| Title |
The many faces of a face: Comparing stills and videos of facial expressions in eight dimensions (SAVE database)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Behavior Research Methods, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13428-016-0790-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Margarida V. Garrido, Diniz Lopes, Marília Prada, David Rodrigues, Rita Jerónimo, Rui P. Mourão |
| Abstract |
This article presents subjective rating norms for a new set of Stills And Videos of facial Expressions-the SAVE database. Twenty nonprofessional models were filmed while posing in three different facial expressions (smile, neutral, and frown). After each pose, the models completed the PANAS questionnaire, and reported more positive affect after smiling and more negative affect after frowning. From the shooting material, stills and 5 s and 10 s videos were edited (total stimulus set = 180). A different sample of 120 participants evaluated the stimuli for attractiveness, arousal, clarity, genuineness, familiarity, intensity, valence, and similarity. Overall, facial expression had a main effect in all of the evaluated dimensions, with smiling models obtaining the highest ratings. Frowning expressions were perceived as being more arousing, clearer, and more intense, but also as more negative than neutral expressions. Stimulus presentation format only influenced the ratings of attractiveness, familiarity, genuineness, and intensity. The attractiveness and familiarity ratings increased with longer exposure times, whereas genuineness decreased. The ratings in the several dimensions were correlated. The subjective norms of facial stimuli presented in this article have potential applications to the work of researchers in several research domains. From our database, researchers may choose the most adequate stimulus presentation format for a particular experiment, select and manipulate the dimensions of interest, and control for the remaining dimensions. The full stimulus set and descriptive results (means, standard deviations, and confidence intervals) for each stimulus per dimension are provided as supplementary material. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Portugal | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 81 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 24% |
| Researcher | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 16% |
| Unknown | 14 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 41 | 49% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Unknown | 24 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 September 2016.
All research outputs
#19,944,994
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#1,895
of 2,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#258,197
of 349,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#28
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 349,079 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.