Facial Expressions Versus Bodily Expressions in Nonverbal Communication
Christopher Philip
Usually facial expressions and bodily expression match – usually. However, by disassociating them, as in the current research conducted by Betsy App, Department of Psychology, University of Denver and colleagues, the relative contributions to overall emotional meaning can be discerned.
The study involved creating various facial and bodily expressions of anger and fear. Both facial expressions and bodily expressions were varied across two dimensions. Facial expression was modified across brow and mouth position and bodily expressions across arm and hand position plus torso lean.
Angry facial displays were characterized by knitted brows and pursed lips or bared
teeth.
Angry body postures consisted of clenched, raised fists and a forward torso lean.
Fearful facial expressions were characterized by raised brows and an open mouth.
Fearful body postures included outwardly facing palms raised defensively at the
wrists and a backward torso lean.
Images were created with the above listed features. The set was then evaluated by an independent group for best conveyance of emotion. Software was then employed to mismatch the faces and bodies producing “incongruent” images.
Participant then viewed congruent (matching) and incongruent (mismatched) images on a computer screen and were asked to answer experiment questions as quickly as possible. They were asked if the images seemed to be moving toward or away from them and to rate the level of fear, anger, disgust and sadness that appeared in the images.
The results showed that facial emotion was moderated by bodies. For example, an angry face on a fearful body was perceived as less angry than an angry face on an angry body. The same was true for fearful faces on angry bodies, as these were perceived to be less fearful than when the face and body matched.
Subjects also rated images that combined angry faces and fearful bodies as much as anger as they did disgust. This suggests that when bodies and faces don’t match, people don’t choose one or the other expression, but rather, come up with a new assessment that doesn’t always match either of the emotional states.
Additionally, bodies tended to predict body motion more so than did faces. For example, despite having angry faces which is usually perceived as intent to move forward, the addition of fearful bodies tended to be rated as moving away rather than toward. This suggests that the body is responsible for providing clues to relative motion.
The face, on the other hand, tended to predict which emotion the subjects were likely to attribute to the images. For example, an angry face on a fearful body was usually rated as more angry than fearful. This suggests that the face is usually sought when assessing the relative emotion of a person.
Drawing Conclusions
The study shows us that the body and face serve different roles. The face is the source people use when assessing emotion, whereas the body is the source in determining motion intention.
Thus, when evaluating others, the body and face provide relevant information.
Additionally, when the faces and bodies don’t match, neither the face, nor the body may offer reliable information to an observer who may evaluate them as being neither the emotion ascribed to the face, or the body, but rather something entirely different.
Putting This In Action
The study shows us that having congruent body and facial expressions is important to convey relevant meaning to others. When the face and body doesn’t match, it might lead people to misinterpret the emotion.
As this study suggests, being careful to match your bodily and facial expressions is important in conveying emotion accurately.
Image Credit: Derrick Tyson
Resources
App, Betsy; Catherine L. Reed and Daniel N. McIntosh. Relative Contributions Of Face And Body Configurations: Perceiving Emotional State And Motion Intention. Cognition and Emotion. 2019. 26(4): 690-698.