd, C. B., Nieuwenhuis, S., Yeung, N., & Cohen, J. D. (2003). Errors in reward prediction are reflected in the event-related brain potential. Neuroreport, 14, 2481–
2484. doi: 10.1097/01.wnr.0000099601/41403.a5
Izard, C. E. (1994). Innate and universal facial expressions: Evidence from developmental and cross-cultural research. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 288–299. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.288
Lanctot, N., & Hess, U. (2007). The timing of appraisals. Emotion, 7, 207–212. doi:
10.1037/1528-3542.7.1.207
Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1998). Emotion and motivation: Measuring affective perception. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 15, 397–408. doi:
10.1097/00004691-199809000-00004
Lang, P. J., Greenwald, M. K., Bradley, M. M., & Hamm, A. O. (1993). Looking at pictures:
Affective, facial, visceral, and behavioral reactions. Psychophysiology, 30, 261–273.
doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1993.tb03352.x
Langer, E. J. (1975). Illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 311–328. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.32.2.311
Langer, E. J., & Roth, J. (1975). Heads I win, tails its chance: Illusion of control as a function of sequence of outcomes in a purely chance task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 951–955. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.32.6.951
Lapatki, B. G., Stegeman, D. F., & Jonas, I. E. (2003). A surface EMG electrode for the simultaneous observation of multiple facial muscles. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 123, 117–128. doi: 10.1016/S0165-0270(02)00323-0
Larsen, J. T., Norris, C. J., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2003). Effects of positive and negative affect on electromyographic activity over zygomaticus major and corrugator supercilii.
Psychophysiology, 40, 776–785. doi: 10.1111/1469-8986.00078
Nelson, N. L., & Russell, J. A. (2013). Universality revisited. Emotion Review, 5, 8–15. doi:
10.1177/1754073912457227
CHAPTER 3.3:APPRAISAL PATTERNS IN FACIAL EXPRESSIONS 152 Nieuwenhuis, S., Holroyd, C. B., Mol, N., & Coles, M. G. H. (2004). Reinforcement-related
brain potentials from medial frontal cortex: origins and functional significance.
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 28, 441–448. doi: DOI 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.05.003
Peleg, G., Katzir, G., Peleg, O., Kamara, M., Brodsky, L., Hel-Or, H., . . . Nevo, E. (2009).
Facial expressions in various emotional states in congenitally blind and sighted subjects. Israel Journal of Ecology & Evolution, 55, 11–30. doi: 10.1560/Ijee.55.1.11 Pfabigan, D. M., Alexopoulos, J., Bauer, H., & Sailer, U. (2011). Manipulation of feedback
expectancy and valence induces negative and positive reward prediction error signals manifest in event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology, 48, 656–664. doi:
10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01136.x
Pope, L. K., & Smith, C. A. (1994). On the distinct meanings of smiles and frowns.
Cognition & Emotion, 8, 65–72. doi: 10.1080/02699939408408929
Ravaja, N., Turpeinen, M., Saari, T., Puttonen, S., & Keltikangas-Jarvinen, L. (2008). The psychophysiology of James Bond: Phasic emotional responses to violent video game events. Emotion, 8, 114–120. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.8.1.114
Rinn, W. E. (1984). The neuropsychology of facial expression: A review of the neurological and psychological mechanisms for producing facial expressions. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 52–77. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.95.1.52
Roseman, I. J., & Smith, C. A. (2001). Appraisal theory: Overview, assumptions, varieties, controversies. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal
processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 3–19). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Russell, J. A. (1994). Is there universal recognition of emotion from facial expression: A review of the cross-cultural studies. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 102–141. doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.102
Schacht, A., Nigbur, R., & Sommer, W. (2009). Emotions in Go/NoGo conflicts.
Psychological Research, 73, 843–856. doi: 10.1007/s00426-008-0192-0 Scherer, K. R. (1984). On the nature and function of emotion: A component process
approach. In K. R. Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.), Approaches to emotion (pp. 293–317).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Scherer, K. R. (2001). Appraisal considered as a process of multilevel sequential checking. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion:
Theory, methods, research (pp. 92–120). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
CHAPTER 3.3:APPRAISAL PATTERNS IN FACIAL EXPRESSIONS 153 Scherer, K. R. (2009). The dynamic architecture of emotion: Evidence for the component
process model. Cognition & Emotion, 23, 1307–1351. doi:
10.1080/02699930902928969
Scherer, K. R., & Ellgring, H. (2007). Are facial expressions of emotion produced by
categorical affect programs or dynamically driven by appraisal? Emotion, 7, 113–130.
doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.7.1.113
Scherer, K. R., Mortillaro, M., & Mehu, M. (2013). Understanding the mechanisms underlying the production of facial expression of emotion: a componential perspective. Emotion Review, 5, 47–53. doi: 10.1177/1754073912451504
Smith, C. A. (1989). Dimensions of appraisal and physiological response in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 339–353. doi:
10.1037//0022-3514.56.3.339
van Reekum, C. M. (2000). Levels of processing in appraisal: evidence from computer game generated emotions. (PhD), University of Geneva.
Vasey, M. W., & Thayer, J. F. (1987). The continuing problem of false positives in repeated measures ANOVA in psychophysiology: A multivariate solution. Psychophysiology, 24, 479–486. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1987.tb00324.x
Wohl, M. J. A., & Enzle, M. E. (2002). The deployment of personal luck: Sympathetic magic and illusory control in games of pure chance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1388–1397. doi: 10.1177/014616702236870
Yeung, N., Holroyd, C. B., & Cohen, J. D. (2005). ERP correlates of feedback and reward processing in the presence and absence of response choice. Cerebral Cortex, 15, 535–
544. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhh153
CHAPTER 3.3:APPRAISAL PATTERNS IN FACIAL EXPRESSIONS 154
CHAPTER 3.4:APPRAISAL BIASES 155