↓ Skip to main content

The Frozen Face Effect: Why Static Photographs May Not Do You Justice

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
20 X users
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Frozen Face Effect: Why Static Photographs May Not Do You Justice
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00022
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert B. Post, Jason Haberman, Lica Iwaki, David Whitney

Abstract

When a video of someone speaking is paused, the stationary image of the speaker typically appears less flattering than the video, which contained motion. We call this the frozen face effect (FFE). Here we report six experiments intended to quantify this effect and determine its cause. In Experiment 1, video clips of people speaking in naturalistic settings as well as all of the static frames that composed each video were presented, and subjects rated how flattering each stimulus was. The videos were rated to be significantly more flattering than the static images, confirming the FFE. In Experiment 2, videos and static images were inverted, and the videos were again rated as more flattering than the static images. In Experiment 3, a discrimination task measured recognition of the static images that composed each video. Recognition did not correlate with flattery ratings, suggesting that the FFE is not due to better memory for particularly distinct images. In Experiment 4, flattery ratings for groups of static images were compared with those for videos and static images. Ratings for the video stimuli were higher than those for either the group or individual static stimuli, suggesting that the amount of information available is not what produces the FFE. In Experiment 5, videos were presented under four conditions: forward motion, inverted forward motion, reversed motion, and scrambled frame sequence. Flattery ratings for the scrambled videos were significantly lower than those for the other three conditions. In Experiment 6, as in Experiment 2, inverted videos and static images were compared with upright ones, and the response measure was changed to perceived attractiveness. Videos were rated as more attractive than the static images for both upright and inverted stimuli. Overall, the results suggest that the FFE requires continuous, natural motion of faces, is not sensitive to inversion, and is not due to a memory effect.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Australia 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
China 1 2%
Luxembourg 1 2%
Unknown 42 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 31%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Student > Master 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 5 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 35 71%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Linguistics 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 5 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 77. 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 30 April 2021.
All research outputs
#513,981
of 24,036,420 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#1,046
of 32,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,822
of 250,697 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#22
of 482 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,036,420 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,264 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
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 250,697 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 482 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.