UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Facial action determinants of pain judgment Lee, Douglas Spencer 1985

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-UBC_1985_A1 L43.pdf [ 5.54MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0096644.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096644-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096644-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096644-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096644-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096644-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096644-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

FACIAL  ACTION  DETERMINANTS  OF PAIN  JUDGMENT by  DOUGLAS B.A.,  The U n i v e r s i t y  M.Ed., M.A.,  SPENCER L E E of British  The U n i v e r s i t y The U n i v e r s i t y  DISSERTATION THE  of British of British  SUBMITTED  REQUIREMENTS DOCTOR  Columbia,  OF  IN  Columbia, Columbia,  PARTIAL  FOR  THE  1974 1978 1983  FULFILLMENT  DEGREE  OF  PHILOSOPHY  i n THE  F A C U L T Y OF  GRADUATE  STUDIES  PSYCHOLOGY  We  accept to  ""THE  this  dissertation  the required  UNIVERSITY  OF  October 0  Douglas  as c o n f o r m i n g  standard  BRITISH  COLUMBIA  1985  Spencer  L e e , 1985  OF  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of  requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the  the  University  o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make it  f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference  and  study.  I  further  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may  be granted by the head o f  department or by h i s o r her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .  my  It is  understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain  s h a l l not be allowed without my  permission.  Department of  /  y^^^<s^^^-^^r  The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T  1Y3  Date  3E-6  (.3/81)  written  ABSTRACT  Nonverbal  indices  researched  sources  literature  on  the  expressions  associated  be  a  to  source  levels  that  of  set  amongst there whether  no  oF  regarding  the  ratings  another  oF  Four using  Action  Facial  1978) Units  a  (AUs),  movements  For  pain.  First  AUs  The per  cues  were  Action  small  Found  much  expressions  studies  support  pain  may  indeed  studies  discriminations  amongst  a  be  person's the  used  set were  hypothesis would  addressing  vary  in  Facial  occurrence to  by  discomfort developed. Coding oF  Found  was  From  System  Facial  muscle to  amongst that  lead  to  question to  be  oF  different  judges  were  a  However,  movements.  naive  oF  discriminate  the  response  Facial  used  the  several  that  could  discriminating  expression  potentially  selFr-reported discomfort.  person's  Facial  extensive facial  Found  viewing  would  least  assessment.  From  identified  hypotheses  the  Friesen,  the  The  facial  two  make  directly  ratings  the  nonverbal  r e l a t e d to  pain  movements  research  patterns  from  could  of  of  studying  For  studies  levels  judges  in  of  pain.  is  literature  judges  Facial  several was  the  Other  oF  there  expressions  discomfort  expressions. small  of  some  Functions  Results  information  are  assessing  that  pain.  review  indicating  for  gained  Facial  oF  pain  communicative  be  with that  A  data  suggests  information  position  of  of  Issues in  making  investigated. prior (FACS)  research (Ekman  S.  movements,  termed  the  Facial  best  different  increasing increased  levels  the  number  ratings  oF oF oF  discomfort.  The  with  the  portrayed  than  segments  AUs  with  configuration. The  second  hypothesis  simultaneously  the  Four  same  to  the  affective  discomfort (1978).  students  volunteered  number  results of  AUs  ratings. were  Twenty-five  per  segments  configurations.  portrayed  judges by  be in  a l l  editted  male  both  expression  higher  would  video  higher  sequential  configurations.  onto  video  used  25  rated a  the  Gracely, and  segments  tape  and  scale  of  McGrath,  female  and  university  judges.  supported  Video  rated  The  developed  as  that  portrayed  randomly  judges.  •ubner  The  AUs  encoders  c o n f i g u r a t i o n s were  presented  was  Female  led to  of  than  hypotheses. a  Increasing  sharp  overlapping  segments  judges  rise  AU  judges'  configurations  with  always  in  the  non-averlapping  rated  higher  than  male  to  the  expressions  with  j udges. The  second  first  study.  only  upper  attempts This  The face  to  study  identical  study major  AUs  hide  was  be  rated  e x p r e s s i o n .than  contained  to  hypothesis  would  an  methodologically  ones  used  a  subset  i n the  hypothesis  ratings  of  this  subset  of the  lower  often face  indicating expressions.  expressions  which  Fourth  to  more  study.  the  due  that  first  of  studies  as  of  testing  the  was  similar  expressions  This  in  for  that  differ the  were  allowed  stated  would  differences  that  the  between judgment  conditions. Both expressions  hypotheses were  more  were  again  supported.  often  judged  as  Upper  face  p o r t r a y i n g attempts  by  IV.  the  encoders  to  fourth  hypothesis  higher  in  condition study  higher  results  from  these  a  number  ratings  expressions  aspects suggest  understanding facial  of  of  the  on  facial  that  A that  in  X  of  judge  females  rated  the rated  judgment higher  in  2 . indicated  expressions led  parameters studies  expressions  such  complex  sex  which  While  of  were  studies  the  Analysis  expressions  study  facial  viewed. of  1.  parameters  depending  being  the  indicated  rated  by  nonverbal  that  study  communication  behavioral  expressions.  males  nonverbal  studies  2 than  interaction  The  their  their  revealed  study  1 but  defined  hide  are  research  is  communication  expressions.  f  of  judges  that  the  pain  was  to  alter  of  the  facial  of  the  micro-  new,  the  present  integral  to  functions  of  V.  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  page  ABSTRACT  ii  LIST  OF T A B L E S  LIST  OF F I G U R E S  .  x  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  xi  INTRODUCTION General  1 Types  Rationale  Facial  Defined Pain The  of Pain  Model  .  Expressions  Judgment  of Pain.  Lines  7  vs. Emotional  of Rationale  Expression  8  Behavior  10  f o r the Present  Research.....  REVIEW  Classification  Summary  Summary  Studies  of Pain  of  of Pain..  16 24  of A - B Research.  29 31  of B - C Findings o f Reviewed  25 26  of A - C Findings..  Summary  13  Facial  of B - C Findings  Limitations General  of Empirical  Studies  of A - C Findings  Limitations Summary  Judgment  of A - B Findings  Limitations  11 13  f o r Conducting  Expressions  4  6  of Research  of Facial  2  Studies  Expressions.  Concept  LITERATURE  Facial  f o r Conducting  Expression  Summary  Assessment...  f o r Studying  Rationales of  ix  Research..............  32 32  V! .  Evaluation  of Rosenthal's  Model........  34  Strengths Model  34  relationships  not y e t addressed..  36  Weaknesses  36  Conclusions  from  evaluating  Rosenthal's  model...  HYPOTHESES  39  Hypothesis  1 -. I m p a c t  of the Complexity  o f AU  Configurations.... Hypothesis  40  2 - Overlapping  versus  Non-Overlapping  AUs  42  Hypothesis  3 - Hidden  Configurations Hypothesis Judges' GENERAL  vs Non^Hidden  AU  of Pain  4 - Effects  43 o f Judgment  Context  Ratings  Construction  45 47  of Video  Segments.  Encoders......... Encoder  47 •  48  Training  48  for Selecting  Rules  Video  f o r equating  Segments...  posed  with  49  spontaneous  expressions. Rules Rule How  49  for eliminating for standardizing  rules  were  movement segment  Reliability 1  Method  artifacts  50  context  50  applied  51  Equipment.........  STUDY  on  METHODS  Rules  37  of Encoders'  • AU  Configurations  51 51 54 54  VI  Subjects  54  Judges  ••  54  Encoders Procedures Selection  55 f o r Developing o f AU  Construction  Stimulus  configurations  of stimulus  Tape  55  t o be t e s t e d  55  tape  57  Procedures, f o r Judges  >•  60  Measures  61  Design  62  Results  62  Reliability  o f Judges  Post-Experimental  62  Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Data  6,4  Analysis  of Hypothesis  1  66  Analysis  of Hypothesis  2  69  Summary. STUDY  I ,  77  2  80  Method  80  Sub j e c t s  '  B0  Judges  80  Encoders  80  Procedures Selection  f o r Developing o f AU  Construction Procedures  Stimulus  configurations  of stimulus  Tape  80  t o be t e s t e d  80  tape  81  f o r Judges  ••  Measures Design Results  81 83  , J  ••• •-  83 84  VIII.  Reliability  of Judges  Post-Experimental  84  Questionnaire  Data...  85  Analysis  of Hypothesis 3  85  Analysis  of Hypothesis 4  88  Summary GENERAL  93  DISCUSSION  Level Sex  94  of Conplexity  94  o f Judge  Type  95  of Configuration  Hidden  v s Not H i d d e n  Facial  the Present  Research  Placing  Judgment Facial  98 Configurations........ within  the  Model  Activity  Limitations  99  101 as a N o n v e r b a l  of the Present  Measure  of Pain....  Studies  103 104  Conclusions  106  REFERENCES  107  Appendix  A  121  Appendix  8  131  Appendix  C  135  Appendix  D  Appendix  E  141  Appendix  F  143  Appendix  G.  145  Appendix  H  147  Appendix  I  149  Appendix  J  151  Appendix  K.  153  Appendix  L...  155  •  138  IX.  Appendix  M  157  Appendix  N  Appendix  •..  161  Appendix  P  165  Appendix  Q  Appendix  R  174  Appendix  S...  176  Appendix  T . . . . . . . . .  173  •  •  ••  •  159  171  X.  List  of  Tables  Table 1  page Summary of  of Empirical  Facial  using  Research  Expressions  Rosenthal's AU  on  Judgments  of Pain  Categorized  Model.  17  2  Possible  Configurations.  3  AU  Configurations  f o r Hypothesis  1.....  58  4  AU  Configurations  f o r Hypothesis  2  59  5  Study  1 - Analysis  Questionnaire 6  Mean  Gracely  Mean  Gracely  each  Data  9  Study  2 - Analysis  Questionnaire Proportion Upper  Attempts 11  AU  12  Mean  Face  Levels  67  of  Facial  of  Complexity 71  AU  of  Configurations..  82  Post-Experimental 86  of Times  and Lower  Configurations  Face  were  Judged  of as  t o Hide  Gracely Judge  o f AU  Data  Configurations  of  Level  Sex o f J u d g e  and Lower  the  f o r Type  across  Upper  Mean  f o r Each  by S e x o f J u d g e  8  10  65  Ratings  Configuration for  PostrExperimental  Ratings  Configuration 7  of  56  87 Common  Ratings  to Studies  f o r each  and Judgment  Level  Condition  1 and 2  90  o f Sex 91  XI  List  of  Figures  Figure 1  2  page Rosenthal's  Model  Judgment  Studies  Interaction of  3  Distribution  ... o f Judge  and  of  Interaction  of  Levels  AU  Configurations  of Complexity........ Type  of  Configuration  70 and  Complexity o f Sex  73  o f Judge  and  Type  of  Configuration 6  Interaction  74  o f Sex  o f Judge  and  Level  of  Complexity............ 7  Interaction of  Judge  of  15  63  of O v e r l a p p i n g  Levels  Interaction Level  5  o f Sex  Conducting  Complexity  within 4  for  Judgment  75 Condition  and  Sex 92  XI  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I  am  indebted  years  of support  Your  encouragement  the  Patrick,  would  at  to  never A  note  times  think  the  tell  have  Monica.  eternal Now  t h e FACS  mother  I would  I ' l l be a My  Schwalm,  that  and  of  research Andy  Cara their  Thank  you a l l .  b e when  I. grew  who  job. to  skills.  Gotoviec,  Faces  must  up.  Five  greatly  Zaskow,  about  and F a t h e r  Far  t o do a b e t t e r  has c o n t r i b u t e d  o f my  Faces  happened.  t o my  what  nimble  Ken C r a i g ,  pushing  t o do b e t t e r  and r e f i n e m e n t  Delphin  Gerhardt  supervisor,  and u n r e l e n t i n g  development Without  t o my  and  Chris Brenda  this  research  have  wandered  Wander  no m a r e ,  I  doctor. lave  t o my  school  Family  Pat,  i s o u t what  Carol,  shall  we d o ?  Dianne,  and  1.  INTRODUCTION  Pain data  is  millions  of  that  various  1975;  f o r pain  related  billions  1980;  Main  costs  recent  1984; M o h a m e d , W e i s z  In  recognizing  recognized  the  pain  that  can  lack How  pain  will  depend  mechanisms  of pain  i n man  severity  of  that  pain  is  judgment,  the present  questions  focusing  expressions  when  on  the task  how  part  to  accurately  (1983)  observers  another  person's  of  to  and  interpersonal of  nonverbal pain.  pain pain"  the nature  a number use  "The  to control  of assessing  addressed  their  understand  on how  Melzack  tied  also  sufferers,  o f methods  ultimately  S  facets of  i s e s s e n t i a l f o r the study  studies  judging  by  i t must  o f many  can l e a r n  i n large  and f o r t h e e v a l u a t i o n  Recognizing  1981; B l o c k  1978).  individual  As s t a t e d  societal  f o r f a m i l i e s of  (Block,  understanding well  did  Loeser,  to the  of the problem  and s o c i e t y  be a s s e s s e d .  measurement  (p.1).  we  researchers,  control  pain  that  S.  sufferers  1978;  i t i s common  S. W a r i n g ,  are  found  physicians  (Brena,  affected  ( 1979)  of pain  In a d d i t i o n  the enormity  experience.  families, and  1982).  work s u g g e s t s  consulted  annually  there  1980; P a u l l e y  Bresler  Treatment  s u f f e r e r s t o be a d v e r s e l y  Boyer,  who  but  staggering.  indicate  1982).  problems.  S Waddell,  is  1983; L o e s e r ,  S. W a d d e l l ,  of d o l l a r s  experience  society  conditions  (Bonica,  Main  universal  western  up t o 8 0 % o f a l l p a t i e n t s  costs  be  on  pain  of s u f f e r e r s  Haskell,  pain  an a l m o s t  i n d i c a t e s i t s impact  Estimates  so  not only  important facial  2.  Genera 1 Types In &  of  Pain  Assessment  keeping  with  a  Wall,  1965,  available  1982)  m u l t i f a c e t e d concept four  f o r measuring  (including damage,  written  and  pain.  behavior.  se1f-report,  methods  can  assessed  be  assessment  of  a  wide  autonomic  electromyographic  Dong,  1975)  1983). and  qualities (1978, have  1979)  are  proven  isolated  of to  (Ganchrow,  measure Block, 1985  to  among be  useful  1982  nonverbal  Steiner, or not for a  for specific  measures  have yet  been  gained  global facial  pain  unique  wide  coding  have  (Melzack,  and  system of  Dubner and  (see Craig  pain).  both 1983;  assessment either  been  studies  Leventhal  developed  and  sensory  and  single 1978;  and  Chudler  (Gracely,  acceptance  expressions  (MPQ)  to  recently  pain  1980)  recently  behavior  and  1981),  measures  S. E d e l s t e i n , so  of  1981;  McGrath,  until  pain  Kleiner  of  insult  Block,  self-report  measures  and  S. L a n z e t t a ,  Gracely,  best  nonverbal  measures  affective  of the  diagnostic  (Blanchard,  the  However,  research  1965), has  the  by  of  damage  Questionnaire  rating  developed  1983).  procedures  Sharp,  pain  for  Pain  tissue  overviews  medical  (Vaughan  of  (1985)  (e.g.  measurement  McGill  scales of  Melzack,  The  of  are  self-report  observation  Physiological  measurement  are  and  Tissue  response  e1ectroencepha1ographic S  pain.  (Melzack  assessment  observation  range  techniques.  utilize  al.  and  measuring  by  et  pain  observation  measurement, Chapman  of  methods  reports),  physiological,  behavior  types  These  verbal  physiological  nonverbal  general  of  S.  that  the  Keefe  and  S.  Patrick,  While  assessment  measures,  and  measures  Distortion  and  (Craig  facility not  report  no  method  response  bias  of  self-rreport  the  of  of  pain  &  Wall,  tissue  have  (Cacioppo, problems difficult.  make  the  measures  inherent  i n the  As studies  of of  S. P r i c e ,  nonverbal nonverbal  judgments.  From  1981; 1 967 ;  nonverbal  of  assessment will  other types by  a  of  Harper,  counter  for  anecdotal  Fordyce, Jacox,  197B) 1 980;  by  1977;  Melzack  are  often  1980),  have  measures These  physiological pain  possibly of  and  data  will  will  the  not also  problems  assessment. Wiens,  behavior suggest cues  self-  1983).  of  do  indicator  among  some  lack  differences,  measures but  or  pain  poor  Kazdin,  of  be the  a  of  measures  Gormenzano,  of  which  indicated  be  individual  interpretation  scope  provide  S  to  of  complete  Assessment  1982;  well  individuals)  intercorre1ations  Development  widen  properly  physiological  Marsha 11-Goode11 often  retarded  Stewart,  large  Also  illiterate  1980;  display low  are  Loeser,  (Ekman,  are  segments  to  addition,  generally  1980].  than  problems.  measures  shown  1982).  meanings,  to  developed  been  1959;  ambiguous  Genest,  has  intrusive  or  1980).  (Beecher, In  who  physiological  without  certain  adults  (Craig,  damage  and  range  that  skills  is  Kazdin,  language,  requisite  reactive  only  fact  test  assessment  amount  1980;  children,  the  the  better  pain  (eg.  have  are  of  is  with  via self-report,  damage  S. P r k a c h i n ,  recognized population  pain  tissue  nonverbal  known  of  a  Matarazzo  (1978)  that  people  a  variety  accounts and  and  of  (Turk,  clinical  Johnson,  wide  interpersonal Meichenbaum  research 1977;  use  &  (Chambers  Teske,  Daut  S.  Cleeland, for  1983)  assessing  important is  as  are  i t i s clear  and  source  of information  demonstrated  pain  can  pain  Prkachin,  The  (Craig  what  even  of f a c i a l  S. K l e c k ,  present  1970;  1983).  It  behavior i t has  expressions  of  intensity  of  Patrick, Craig, what  by t h e o b s e r v e r s studies  an  though  and  i t i s a s y e t unknown  a r e used  as  of nonverbal  the occurrence  Lanzetta  seen  S. P r k a c h i n ,  types  observers  and  cues  features  i n making  have a t t e m p t e d  to  & of  their clarify  question. f o r Studying  Attempts particularly (1872).  1979)  to facial  measuring  Facial  facial  The  due  to  First,  and  of  foremost,  are  used  not  received  recently scoring  by  judges any  present  was  based  direct  rating  studies  (Ekman  to e m p i r i c a l l y  back  to  Darwin  development  expressions  of  1978;  Izard,  (Ekman,  1982),  i s in i t s infancy.  on  studies  three  o f what  a person's  micro-analytic  behavior,  S. F r e i s e n ,  experimental  expressions  pain  recent  the present  the question when  developed facial  of pain  to focus  pain  (Ekman  of f a c i a l  expressions  Pain  c a n be t r a c e d  the only  techniques  decision  expressions  nonverbal  expressions,  and t h e c o m p l e x i t y on  Ex p r e s s i o ns o f  describe  However,  adequate  the  i s common  For instance,  judge  press)  expressions  Rationale  work  that  1966;  in  judgments. this  pain.  accurately  (Gubar,  facial  however,  in judging  been  t h e use o f n o n v e r b a l  d e s c r i b i n g pain  yet unclear,  used  that  facial  considerations.  facial level  study.  S. F r i e s e n , the  expressions of pain  The  measurement  examine  on  use of  method  1978)  has a  for  allowed  question  of  5.  what  facial  pain  of  Coding  expressions  another  System  dependent  (FACS)  1978) a s a s o u r c e  been  the  face  has been  1983;  LeResche  Although  research  Holmes,  1972;  Friesen  &  has been  Dimatteo,  1976),  O'Sullivan,  and  Scherer  specificity  suggested  that  behavior,  using  before  The pain  more  modes  situations. adequate  more  s-tudying  nonverbal  Patrick,  satisfactory  the possible and t h e i r  information reason  i s concerned  interpreting  o f most  on f a c i a l  the  on  Oster  much  of the  of  nonverbal  of  and It  is  i s needed  effectiveness  of  the  nonverbal  methods,  of  specific  to supply  more  pain.  facial  a theoretical  and p r e s e n t  Ekman,  and  interactions in  expressions  &  Ekman,  by  behavior.  has a t t e m p t e d  providing  past  work  mode  research  for concentrating with  1979;  that  and  Atzel  methodology  differential  research  indicated  Ekman  argues  on e a c h  Polunin,  (Cline,  recent  nonverbal  passible  1984;  pain  movements,  effectiveness  information  The p r e s e n t  final  body  of research  potentially  which  (1980),  (1982)  differential  i s due t o l i m i t a t i o n s  situational  pain  for assessing  & Taranta,  t h e more  a n d Ekman  a  conducted  Friedman  Scherer,  regarding  as  as i n d i c a t o r s o f emotion  and S c h e r e r  debate  of  different  a Dworkin,  e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the face,  qualities  (1982),  Action  (Craig S  identifed  & Prkachin,  Friesen,  of  et a l . , i n press).  of information  speech  for  S Friesen,  demonstrated  differential  of  of the Facial  source  1977).  qualities  The u t i l i t y  and i m p o r t a n t  (Craig  rating  has a l r e a d y  Second,  modes  (Ekman  when  d i s c r i m i n a t e among  Patrick  rich  person.  uses  v a r i a b l e s which  intensities 1985;  a judge  research  expressions framework within  an  integrative of  pain  structure.  has  research.  been  The  studies  Prior  fragmented  use  of  a  provide  a  of  Rationales  for  1982)  prior  framework  with  general  (Rosenthal,  integration  research  guiding  C o n d u c t i ng  facial  for  used  with  the  further  Judgment  expressions  overriding thrust  model was  research  for  no  on  to  the  conducting  judgment  to  for  allow  present  an  studies  to  research.  Studies  of  Facia1  Expressions The for  three  studying  that  the  they  observer  expressions  reflect  clinical  While  these  be  may  particular  as  as  that  1978,  Ekman,  1965;  Keefe,  1970;  Munn,  1940).  impressions the  of  others  and  commonalities  have  the  research  are  function,  unique  that  they  treatment  each  everday  behavior,  expressions data  may  be from  most  may  impact.  they  need  features  which  based  on  Wilkins This  status  the  other  which  other  commonly  their  as  that  is  people  people facial  S.  (Craig, S  based  on  appear  to  from  their  expressions.  variables in  (Craig  a  Lanzetta  measurements  dependent  measures  1984;  assumption in  serve  rationale  S. C o o k ,  of  suggests  used  expressions common  experiences  most  rationale  facial  i s the  subjective  second  augment  of  by  expressions  communicative  certain  they  function  The  facial  measure  affect  assumption  nonverbal  a  share  communicative  infer  of  offered  rationale.  The  Kleck,  a  been  p s y c h o l o g i c a l phenomena,  rationales  significantly  have  judgments  utility  differentiated  that  serve  important  have  to  rationales  of  facial  order  Patrick,  to 1985;  7.  Ekman  S. F r i e s e n ,  predicated prone  nonverbal  Prkachin,  second  suggested  1983].  that  expressions  focused  need.  gained  on  than  Several  the  studies  have  facial utility,  o f i n t e r v e n t i o n impact  communicative  (Craig to  clinical  (Block,  less  either  measuring  valuable  e t a l . , 1978].  the  are  i s related  from  f o r the t h e r a p i s t  1968; Ganchrow  expressions  rationale  t o have  a measure  of feedback  Friesen, has  as  rationale i s  1982] o r s e l f - r e p o r t  The t h i r d  prove  This  by t h e s u b j e c t  (Ekman,  information  1982]. facial  on a d i f f e r e n t  may  particularly  that  manipulation  behavior  but focuses  source  LeResche,  on t h e a s s u m p t i o n  to voluntary  other 5  1969;  and  1981;  The p r e s e n t function  as  a  Ekman  &  research  of  facial  e x p r e s s i ons. • e f in e d  Lines  Allied  to  judgments done  of  of  in this  Research the d i f f e r e n t  facial area.  expressions  The h i s t o r y  expressions  c a n be t r a c e d  The  line  first  observers  could  has make  based  on o b s e r v i n g  1972;  Izard,  6  Kleck,  press). to  devise  third  questions  Lanzetta line  measurement 1952;  line, concerned  the  of  research  studies of  research  f o r coding a Friesen,  areas  facial  investigation. of  (Boucher,  1970;  of  of emotions  1918; L a n z e t t a ,  i s related what  studying  question  judgments  & Kleck,  Ekman  with  lines  expressions  tools  which  four  traces  for  are the types  with  accurate  facial  The s e c o n d  (Birdwhistel1, The  dealt  used  o f judgment  along  1969; L a n g f e l d ,  1976;  rationales  whether or  pain  1 9 6 9 ; Ekman,  Cartwright-Smith  P a t r i c k et a l . , i n that  has  facial 1978;  expressions Izard,  to the second, of the face  attempted  1979).  focused  observers  on use  when  making  Tomkins, which  judgments  1971;  has  Hanawalt,  only  physiological the  role  (Dunlap,  of  experiencing  1944).  of  unobservable  various  emotions &  Mandel  &  1976;  Vaughan  When  combined  broadband  research  regarding  the  these  pain the Pain  and First  and  Craig  Patrick  and  (1982),  developed to  (1978), simple  to  study  Facial  studying  coding  system  developed  adaptability studying  oF  pain  differences  Tomkins,  Everhart,  1979;  oF  Hyde  the  (1985)  have  in  Friesen, Salt,  1980).  many  represent  questions Facial and  a  asked  behavior  judgment  based  expressions of  mainly  by  al.  et  studying must  concept pain  S. W a l l ,  not of  oF on  press),  FACS,  emotion, Ganchrow  responses, Facial  Affect  which can  et used  However,  emotional  expression  hide  affect  the or  Weisenberg,  al. a  the to  theoretical  emotion  1979;  be  Scoring  (1971).  (IASP, 1965;  (in  that  oF  pain.  the  Ekman  al.  shown  oF  Melzack  Fair,  P a t r i c k et  reminiscent  and  Schwarz,  were  pain  1982)  activity &  expression  of  the  investigate  Levenson  nonverbal  judgments  expression  on  E x p r e s s i on  expressions  For  research,  focused  research  studies  &  research.  Facial  methods  between  oF  (1985),  study  in  Technique  to  Emotional  and  of  of  to  Lanzetta,  lines  present  lines  vs.  used  1971;  third  a  role  relate The  1980;  Friesen  has  muscle  a t t a c k i n g the  and  Expression  LeResche was  emotion.  four  Front  utility  behaviors  Aher,  these  line  musculature  (Ekman,  Brown  Klerman,  Final  facial  Schwartz,  Ekman,  developed,  facial  1983;  as  The  r e c e n t l y been  measures  1927;  (Izard,  Leventhal 1977).  S.  Theories  of  experiences  are  cognitive, closely  and  component the  pleasure, A  view  key  affect,  the  facial  same of  perceived emotion  by as  interactions  is  of  interpreted.  on  hypotheses  relate  For  method  sensory the to  the  is two  (1982)  and  (p.  354).  a  single  is  how  theories  the  and  of  biological  of  of  the of  cultural  communicative  1978;  Izard,  1971;  theories  of  pain  the  data  may  related  to  the  or  be  evaluative  aforementionedpain,  hypothesized  however  pain"  In  a  central  deprivation  fields  (Ekman,  only  Tomkins  use  are  be  theories  emotion,  physical the  not  (Leventhal  affect  drive  different  1982).  the  these  than  than  may  innate  contributions,  person,  they  or  the  of  two  measurement  the  of  primary  discussing  expressions  pain,  not  Pain  affective,  Within  theories  urgent  even  tool  Tomkins,  but  concept  in  may  1982).  the  when  genetic  1982;  sources  as  more  focus  determinants, of  the  which  important  across  on  comprising  circumstances  Wall,  The  different.  interchangeably.  urgent  tool  based  the  affect  more  results  from  an  used  question  measurement  Redican,  a  1985).  mechanism, and  functions  as  being  are  as  various  c e n t r a l component  "I  motivating  under  i s seen  often  stated  affect  components  Melzack  (Craig,  obvious  terms  sensory  1979;  affect  and  conceptualized  interrelated  Everhart, pain,  pain  as  hypotheses ' of  well  factors  qualities  as  complex  (Kleck,  et  al.  methods  used  and  1976). It  is clear  possible expression  then  overlapping and  that  the  similarity  hypotheses  emotional  of  between  expression  research  only  on  represent  pain a  10.  circumscribed research two  i n these  areas  unique  topics  evident  throughout of  of  theoretical  of  or  predilection  proposed movement  expression  are  on  facial  behavior.  separates  what  the  door  f o r researchers  of  facial  i s observed  behavior  behavior  measured without  to also  what  including  the  behavior,  movement,  point  as-  methodology but  meaning  been  will  be  This from  of the face.  realm has  The  problems Ekman  behavior"  to  terms  distinction, which  makes  The what  of d e f i n i n g  what  a  will  be u s e d  opens  measures  is  of being  behavior  the question The  from  concept  over  of the behavior.  or  researchers'  debate  debate  a l .  clearly  i s inferred,  measured.  et  emotion  which  other  with  indicate  t o u s e common  adopting  action  the  F r i e s e n , and E l l s w o r t h  i n a l l areas  the  of  expression"  out s e v e r a l  that  facial  within the  f o r t h e i n f e r e n c e s one  in this  and  on  regardless  "facial  "facial  i s being  problem  interpret  these  attention  emotion  has  Ekman,  without  reduces  the  that  paper.  and  the face.  reserved  about  of t h i s  i n the study  observing  inferences  and  t h e term  t h e term  observable  pain  of the researcher,  and 0 ' S u l l i v a n (1982)  (1982a)  shared  research  confusion.  used  focused  This  affect,  techniques  terminology  evident  between  Behavior  focus  considerable  facial  and d e s e r v e  between  pain  measurement  (1982a) the  Faci al  interest  It i s also  the remainder  the  expressions  theoretical  two a r e a s .  difference  Concept  caused  joint  of i n v e s t i g a t i o n .  Whether  of  of  are separable  theoretical  The  area  o f how  terms to  is to  facial indicate  facial  events  pain  presumed  to  of  By  represent  i t  diverse  to  various  facial were  Within  behaviors related  stimulus  to  and  have  of  on  behaviors  related  on  these  viewing  Summary  of  The  to  thrust  of  There methods.  of  the  pain  and  regardless  It  would  when  facial  are  research  event.  The  see  in to  unique  i f the  they pain  physiological to  between  unique  of  to or  the This  these  to  qualities  reaction  with  behaviors  which  be  people  stimuli.  investigated  judges'  facial  and  stimuli  impact,  person's  individual  similarities  painful  pain  relationship  facial  Rationale  summarized. assessment  sensory  the  the  be  are  from  observed  those  specific  interpretation  focused  of  that  of  movements.  common  area  also  either its  characteristics subjective  could  the  the  observed,  stressful  identify  the  are  to  general  observations  the  behavior  exposed  suggest and  compare  these  or  of  observation  which  facial  people  circumstances  stimulus.  about  or  term  behaviors.  investigate  fearful  of  could  to  The  behaviors  state  from  movement  the  to  behavior  comparison  each  compare  facial  facial  p o s s i b l e to  coded.  inferences  subjective  inference  facial  subjected  facial  to  specified  i n f e r e n c e s made  possible were  these  i n order  in  objectively  refer  the  becomes  areas  differences the  will  stripping  behavior  been  c o n f i g u r a t i o n s of  demonstrates  of  have  expression  descriptions  who  that  the  person's  present  studies  specific  facial  ratings  of  pain  based  behaviors.  f o r the the is  present a  Of  Present  need the  Research  research  for  more  four  major  can and areas  be  quickly  better  pain  where  pain  12.  assessment behavior  can  lacks  nonverbal  behavior  could  behavior. have  facial  in  be  and The  been  ratings behaviors  only  adequate  importance.  theoretical,  judges'  any  made  behavior  experimental  that  be  assessing  was  the  has  there  reasons among to  for  certain the  The  of  are  i n the  use  facial  present  and  nonverbal  studying  report  of  practical,  of  subjective states portrayed  investigated  nonverbal  clinical  several areas  investigated  concomitant  of  methods.  pain  Although  relationships  of  assessment  measurement  clinical  found  the  facial  behaviors pain by  and these  research.  13.  LITERATURE  Due  to  the  pain  there  is a  the  strengths  The  literature  Rosenthal's This  diverse  need and  review  introduces  a  be  model  the  for  contains  of  empirical  research  expression.  This  will  a  third  provides  d i s c u s s i o n of  facial  of  empirical  the  fo r  of  new  and  for  physiological  recording  behavior  observers  use  a  use  specific  (people  asked  observations  of  may  overlap  but  For  instance,  used  highly  on  Studies facial  either  as  behavior).  trained  of  of  pain  guidelines. area  and  research  on the  of  the  helped  in  Pain that  coders  (people  personal  and  model  to for  assesses  studies  to  Craig  in  a l l  device  usually  system  each  expressions  recording  facial  in  section  the  methods,  make  i t i s used  classification  well  first  investigation.  Judgment  research  the  The  a  involved  fourth  on  studies.  model's  findings  pain.  following  judgments the  issues  how for  provides on  the  The  based  areas  Conducting  Except  of  pain.  model  research  identifying  summary  of  organized judgment  of  examining  studies  sections.  follow  methodological  expressions  utility  Model  a  for  o u t l i n e s how  second  classifying  The  be  major and  expressions  framework  judgment  will  four  The  system  facial  conducting  model  review.  on  conceptual  reviewed  Rosenthal's  structure  research  weaknesses  to  (1982)  for  REVIEW  or  method)  or  decisions These  two  utilize  of  facial  trained as  judges  based  observer  to  on roles  fulfill  different  research  needs.  Patrick  (1985)  LeResche  (1982)  coders,  Lanzetta  and  and  Kleck  (1970)  used  14.  naive  judges  as  observers,  provided  their  structured  scoring  The  and  Kleck,  expressions,  how  the  and  but each  diversity  best  (1982)  assessing  and  provides  a  Ganchrow  For  collected  each  method.  A  - one  by  o r more  stimulus  movement, C  -  the on  judgment  or  (eg.  are  specific B C - the  tone  as  the  of  For data  judgment  outline  component  model  and  and  by For  This  review  Following  to  proposed  Framework  roles  the person  oF  briefly  interactions.  exposed  the person  to a  known  (eg. F a c i a l  or  body  change).  oF t h e o b s e r v e r (eg. rates  there to high  model  studies.  and  role.  arises  of t h e model  The  pain  Fear).  of nonverbal  primary  nonverbal  oF  behavior  perception of B  A B ^- t h e s t u d y  a  Patrick,  observer  systematic  components  (eg. pain  skin  a  display  attributes  B - the observable  (1978) and  and  integrative  Rosenthal.  the model's  The  observer  graphic  Craig  the question  judgment  different  describes  an  conducting  proposed  a l .  training  a different  the F i n d i n g s .  the  studies  et  et a l . a l l i n v e s t i g a t e d  used  provides  1 is a  by  of s t r a t e g i e s  contrasting  Figure  mimimal  studies  structure  by  with  study  to integrate  Rosenthal  Ganchrow  Form.  aforementioned  Lanzetta  From  observers  and  a  limited  interest a s an  oF is  the A a t t r i b u t e s  level  behavior  levels  behavior  oF  as  of  noxious on  pain).  a dependent  number  oF  Facial  variable actions  stimulation?).  using  independent  based  the variable  encoder's ( e g . do  Figure Rosenthal's  Model  Judgment  1 for  Conducting  Studies  B  State of encoder  Encoder s  Decoder' <  nonverbal  judgment  1  behavi or  16.  observers type A C -  the  of  make  nonverbal  primary  the  accurately  A B C -  and  the the  fear  model  actions  this  research being  i s on  the  the  of  i t  the  the  accuracy  encoder  the  in  (eg.  discriminate  how  between  the s u b j e c t s ? ) . is a l l interactions  what  facial  encoder  use  to  is  possible  particular  upon  see?).  observers  finding  s t a t e s of  dependent  observer's  interest  observers  by  the  s t a t e s of  (eg.  model  they  attributes  simultaneous  specific  Using  can  judgments  behavior  focus  identifying  pain  different  infer  actions  and  testing  the  state  to  relate  which  of  the  classify  relationship  of  in to facial encoder).  empirical  the  components  studied.  Classification  of  Empirical Studies  of  Faci a l Expressions  of  Pain Table of  1 summarizes  pain.  because  larger  conducted  they  contained  and  of  on  on  1965. work  of  Also on  observations  and  pain not the of  often  included  subject  1965  were  in  not  included  Friesen  Ekman,  not of  separate emotion.  pain  Table  receiving  In  a by  from  1 are  was  involved  pain  facial prior  summaries  during  eliciting  of  LeResche  found  research  a the  review  investigating 1944)  factors  pain  conducted  study  S Jones,  physiological a  to  expressions  1982;  of  one  (Chapman  facial  problematic  expressions  only  on  particularly  did  expressions  (1984)  work  prior  (Ekman,  facial  facial  Dworkin  expressions to  flaws  1982b),  focus  research  recent  Studies  methodological Ellsworth,  the  the  stimuli.  17.  Physiological model on  of  judgment  both  a  of  It that  summary  A  -  is  B  research  study  judgment  of  focused  expressions  the  present  simultaneously  and  section  expressions  from  adequate coded  physiological  is  included  activity pain.  (Craig  Patrick  Ganchrow  et  limited  range  et  in  exp.  found  that  measures (1978) facial  of also  and  Keefe  pain  facial  or  that  the  the  of  were  demonstrated  (1965)  of  during  the  the  gains  type  and  Block  correlated  with  studies  related  Ganchrow  subject  painful  the  for this  experimental  pain.  and  of  sophisticated  significantly  subject's state  coding  Keefe not  FACS  global  coding  was  the  on  LeResche,  using  the  facial  heavily  highlights  when  A-B  1985;  Sharp  (1982)  a l l other  behaviors  relies  more  limited  to  Comparing  and  grimacing  rating  that  to  the  movements,  related  Hyde,  exception  p a t i e n t ' s or  found  behaviors  1985;  in  results  examined  research  specificity  the  be  1  component  features,  behavior.  Block  global  finding  the  of  Leventhal  and  and  versus  patient's  facial  Patrick,  With  1)  type  of  other  that  to  Table  relationships  on  appear  in  types  facial  a l . , in press)  of  research.  (1982,  which  a l . (1978)  system  unique  specific  of  comprehensiveness  coding  component  experiments  This  S.  summarized  research  nine  measurement  data  1982;  The  of  studies  produce  a l l listed  of  the  different  model  relationship areas  from  on  relationships.  the  the  realm  Findings  distinguishable  of  facial  of  evident  Rosenthal's  in  of  If a  the  1.  Summary  or  is outside  studies.  judgments  measures Table  research  to  et a l .  affects  stimu1uation.  the  Table 1 Summary of Empirical Research on Judgments of Facial Expressions of Pain Categorized using Rosenthal's Model Author  A State Subject  Model Segment A-B  Ba Nonverbal Behavior of Subject  Craig & Patrick (1985)  FACS Cold pressor. Gracely scale of Affective Discomfort used as self-report. Ss exposed to modeling influence.  Ganchrow Steiner & Kleiner (1978)  Cold pressor. Self-report pain 0-10 scale. Hamilton Depress. scale & self-rate depression 0-100.  Coders rated global level of pain & affect.  C Rating of Judge  Ss in A  Coders in B  72 F  IF 1 M  24 F 4F 8 M 2 M 16 depres patients 16 normal volunteer  Judges in C  Reliability  Findings  71% overall 85% for signif. AUsb.  AUs 6,7,10,12,25,26,27,435, 45 discriminated baseline from hand emersion. AUs described as eyes narrow upper lip pull, pulling lips oblique, mouth open, eyes closed or blinking. Sig. tolerant & intolerant modeling effect on selfreport.  Not given.  Pain tolerance lower for depressed group. At neutral depressed group had higher freq. corrugated brow. squinting, closed eyes & turned down mouth. During pain depressed group had higher freq. of squinted eyes, turned down mouth & compressed lips. Coders rated both groups in more pain during pain than base.  As the sole focus of this table is on facial expressions i t would be redundant to list facial expressions under "B". of measuring facial expressions or specific characteristics of "B", besides facial expressions, will be given. AU = Action Unit. This is a term used by Ekman and Friesen (1978) to describe movements of specific facial muscles.  Instead, either the method  Author  A  B  Ss in A  Coder in B FACS 2 F 1 M Global 1 F 1 M  Judge in C  Peliability  Findings  FACS 78% overall. Global ratings interclass correl. = 0.92.  Males rated globally as less expressive. No difference on self-report scales. No sex differences for AU frequency, Overall MANOVA found AUs 2,4, 6,7,10,12,25,43 & 45 sig. different amongst baseline, pain, masked & posed segments. Post hoc analysis found a) AUs 4 & 43 sig. more in pain than base, b) AU 45 sig less during masked than base, c) AUs 4,6, 12 & 43 sig. more & AU 45 sig. less in posed than base, d) AU 25 sig more & AUs 4,6 & 12 sig less in pain than posed.  Hyde (1985)  Ss were chronic back pain pats, who received a range of motion test. Pats, instructed to hide & pose pain express for one segment. Self-report MPQ Gracely scales.  FACS. Global coders rated overall expressiveness.  60 F 60 M  Keefe & Block (1982)  Ss rated pain 0-10 prior to assess of static & dynamic states. All Ss had chronic low back pain.  5 codes for static 6 dynamic states & concomitant behavior codes for guarding, bracing, rub, grimacing & sighing  13 F 14 M  Effective % 80-96  Correlation of guarding & grimace with other behaviors was highest. Correlation of pain rating with a l l behaviors except grimace was sig. Mean frequency of combined behaviors sig. higher during movenent than static assessment.  10 Ss Blind in each to Ss group. status  Not given  All behaviors sig. higher in pain patients than controls, except bracing which was not sig. different between pain patients and normals.  Exper. 1  Keefe & Block (1982) Exper. 4 See also in B-C below.  Ss were either Same as in Exper. 1 pain patients, normal or depress. controls. All were assessed as in experiment 1.  Author  A  B  C  Ss in A  Coder in B  Judge in C  Reliability  Findings  Keefe Wilkins Cook (1984)  Same as in Keefe Ss were low back pain patients & Block (1982). receiving neurosurgical evaluation. Ss rated pain on 0-10 scale.  32 F 48 M  91.9%.  Total pain behaviors sig. related to pain ratings. Sig. more total pain behaviors during movement than when s t i l l . Mult, regress, found number of operations predicted total pain behaviors, guarding & bracing. Exam findings predicted total pain & guarding. Duration of pain predicted guarding. No patient characteristics predicted rubbing, grimacing & sighing.  LeResche (1982)  S t i l l photos of FACS unanesthetized people experiencing pain from acute severe trauma.  7 Ss in I F 16 photos  None  Indices of pain were AUs 4,6,7, 11,20,25,26,27 & 43. AUs described as brow lower, horizontal l i p stretch, closed eyes mouth open, cheeks raised, eye lids tight & nasolabial furrow.  Leventhal & Sharp (1965)  Birdwhistell Hours in labor & cervical dilation. coding system (1952).  71 F  2F  75.5% mean agree over sig. moves.  Brow, forehead & eye movements sig. increased with dilation & hours in labor.  Patrick Craig & Prkachin (in press)  Ss received shocks FACS while exposed to models. Used Gracely scale of Affective Discomfort.  30 F  1F 1M  74% overall 84% for sig. AUs.  Sig. AUs discriminating highest shock from baseline were AUs 4, 6,10 & 45. Frequency of AUs sig. higher in tolerant than intolerant or control condition Au frequency sig. greater in pain threshold or high shocks than baseline.  See also A-C below.  Author Segment A - C  A  B  C  Ss in A  Coder in B  Judge in C  Reliability  Findings  Gubar (1966)  Anticipation of shock or reward.  Judges yoked to Ss 23 & could avoid shock by making correct judgments of S's condition. Js were naive or experienced with shock.  47  N/A  Experienced Js better at knowing when to respond. Naive Js failed to discriminate between shock & reward t r i a l s but experienced Js made accurate discriminations .  Kleck, Vaughan, CartwrightSmith, Vaughan & Lanzetta (1976)  Received no/med/high shocks alone or being ebserved. Rating o f shock 0-100. Ss were s e l e c t e d as h i g h or low s e l f - m o n i t o r s -  Judges rated shock 0-100 scale.  20 M  3F 1 M  Kendalls coeff. of concordance p .001  Hypothesised.shock level x experimental condition did not reach sig. For self-report main effect for shock level but hypo thesized shock level X condition was not sig. Less discomfort judged i n observed vs alone condition.  Replication of exper 1. No selection for high low monitoring.  Replication of experiment 1.  40 M  3F 3M  Same as above  No sex effect. Less discomfort judged in observed vs alone condition. Self-report rating lower when observed than alone.  Anticipation of no/ low/high shock under instructions to be demonstrative or hide f a c i a l expression or baseline  Js indicated i f Ss 9 M were anticipating shock & i t s level. Js observed self & others. A l l Js were also Ss.  9 M  None given  Js made fewer errors judging expressions under demonstrative than hide or baseline conditions  Exper. 1 Kleck et a l . (1976) cont. exper. 2 Lanzetta CartwrightSmith & Kleck (1976) exper. 2  Author  A  C  Ss in A  Coder in B  Judge in C  Reliability  Findings  Anticipation & reception of low/med high shocks. Posed no pain & intense pain. Rated pain 0-100.  Js rated intensity 10 F on 0-100 scale. 10 M  2F 6M  .90 mean correl. for test retest reliab.  No sex differences in expressions. Posing had sig. effect on Js ratings of shock. Sig. posing X intensity. Ss reported lower pain in pose "no pain" vs pose "intense pain".  Lanzetta & Kleck (1970)  Anticipation of mod. level shock or no shock.  Js viewed tape of self & others. Js received shock i f incorrect.  12 M  None given  Js could discriminate shock vs no shock facial expressions. Ss who made few judgment errors were themselves difficult for others to judge. Those making many judgment errors were relatively easy for others to judge.  LaRusso (1978)  Ss receiving shocks or simulating receiving shocks.  Js viewed tape & 2M scored segments as 2 F real or simulated. Half of Js received single shock.  24 N/A paranoid 24 normal contols  Group X tape condition. Pats, more accurate with genuine expressions than contols. Patients viewing simulated expressions less accurate than controls. Contois viewing genuine express, were less accurate than when viewing simulated expressions.  Patrick et a l . (in press)  Videos of Ss receiving shocks while exposed to tolerant intolerant or contol models.  Js given analgesic, 30 F hypersensitive, or control instructions. Rated Ss on 7 pt. scale of discomfort.  15 F  Js rated Ss receiving higher shocks to be in more pain. Instructions to Js has sig. effect at highest shock level. Js rated tolerant Ss to be in more pain than other two groups Mult, regress, showed AUs 4,6, 10 & 45 sig related to Js ratings.  Lanzetta et a l . (1976) cont. exper.  See also A-B above  12 M  None given  Author  B  A  C  Ss in A  Coder in B  Judge in C  Reliability  Findings  Prkachin & Craig (1985)  Videos of Ss receiving shocks while exposed to tolerant intolerant & control model  Js rated shocks as 27 F low/med/high & rated Ss' overall distress & difficulty in rating S.  15 F  SDT analysis Lx value non-sig.  Js discriminated shock levels. Discrimination between high & ired shocks easier than med & low. Modeling affected Js rating of intensity. Js global ratings of distress differed amongst modeling groups. Js ratings of difficulty sig. different across modeling groups.  Prkachin Currie & Craig (1983)  Videos of Ss receiving shocks while exposed to tolerant intolerant & control models. Rated pain on 7 pt. scale  Js given analgesic 30 hyperanalgesic, or control instructions Rating pain on 7 pt. scale.  15 F 15 M  N/A  Js discriminated shock intensity. Js' ratings differed across model conditions. Sig. shock X model which showed most sig. differences at high shock. Js rated face as more important than body cues. No difference due to sex of judge. Hypersensitive instruct, lead to higher judgment of pain  Block (1981)  Videos of spouses Non-patient spouses or confederate & neutral observers displaying pain judged expressions or neutral express- on 11 pt. scale. ion on command. Spouse was pain patient.  Not given  Not 16 spuses given 2 neutral observers  Spousal judges & neutral observers rated pain expressions as more pain than neutral for both their spouses & the confederate.  Author  A  B  C  Ss in A  Coder in B  Judge in C  Reliability  Findings  Boucher (1969)  Still photos of faces previously judged to show fear/suffering; fear; distress, as well as psychiatric controls  Judges rated photos as fear; sadness/ sorrow; actual pain  Photos 47 from previous research  Not given  Chi square test indicated distribution of judgments differed sig. from chance for 36 of 39 photos.  Keefe & Block (1982)  Coding was done for 22 video segments using system from experiments in A-B above.  Js used 11 pt scale, visual analogue & Gracely scale of sensory distress.  Not given  9  Not given  Total level of coded pain behaviors sig. correlated with a l l 3 types of Js ratings. Guarding & grimacing correlated independently with a l l 3 pain rating scales used by Js.  Videos of low or Js rated video on 21 high nonverbal item visual analogue pain expressions scale. Js were by patient. senior undergrad. Verbal content was nurses. standard. Male doctor & female patient were acting.  Not given. Pretest was done.  44 F  Not given  Js in high condition gave sig. higher pain concern scores. Js did not differ in rating need for aid or support for patient. In high condition neg. correlation between experience and pain concern.  Same as above Js rated videos on except low/med/high 16 items using 6 pt. expressions. scale. Js were divided into low/ med/high nurturance.  Same 88 F as above no pretest for med.  N/A  Face & body movements & voice tone were rated as sig. different between high & low with med. in between. Js ratings increased monotonically with increases in pain display, Sig. interaction between nurturance and pain expression on solicitude scale.  See also A-B above Von Baeyer, Johnson & McMillan (1984) Exper. 1  Von Baeyer et a l . (1984) Exper. 2  25.  and  Brow  furrowing,  lips  stretched  horizontally studies. such  a  or  The  small  different  number  of  clinical  pain,  cold  nonverbal  is  this  towards  the  pain.  Limitations  of  A r; B  LeResche  in  the the  could  area. be  methods  Leventhal  or  Action  describe  of and  coding  as  in  could  consistency  appears  of  Unit  in  of  While  seen  in  a  be  is a  movements  pain labor,  acute  pulled  of  these  remarkable that  five  for very  conditions  were  chronic  low  back  photos  of  and severe  traumas).  methods  of  Although  possible  an  uncontrolled  a  good  coding in  its  beginning  systematic  her the  findings variety  strength  findings. (19S5)  brow, term of  case  However,  of  facial  by  specific  area  open  for and  Ekman facial  findings  coding the  the the  methods  tremendous  specificity  instance,  provided  i n t e r e s t i n g to  general  facial  and  study,  increasing  forehead, used  the  this  For are  i t is  to  of  artificially  Sharp the  fact  provide  comprehensiveness  the  is  open,  lips  findings  used.  to  of  or  shock,  were  studies.  similarity  variablility  FACS  the  the  mouth  Re s e a r o h  (1982), of  given  different  identification of  note  four  up  findings  experimental  behavior  expressions  weakest  these  experiencing  research  closed,  general  electric  that  facial  infancy  the  dilation/hours  people  note  are  studies,  and  and/or  l i p pulled  of  pressor,  unanaesthetized  the  (upper  consistency  ( cervical  of  tight  obliquely]  studied  Also  eyes  between overall  findings  interpretation eyes  and  uses  10  Friesen,  muscles)  for  by as  AUs  (AU  1978,  to  coding  26.  movement  in these  relating  to  areas,  pain  in  i f  Leventhal  behaviors  as  FACS  agreement  that  Keefe  and  Block  behaviors. possibility been  powerful  "grimace" FACS  of  of  critical  Keefe  nonverbal  sole  The  even  focus  accurately  to  the  in  1970)  different  must  remain  the  same  facial  set  of  behaviors behaviors  is  pain  cues.  facial  pain  precluded which  the in  there  may  the have  description  accord  with  of the  research.  of  studies  shock  levels  of  or  that  component A-C  and  focusing  shock  is  or  the  of  other  the  source  of  The areas  subject  is  of  direct  the  judge.  judges,  given  to  the  subject,  can  subject. on  that  facial no  B,  the  whether  behavior  i t  relationship.  sole  i s on  the  research  is available  terms,  amongst shock  A-C  research  i t i s the  nonverbal state  of  i n the  A-C  of  nonverbal, behavior  between  and  role  research  broad  a  results  subject  A-C  the  discriminations  Kleck,  as  It  important  i s not  A-B  identified  though  Also,  Block  the  though  f i n d i n g s of  anticipating  of  facial  the  the  the  of  rate  indicated,  set  behavior,  i s that  from  solely  even  predefined  in other  d i f f e r e n c e between  information  reported  pain.  and  recognize  measured  access  other  discussing  research  a  are  FACS.  expresses  predefined  of  which  Cj F i n d i n g s  to  subject's  The  by  using  research  face  indicators  .A -  important  not  a  of  Sharp  used  finding  given  Before  of  upper  d e s c r i p t o r s found  Summary  and  based  (1982)  Using  five  research  uncertain  the  only  the  A-C  judges  expressions (Gubar,  facial  intensity  1966;  et  could of  expressions (Kleck  relationship make  subjects Lanzetta related  a l . , 1976,  S. to exp.  27.  1;  Lanzetta  Prkachin subject  S  et  Craig,  and  ratings.  al.,  judge  discomfort  al.,  1976,  judges'  Craig,  1985;  subjects ratings  to  1  alter  judge  et  or  1976,  al.,  between (LaRusso,  experience  with  1966)  the  were  were  et  while  a  2  S  judges' to  press;  be  in  (Kleck  et  subjects  Prkachin  affected 3;  responses The  increased  exposure  ability  simulated  giving  the  et a l . ,  s t a t e of  their  to  1978). of  (Patrick  and  Finally,  state  present  S.  judges'  LaRusso,  the  affected  single  affect  unobserved  regarding  stimulus  Several  I n s t r u c t i o n s given  spontaneous  pain  press;  1983).  observed  a l . , in  1983).  a l . in  i n f l u e n c e s on  exp.  judge  1978).  to  expressions  paranoid)  expressions  (Gubar,  facial  differential  (normal  Found  Modeling  judges  et  al.,  a l . , 1983).  al., to  Prkachin  discriminate  et  et  who  who  (Patrick  their  given  led to  press;  2).  ratings  (Lanzetta  subject  S  P a t r i c k et  were  subjects  subjects  Prkachin  Information  in  rated than  3;  Prkachin  manipulations  exp.  altered  exp.  1983;  Judges  less  1976,  the to pain  judges  repeated  their  accuracy  did  not  (LaRusso,  1978). The  findings  instructive judgment  in  regarding  three  outcomes  are  instructional,  and  and  factors  knowledge  affect state  judges' and  affected  knowledge when  the  ratings.  A-C  First,  sensitive  ratings.  whether  judges'  areas.  the  to  Judges' judges  obvious  array  Social,  to  the  are that  social,  instructional,  of  paranoid the  of  subject  knowledge  were  Second,  i t is an  factors. applied  relationship  studies  appear  to  the  subjects'  or  not  also  date  have  to  28.  focused  on  various is,  the  manipulations  research  most  has  the  defined magnitude  the  of  experiments unobserved intensity report  zero  on  the  conditions. report  arises  from  management judgments  of  accuracy? address  area  is  Lanzetta  Kleck  reliability  to  regardless ratings  al.  of  were  The  are  major  is  there  d i f f e r e n c e versus i s needed  or  condition,  self-  and  high  self-report exp.  lower  and  "no  pain"  than  self-  levels  where  question  which  in  management judgments  in order  also  ratings  posed  shock  at  3)  differences  between  their  pain  clinical  what  both  observed  judges'  low  absolute  in  mid  consistently  as  of  for  and  of how  state  ratings  (1976,  between  levels  the  being  judges'  That  regarding  a l . (1976)  " i n t e n s e " at  research  instructive  there  or  the  based of  to  pain on  absolute  adequately  question.  final  and  across  subjects'  subjects  et  results  relative  et  "intense"  similar.  More  this  The  again  efficacy  the  of  accuracy.  r a t i n g s f a r exceeded  posed  these  effects  information  and  discrepancies  f o r posed  r a t i n g s were  of  judges'  Lanzetta  Judges  except  no  Kleck  that,  judges'  during  the  absolute  self-report  self-report  large  of  the  rating  effects  suggested  but  self-report  to  stimulus.  intensity.  indicated  that  came  exceeded  intensities  on  almost  subjects'  gave  far  not  the  that  magnitude  discriminable results  but  judges  by  and  shown  manipulations  close  the  relative  in  were across  where the  (1970)  the area and  results of  subjects.  A-C  individual  Kleck  substantial  from  et  subjects  are  differences.  a l . (1976)  differences  Some  research  pointed  out  in  judges'  were  reliably  29.  judged, This  while  for others  variability  differences ability  is  to  make  certain  difference  portrayed  in  the  Patrick  et  al.  ratings  could  components and  four 45%  of 45).  facial of  Limitations The how  intent  well  other  judges  than  in  fulfillment  of  exp.  and  1 a  report  2)  and  and  Second, the  there  of  map  as  5 5%  of  well  f o r by  this  i s an  i t also  behavior al.  changes  judges'  amount  impressive  in  judges' specific  (AUs  result  that  the  4,  of  unaccounted.  Research A-C  research  within the  the  state  the  behavior  of may  model  subject  affect  and  this  i s to what  mapping.  Two the  intent.  First,  Kleck  et  Lanzetta  et  rating these major  measurement are has  a l . (exp.  scales  3)  used  al.  (1976,  identical  self-  which  would  allow  As  noted  i n the  scales.  d i s c r e p a n c i e s between  Unless  this  only  further  discrepancy  p r o p e r t i e s of not  well  research  known.  of  The  supporting  the  subjects' to  the  unclarified. measures  Gracely its  direct  findings  i s paid  remain  most  for  the  attention will  study  factors  this  discomfort  just  source  limited  ratings.  6,  for  have  were  best  press).  in four  expressions  is  of  (in  variance  indicates  is left  as  The  et  the  individual  literature  subjects' state  affective  both  reviewed  accuracy  the  Patrick  reliability.  the  between  judges'  issue  of  judges'  comparison above  C  nonverbal  problems  that  variance _A ^  behaviors  subjects' facial  behaviors  of  by  accounted  While  judges'  to  i n subjects' nonverbal  found  the  due  little  discriminations.  research  be  showed  probably  in subjects' facial  individual  10,  judges  scale  of of  measurement  30.  properties use,  the  serial  support 1982;  (Gracely  rating  for either Tursky,  scales  have  ratings  et  Jamner  important  to  specify  because This  (1978)  and  the  need  MPQ  The  hinders  a are  Two  being  clear  is clearly  from  this  (Kleck  for  sex  the  prove  to al.,  an  1978)  to  is  is  (Chapman  1975;  by  what  et  al.  Gracely  S  et  scales  affective,  and  Geisiger,  research  aspects  the  studying  sensory  Prieto  i n the  judges'  particularly  nature  and  such  what  when  sensory,  of  and  assessed  affective  specificity  adequate  although  unknown It  common  (Gracely,  subjects'  is indicated  into  a  to  of  genera1izabi1ity i s the  very  the 1976,  have  with been  the  2; the  date  pain  the  the  A-C  the  a  stimulus  Turk  has  been  Only  used.  done  the  et  number  of  judge  research  by  Von  1983;  towards they  sex  al.,  there  results  al.,  how  stimuli  with  et  and  Prkachin pain  of  generalizing  judges  studied,  Although  important  for  ratings.  exp.  pain  1983;  little  of  judges'  only  base  Rollman,  attributes  judge. be  the  insufficient  experience  of  separate  shock  Also,  LaRusso,  i s being  specificity  limit  1971).  judges'  what  interpretation  (Harris  et  i t  lack  Thus,  discriminations.  of  area  contribute  events  in  validity  1982).  (Melzack,  Electric  studying  often  or  for allowing  While  rating.  This  Wolff,  Friedman,  divided  lack  factors  research.  for  subscales  1982).  1-100)  i t s multidimensional  producing  evaluative  judges  of  1979).  reliability  discriminate f o r such  al.  (eg.  useful  are  1985).  scales  a  parameters  pain  1978,  their  proven  to  al.,  of  judge  1983)  and  (Gubar, being  no  1966; effect  attributes Baeyer  may  et  may al.  31 .  (1984)  regarding  plausible  the  attributes  B-C  relationship  to  study  experience  in rating  Summary  B 2. £. F i n d i n g s  of  The  model's  relationship nonverbal  behavior  as  from  the  of  stimuli  f o r the  to  criterion  was  strictly  and  ( 1 9 8 2)  they  and made  behaviors the  Von  explicit The  their  et  attempt to  the  parameters  findings  the  have  Baeyer  shown  and  judges  these  suggest  that  of  the  judges'  the  subjects' state.  neutral  facial  1984),  between  behavior especially three  can  fear,  (Boucher, grimacing  types  of  of  (Block,  and  judges'  and  guarding rating  This  permits  behaviors  to  independent state  were  or  If  (19B9)  they  did  Keefe  1.  the  is this  and  Block  included  define  be  issue  which  because nonverbal  not  specify  manipulation subject  can  independent  of  The  between 1981;  sadness/sorrow, 1969),  the  Boucher  the  ratings  differentiate  behavior  over  behavior.  direct  alteration  judges  control  behaviors.  behavior  that  i s an  although  facial  of  B-C  facial)  (1984)  nonverbal  manipulation  the  included in Table  control  work  studying  subjects'  been  to  judges'  judge.  nonverbal  al.  of  for  only  that  nurturance.  (ie.  followed  would  of  the  judges of  alter  some  to  nonverbal  hypothesized  (1981)  level  suggest  be  i s experimental  shown  the  would  criterion  there  manipulation  Block  and  major  i s that  specification used  pain  would  that  studies  levels Von  and pain  behaviors,  scales  (Keefe  lead  et  pain  and al.,  facial  behaviors,  correlate S.  to  explicit  pain  Baeyer  related  the  indicated  of  actual  of  Block,  with 1982,  32.  4 ) .  exp.  Limitations As  of  B_ -  stated  (1982)  came  C_  Research  above  only  close  to  Boucher  fulfilling  research  of  specifying  the  judges.  By  comparison  to  nonverbal research  behavior by  levels  of  current  coding  studies  must  lack  of  the  judges'  on  the  systems be  or  is  behaviors  how  the  used- t o  conditions  of  Thus,  though  which  behaviors adequately General A-B  viewed  by  of  research  note  the  coding  the  lack  judges intent  Reviewed has  of  the  meet  the  obtainable  by  of  due  which  a l l  B-C  to  the  affected  i f judges on  focused  l i p  or  data  were  done  to  specify  data  this  i t is  eye  a  by  serious variety  problem. of  judges,  means  s t u d i e s have  these  model's  the  the  of  the  pain  seen  specificity  of  the  fulfilling  is a  used  of  behavior  of  given  unknown  description  nonverbal  research  coding  no  such  perspective  B-C  these  that  f i t the  model  the  behaviors.  Without  the  the  fulfilled  Summary  of  Rosenthal's  i s important,  to  d e s c r i b e the  the  behaviors  facial  by  in  barely  inconclusive  known  B-C  that  results  movements,  behaviors  From  only  The  facial  of  used.  facial  achieved  Block  for  viewed  i t i s evident  FACS.  face  reliability  behavior  i t i s not  disturbing  nonverbal  even  Thus  some c o m p l e x  judges.  as  and  requirement  Block  somewhat  lower  the  and  Keefe  comprehensiveness  particular  or  also  expressions  Keefe  as  and  specificity  research  and  viewed  regarding  well  the  such  ratings.  upper  movements,  the  and  the  nonverbal  A-B  specificity  specifying  It  in  Boucher,  (1969),  nonverbal not  guidelines.  Researc h  moved  g e n e r a l l y from  molar  to  more  33.  molecular  coding  increase  in  movements pain  have  shown  states what  of  the  It  affected  by  factors. in  do  them.  vary  are  not  of  the  first  have  will  glance  relationships.  component  revealed  facial  ratings  are  knowledge used  judges'  these  expected  tie specific  to  shown facial  from  the  facial  behaviors  basic  component  the  quality  and  variable. et  al.  in  and  focus  of that  investigate this that  (in  Table  A-B  appear  relationships  not  behaviors  albeit  was  model, is  that  specificity as  pain  the  stimulus  investigated,  However,  from  indicated  the of  pain  model's  the  research  various  judges'  the  listed  to  among  Also,  not  Patrick  be  of  Overall  was  was  that  research  lack  does  i t may  used  a  A-C  discriminations  only  defined.  relationships,  been  studies  to  been  by  which  respectively, At  due  states.  facial different  i n s t r u c t i o n a l , and  i s the  function  state.  research  of  social,  concomitant  amongst  expected  their  shown  B-C  a  as  a  Specific  discriminate  for  shock  research  (1982)  types  of  well  have  non-pain  been  research  subjects'  The Block  also  as  with  discriminate  although,  research.  relationships focus  can  use  variety  this  the  judges  However,  behaviors  to  a  to  versus  judges  has  this  model,  pain  Electric  ratings to  found  subjects,  the  known.  date  and  behavior  comprehensiveness.  been  that  cues  facial  coding  states  has  of  is  press) 1 as  A-C, the  and  Keefe  and  investigating  two  and  final  A-B  summary  these  two  more  complex  not  simply  separately  the  B-C  remarks.  studies  not  could  component  case.  studying was  and  What the  the  simple  enough  to  34.  guarantee complex not  t o using a  being  stimuli  collapsed  samples,  multiple  the  across  and B l o c k limited  i t  and  of the  d i f f e r e n t than  testing  of  to  was  relationship  i n t h e A-C p a r t was  more  research  complex  sub-pain  judgment  directly  rating about  addressed  The  the  the  judge's  pain  tolerance  research,  is  At  differences in  of the subjects'  between  coded  interfered  the larger  of dealing  they  of t h i s  of Rosenthal's  this  scales  state,  behavior  with  and  attempts  relationships  point  with In  attention  so t h a t  framework  Evaluation  assessment  recognized.  careful  experiments  of studies  than  to  those  i n the studies.  difficulties model  series  on t h e c o r r e l a t i o n  a statement  overall  and  that  about study  A-B a n d A-C  design  scale  made  et a l .  a n A-B-C  detection  rating  t h e Keefe  focusing  entire  be  segments.  In  make  about  self-report,  accuracy  and  a signal  could  the separate  statement  judges'  subject's  subject  comments  In t h e P a t r i c k  to take  a clear  study,  direct  relationships.  possible  make due  that  was  could  of  studies.  This  weaknessess  of t h e model.  the  integrated  the  present  to the design  be c l e a r l y  of  of  the  into the  model. Model  Rosenthal's section  developing  given  i t i s possible  evalution  the complexity  model will  to  provide  for  a  conducting  profile  the  tentative judgment  strengths  and  Strengths From have  been  use  o f t h e model  identified.  to date  First,  three  the fact  areas that  of  prior  strength to  this  35.  research  few  indicates  of  the  that  reviewed  the  model  previously  divergent  systematic  structure.  several  specialty  relationship). is  an  example  specialty  areas  integration more if  from  B-C  above,  of  and  weaknesses  of  particular pertinent  in  in  to  a  nonverbal  not  this  of  of  so  a that  the  the  A-B  literature of  allows  these  for  the  that  larger  and  specific  issues  than  sets  included As  on  does  was  search in  expected  out  in  the  that  i f  the  used  by as  not  expectation  judges revealed  meet one  of  for  the  the This  model  research  evaluating  this  of  identified.  expectations  helps  or  However,  date  to  guidelines  pointed  cues  look.  this  in  expected  the  research  the  also  model  i t was  to  where  the  not on  a  research  question.  model  facial  be  to  meeting  that  specific  is  (eg.  model  topics  area.  place  area  but  the  the  i s focusing  deciding  appreciation  i s that  research  this  structure  of  allow  into  identification  made on  research  not  to  unstructured.  i s the  question  Finally,  of  the  the  special be  this  review  Using  particular  demonstrates  help  fuller  of  B-C  expectation  only  a  research  identified  be  together  organized  can  should  interest  the  example  and  in  summary  question  left  be  cited  enough  of  can  strength  should  research  general  then  statements  been  benefit  research.  was  to  completed  on  had  powerful  b e n e f i t s of  research  second  what  A  just  the  of  research  The for  of  coherent  the  of  is  research  areas  The  studies  the  has  proven  intricacies  behavior.  The  useful of  for  studying  problems  in  gaining  a  judgments using  the  36.  Patrick both  et a l . ( i n press) of  which  relationships, suggested  by  researching Model As is  t h e model  are  to  is critical forged  would  utility  two  Block  (1982) s t u d i e s ,  types  of  complex  some  yet  of the  component  relationships intricacies  of  with,  more  of f a c i a l  area  not yet  research.  between  t h e A-B,  research  researched  mentioned e a r l i e r ,  B-C,  to and  evaluation in  the  the  Research  on  the model's  i t i s possible  f o r a proper  guiding  as  solid  i f links  between  addressed  the major  so t h a t  allow  for  judgments  now  awaiting  interrelationships This  by  not  relationship,  be  and  area.  i s obvious  model  on  highlights  relationships  C relationship whole  focused  Keefe  f o r d i s c u s s i n g t h e more  this  t h e A-B-C  and  of  the  components. the  area  the  segments  evaluate A-C  B-  model's  of  studying  behavior.  Weaknesses Besides tested, rather are the  which  facial  behavior a or  subjects' Cognitive  state  a  as  weakness  no  explicit  factors  1965;  vocal  research  related  as  et a l . ,  dealing  to  per  se  weakness other  to e i t h e r or  1981;  Vaughan  such  but there  i s that  areas to  encoding  of work of  making  judgments  S  Lanzetta,  indicators Ekman  been  unknown,  1976)  1972;  not  in isolation  other  with  is  first  stands  Block,  factors  (Cline  The  et a l . ,  has  o f t h e model  connections  Thus' t h e m o d e l  (Lanzetta  a whole  utility  i n the model.  Rosenthal, to  t h e model  the model's  physiological  (Bandura 1970),  has  research.  on  not  that  weaknesses  model  related  fact  is  a caution  two  done  the  et a l . ,  issues  as  of  the  1980). self^  37.  observation and  of  judgment  pain  behavior  heuristics  are  other  areas  The  trend  suggested  component  could  research  to  be  would  (Bandler,  (Kahneman,  which by  the  these  broken focus  may  into  on  the  with  the  to  be  i s that  several  1968}  Tversky,  need  examples  down  S.  Slovic  model  S Bern,  Madaras  1982]  connected.  each  general  subcomponents  relationships  and  amongst  the  subcomponents. The  second  character.  The  reciprocal social  problem  model  interactions  learning  ongoing  does  represent  not  incompatible  type  with  of  an  At  present  the  of  research on  the  interesting of  the  than  model  have  data  component date  model  i t  not  has  not  been  is unlikely  to  the  yet  yet  in  model  is  not  constitute  a  model  well on  suited  judgments  literature  and  suggests  appear a  the  deal  the  that  serious the  Also,  will  of  pain in  several  as,  for  since  the  limitations  model  completely  model  the  to  well  issue  necessity  critical.  that  i t  served  connecting  to  the  has  became  able  could  as  critical  It  would  of  be  conducted  available,  i s not  and  represent  While  Rosenthal's  appears  It  are  interactions  behavior.  of  possibility  physiological  to  review  to  model.  been  facial  questions.  the  each  has  unidirectional  perspectives  1977),  perspective,  model  such  behavior.  evaluating  that  viewing  structuring  social  interactional from  from  reciprocal  this  is its  formulated  (Bandura,  human  Conclusions  based  not  which,  theory  explaining  component  is  model  to  other the  decomposing the  with  research  the  presently  whole become  38. eclipsed will and  be  by used  a  more  r e c i p r o c a l model.  for describing  in discussing  the design  the r e s u l t s .  Therefore  the  of the present  model studies  39.  HYPOTHESES  Prior AUs  as  pain  research  important  (Craig  Patrick  et  &  et  examined  a  which  to  rate  a  these  related  measure ratings the  subject  the of  the  relationship.  As  to  were of  date  The  two  this  AU  discussed  in  has  wanting  of  tight  control  over  behavioral The  major the  ratings  non-overlapping the  role  attempts  here  judges  of  the  of  judges'  pain.  Within  on  the  review,  B-C the  facial  viewed  first of  to  on  correlational  stimuli  behavior  been  order  nonverbal  solely  the  have  in  literature  were  facial  pain  and  by  the  attempts  to  pain  at  a  micro-  level.  increasing judges'  varied  the  been  ratings  that  concentrating  effects  control  leading  was  the  studies  in  of  expressions  configurations  studying  judges'  experimentally  roles  1982;  reported  facial  expressions  on  These  of  of  pain.  AU  behavior  judges.  studies  systematically  research  displays  ratings  configurations  facial  certain  LeResche,  judges'  features  these  encoders'  model  as  of  facial  1985;  well  significant  those  occurrence  subjects'  experiencing  pain  impact  judgment  research  as  studies to  as  critical  play  the  Hyde,  press).  of  could  to  1985;  press]  in  number  pain  found  in  pinpointed  regards  Patrick,  al.,  of  In  with  al.,  (Patrick  has  of to  factors  addressed  complexity  of  specific  of  pain;  AU  configurations  upper  control  and  2)  lower  their  were  the  effect on  face  facial  1)  impact  of  AU  configurations  on  of  overlapping  judges'  AUs  as  the  ratings;  cues  expressions  of  of  versus and  3)  encoders'  pain.  40.  Previous  research  effect  with  regards  1976;  Prkachin  experimental the  judges  are  sex  still  types  research  for  Que  as  The  of  _1_ £  judge  sex  of  present on  the  shortly, i s not  that  of  viewed  by  there  specific  to  These  findings  in  general  judgment  emotion (see  which  Hall,  1979,  was  included  as  a  of  encoders,  which  studies.  sample  no  of  lack  whether  of  judge  al.,  are  effects  sex  size  of  appropriate  o f the  question  encoder  to  either  factor  construe sex  i n c r e a s i n g the of  research  discriminate  receiving  various in Table  level,  the  complexity  number  or  encoders' i t has  amongst levels 1).  C om p 1 e x i t y o f  will  the  be  small  (Stark-Adamec  AU  i n v e s t i g a t e d was  i n c r e a s i n g the  previous  global  Thus  Impact  ratings  research  of  representative  initial  by  From  of  judge  et  the  expressions  question  judges  of  (Kleck  However,  expressions  sex  sex  S.  19S4).  Hypothesis  judges'  pain  i n c o n t r a d i c t i o n to  i n the  i t  of  be- no  configurations.  also  found  to  facial  the  between  limitations  as  Kimball,  (i.e.  have  levels  the  open  facial  discussed  examined  effects  are  there  1983).  over  facial  factor  to  be  sample  al.,  reviews).  subsidiary  can  of  shown  rating  leaves  using  consistently  will  et  control  judgments  1984  to  differences  certain pain  has  AUs  It  been  painful has  i t i s p o s s i b l e to  concerned  the  per  also  AU  with  level  of  demonstrated  that  expressions  of  been  that,  facial  pain.  subjects  (see  shown  on  judges  stimulation  manipulate  the  configurations  configuration)  expressed  facial of  of  Configurations  the at  A-C a  expressions  41 .  in  ways  that  Table  1).  into  the  use  alter  However, question  i n making Despite  AUs  large  and  consistent possible  of  45,  with  AUs  constellation three  back  judges'  6,  7,  (in  inroads  movements  judges  press)  AUs.  Units  variations  has  From  that  (1985),  have  7,  in Hyde  revealed  a total  of  a 44  discriminated  10, 12, 2 5 , 4 3 , a n d  10,  a n d 45 a p p e a r i n g  they  a l l appeared  focused  constellation  on c o l d  as  i n each  pressor,  et a l .  stream  of  equation  multiple  of pain.  a  core  of  the  shock, and  manipulation  does  the core  of the these  configurations  did  specific  and l a c k  judges  made t h e i r  ratings  leaves  third  variable  factors  which  containing in  AUs  between  not i n d i c a t e  not  a  clear  ratings.  AUs.  the  could  by  ongoing  for  direct  The c o m p l e x i t y  o f knowledge open  i n an  allow  4,  predicting  correlation  embedded  to  press)  n o t be i n v e s t i g a t e d  AUs were  which  (in  AUs a n d j u d g e s '  r e l a t i o n s h i p could  AUs  contibuted  et a l .  R = 0.78 This  ratings  as t h e c o r e  other  also  regression  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  Patrick  AUs  Patrick  ratings  causal  of  of pain.  AUs a n d j u d g e s '  possible  AU  a l .  45 h a d a mean  overall  core  the  few  and P a t r i c k  a r e AUs 4, 6,  which  a multiple  and  judges'  A  core  that  causal  by C r a i g  Action  B,  attributions  10,  the  in  pain.  This  found  facial  research  very  and i n t e r - i n d i v i d u a l  o f AUs s i n c e  studies  h a s made  specific  pain-related  states  4,  research  et  AUs t h e o n l y  and n o n - p a i n  low  intra-  Patrick set  ( s e e t h e B-C  discriminations.  research  pain  above  this  ratings  o f what  their  displayed,  (1985),  judges'  of  regarding  how  possiblility  for  account  for  the  42.  correlation Factors  between  which  correlation the  core  could  between  AUs  important  for  2)  there  may  patterns  which  were  frequency  of  AU head  used  by  cues  ambiguity  in  to  isolated  judges' core be  of  judges  the  in  judges'  The  2_  allows related Ekman that  to and  to  which  use  a  overlap  by  and  which  could  eliminate  these  role  pain AUs  AUs and  the  simple  particular  AUs  AUs  not. must  In have  uncoded  and  have sources  of  6,  10,  45  7,  presented  pain.  se  been  4,  among  AU  per  the  as  occurrence  an  only  causal  that  that  the  effects more  on  of  these  higher  would  pain.  is of  based  on  Ekman  overlapping  AUs  expressions (1982b),  critical  whether  particular,  the  pain-related  facial  the  AUs  configuration is but  and  systematically  Non-Overlapping  asserted  core  actions  hypothesis  of  the  facial  encoders'  levels  been  of  c o n f i g u r a t i o n the  versus  of  1)  configuration  movements  facial  rating  AU  have  a n a l y s i s using  hypothesized  (1978)  or  in  were  of  was  could  there  the  multiple  r a t i n g s are  3]  To  ratings.  the  significance  changes  discriminate  in  of  the  investigate their  in a  to  the  AUs  a l l other  the  Friesen  that  other  mentioned  occurrence  contend  body  for  judges'  judges.  different  judges  temporal  and  0 v e r 1 app i ng  judges  judges'  and  detected  r a t i n g s of  that  and  AUs  subtle  not  It  above  assumption  be  order  contained  Hypothesis  with  judgments  from  AUs  interpreting  the  ratings.  AUs  core  interpreting  determinants were  the  occurrence;  uncontrolled as  core  p o s s i b l y account  occurred  cues  AUs;  the  the  and  factor not  AUs  the have  Ekman  and  Freisen  apices  (an  apex  is  43.  the  span  level  of  for  time  that  perceived  as  an  Friesen's  for  potentially  unitary  argument  In  tended  painful  stimulation.  other and  AUs  lack  without  in  overlapping  apices  segments  been S.  of  LaRusso,  to  types  vs how  with  AU  In  be  same  AUs  well  as  did  to  and  this  area  voluntary  AU  during  test  the  regards  presence  of  insufficient  coder  offset.  It  the  was  AUs  had  more  Configurations  with  pain-  pain  overlap.  can  of  control their such  research  expressions  a  upon  et  facial has (Ekman  al.  1976;  distinction and  this  stoical  Pain  expressions  (Lanzetta  dependent  core  with  (controlled)  and  AUs  displaying  Clinically  deceptive are  of  core  with  which  emotional  pain  of  AUs  and  not  people deal  the  containing  in  Non — H i d d e n  regards  behavior  onset  rated  rate  concurrent  and  as  to  to  apices  segments  apex  movements.  studying  the  segments  1975)  between  of  of  judges  the  passible  be  Ekman  combinations  overlapping  observers  1969,  (uncontrolled)  both  of  1978).  made  relevant  the  how  interest  Friesen,  been  and  not  will  necessary  by  judge  various  AUs  i t is  perceived  appices,  would  3 2. H i d d e n  expressions  that  the  intense  Following  occurrences  in  comparable  video  where  question  be  for  was  having  measuring  that  The  It  because  of  hypothesized  Hypothesis  overlap  overlapping  reliability  than  to  ratings  AUs,  to  order  press)  the  expression.  indicated that  AUs  judges'  before  i t i s suggested AUs  i t s most  (in  related  to  i s at  the  al.  the  AU  describing  et  of  global  in  Patrick  importance  an  occurrence)  relevant  expressions  expression.  which  particular  and  unitary  during  has  involuntary  distinction  behavior. whether  is Since  people  can  44.  or  cannot  control  their  on  either  stoical  or  other  type A  and a  of  distinction  involuntary  control  seventh  upper  and  primarily while  Diamond,  The  lower  face  the  branches.  subject  to  branches  1984).  under  greater  cannot  research  relate  to  the  be  It  movements  hidden  or  The and  the  upper  by  the  innervated  under  controlled  face  branches and 1983; system the  branches  are  lower  (Diamond, muscles  to  be  innervated to  voluntary than  face 1979;  tend  reasonable  easily)  is  of  bilaterally  less  the  buccal  while the  innervation  seem  to  that  zygomatic  than  the 1979;  nervous  from  on  basis.  (Anderson,  central  differ  and  would are  made  nerve  zygomatic  nerve  innervation  control  be  (Diamond,  facial  mainly  branches  contralateral  1984).  the  facial  temporal  voluntary  face  of  addition,  brain  nerve  temporal  the  (voluntary  observational  different.  the  upper  non—hidden  e x p r e s s i o n s can  facial  Contra1 atera11y  (Rinn,  upper  are  The  receive  Rinn,  muscles  will  that  expressions i s through  branches  of  bilateral  of  innervated  In  and  clinical,  or  by  is  1979).  a  muscles  1969).  of  as  nerve  branches  substrates  (ie  facial  hidden  movements)  well  lower  mandibular  that  as  of  between  innervated  the  lower  deceptive behavior  facial  cranial  Hjortsjo,  i t is likely  behavior.  physiological  The  behavior  assume control  lower  face  movements. Ekman that  can  repeatedly  and be  Friesen  (1975)  more  or  less  painted  to  upper  in discussing controlled face  facial  during  actions  as  movements deception the  least  45.  controllable  actions.  the  actual  be  person's deceptive,  is  the  most  the  person's The  Ekman  control  can by  be  the  distinction  configurations their  often  to  suggested  that  the  upper  area  that  with  to  look  upper  regards  was  not  expressions.  It  upper by  of  of  trying  for  face the  and  to  known  face  cues  of  their  upper  by  was  lower  the  of  judges  and  lower  encoders  hypothesized  configurations  encoders  discomfort  face  ease  i f naive  rate  i n d i c a t i n g attempts  expressions  cues  are  differentially  attempts  find  state.  It  discriminate  indicating  facial  as  facial  would  to  to  they  indicate  encoder.  face  judges  emotional  where  when  revealing  classified  this  state  Friesen  arguments  use  hide  and  actual  describing  emotional  consistently  above  movements  In  to  than  to  that  as  more  hide  their  lower  face  Judges'  Ra t i n gs  configurations. Hypothesis The the  4  purpose  effects  regarding  Prkachin  the et  judges  ratings  or  the  "intense However,  information  of  was  the  the  hypothesis context  pain. easily  subjects pain" as  found  is  available  From et  that  to  investigate  to  the  al.,  affected  Lanzetta  were  receiving  the  case  with  exact  judges  prior  research in  information  state  they  the on  was  et  discriminated  when  while  on  given  (Patrick  subjects'  judges  Context  encoders.  i t was  subjects'  that of  fourth  relationship  regarding  expressions  shocks.  state  the  Judgment  judgment  a l . , 1983)  of  of  the  the  A-C  demonstrated  pain"  of  of  the  studying  the  •£ E f f e c t s  given  the  (1976)  between  various A-C  facial  pose  "no  levels  of  research of  to  judges'  al.  t r y i n g to  nature  press;  the  no  facial  46.  movements  which  may  have  led  judges  to  make  differential  ratings. As These  will  judges.  pain  This of  the  ratings  hypothesized different  of  the  below  contained but  judgment of  provided context  the  the two  in this  an  AU  of  hypothesis  hypothesis.  were  of  opportunity to  the  conducted.  identical  instructions  given  ratings sets  studies  subset  i n the  specified  that  two  a  differed  situation  between  directionality nature  explained  studies  configurations  impact  be  given to  to  the  assess  the  judges  configurations. would  be  due  to  on  their  It  was  significantly  instructions. was  AU  the  The  lack  of  exploratory  47.  GENERAL  Two  separate  investigated focused number  the f i r s t  on t h e l a s t o f common  stimulus  tapes.  encoders  who  selecting facial  The f o l l o w i n g  minimize  the  inadvertent changes,  which  manipulated 1982).  solely  use  study  studies  shared  give  the  on  the  the rules  for  details  stimulus  a  of  and t h e r e l i a b i l i l t y  on t h e c o r e  short of  head  could  AU  the second  t h e development  sections  on t h e f i n a l  intrusion  AUs,  study  of  the  tapes.  Segments  to focus to  The f i r s t  configurations,  segments,  o f Video  necessary  while Both  regarding  made t h e f a c i a l  order  conducted.  two h y p o t h e s e s  procedures  configurations  In  were  two h y p o t h e s e s .  stimulus  Construction  was  studies  METHODS  duration  showed  to  such  facial  skin  as tone  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the  (Ekman, only  AUs i t  segments  factors,  and  t h e judges'  configurations  A l l segments  video  extraneous  movements,  alter  pain-related  1978;  O'Sullivan,  the encoders'  face  and  shoulders. An  initial  issue  segments.  The  controlling  extraneous  for  was  duration  the duration  of t h e segments  Due t o t h e w i d e l y  thrusts  on s t u d y i n g  facial  segment  length  been  facial  expressions  of pain  ranged  i n duration  from  press)  t o 10 m i n u t e s  expressions  (Keefe  the visual  for  context research  no s t a n d a r d s  f o r video  In t h e l i t e r a t u r e  t h e segments seconds  & Block,  video  differing  established.  three  of the  was i m p o r t a n t  f a c t o r s and s e t t i n g  the expressions.  have  setting  rated  by j u d g e s  (Patrick  1982).  This  et  on have  a l . ,  variability  in  48.  is  also  apparent  Rosenthal segments al.  and of  (1980)  study  1  in studies DePaulo  250  two  seconds.  The  study  simpler  do  had  faster  minute  five  difference  than  many  two  The  the  study  f o r study  due  to  the  emotion.  using while  segment  and  configurations  of  a  seconds,  segments.  was  e x p r e s s i o n s of  reported  and  seconds,  AU  facial  (1979)  milliseconds  used was  of  video  Ekman  duration  et for  2  i t  was  three  fact  that  the  second  which  configurations  the  encoders  i n the  first  could study.  Encoders The that  major  they, be  criterion  able  to  for selection  produce  configurations  upon  demand.  encoders,  male  and  and  two  one  while  female  the  system. Encoder  encoder  o t h e r two  The  mean  Due  of  had  the  complete  set  to  female  this were  encoders of  had  some  encoders  constraint  four  One  male  with  familiarity 26.0  AU  only  recruited.  was  was  required  extensive experience  encoders  age  the  FACS  with  the  yrs.  T r a i n i ng  As possible  a l l to  four  use  configurations certified encoders  FACS  encoders  coding  to  the  encoders.  coder, the  the  the  segments.  individual and  taping  basis. above  familiar  FACS  during  stimuli  were  the  throughout  over  two  the  of  the  gave  manual  The  training  for  sessions  leading  The  author,  each  and  individualized  information  from  FACS  for describing  continuous  All training  with  to  was  the  AU  who  feedback  is  a  to  the  configuration  and  the  taping  production  of  was  an  feedback  the  i t  coding  done  and  on  training  manual  was  49.  necessary  due  encoders Rules  in  for  they  do  that  of  concern  are  study  Akert,  between  the  Both  these  for  may et  two  the  parameters  the  also  are  posed  to  addressed  stimulus effects  the  1982;  this  general  (Ekman,  1982b;  measure  criterion  the  validity  the  relationship  spontaneous  expressions.  in  on  of  external  0'Sullivan,  accurately  focuses and  the  c e n t r a l to  stimulus  which  of  decrease  ability  ability  experimental  risk  a l . , 1982b;  issues  and  of  increased  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of  and  1977),  issues  allow  measurement  or  the  configurations.  increasing  variables,  a  AU  by  Segments  (Ekman The  differences exhibited  various  the  variables  1982),  (Archer  the  rules  for selecting  segments. R ules By  core  for  eg u a t i n g  reviewing  pain  Patrick  relatd  et  the  following  1.  The  not  exceed  itself more  apex  two for  one  apices No  had  with  prior  research  (Craig  spontaneous  i t was  patterns  could  in  AUs  and  overlapping  be  more  apices  than then  not  exceed  be  the  extreme  at  AU  one  to  1985;  describe this  the  review  used. configurations i f an  one the  the  Hyde,  From  were  Thus  could  1985;  AUs.  for  expressions identified  possible  of  duration.  not  which  Patrick,  selection criteria  second  could  S.  i n press)  isolated  overlapped AUs  posed  occurring  i t s apex AUs  the AUs  al.,  spontaneously  2.  by  stimulus  independent  video  so  1982).  0'Sullivan,  of  Video  confound  the  Rosenthal,  the  expressions  independent  validity  individual  mastering  posed  artifacts the  the  Selecting  While control  to  AU  occurred  by  I f two  or  second. period  could  when  their  second!  intensity  level  using  the  50.  FACS  coding Rules In  method for  addition  have  passed  3.  No  movement  4.  A  minimum  expression  was  to the  to  complete  of  that  behavior. general  This  the  posed  encoders  s e gme  and  affect for  and  segment have  Tagiuri  within  the  judges'  and  perceptions  of  contextual  a  (1969)  context  artifacts  had  a  variation  in  lighting,  was  necessary  to  several  days  needing  remained  of  form.  and  occur  neutral  the  Each with  encoder that  context  (eg.  etc.)  was  eliminate to  variations  complete  chose  his  appearance  or  for  the her  a l l  set own  their  nts. One  encoders was  only  of  enough  hairrstyle,  configurations.  appearance  (1982),  allowed.  used.  which  rule  must  completion  length  context  may  was  make-up,  eliminated.  of  rule  was  segment  c o n t.r o l  segment  clothing,  to  To  there  editted  can  context  seconds  final  behavior  the  Any  the  were  a f t e r the  segment  Kendon  variations in  following  in  segment  specified  and  that  the  each  rules:  one^half  before  ensure  rules  ones  [1982],  that  due  to  two  and  art ifact s  two  the  standardizing  O'Sullivan  5.  two  standardize  for  out  above  than  required  intensity.  movement  following  configuration  Rule  pointed  the  other  configuration  duration  assessing  e1i m inati n g  also  the  for  done  tape.  context and to Four  which  facial  produce head  was  systematically  configurations a  more  realistic  positions  were  was  head  nature  used.  varied  over  position.  This  for  The  the  encoders  stimulus looked  51 .  near-off right  and  fully off  camera  right  left  balanced camera  and  (70-90 across  left  cm).  (30H40cm), These  encoders  positions  still  and  four  and head  far-off positions  configurations.  allowed  for  a  camera  full  were  The  far-  of  the  view  face. How  rules  An  independent,  rules. used  To rules  list  3,  of  segments  applied  minimize  unacceptable the  were  4,  the  amount  and  5  segments  to  prior  FACS of  one  was  eliminate to  giving  applied  required the  the  for  the  five author  obviously  independent If  configurations  selected  a l l  more  segments.  acceptable randomly  coder  coding  p o t e n t i a l l y acceptable  contained  encoder  certified  two  by  coder or  more  the  inclusion  same  into  the  s t udy . Equipment The camera  encoders and  Editing  Panasonic  was  controlled stimulus  done by  a  recorded  AG6300  using  two  AG6300  were  VHS  A500  played  recorder  using  via  a  an  video  Panasonic  Panasonic  segments  Panasonic  were  RCA  CC007  cassette  AG6300  edit to  the  RCA  J0975WV  recorder.  VHS  control  color  recorders board.  judges 19  The  through inch  a  color  mo n i t o r . Reliability The  Encoders'  reliability  assessed studies  of  of  simultaneously 1 and  blind  to  coded  the  the  2.  An  AU  Configurations  the  encoders'  for  a l l  independent,  configurations  occurrence  of  configurations  certified  required  a l l AUs  configurations  per  for  FACS  coder  each  segment,  the  was  used  in  who  was  hypothesis time  at  52.  which the  each  AU  was  AU  offset,  used  to  onset,  the  and  intensity  the  assess  non-overlapping. the  time  down  assess  the  the  reliability  every  segment,  they  were  random  A  to  to  i f the  apex  time-date  1/60  onset  second  and  of  reliability  on  offset  their  intensity,  onset  coded  the  the  offset  The  data  as  of  or  superimposed  screen  was  author  acted  as  a l l AUs  in  of  assessing  selected  times  timing  overlapping  non-overlapping were  and  which  monitor  well  offset,  The  occurrence  as  segments and  apex  AU.  times.  and  of  each  generator  coder  a l l final  of  the  c o n f i g u r a t i o n s were  i n o v e r l a p p i n g or  25%  onset,  used  whether  patterns. to  assess  a l l AUs  A the  in  those  segments. There  was  overlapping  or  reliability FACS  of  manual  Total  100%  The The  overall overall As  these used  Instead  of  percent percent  the  timing  of  the  second  on  the  Hyde,  1985;  of  AUs  the  X  et  calculating  formula  presented  2 coders  for  being  AU  f o r AU  X  the  in  the  100  occurrence  intensity  than  usual  margin  f o r onset  ^0.2  generator  and  seconds, (Craig  a l . , in press)  the  S  was  was  c o n f i g u r a t i o n s was  agreements  time-date Patrick  AU  stringent  margin  For  coded  agreement f o r the  c o n f i g u r a t i o n s as  formula i s :  agreement  more  calculate  The  the  agreements  number  studies a to  occurrences  used.  number Total  regarding the  non-overlapping, AU  was  agreement  67%.  critical of  12/60  Patrick, margin  for  error  offset or  98.5%.  was  was  times. of  a  1985; set  at  53.  +0.17  seconds  agreement apex  offset  scores and of was  f o r AU  these  10/60  onset  87.8%,  f o r t h e AU  apex  onsets  too  of  was  and  a  and  f o r AU  offsets The  low  second.  94.8%,  occurrences  studies.  deemed  measures  or  f o r apex  offset and  were  acceptable  reliability  research.  82.5%.  mean  onset The  f o r the timing  for inclusion  i n the present  The  of the of  80.2%,  for  reliability of  f o r the intensity  intensity  percent  the  AU  purposes scores  scores  as  54.  STUDY 1  Study  1 tested  increasing the  t h e number  role  of  encoders'  of core  in  possible  parsimony,  t h e same  sample  single  data  individual  AUs p e r f a c i a l  data  maximum  size.  data  collection  with  the  number  These  collection  judges'  The r a t i o n a l e  to achieve,  the  largest  regarding the  o v e r l a p p i n g a p i c e s on  portrayed pain.  hypotheses was  the hypotheses  ratings  process  was  of  the both  that  i t  methodological  comparisons  but have  of and  f o r combining  two h y p o t h e s e s  method  expression  greatest  of  impact  using  the  combined  in a  separated  for  were  been  analysis. Method  Subjects Judges In  keeping  investigated university female  in this student  judges  subject  with  were  pool.  t h e r e s e a r c h which study,  s u b j e c t s were  population. selected  The j u d g e s  were  Six  one  and one m i s u n d e r s t o o d  age  f o r males  judges their  was  received quota  The  of  size  were  either  selected  from t h e  first  as f i v e  missed  the i n s t r u c t i o n s .  credit  AUs  and  25  department's  year  and f o r f e m a l e s  course  male  the psychology  replaced  18.9 y r s .  the  Twenty-five  a l l from  courses. rating  judges  from  defined  psychology at  least  The  mean  18.3 y r s .  A l l  o r $3.00  i f  they  had  credits. of  according  to  reliability  (i.e.  the  the  sample  formula  of  for  the r e l i a b i l i t y  judges  was  determined  estimating  the  effective  o f t h e mean  of the judges'  55.  ratings)  of  Effective judges'  judges'  reliability  ratings  adaption  of  estimating sample  independent  of  judges.  a  mean  pairs  ratings  reliability  was  t h e items  formula  correlation  Patrick  r = 0.46.  the  calculated  reliability  f o r a sample  mean  reliability  o f r = 0.46  o f 50 was  used  effective  sample from  of  The  effective with  R = 0.98  72  the data  ( i n press).  judges  for  for different  mean  a  the  I t i s an  is  ratings  The e s t i m a t e d  judge  of  rated. and  for  et a l .  (1973.  reliability  To e s t i m a t e  was  Rosenthal  being  o f t h e mean  of judges  from  by  on t h e  Spearman-Brown  the r e l i a b i l i t y  reliability,  proposed  focuses  r a t h e r than  the  sizes  judges'  ratings  (R  on mean  inter-  an  estimated  =  effective  reliability). Encoders Description General  f o r Developing  Selection  of  Table  presents  ranging  2  from  7  be  configurations  all  combinations  non-overlapping occurred  excluded  Stimulus  t h e 23  above  in  the  from  Tape  coded  tested  possible  AU  tested  6 occurs  with  testing  or simply a s AU  alone  the  (AUs were  6 no  exception  or with  AU  in overlapping  45 and  C o n f i g u r a t i o n s i n which  combined  6 is  AUs  there  With  t h e AUs  configurations.  alone  so  together). AU  configurations  of four  simultaneously  i n which  were apex  be  AUs t o c o m b i n a t i o n s  c o n t a i n i n g both  of  6  i s given  AU c o n f i g u r a t i o n s t o  single  cannot  combinations  AU  encoders  Methods.  Procedures  and  of the four  with  extremely  AU  45  difficult  were to  56.  Table Passible  AU  2  Configurations  L e v e l o f AU Configuration  Possible  AU  Configurations  a Level  1  4  6  7  Level  2  4+6 4+7 6+10 6+45 10 + 45  Level  3  4+6+10 4+7+45 7+10+45  Level  4  4+6+10+45  10 4+10 7+10  4+6+45 4+10+45  45 4+45 7+45  4+7+10 6+10+45  4+7+10+45  a Description  o f t h e AUs a r e a s  follows:  AU  Muscle  Movement  4 6 7 10  Corrugator Orbicularis Oculi Orbicularis Oculi Lavator Labbi Superioris Lavator Palebrae  brow l o w e r e r s cheek raiser l i d tightener  45  upper blink  l i p raiser  57.  produce  v o l u n t a r i l y by  configuration facilitate  6+45  tested very  was  a  ten  second  and  the  450  three  very  low  are  and  second  thus of  a  by  (eye  blink)  of  AU  6.  expressions Craig  and  in of  that  That  pain.  Patrick  et  Of  (1985) a l . (in  times.  This  configurations  experiencing  exclusion  not  appear  Patrick  seven  not  were  of  these  subjects  The  does  configurations  total  r e s u l t s to  1978).  independently  coded  suggest  their  the  in  segments  would  45  such  coded  6+45 o c c u r r e d  and  generalizations  as  spontaneous  r e a d i l y produced  stimulation  AU  occurred  segments  frequency  not  6  as  S. F r e i s e n ,  control  concern  during  360  6  AU  major  the  AU  excluded  where  not  (Ekman  voluntary  infrequently  press)  was  the  configurations  itself  does  spontaneous  painful  not  hamper  expressions  of  the  of  pain. To each  clarify  hypothesis  hypothesis  the  Tables  1 and  2,  Construction A  total  148  were  apex  configurations,  Thus  there  equalling used  to  148  presentation and was  and 4  of  seen  list  were  the  configurations  +  single  11 5 17  were  AUs,  with  randomly +11+5 The  viewed  chosen  the  than  three  with  segments  segments randomly  times  chosen  was  with  randomized  l i m i t a t i o n s that times  the  for  judges.  overlapping  non-overlapping  the  segments  by  17  reliability.  more  focus  tape  intra-judge  configurations not  with  segments.  check  4  segments  segments  were  and  s t i mu1 us  There  configurations,  3  that  respectively.  of  of  4  configurations  apex  per  encoder.  4  encoders  segments The  order  across the  consecutively  were  same and  of  encoders encoder that  no  58.  Table AU  Configuration  3  f o r Hypothesis 1  L e v e l o f AU Configuration Level  AU  1  4  Configurations  7  10  45  a Level  2  4+6 6+10  4+7 7+10  Level  3  4+6+10 4+7+45 7+10+45  Level  4  4+6+10+45  4+10 7+45  4+45 10+45  4+6+45 4+10+45  4+7+10 6+10+45  4+7+10+45  a A  "+"  mark  indicates  that  the apices  o f t h e AUs  overlapped,  59.  Table AU  Configurations  f o r Hypothesis  Type L e v e l o f AU Configuration  4  o f AU  2  Configurations  Overlapping Apices  Non-overlapping Apices  a 4+7 4+45 7+45  b 4-7 4-45 7-45  Level  2  4+10 7+10 10+45  4-10 7-10 10-45  Level  3  4+7+10 4+7+45 4+10+45 7+10+45  4-7-10 4-7-45 4-10-45 7-10-45  Level  4  4+7+10+45  4-7-10-45  a These c o n f i g u r a t i o n s l i s t e d i n T a b l e 3.  are i d e n t i c a l  A " - " mark i n d i c a t e s overlap.  that  to their  counterparts  b the apices  o f t h e AUs d i d n o t  60.  identical  configurations  segments a  were  s i x second  their  on  segment  the the  Procedures  for  first two  The  end  two  to  the  with  clear  the  views  a  first was  the  l a b and  approximately the  so  instructions. to  the  of  purported  have  description  instructions  judges  by  recorded  numbered  b e g i n n i n g of  by  each  3m  a  a new  of on  been the how  sat  behind the  was  used  ensure  that  to  undistorted at  from  the  The  seating  by  extreme  front  row  the  the front the  bias  angles. was  of The  150cm  and  arrangements  were  basis.  X  by  5m.  the  into  the  were  could  in  subjects.  the  rating  room.  The  the  rating  B)  the were  contained the  Following was  main  arrival  follow  which  the  the  (Appendix  s t i m u l u s tape  at  viewing  given  instructions  study  use  author  Following  they  The  to  judge  session.  between  instructions  pain  i n each  monitor  escorted  that  The  description  a  separated  the  viewed  come  participants.  to  of  participants  A)  third  greeted  room  (Appendix  the  The  period.  encoders  monitor  judge  judge  the  participated  the  view  when  to  last  used  the  entrance was  judges  270cm.  on  Each  of  the  row  allocated  were  sequentially  announced blank  and  which  were  arrangement  screen  of  back  a  This  monitor  distance  three were  had  during  each  judges  judges.  judges  of  consecutively.  in duration  segments which  seen  Judges  one  three  period  video  at  From  seconds  blank  ratings.  voice  If  five  were  given form.  the  forms rating  then a  encoders this  of  read bogus were  description along  with  Following  61 .  clarification session  was  understood three  of  tape  further  any  the  room  experimental completion (Appendix  not  of  and  the  the  the  judges  properly  actual the  the  the  of  tape.  tape  was  approximately  practice  were  were  stimulus  stimulus  lasted  and  dimmed  26  stimulus  slightly  screen.  The  to author  viewing.  stimulus  judges  tape  were  (Appendix  questionnaire  practice  the  monitor  throughout  segment  practice trials  the  of  the  questionnaire of  on  lights  on  completion  collected  that  These  viewing  glare  i n the  Upon  ensure  five  clarification  incandescent  eliminate  a  presentation  During  remained  were  This  the  were  who  any  presented.  to  instructions.  encoders  minutes.  questions  conducted  the  Following  any  the  the  rating  given C).  forms  the  post-  Following  judges  were  the  debriefed  D).  Measures As  discussed  question  regarding  self-reported subjects' be  pain.  of  model. rating was used  In  importance  of  to  the  of  This  equivalent encourage this  component with  Affective version  self-report  to  as  this  of  the  suggested  particular on  literature  pain  was  use  keeping  scale  used. as  to  In  research  the  It  ratings  measures.  the  level  beneficial  judges'  in  measures  in  judges' that  scales  in  the  the  (Gracely  the  studies  1979 on  of  a  the  i t would  self-report  r e l a t i o n s h i p s of  as  that  between  suggestion  was  subjects'  ratings  for  help  the  time  comparisons would  there  matching  at  Discomfort well  review  these  and two  integration the  judgment  Gracely  pain  al.,  1978)  et  version facial  have  been  expressions  62.  of  pain  in  press).  pain  (Craig  &  Patrick,  Keefe  and  descriptor  rating  scale.  Discomfort between  was  scale  the  Block  scale  It  the  present  Block  study  and  the  added  and  scores  are  a  scored  contained  in  the than  item  Sensory  1978)  as  between In  E.  for hypothesis  1,  Affective  Discomfort  the  Keefe  addition  from  judges'  integration  to  and  the  15  "distracting" "no  to  discomfort"  adjective list  Appendix  a  the  for  et a l . ,  Intensity  Affective  labelled  The  Patrick  s t a y i n g with  ranged  zero.  the  al.,  research.  baseline  1985;  opportunity  research  which  as  et  using  present  adjectives,  used  that  more  studies  and  "excruciating",  (Gracely  offered  prior  Hyde,  (1982)  thought  scale  standard  1985;  and  was  scaled  Design The  design  increasing 2 X 4  complexity  factorial  subjects The  the  factor  factors  overlapping The  first  two  as  AU  apices,  within  overlapping],  the  second  of  facial first  as  judge  and  for hypothesis  factor  type  with  the  sex  the  of  impact  of  c o n f i g u r a t i o n s , was factor  within level  as  a  was  between  subjects  of  apex  and  level  a  2  2, X 2  a  a  between  subjects  factor.  of  as  complexity  Judges  concerning X  factors.  The  configuration of  3  subjects  complexity. Results  Re l i a b i l i t y  a  the  for  configurations, respectively.  design  the  judge,  and  were AU  overlapping  design  of  regarding  the  factorial factor factors  design  and were  (overlapping  role  the sex vs.  of with last of non-  63,  The  standard  reliabilities was  were  calculated  inter-judge calculated.  using  Winer's  inter-judge  reliability  reliability  was e s t i m a t e d  The pairs of  intra-judge  from  correlation, agreements correlation  estimates  scale  unit  be  interpreted  pairs  of c o n f i g u r a t i o n s  f a r the difference  reliability  coefficients  used  computing  mean  percent  agreement  Gracely have  scale,  the  adjective  scale.  There  between  several  agreement consistency.  are  using  judges  scaled built  score  number  adjectives  criterion T h e mean  to  on 20  used  on a n i n t e r v a l evenly  of very which  may  misrepresent  percentage  sizes  ratings  .with  13.4%.  The  because  the  distributed  does not on  the  discriminations  lead the  passible  ratings.  metric,  fine  intra-  of pairs  +_  the  inter-judge  o f 128  26.4% was  as  intra-judge  The size  The data,  sample  deviation  was  percent  judge.  A  and in  based  and s t a n d a r d  moment  T h e mean  the i n t e r -  was  types  on s u c h  0.47.  a sample  Three  instance  correlations.  descriptors a  used  in this  r =  t h e 20  and  f o r each  i s commonly  was  using  A product  i s the difference  within  although  estimating interrjudge  calculated  calculated  reliability  +2  The  agreements,  caution  the  percentage  agreements  was  between  computed  perfect  for  are non-independent.  reason  The  data.  computed.  coefficient  the intra-judge  formula  configurations.  were  with  reliability  while  reliability  ANQVA-  AU  were  judge  was  The i n t e r - j u d g e (1971)  c o e f f i c i e n t , which  reliability  intra-judge  perfect  must  far  as  reliability  percent  +2  well  t o be r = 0 . 9 4 .  of i d e n t i c a l repeated  reliability  as  the judges  and s t a n d a r d  perfect general  deviations  of  64,  pairs  +_2  with  scale  Post-Experimental This  brief  which  were  first  four  question that  4,  Questionnaire  range  of  female  judges  presented  which  was  the  of  were  used  very  The  question,  judges  response rated  the  unrepresentative the  similar  to  segments  were  an  rating  the  the  problems scale,  encoders,  and  the  configurations.  suggest  that  were  the  successful  4,  of  as  lack  of  both  found  in  producing  the  male  and  et a l .  back  that  at  pain  factors The  movement  even  other most  that  than  items  sound  question  facial  when  common  adjacent or  the  -somewhat  discriminating of  test.  upon  least  between  the  stimuli  for  Hyde  contingent  results of  acceptable  low  issue.  difficulty The  as  from  range-of-motian  body  the  indicated  expected  indicated  the  far  check,  actual  a  of  Results  for  identified  manipulations in  those  discriminating  having  certain  means  completed  usually  in  they  two  data  5.  c o n f i g u r a t i o n s as  c o n f i g u r a t i o n s themselves  issues  Table  during  was  20.7%.  items,  summary  manipulation  The  question  they  five  configurations  pain  facial  in  used.  which to  The  expressions  stimulus  experiencing  main  the  the  patients  judges'  checks.  are  viewed  +_  Data  items  ratings, they  fifth  69.2%  was  questionnaire contained  representations  who  agreement  manipulation  judges  (1985]  unit  from  amongst 4  and  5  configurations  the  judges'  found  believable. To  evaluate  questionnaire regression  was  were  whether  any  related  to  conducted  using  of  the  judges' sex  of  items  ratings judge  and  in a  the  multiple the  first  Table Study  5  1 - A n a l y s i s of P o s t - E x p e r i m e n t a l  Questions  1.  General  2.  Types  accuracy  of  pain  interactions (frequencies  per  category]  3.  Easier males  to or  judge females  (frequencies  per  Mean  Questionnaire  Data  Males  Fema1es  4. 20  4.12  Acute  9  14  Chronic  2  0  Both  13  9  None  1  2  Fema1es  6  a  Males  6  5  13  12  No  difference  category)  4.  Representativeness of  facial  expressions  Mea n  3 . 32  3. 88  66,  four two  questions factors  sex  of  female it  to  which  judge  not  encoder  rating,  easier  this for  of  3  of  mean  the  a  2  mean  of  complexity level =  of  B.01,  to  effects  rated  the  were  the  third  higher  than  11.85,  p<.001,  The  simple  =  judge  =  or  0.48.  of  As  sex  of  3  only  overall  mean  analyses.  increasing lead  sex X  to  for  sex  of  and  fourth  of  f o r each  75.89,  2  to  for  of  <  was  portrays  the  effects  judge  of  dependent  were  and  found  level  sex  of  effect (Appendix that  of  judge  X  F(3,'144)  the  result  for  level  4  F(1,192) complexity  =  both  main  G).  The  female  complexity  3  of  the  with  interaction.  level  level  of  analysis  significant  revealed  levels  level  The  as  The  interaction  simple  presents  each  .005,  also  judges'  6  effects  p<.0001.  of  complexity)  level  For  for  increased Table  main p  levels  judge.  level  8.08,  significant  effects  was  further  deviations  each  score  Figure  and  in  were  male  question  discomfort.  interaction  males.  found  judges'  The  ratings  effect  that  of  Significant  reduced  effects  of  F(1,48]  p<.0005.  the  with  would  for  F).  F ( 3 , 14 4)  judges  fact  that  standard  scaled  judge  mean  multiple R  variance dealt  ratings.  _1_  [sex  complexity  Due  simple  ANOVA  the  displayed  and  (Appendix  sex  the  The  analyze  and  complexity  Gracely  measure for  4  to  mean  overall  whether  rate.  complexity  rating  X  3,  not  overall  judges'  asserted  encoder  configuration was  was  1  configuratianal  the  of  Hypothesis  Hypothesis  ratings  to  study,  10.7%  question  Analysis  question  appropriate  in  accounted  judges'  predic te d  and  subjects  was  predict  was  significantly F(1,192)  14.78, were  judges  =  p<.001.  significant  67.  Table  Mean  Gracely Ratings f o r E a c h L e v e l o f AU C o n f i g u r a t i o n by Sex o f J u d g e  Level  Sex  of  6  of  Configuration  2  3  Judge  Male M  2.59  4.65  6.08  5.93  SD  0.69  1.38  2.85  2.50  M  3.07  6.06  8.91  9.09  SD  0.79  2.25  4.52  4.97  Fema1e  Figure 2 I n t e r a c t i o n of Sex  of Judge  and L e v e l s of Complexity  69,  for  both  was  F[3,144)  =  39.3,  male  and =  the  for  analyses  levels  the  each  3  and  AU  the  lack  Analysis  of of  of  three  male  judges  level  of  judges  F(3,144)  of  be  effect  4+6+10,  level  4  would  3  and  accepting  3  judges  and  4  as  protect  the  difference.  contribution  level  levels  except  male  levels  the  the  mean  between  the  than  levels  simple  in  for  hoc  a l l  other  eight  that  eliminate  the  each  were  post  judges  of  which  represents  to  from  The  exercised  lower  level,  would  H).  total  were  Newman-Keu1s,  female  suggesting  alpha  of  using  and  should  complexity  scores. and  As  4'could  4+6+45,  of  and  each  can be  be due  6+10+45,  or  configurations.  H y p o t he s i s 2_ 2 would  levels  Table  deviations levels  care  rate,  non-overlapping  AUs.  female  [Appendix  significantly  effect  configurations  the  for  combined  configurations  Hypothesis  than  a  graphically  lack  either  some  for  significantly  configuration  the  for  male  comparisons  error 3  For  With  conservative  Figure  to  that  4.  rated  family-wise  seen  result  and  effect  differed  hoc  was  more  unique  The  comparisons,  simple  comparisons  past 2  effects  hoc  indicated  hoc  level a  post  complexity  post  p<.0001,  simple  significant,  of  44.4,  judges.  p <.0001.  As  done  female  for  7  of  predicted be  rated  configurations  complexity  type for  the of  each  overlapping  expressing  configurations.  presents each  as  that  This  which  mean  of  was  discomfort tested  contained  ratings  configuration sex  more  judge.  over  multiple  and  across The  AU  standard the  three  analysis  was  70.  Figure  Distribution  3  of Overlapping A U Configurations  within Levels  of Complexity  11 4+6+10 • 10  4+6+45 • 8  Mean Gracely Scaled Score  6+10+45 • 4+6 •  7  6+10 • 4+10 • 7+10 •  6  4+6+10+45 4+7+10+45  4+10+45 • 4+7+10 • 4+7+45J 7+10+45  4+7 •  4  A  10 4  7 1  +  4  ^  5  4+45> 10+45 • ;  3 1  2  H  45 —r~  2 Levels  3 of Complexity  4  71  Table Mean G r a c e l y R a t i n g s f o r T y p e across Levels of Complexity  7 of F a c i a l Configuration f o r e a c h Sex o f J u d g e  Configuration  O v e r l a p p i ng  Non-Overlapping  Le ve 1 Male  Sex  af  M  4.22  5.24  5.89  3.85  4.30  4.52  SD  1.00  2.11  2.77  0.95  1.35  1.65  M  5.44  7.38  8.96  4.60  5.00  5.68  SD  1.92  3.64  5.06  1.27  1.36  1.98  Judge Female  The means f o r o v e r l a p p i n g c o n f i g u r a t i o n s do n o t m a t c h o f T a b l e 5 a s a l l c o n f i g u r a t i o n s c o n t a i n i n g AU 6 were e x c 1 u d e d.  those  72,  a  2  X  level the  2  X  of  3  ANOVA  complexity)  dependent  were  found  sex  =  order  14.51,  5.84, =  of  were  =  3.94,  =  also  p < . 0 0 01 , and  p<.025.  type  mean  of  scaled  7.55,  p <  and  p<.0001.  All  The  judge  judge  X  X  4,  5,  results  of  this  of  and  6  effects of  type  of  first  order  for  level,  configuration  level  Figures  X  as  level  results  configuration  X  score  p<.005,  .0001,  significant.  of  configuration  S i g n i f i c a n t main  F ( 1 ,48) • =  were  of  Gracely  I).  33.29,  sex  sex  X  36.85,  interactions  p<.025,  the  judge  F(1,48)  interactions  judge  (Appendix  F(2,96)  configuration  of  with  measure  for  complexity  first  [sex  the  F(2,96)  F ( 1,48 )  complexity  F(2,9  demonstrate  =  6)  these  interactions. Following effects  the  were  separated  into  their  main  analysis  simple  effects  a l l  main  for  each  i nteraction. Testing level for  of  the  complexity  p_<.001  and  indicate  and  was  level  4  that  overlapping  overlapping  F(1,144)  configurations four  AUs.  overlapping  configurations  configurations  =  F^(2,96) =  significant  level  3  F(1,144)  discomfort  the  for  <  5.71,  effect .001  results  for  and  p<.025.  levels for  of  as non-  contained level  configurations. of  26.27  than  effects  both  J).  rated  configurations  simple  =  These were  X  effects  (Appendix  p<.001.  more  the £  configuration  complexity at  when  significant  50.66,  the  configurations  The  were  F(2,96)  of  51.51,  significantly  complexity  was  =  within  revealed  significant  level  demonstrating  or  effects  interaction  configuration  Configuration  three  simple  of For  complexity  non-over1apping  Figure 4I n t e r a c t i o n of Type of C o n f i g u r a t i o n and L e v e l of Complexity  Figure 5 I n t e r a c t i o n of Sex of Judge and  Type of C o n f i g u r a t i o n  n 4 10  2 H  Male  Female Sex of Judge  Figure 6 I n t e r a c t i o n of Sex of Judge and L e v e l of Complexity  L e v e l s of Complexity  7 6 ,  To within  further each  computed levels  explore  type  of c o n f i g u r a t i o n  [Appendix were  on  configuration  simple  Sex.of  F [ 1 , 96 ) =  the  judges  significantly  higher  tested  were It  between  male  on  basis  the  results The  were  also  does  suggest  obtained of  an  33.50,  a l l  other.  that  f o r t h e sex three  only  that  of  For levels  p. < . 0 0 -1 .  for  This  i n hypothesis that  for  this  sex  neither  configurations  indicates  that  configurations  1 the r e s u l t the  i s  differences for  AU  6  AU  being  on  as  solely similar present.  non-overlapping  sex a t t a c h e d as  effects  overlapping  are not accounted containing  X  configurations  As t h e  however,  judge  significant  significant  and w i t h o u t  effect  these  F[1,48]  each  found  judges.  judges  with  importance  they  as  did  much  to  the  configurations.  simple  effects  sex  o f judge.  each  male  of configurations  to  were  configurations  overlapping  tested  suggests  for  12.56,  than  configurations  The  was  rated  and f e m a l e  absence  overlapping  i t was  effects  judge  configurations  here  complexity  hoc c o m p a r i s o n s  d i f f e r e n t from  i n t e r a c t i o n produced  L).  redundant.  post  of  significantly. the  female  of level  For overlapping  configurations  2 and 4 d i f f e r e d  [Appendix  K).  significantly  non-overlapping  Tests  the e f f e c t s  =  5.62,  p <  .001.  overlapping configurations  p <  for configuration F o r male  judges  .025 a n d f o r f e m a l e  Both  effects  configurations with  were  the  indicate  higher  effect  being  significant  the  result  judges that  than much  was  F(1,48]  judges  =  rated  non-over1apping more  pronounced  77,  for  female The  judges. simple  complexity  interaction  both  factors  level  3  p  <  =  (Appendix  F(1,144]  .001.  male  The  judges  32.22,  significantly  and  p < . 01  of  and  level  for level  p<.001  far  male  was 4  level  of  effects  for  significant  F(1,144). =  were  and  while  different case  post  hoc  with  at  the the  judges  level  of  at  12.72,  significant  female  (Appendix  N) .  hypothesis  1 a  significant  Thus  acceptance  effects  rate due  configurations  and  second  complexity.  level  of  f o r sex  of  the  same  for  F(2,96)  complexity  and  judges  would  level  judge  levels  number  of  were  needed  to  should  be  caution  to  were  large  which  levels. be  4 a l l  differences  alpha  to  2  analyses  of  liberal  error  level  f a r female  comparison  more  conservative  for  judges  h y p o t h e s i s 2.  significance  of  Sex  comparisons  the  regarding  more  X  judge  different  was  investigate noted  judge  M].  8.56,  hoc  significantly  simple  of  significant  effects  =  sex  .001.  that  As  f o r the  demonstrated  5.73,  simple  post  indicated  a  =  F(2,9S)  p <  The  were  effects  The  reduce  for,  effects  show  effect the  of  number  non-aver1apping relating  to  the  Summary The  main  increasing the  type  affect by  the  area  of  hypotheses  the of  number  of  of  configuration,  judges' encoders.  ratings The  investigation.  of sex  study  AUs  per  1  focused  of  the  configuration  overlapping the  on  amount judge  of  was  apices  effects  and or  of  whether  not,  would  discomfort portrayed added  as  a  secondary  78,  Despite testing  the  the  obtained.  large  two  hypotheses  First,  the level  number  of  AUs  effect  on  judges'  between  levels  adjacent  pairs  complexity is  largely first  present  confined  It  male  difference In  addition  between  judges  female than  much  male  judges  in  types  quite  significantly  and female  a  a  strong  confined  comparing  to  levels  of i t  the complexity  is  Overall, the  large  discomfort  rate  there  2 has been  than  was  was  no  found between  configurations.  nonroverlapping  two  configurations.  While  much  higher  judges  rated  minimally,  were  to the  discrimination  male  that  overlapping  configurations  only  of  configurations  while  configurations,  hypothesis  of l e v e l  difference  facial  overlapping  than  effect  to  males  judges'  configurations  less  were  nonroverlapping  findings  higher,  non-overlapping  by t h e  differences  differently  found  than  on  configurations  general,  were  of configurations  of facial  were  higher  non-overlapping  significantly  had  configurations.  reacted  judges  rated  results  when  of increasing  and n o n - i o v e r l a p p i n g  overlapping  Thus,  the types  the d i f f e r e n t i a l  Females  to these  the  overlapping  from  between  when  in  supported.  between  configurations. configurations  Second,  found  as d e f i n e d  times  discriminated  the e f f e c t  found  and f e m a l e  The  and between  i s evident  complexity  not  was  clear  i n any c o n f i g u r a t i o n ,  to overlapping  hypothesis  interactions  of complexity,  of l e v e l s .  that  of  several  ratings.  were  within  apparent  number  but  still  configurations. supported  judged  overlapping  as  in  that  displaying  configurations  79,  for  t h e more  result  was  complex  less  Finally, judges that  the  trend  and  non-overlapping  However,  general  i n a l l the comparisons  between  judges.  a l lsignificant rated  higher  between  this  f o r male  i s apparent  judges  configurations differences  the case as  female  configurations.  sex  a l l types  than were  male only  configurations.  differences and  levels  judges. found  indicate of  facial  Non-significant  f o r the simpler  and  80.  STUDY  The  Study  2  investigated  third  h y p o t h e s i s was  indicate  that  upper  revealed  attempts  reactions  to  evaluated  the  differed the  between  procedures  studies  the  differences  versus  the  painful  third  whether  face  by  the  2  the  two  studies  as  identical  method  between  two  face  to  the  as  is  more  often  configurations  hide  their  fourth  judgment on  hypotheses.  would  The  the  section  the  lower  stimuli. of  fourth  judges  encoders  impact  were  and  facial  hypothesis  conditions  judges'  possible focused  which  ratings.  between mainly  As  the on  two the  studies. Method  Subjects Judges Twenty—five students  served  indicated others was  18.3  as  they  missed yrs.  male  and  judges.  thought at  least  and  25  female  Seven  first  judges  year  were  the  e x p r e s s i o n s were  one  rating.  The  f o r females  18.5  of  encoders  psychology  replaced posed  mean  as  and  age  for  two five  males  yrs.  Encoders Descriptions General  for Developing  S e1e c t i o n o f  face the  four  were  provided  in  the  Methods.  Procedures  In  the  order  AUs  to  AU  Stimulus  configurations  have  for testing  core-pain related  adequate i t was AUs,  Tape to  frequencies  necessary as  be  AU  10  to  tested of use  i s the  upper more only  and  lower  than  just  core  pain-  81  related  AU  that  occurs  the  face  AUs  were  from  which  the  core  AUs  AUs  12  and  25  were  included  were  4,  6,  upper  13  and  six  study  X  amount  of  The  were  ensure  tape  on the  study.  All  entirety  during  numbered  by  Procedures  The  the  a  of  naturalness  a  this  voice  for basic  tested  the  seven  tested.  to  segments  three  most  the  of  video  randomized in  tape  used were  segments  to  more  duration  Equating  the  sacrificed the  seen  were  of  reduce  1 the  was in  and  duration  segment  natural.  as  duration  study  duration  per  reliability.  The  In  were  (two  seconds  the  however, The  was  period.  looking  of  There  present in  their  sequentially  tape.  Judges procedure  instructions  changed.  the  were  seconds  segment  study. on  lists  segments.  viewed.  took  whole  basis  8  AUs  subset.  AUs  intra-judge  blank  expression  as  The  segments  reduced  often  60  three  second  was  special  that  repeated  the  configurations,  alterations. was  six  neutral  the  studies  The  segments  of  check  of  expressions  kept  8  presentation  segments  Table  consisted  to  a  45.  lower  pain-related  a  study.  more  tape  selected  the  which  stimulus  of  as  configurations  randomly  by  pool  Two  this  and  +  separated  complex  in  encoders  1.  face.  larger  4  of  lower  identified  25,  face  tape  stimulus  stimulus  to  lower  the  were  12,  The  the  two  10,  of  order  were  from  Construct ion  encoder)  in  7,  segments  The  added  in  The The  was  (Appendix description  identical 0) of  description  to  contained the  bogus  now  was  that  of  study  1.  the  following  pain  experiment  of  a  two  part  Table Upper  Upper  Face  and  Lower  a  1  4  Level  2  4+6  Face  AU  Configurations  Configurations  Level  Lower  Face  8  7  45  4+7  4+45  7+45  Configurations  Level  1  10  12  25  Level  2  10 + 12  1 0 + 25  1 2 + 25  Description  o f t h e AUs a r e a s  follows:  AU  Muscle  Movement  4 6 7 10  Corrugator Orbicularis Oculi Orbicularis Oculi Lavator Labbi Superioris Zygomatic Major Depressor Labi Lavator Palebrae  brow lowerers cheek raiser lid tightener  12 25 45  upper l i p r a i s e r l i p corner pull l i p s part blink  83.  experiment  where,  in  spontaneously  responded  second  subjects  their  part, facial  rating to  make  not  trying  rate  the  to had  expressions  instructions  first  the  a  to  an  also  judgment hide  of  their  Discomfort.  Appendix  P.  The  Presentation  of  the  identical altered.  stimulus  now  tape  and  hide The how  were  or  then  how  to  scale  of  rating  form  is  five  practice  lasted  the  detailed  and  pain  in  stimuli.  encoders  Gracely  given  try  of  They  the  rating  were  set  subjects  while,  to  expressions  the  The  the  stimuli  instructed  facial  judges  part,  pain  whether  configuration using  Affective  the been  to  were  first  were  contained  in  trials.  approximately  9  minutes. Upon were  completion  collected  experimental  of  and  the the  stimulus judges  questionnaire.  questionnnaire  the  judges  tape were  Following  were  the  given  the  debriefed  rating  forms  the  post-  completion  [Appendix  of  the  Q) .  Measures For  each  segment  configuration  as  being  hidden)  an  attempt  or  expression scale  as  (hidden).  of  discomfort  the  either by  The  Affective  judges a  the  spontaneous encoder  judges  each  to  then  used  to  rate  Discomfort  e x h i b i t e d by  classified  each  expression hide the  their  [not facial  Gracely  the  pain  amount  of  encoder.  Design The  design  factorial  with  and  the  last  sex  of  judge,  two  for the as  area  the  first  factor  within of  AU  third  hypothesis as  subject  a  was  between  factors.  c o n f i g u r a t i o n [upper  a  2  X  subject The or  2  X  factor  factors lower  2  were  face),  84.  and  level  of  hypothesis first a of  the  two  within  configuration design  factors  subject  judgment  a 2 X 2 X 2  as between  factor.  condition  configuration  was  complexity.  subject  the  factorial  factors  The f a c t o r s (study  For  were  1 or study  fourth  with  the  and t h e l a s t  sex o f judge, 2),  and  as  type  level  of  complexity. Results  Reliability  of  Judges  Inter-judge  and  calculated  for  hidden  not hidden  The  or  inter-judge  configurations inter-judge r  =  as  close  hidden  correlation  sample  size  produced  (House, agreement  found  pairs  was mean  and  mean  the  i n t r a - j udge  correlation,  percent  agreement reliability  r =  for  mean  was  to  Gracely  f o r the calculate a  small  and dichotomous  data  i n the data  Thus  only  score  of the Gracely  which  makes  quite  biased  t h e mean  percent  agreement  percent  +2. s c a l e d  ratings  Having  as p h i o r kappa  percent  The  1.  coefficient.  1981).  of  0.84.  the  not a d v i s a b l e  distributions  T h e mean  judgment  reliability  o f judgments)  S. C a m p b e l l , used.  i t was  such  was  as  discomfort.  the  reliability  the intra-judge  coefficients  House  for  i n study  were  configurations  f o r the Gracely  reliability  skewed  the  or not hidden  judgments  type  of  estimate  estimate  to that  reliabilities  as t h e r a t i n g s o f  inter-: judge  (eight  very  correlation  The  hidden  calculating  hidden/not  as w e l l  reliability  This  was  For  the judging  reliability  0.90.  ratings  the  both  intra-judge  was  perfect were  87.5%. agreement,  computed  ratings.  The  for mean  85.  correlation standard and  was  r = 0.45.  deviations  65.0%  +  were  20.0%  coefficient  to  reported  Post-Experimental The Summary 9.  the  again  facial  same  addition,  sex  study  judges' judge  were  Analysis It than the  items  are  used  The  similar  i n study  are presented  5 which that  were  in  manipulation  In t h i s  thought study  5 as i n study  that  they  1.  Table  the judges  believable.  indicated  1 a multiple  regression  four  felt  t o be  measure  the  1.  In  rushed  The  power  i n any  was  conducted,  in  the t o t a l  multiple  of the  further  using  as p r e d i c t o r s .  In  frequency  as n o t h i d d e n .  predictive.  of predictive  was  questions  a configuration  not i n c l u d e d  Only  R_ was  of  sex  of  0.33.  questionnaire  Due items  analyses.  of Hypothesi s 3 was  lower  proposed  face  encoders  gives  to that  in question  and t h e f i r s t  rating  proved  score.  Data  4 and  were  the dependent  the lack  they  judges  agreements  1.  four  found  and  ratings.  i n study  o f judge  this  to  several  their  As  were  scaled  agreements  the p o s i t i o n  configurations  scores  for perfect +2  identical  questions  supported  comments  making  i n study  Questionnaire  from  percentage  19.2%  and p e r c e n t  f o r the f i r s t  Results  checks  23.2% +  q u e s t i o n n a i r e was data  mean  f o r agreements  reliability the those  The  configurations deviations  configurations  to hide  t h e mean  i n hypothesis  their  would  facial  p r o p o r t i o n of times were  broken  judged down  by  3 that be  judged  upper  the upper and  face  as a t t e m p t s  expressions.  as h i d d e n level  more  Table  and  lower  their  of complexity  and  by 10  face  standard sex  of  Table Study  Analysis  2  9  of Post-Experimental  Quest i o n s  1. G e n e r a l  2.  Types  accuracy  of pain  interact ions (frequencies  per  category)  3.  Easier males  to  or  judge  females  (frequencies  per  Mean  Questionnaire  Data  Males  Females  3 . 92  3 . 36  1 1  13  Chronic  1  0  Both  6  4  None  7  a  Acute  10  1 1  Males  6  4  No  9  10  3. 96  4. 24  Fema1es  difference  category)  4.  Representativeness of  facial  expressions  Mean  87.  Table  10  Mean P r o p o r t i o n o f T i m e s C o n f i g u r a t i o n s o f t h e U p p e r and Lower F a c e were J u d g e d as A t t e m p t s t o H i d e  Areas  of  Face  Upper Level  1  Lower  2  1  2  Male a  Sex  of  M  0.38  0.54  0.52  0.72  SD  0.17  0.18  0.20  0.1S  M  0.48  0.64  0.58  0.73  SD  0.25  0.16  0.19  0.23  Judge Female  a The l o w e r judged as  t h e p r o p o r t i o n t h e more a t t e m p t s by e n c o d e r s t o  t h e c o n f i g u r a t i o n s were hide t h e i r expressions.  judge.  The  lower  configurations 2  X  2  were  ANOVA  complexity)  no  with were  R).  judge  F(1,48) F(1,48)  = 58.04,  Using at were  each more  Analysis  rated  as hidden  <  The  p<.025,  judged  than  as  and  for  lower  face  4  as  served a  a dual  limited  exploratory testing  discomfort.  l e d to believe  stimuli  and  portrayed believe  the  variable  were of of  of the  significant  o r were  Judges  then  that  judges  the  trying  asked  10  with  for  sex  the  face  complexity  indicates  face  than  that  configurations to hide  facial  Male  judges  female  purpose.  judges.  on  provided  of hypothesis  judges'  As  the encoders were  In study  to hide  i n study were  instructed  were  their  1  an and  effects  ratings  detailed  encoders  t o make  It  of the possible  discomfort.  that  spontaneous were  times  effects  Table  replication  expressed  to  a 2 X  4  encoders'  led  of  attempts  hidden  conditions  encoders'  X  configurations.  judgment  painfui  level  were  t h e upper  differing  were  area  for level  portraying  configurations  Hypothesis  judges  was  f o r area  to interpret  often  for  main  the  analysis  as t h e d e p e n d e n t  effects  .005,  results  of Hypothesis  allowed  frequently  proportion  main  of complexity  opportunity  The  facial  mean  level  more  X  the  p  more  p<.0001.  these  expressions scored  judge  = 5.87,  10.07,  the  as h i d d e n .  interactions.  F ( 1,48) =  of  score  A l l three  significant  of  rated  (sex  configurations [Appendix  the  of  of  the  1  the  receiving  to rate  the  2 the judges  were  either  facial  being  expressions.  a judgment as t o whether  the  89.  encoder  was  encoders'  hiding  level  of  (instructional between  seconds  both  were  study  Table  11  discomfort.  studies.  They  in  Table  deviations  judge  type  of  Gracely  scale  (Appendix  judgment  simple judges  into  presents  for  each  condition  X  level  scores  for  2  each  Significant F(1,96) =  the  level  condition  =  123.20,  X  2 of  illustrates  judge  X  judgment  were  found.  female  judges.  1  also  and  three  =  rated  6.63,  =  within  study  As 2  of  judge with  dependent were  and of  X  type mean  measure.  found  and  to  sex  the  for  level  sex  of  significant  of  judge  X  F(1,96)  =  interaction. interaction  T).  the  Two  .001  and  study  2  effects  significantly male  significantly  was  significant  condition  p<  These  well,  by  2).  The  this  for  ratings  1 or  p_<.0001  12.41,  p<.025.  1.  the  judgment  configurations  study  (study  (Appendix The  common  complexity  condition  F(1,96)  was  of  also  condition  configurations  were  Gracely  complexity)  7  effects  mean  p<.0001.  significant  than  differed  configurations  17.36,  effect  2  study  effects  judge  study  in  the  conditions  durations  main  i n t e r a c t i o n was  i t s simple  judges  rate  judgments]  as  F(1,96)  male  then  judgment  level  significant  of  and  ANOVA.(sex  Figure of  effects was  facial  X  p<.005.  broken  seconds  2  F(1,96)  sex  segment  eight  12  was  condition  The  The  judgment  condition  complexity  the  required  a  S).  judgment  8.29,  of  analysis  judgment  Thus  not  and  five  the  standard  The  or  2.  lists  studies.  and  expression  context  the  different.  their  for  male  the  sex  judgment  reveal higher  judges higher  that in rated than  Table AU  Configurations  Common  AU  11 to Studies  1 and 2  Configurations  Level of Configuration Complexity 1  4  7  10  45  2  4+6  4+7  4+45  7+45  91 .  Table Mean  12  G r a c e l y R a t i n g s f o r e a c h L e v e l by Judge and Judgment Condition  Sex  of  Level 1  2  Judgment Condition Study  1  M  2 . 59  4. 41  SD  0. 69  1 . 34  M  5.52  7 . 89  SD  2 . 93  4. 36  M  3 . 07  5.. 8 5  SD  0 . 79  2 . 48  M  3 . 96  6.14  SD  1 . 33  3.40  Male Study  Sex  of  2  Judge Study  1  Female Study  2  Figure 7 I n t e r a c t i o n of Judgment C o n d i t i o n and Sex of Judge  11 10 9•  Mean Gracely Scaled Score  "  8  7  3 2 -  1 -  •  Study 1 Judgment  • Condition  i  Study 2  93.  Summary The the  results  position  that  dealing judges  face  c o n f i g u r a t i o n s as  hide  their  that  single  an  encoder  facial AUs  the  encoder  movement that  attempts  judges  to  hide  research  on  instructions subjects' 1983].  The  A-C  The  appear  to  be  ratings  of  an  Finally,  the  finding  with  condition condition, to  various  l e d them  of an  encoder's  differential  4  that  the  the  to  al.,  alter in  press;  than  judging  a by  of  facial  i s the  result  suggesting  of  imporant facial the  the  was  also  configurations  of  judges'  discomfort.  c o n d i t i o n had  ratings  male  of  males  rating  higher  under  the  the  the  ofjudgment  the  that  1  of  et a l . ,  affecting  expression  type  on  facial  factor  the that  ratings  hypothesis of  with  Prkachin  under  environmental  of  expression  their  higher  indicate  suggests  indicated  rating  may  that  consistent  females  but  to  indicative  amount  which  complexity  effect  imply  interest  were  replication  level  data  as  lower  attempt  c o n f i g u r a t i o n s as  relationship  et  the  expression  over  upon  support  judges.  the  partial  successful.  judges,  female  (Patrick  judged  may  than  the  their  This  more  hypothesis  pain  be  exploratory  perceived  judges  encoder's  an  control  for  to  of  dependent  Of  than  rather  hide  indicating  clearly  upper  to  AUs.  i s somewhat  Results  strong  two  3  Furthermore,  likely to  exhibited.  male  would  more  with as  the  indicators  trying  configuration  view  hypothesis  expression.  are  configurations  with  sex  of  manipulations.  judge  a  and  female  straight  rating  dual effect  judgment is  open  94.  GENERAL  The  aim  specific  facial  displayed  a  their  of  The  factors  judge's facial  were  consistent  overlapping  very  was  consistent  the l e v e l  to  be  of  encoder  two  studies  important  discomfort  of discomfort Only  when  related  in from  configuration  complexity.  robustness  of t h i s  overlapping to  and  the  interpretation or  contained This  effect.  relatively that  i n each  the  done By  small  comparing  related  must  in  levels  of  complex levels  replication  of the  2.  supports  the  the r e s u l t s of  the  of  evident,  non-overlapping  issue pattern  i t is  is  the  (i.e.  the absolute  judges'  overlapping  number  of  AUs  segment.  f i n d i n g h a s two attention  non-  increase  quite  configurations effect  facial  between  i n study  critical  secondarily  video  to increasing were  most  with  a steep  limited  of the c o n f i g u r a t i o n  n o t ) and  expressions  The  effect  of the  not d i s c r i m i n a t e  non-overlapping  configurations,  was  The  except  the configurations  of  complexity  of complexity  there  of discomfort  of  findings.  In a l l c a s e s ,  the ratings  that  the  of  expressions.  did  is  effects  ratings  from  seem  the  of a person's  configurations,  complexity.  apices  judges'  which  portrayed.  ratings  due  on  to study  findings  rating  two  factor  configuration  level  was  Complexity  There  the  configurations  several  determining  Level  research  discomfort.  revealed  viewing  of t h i s  DISCUSSION  be  important paid  implications.  to the pattern  to experiencing  pain.  The  of the  Patrick  first facial  et a l .  [in  95.  press)  used  frequency  most  of  their  data  the  correlation  co-occurrences factor  occurrence The  extensive  clearer  and  measure The  role  other 1985;  al.,  press)  in  facial  reported  significant  of  such  Patrick, in  the  also  analyses  the  of  the  As  Hyde, there  studying  patterns  research. +  9  Thus  (nose  even  related Sex  of  than  than  simply  prior S  with  Kleck,  similar  small  facial on  of  AUs  (Craig  1970;  of  be  AUs  studied  of  self-  have  been  additional  accounted may in  or  for  may  overlapping configuration  ( l i p t i g h t e n s ) may  the  configuration  has  of  by not  present of  indicate  configuration  et  differences  discomfort, may  S.  Patrick  an  latter  much  possible  seeing  the  co-  a  the  levels  subset  discomfort  non-overlapping  AU  focusing  research  configurations that  23  used  between  the  +  of  patients.  of  a  though  pain  a l l  wrinkle)  discomfort 45,  or  of  inter-individual  indicators  in self-reported  some  a  issue back  on  occurrence.  in  within  While  variance  contain  AU  for  (1985)  studies present  i s concerned  large  even  of  of  AUs  frequency  Hyde  the low  the  relationship  Lanzetta  were  important  on  pain  noted  1985;  behavior  as  of  and  AUs.  prior  complex  implication  discomfort.  identified  these  individual  included information  segments  data  frequency  AUs.  of  addressed  experience as  also  within  a n a l y z i n g her  second  of  but  AUs  and  picture  activity one  of  when  occurrence  analysis  of  analysis  of  AUs  4  more  AUs  4-10-  more  pain  AUs. Judge  The  sex  of  judge  effect  was  the  other  consistent  factor  96.  throughout female  both  judges'  different there  at  was  4  higher  i n study  inconsistent et  research  case  as  of  back  were  1 but is  judges' the  sex  that  the  prior which  of  configurations  effects  study  (Hyde  et  were  al.,  also  1985)  spontaneous  i n study  1976;  between  male  the  in  prior  to  i n the  i n which  Of  al.,  attributed  found  2.  are  between  used  facial  of  effects  difference  be  sex  configurations  (Kleck et  cannot  the  testing  the  judge  difference  studies  the  no  of  from  in  higher  of  and  However,  direction  facial  research  The  judge  patients'  sex  found  analyses.  reversal  them  male  significantly  results  rated  rated  be  the  the  in that  the  present  a  recently  judges'  ratings  expressions  of  pain  examined.  research  that  males  present  in  dramatic  ratings.  Stark-Adamec  sex  a  to  major  in  of  pain  found  judges  some  nature  completed  was  a l . , 1983)  and  selective  indicated  with  consistent  consistency  Female  note  female  for a l l  there  effect.  Prkachin  point  As  judge  special  were  little  hypothesis  I t was  ratings  some  difference.  and  studies.  on  sex  differences  and  differences found  i t i s unlikely  the  issue.  Rather  of  developmental  determinants general  and  shorthand  Hall developed  (1984) to  Kimball  in  that  (1984)  and  or the  use of  compared  account  sex  likely  factors  of  (1979)  studies  i t i s the  social  method  Hall  judgment  i t i s most  in their  a  sex  tapping  of one  the or  sex  pointed  more  of  a  number  is  a  factors.  have in  is  important  variable  that  of out  which  the  differences  of  review  underlying  s i x hypotheses  f o r the  her  judge  are  judge  these  in  clearly  which of  discussion  been  judgment  97.  accuracy. and  Of  the  accommodation  accommodation and  DePaulo  sex  of  judge  Rosenthal If  a  the  i n the  would  over  men  under  of  instructions their  was  actual  focused trying  on to  the  it  would  attended to  the  In  that  of  the  the  Rosenthal  As  the  stated  by  not  even  about  than  male  of  encoders'  what  no  pain]  when more  than  to  likely  on  the  trying viewing behind  were to the such  communicating clearly  have  been  state.  In  such  been  viewed  encoder  was  something  judges  the  2  may  have  female what  less  1 and  cues  the  hypothesis would  encoder  leaked  as  trying  about  accommodation  to  of  those  instructions  could  that  judges  was  their  F o l l o w i n g the  more  and  openly  i f i t did suggest  predicted  cues  assumption were  the  state  relatively  study  focus  the  activity  been  (i.e.  2  that  have  the  (p.69],  between  The  indicative  functioning  d i s c o m f o r t from  study  cues  show  sender  cues.  encoders'  In  about  nonverbal  1 the  encoders'  facial  encoder.  communicate  women t o  study  facial  any  communicate, of  The  e x p l a n a t i o n of  research.  much'  differences  possibility  and  too  intended  state.  circumstances  state  an  by  interpersonal  expressions.  hide  unintended  control  the  facial  smooth  expect  major  rate  encoders'  promising.  developed  offer  present  'know  than  instructions.  accurately  to  was  i n decoding  less  the  of  to  we  unintended  One  practice/attention  DePaulo:  participant  are  be  the  findings  other,  cues to  appears  the  seem  which  (1979],  disruptive  advantage  only  hypotheses  hypothesis,  and  i t is  for  to  s i x hypotheses  have  attempted that  were  98. contradictory  to  in  there  study  1  possible due  Flow  to  the  However,  the  oF  would  an  judge  in  2,  been  to  paid  to  the  perceived  had  to  ask  For  communicative  intent  The  oF  line  hypothesis effect  is  (1984)  open  to  painted  accommodation, between in  any  Type  male  and  possible  of  type  that  much  well  as  female  encoder  the  encoders'  would  and  the  better  state.  have  judge  had would  understand  the  by  reversal  the  oF  the  explanation.  mare  other  judges  work  sex  oF  However,  is  hypotheses before  accommodation  needed on  the  confidence  judge as  Hall  on  the  differences can  be  taken  explanation.  initially  positions  "facial  displaying  postulating  overlapping thus  not  been  rated  position  to  as  an  as  been  would The  an  the  effect  first  key  element that  additive  as  or  function  effect  of  there  rated  were  two  assumed  that  by  to  judges  as  defining  a  i t contained  AUs  with  configurations  expressions  little  configuration  position  been  was  perceived  overall  of  have  Non-overlapping  i n d i c a t i v e of  assumed up  The  expression  apices.  an  non-overlapping)  take.  discomfort.  have  add  vs.  expressions"  configuration  to  attention  offered  the  out  the  the  encoder.  consistent  (overlapping  possible  used  as  in  encoders' oF  Thus  Configuration  When  only  as  the  with  the  contradiction  reasoning  a  relation  c 1 a r i F i c a t i o n to  suggests  disruption  perception  disruptive  oF  communication.  no  assessing  accurate  might  have  been  interpersonal  state be  nonverbal  have  accurately  study have  attempted  no  and  pain.  which seeing  would  would The  have second  judges  would  several  AUs.  have The  99.  only  d i f f e r e n c e between  have  been  the  overlapping effect  or  being  rated  overlapping The  have with  higher  been the  at  level  the  Thus for  a  AUs  AUs  to  both  the  in  strong  an  level  types  configurations  due  would  of  possibly  added  effect  of  the  types  of  apices. actual  data does  unequivocally  only  a  non-overlapping  effect  plus  overlapping  the  AU  due  to  fact  overlapping  were  seeing  configurations  discriminate  that  configurations simply  and  also  very  weak  support  level  configurations.  configurations  single  examining  not  effect  for  was  from  There  effect  pattern. proposed  each  identical  seeing  overlapping  position.  of  with  between  non-overlapping  configurations  weak  segments  difference  would  configurations  two  a l l  complexity  However,  mean  levels  higher  than  the  suggests  that  there  more are  lead  of  AUs. much  to  It  this  of  mean  nonrating  was  some  i s apparent  that  easier  much  either  for  higher  judges  to  ratings  of  discomfort. While facial  of  particularly many  variations duration  possible in  and  configurations cues  for  Hidden  present  configuration  ratings, two  the  vs  research  that  was  an  important  for  more  complex  patterns  overlapping intensity needs  found  to  were  done  the to  Hidden  Facial  of  in  tested.  Besides research  AUs evaluate  Configurations  within their  the  judges'  configurations,  observers. Not  pattern  factor  configurations of  be  the  only other  on  the  various role  as  100.  It  was  perceived facial the  found  attempts  expressions  area  more  their that  idea  the  face.  was  in  to  be  lower  was  attempt across  was  face  on  Judges  configurations to  of upper  hide face  levels  of  their activity  by t h e e n c o d e r  both  their  based  activity.  attempting  rating  between  or not hide  the f a c i a l  The  are consistent  being cues  less  that  the d i s t i n c t i o n  The  reason  of f a c i a l  to  hide  complexity  and  lower  discriminations  configurations  from  i s no  and t h u s regarding  directly  solely  direct  notion  on t h e a r e a  support  research,  What  between  i s known  hidden  with  an  are a  of  i s that  i t  to separate  the  i s that  and  upper  of  support  the e f f e c t s of the d i f f e r e n t  face.  consistent  the  judges  cannot  i s based  i n the present area  to  research  there  with  controllable,  available  the present  the upper  make  to hide  discrimination  and  state,  not p o s s i b l e ,  effects  upper  results  movements  likely  the  containing  maintained  the  face  person's  This  i n d i c a t i n g an  was  discriminations  tested.  While  more  of pain.  i f the encoder  often  were  made  the encoders  of discomfort.  state  upper  judges  between  deciding  expression as  by  of the face  discriminated when  that  not  and  AUs  judges hidden  lower  face  1975)  described  four  control  their  d i s c r i m i nat i o n . Ekman methods  and which  behavior:  Friesen people  1)  (1969a; may  1969b; use  intensifying,  neutralizing,  and  masking  (i.e.  dissimulation)  (Ekman  S.  Friesen,  4)  masking.  1969b;  to 2) Prior  facial 1974;  facial  deintensifying,  3)  work  on  has  expressions Ekman  focused of  et a l . ,  emotional 1980)  and  101 .  painful  states  studied  the  effects  of  (Lanzetta  neutralizing telling  method  i n order to  when  the  encoders'  which  to  stimuli. looked  control  than  as  of  cues The  indicate  that  control on  of  the  the  the  state the  critical  facial  likely  work  best  that on  as  the  lower  of  issue  muscles. and  face  clearer  neutralize  their  that  judges  as  cues  on  of  thus  an  reactions  to  dissimulation face, 1984)  less  may  more  of  the  under  be  are which  voluntary  more  useful  encoder. and  neutralizing  i s the Thus  degree  might  muscles,  indicators  of  methods voluntary  i f research  deintensifying  results  used  (Rinn,  are  and the  decide  those  data  masking  intensifying  seem  movements  on  actions  neutralizing  their  areas  the  to  actions  and  actions  the  found  (neutralize)  finding,  face  face  actual  work  i t was  physiological  upper  lower  the  hide  to  a l . also  investigated  judges  attempted  face  2  used  the  distinguishing the  that  cues  above  Lanzetta et  Study  encoder  lower  This  at  with  indicated  had  than  attempt  the  what  outlined  upper  consistent  done  As  used  painful  study  a l . , 1976).  method.  judges  encoders  expressions. often  et  was  methods  to  i t  would  indicate  that  the  leaving  the  upper  of  the  be  methods  encoder's  face actual  state. Placing As  the  Present  discussed  B-C  relationship  is  used  nonverbal  to  Research  earlier  within  the  present  in Rosenthal's  study  behavior  the and  the  model.  relationship the  judge's  Judgment  research This  of  f o c u s e d on  type  between  rating  Mo d e 1  of  the  research  an  encoder's  the  encoder's  102.  state.  A  comparison  research study  listed  to  facial  of the present  i n Table  1 indicates  systematically  behaviors  judges'  of  that  manipulate  t o s e e how  ratings  research  the  this  known  various  with  the  i s the  and  first  verifiable  manipulations  encoders'  B-C  affected  displayed  painful  d i scom f o r t . A tentative experiments press)  and  results  most from  Patrick  present  hypothesis  associated  ta  The  simple  Patrick  would  not  relationship  with  the s p e c i f i c i t y  This  another  highlights  the  role  research  possible  inter-dependence  issues  the  related  of sophisticated an  judgments  utility  when  and f a c i a l  when  to  they  such  o f one t y p e  The be  time.  the  of A-B  LeResche,  research i t the  B-C  i n the present  of  Rosenthal's judgment such  expressions.  10,  overlap  of  1985;  demonstrated  for  should  investigate  systems,  6,  pain.  studying  Without  of  4,  the importance  Hyde,  to conducting coding  AUs  any segment  1985;  in press).  been  study.  clarifying  S Patrick,  et a l . ,  have  systems  The  support  equation  indicates  which  study.  of increased  within  also  coding  that  t o t h e AUs  a l . (in  equation  experimental  this  present  et  i n the f i r s t  judgments that  the  Patrick  suggested  occurrence  sophisticated  1982;  which  research  [Craig  used  weight  between  regression  1 provide  with  more  present  relationship  AUs  suggests  give  to their  research.  multiple  of the core  research  weighted  using  a  c a n be d r a w n  A-C  et a l . ' s equation  45 w e r e  than  prior  obtained  contained  and  connection  research  on  model  for  studies  and  a s FACS,  in  103.  Facial  Activity  Craig al.  and  have  expressions  found, AUs  using  were  use  research  to  involve rather  time  the than  and  more  practical a  technical  purposes of  Block in  coding  give  empirically  observe  devised  of  FACS  with  The  very  limits  its  trained et  would  observers) al.  systems  present  practical  of  is a  method  synthesizing  the  and  subset  FACS  practical  coding  FACS  self-reported  a l l but  Ganchrow  towards  health  related  such et  al.,  1984;  It  judges  can  subtly  different to  i s now make  relationship  the to  pain  from  &  (1978)  that  are  study  can  the  highly  limitations  the  levels ground  investigate these  'knowledge  behavior  as  Dworkin,  and  be  of  about  (e.g. the  an  facial  skill  to  important  1984;  present  discrimination  facial  the  discomfort  i s recognize  clear  a c c u r a t e l y observe  staff  nonverbal  LeResche  clear  different  researchers  care  to  behavior  1983).  to  more  et  measuring  small  using  which  coders.  demonstrated  expressions)  relate  move  Patrick  for  of  ( i . e . minimally  (1982)  a  types  applied settings.  first  method  that  effective,  A  and  s t u d i e s a l l used  procedure  judges  one  various  only.  Pain  (1985),  coders,  while  of  settings.  To  (Keefe  These  with  highly trained  Keefe  applied  pain.  consuming  use  and  as  of  However,  and  Hyde  a l l demonstrated  associated  costly  Measure  (1985),  highly trained  discomfort.  seen  a_ N o n v e r b a l  Patrick  ( i n press)  facial  as  Teske  studies  goal  et a l . ,  that  naive  amongst  an  array  of  configurations that  are  known  to  of  self-reported  work the  has  pain.  been  possibility  Given  this  established of  teaching  facial configurations.  for  judges  104.  The  reliability  data  when  judges  were  given  that  their  mean  ratings  results  would  suggest  to  used  as  be  measure  should  judge's  repeated  Limitations There  of  two  most  used  and  there  AU  of  number  of  placing  While been  Present  There  of  could  and  are  that  types  l i m i t a t i o n s were  AUs.  cases.  needed  or  was  then  the  over  one  the  the the  number  selection  expressions  (Ekman the  a  the  configurations also  various  tested. More  The  subtle  to  a l l the  the  large  combinations  encoders  encoders  was  also  would  configurations  used  a  number  of  1978a; empirical  between on  other  1979)  research  the  types  have they  AUs  ground.  of  a l t e r a t i o n s of  AUs.  This  pain-related  study  and  which  configurations.  difficult  present  emotions  Izard,  a  require  reproducible  described  study  configurations.  easily  Friesen,  were  pain-related  of  for  repeated of  of  study.  encoders  part,  test  of  four  facial  skilled  number  present  between  in  to  the  only  due,  Obtaining  comparative  be  These  activity  judges  l i m i t a t i o n s to  of  are  ratings  Studies  other  facial  that  reliable.  facial  several  made  no  validity a  making  discomfort  comparisons  lack  other  extreme  painful  were  require  leave  which  of  over  for  of  ones  described  would  measure  averaged  indicated  quite  judgment  increase  the  be  if  number  prototypic  supports  to  that  l i m i t a t i o n s on  generally  occassions  tended  configurations  To  possibly  numerous  studies  obvious  pain-related  problem.  and  a  these  both  ratings.  configurations  Both  of  be  the  are  The  a  for  configurations focused the  on  two  overlapping  105.  and  non-overlapping  understanding when  making  of  the  their  overlapping  configurations  differential  and  timing  need  more  fully  be  measured  there  ratings  or  factors  were  research Until  in  the  AUs in  facial  their is  themselves  The to  Finally, used.  For  nonverbal  the  when have  rating  designs  for  there  do  facial  demonstrated  of  of  health  the  acceptable measures  different  in  investigated  limitation  i t is  used  duration  studies  towards  the  the  issue  personnel  use  pain. possible  The to  in  the  of  the  could  be  and  so  did  not  of  type  lend  timing.  of  judges  development  important  of  were  expressions  measures  of  is as  and  analyzing  not  different  area.  aspects  present  an  onset  of  been  to  there  the  expressions that  of  facial  care  analysis.  unstudied  of  an  Both present  measures  moving  pain  an  be  judges'  the  data  role  i s the  purpose  in  the  i n v e s t i g a t i n g the  can  on  configurations  five  have  factors  s e 1 f rr r epo r t .  timing  such  of  which  explaining  measure  configurations  were  for  both  further  was  of  configurations  purposes  the  non-  issues  impacts  remain  use  types  the  used  and  intensity increases  coding  to  measures  in  their  in  coding  apices  how  there  These  unknown.  for  two  configurations  utility  of  their  the  research  derived.  included  fuller  overlapping  subjects'  intensity will  and  For  on  a  judges  facial  reliability  not  deciding  data.  present  for  reliability  of  problems the  level  to  and  to  which  Although  research  reliability  acceptable  offset  measured were  AUs  explored.  no  of  lead  Furthermore,  the  relation  but  the  While  is  of  elements  rating  configurations.  intensity to  important  could  what  of  a AU  indicators  present  studies  systematically  .106.  investigate  pain-related  how  health  care  the  strong  but  effect  of  of  judges  personnel  the or  but  rate  inconsistent  judgment  generalize  AUs  judgment  not  such  sex  conditions  present  did  AU  of  a  the  issue  configurations.  judge  i t would  r e s u l t s to  address  very  effects  not  With  and  appear  of  the  safe  different  to  population  conditions.  Conclusion To  conclude  present  three  research  manipulation variety  of  nonverbal  of  facial  facial upon  movements  which  level  of  are  condition  encoders'  portrayed  upper  expression  face  configurations  first  to  movements the  as  direct  further  attempts  the  due  the  of  develop  totally  the  facial  configuration,  and  of  ratings judges  attempt  present  study  hide  an  of  to  prove  measures  af  the  hide  their  being  pain-related  needed  the to  to  to  of  tended  some  the  better  is  of  the  to  studies  value  a  that  encoders  these  study  established  the  be  to  of  believed  of  direct  area  judges'  an  the  particular  Furthermore,  manipulation  of  a  by  will  used  identifies  type  judges  that  research  studies  indicators  research  results to  for  complexity,  be  First,  communicative  which  two  attempts  Finally,  encouraging  ongoing  research  the  were  use  the  can  Such  discomfort.  when  expressions.  regarding  a l l affected  AUs  summarized.  demonstrating  important  configuration  be  configurations  Second,  judgment  use  in  movements.  prior  investigation.  will  succeeded  hypotheses  dependent  points  assess useful human  the facial  whether in pain.  the  107.  REFERENCES  Anderson,  J . E.  Baltimore: Archer, Verbal of  •.,  (1983).  Williams a a Akert,  and  R.  and  as  Personality  and  Bandura, N.J.: Bandura,  A.  (1977).  cues  Social  Words  in social  Social  a source  (1977).  (8th ed.).  R.,  of pain  35,  a Bern,  else:  Journal  443-449. 0.  (1986).  Self-  p e r c e p t i o n . J o u r n a l of  Psychology,  Social  everything  interpretation.  Psychology, C.  and  learning  j3 ,  205^209.  theory.  Englewood  Cliffs,  Prentice-Hall. A.,  a  Rosenthal,  conditioning Personality Beecher,  M.  J . J r . , Mararas,  observation  a t l as o f anatomy  Wilkins.  R.  nonverbal  Personality  Bandler,  Grant's  H.  as a and  T.  function  Social  K.  (1959).  Quantitative  effects  L.  (1966).  of arousal  Psychology, Measurement  of drugs.  Vicarious level.  classical  Journal  of  3_, 5 4 - 6 2 . of s u b j e c t i v e  New  York:  responses:  Oxford  University  Press. Birdwhistel1, of  R.  Louisville  Blanchard,  E.  B.  physiological assessment Guildford Block, spouse  A.  (1952).  to kinesics.  University  Press. (1981).  B e h a v i o r a l assessment  disorders.  of adult  In D.  disorders  H.  Barlow  (pp.  of  (Ed.),  239-270).  psycho-  Behavioral New  York:  Press. R.  (1981).  to chronic  415-422.  Introduction  An  pain  investigation behavior.  of the response  Psychosomatic  of the  Medicine,  43,  108.  Block, to  A.  R.,  chronic  Science Bonica, of  S  the  pain:  and  J.  Boyer,  S.  (1983).  past  and  therapy:  Proceedings  Boucher, pain. Brena, S.  J.  (1969).  (1978).  Brena  1-10).  Simon  D.  New  E.  (1979).  future.  Advances  In  Social  York:  Raven  Press.  displays Skills,  of  28,  staggering cost pain:  Achievements  J.  in pain  world  Chronic  York:  the  therapy:  third  Motor  (Ed.),  adjustment  factors.  the  Facial  The  spouse's  emotional  r e s e a r c h and  of  New  The  1313-1317.  (Eds.],  1-36).  •.  F.  F.  Bresler,  J.  Bonica,  research  congress  fear,  U.  and  on  pain:  sadness,  and  239-242. of  chronic  America's  pain.  hidden  In  epidemic  Atheneum. Free  yourself  from  pain.  New  York:  S. S c h u s t e r .  Cacioppo, (1983)  J . T., Social  experimental In  Iggo  P e r c e p t u a l and S.  (pp.  pp.  and  challenges of  &  5,  19,  Pain  Lindblom,  (Vol.  A.  (1984).  Cognitive  Medicine,  J.  L.  J . T.  Mar s h a 11-Goo de 11 , B. psychophysiology:  control,  Cacioppo,  physiology:  and  S. R.  S. G o r m e z a n o ,  Bioelectrica1  Petty  (pp.  (Eds.),  666-690).  acquistian.  Social New  I.  measurement,  a n a 1 a g-1 o r d i g i t a 1 d a t a  E.  A sourcebook  S.,  psycho-  York:  Guilford  P r e s s. Chambers, effect  W.  G.,  S. P r i c e ,  of  analgesic  C.  R.,  G.  (1967).  I n f l u e n c e of  administered. Nursing  nurse  Research,  upon  16,  228-  233 . Chapman, R.  H.,  &  overview.  Casey,  Reading, Pa i n,  A.  2 2,  K.  L.,  E.  (1985).  1-31.  Dubner, Pain  Foley,  K.  M.,  measurement:  Gracely, An  109.  Chapman, and  W.  P. , a  visceral  Clinical Chudler, by  E.  V.  H.,  validity  Craig, R.  Craig,  K.  D.  expression Terenius Verlag  a  and  normal  (1983).  Holmes,  cutaneous  subjects.  The  Journal  assessment  16,  E.  nonverbal  of  (1972).  cues  of  pain  221-244.  in  Assessing  the  accurately  Studies,  3,  Social  modeling  influences  The  in  81-91.  judging  383-394.  psychology  of  on  pain  pain.  (pp.  In  73-109).  Press.  (1980).  Ontogenetic  of  in  pain  Chemie  Pain  man.  In  and  and H.  cultural  W.  Society  influences  Kosterlitz, (pp.  39^52).  a  L.  on  the  Y.  Weinheim:  Gmbh.  D.  (1984).  Emotional  a  R.  Melzack  (Eds.),  K.  in  Variations  Group  (Ed.),  (Eds.),  Edinburgh:  aspects  Textbook  of of  pain. Pain  In  (pp.  P.  •.  153-161).  Churchill/Livingstone.  D.,  a  Patrick,  induced-pain.  Journal  C. of  J.  (1985).  Personality  Facial and  expression  Social  during  Psychology,  1080-1091.  Craig,  K.  public C.  K.  K.  Wall,  48,  23,  W.  , J.,  (1978).  Raven  (1944).  p o t e n t i a l s . Pain,  verbal  Sternbach  York  Craig,  Atzel  of  Q.  New  Craig,  Dong,  Comparative  K.  A.  a  M.  sensitivity  evoked  B.,  others.  pain  C.  Investigations,  cerebral  Cline,  Jones,  •.  72). Craig, pain.  •., and  a  Prkachin,  private  Spielberger New K. In  York: •. R.  a  K.  M.  components (Eds.),  (1980). of  Stress  Social  pain. and  In  influences  I.  anxiety  G.  on  Sarason,  (Vol.  7  pp.  and 57-  Hemisphere.  Prkachin, Melzack  K.  (Ed.),  M.  (1983).  Pain  Nonverbal  measurement  and  measures  of  assessment  110.  (pp.  173-179).  Darwin,  C.  animals. Diamond, Frew  New  York:  Raven  Press.  (1872).  The e x p r e s s i o n  London:  John  C.  (1979).  (Eds.),  of the emotions  i n man  and  Murray.  Anatomy  The f a c i a l  and p h y s i o l o g y .  nerve  I n C. D i a m o n d ,  (pp. 1-36).  Oxford  S. I .  University  Press. Dimatteo,  R.  Sensitivity  R.,  Friedman,  to bodily  practitioner-patient 4_,  K.  (1927).  Ekman,  P.  source  2,  rapport.  & Taranta,  A.  (1979).  communication  Journal  as a f a c t o r i n  of Nonverbal  Behavior,  P.  Nebraska P.  Universals  (Vol.  muscles  Psychology  nonverbal  behavior:  A  interpersonal relationship.  (Eds.),  New  York:  Affect,  c o g n i t i o n , and  Springer.  and c u l t u r a l  In J . C o l e  In  differences in  (Ed.),  19, p p . 2 0 7 - 2 8 1 ) .  Nebraska  Lincon:  facial  symposium  University of  Press. (1978).  Facial I n T.  (pp. 124-156). P.  and smooth  Genetic  through  an  a C. E . I z a r d  of emotion.  possibilities.  Ekman,  about  (pp. 390-442).  motivation  sense  Communication  (1972).  expressions  Ekman,  of the emotions.  of information  S. T o m k i n s ,  Ekman,  of eye-muscles  199-233.  (1965).  personality  on  nonverbal  The r o l e  the expression  Monographs,  S.  S.,  18-26.  Dunlap, in  H.  (1982a).  Scherer,  & P.  behavior  research  signs:  A. S e b o e o k  Handbook  (pp. 45-90).  Sight,  Indiana  of measuring  (Eds.),  f a n t a s i e s , and  (Ed.),  Bloomington:  Methods  Ekman  Facts,  sound,  University  facial  action.  o f methods  Cambridge  and  in  University  Press. I n K.  R.  nonverbal Press.  in.  Ekman,  P.  (Ed.).  Cambridge Ekman,  P.,  (1982b).  University W.  V.  psychotherapy  research.  psychotherapy  (Vol.  Ekman,  P.,  & Friesen,  V.  W.  behavior: 1,  W.  & Friesen,  J.: Prentice-Hall.  Palo Ekman, the  P.,  P.,  a Friesen, Action  from  V.  W.  V.  in  and  coding.  System.  leakage  and  the face:  A  Action  Coding  of f a c i a l  action.  Alto,  guide  Ca.:  P.,  to  Consulting  W.  V.,  S. E l l s w o r t h ,  W.  accurate face  I n P.  V.,  Ekman  P.  (Ed.),  Cambridge  S. E l l s w o r t h ,  information.  P.  I n P.  (2nd e d . pp. 5 6 - 9 7 ) .  ( 1982a). Emotion  i n the  University ( 1982b). Ekman  Press.  Does t h e  (Ed.),  Cambridge  Friesen,  W.  V.,  0'Sullivan,  M.,  Emotion  University  Press. Ekman,  System  Press.  Investigators  Palo  guide  Press.  Friesen,  t h e human  Facial  (1978b).  (2nd e d . pp. 7-21).  provide  C :  Eng1ewood-C1iffs,  cues.  Psychologists  human  face  Unmasking  (1978a).  ambiguities.  P.,  •.  88-106.  facial  Conceptual  Ekman,  usage  Nonverbal  f o r t h e measurement  Coding  & Friesen,  face  Research i n  Washington,  32,  (1975).  Ca.: C o n s u l t i n g  Psychologist Ekman,  W.  A technique  Facial  ed.).  The r e p e r t o i r e o f  ( 1969b).  V.  emotions  & Friesen  Alto,  V.  W.  N.  (FACS):  (2nd  behavior i n  (Ed.),  origins,  Psychiatry,  recoginzing  P.,  face  49-98.  to  Ekman,  (1969a).  Categories,  to deception. P.,  In J . S h l i e n  3 pp. 1 7 9 - 2 1 6 ) .  P. , S. F r i e s e n ,  Ekman,  Nonverbal  Association.  Semiotica,  clues  (1968).  Psychological  nonverbal  Ekman,  i n t h e human  Press.  & Friesen,  American  Emotion  a Scherer,  K.  112.  (1980).  Relative  judgments and  of  Social  Ekman,  P.,  and  voice  importance  personality  Psychology,  Friesen, pitch  W.  in  of  and  38,  V.,  face,  body,  affect.  and  Journal  speech  of  in  Personality  270-277.  S. S c h e r e r ,  deceptive  K.  ( 1976).  interaction.  Body  movement  Semiotica,  16,  23-  27. Ekman,  P.,  Affect  Friesen,  Scoring  W.  V.,  S  Technique  Tomkins,  (FAST):  A  S.  S.  first  (1971)  Facial  validity  study.  S e m i o t i c a , 3_, 3 7 - 5 8 . Ekman,  P.,  Levenson,  R.  W.,  nervous  system  activity  Science,  221,  1208-1210.  Ekman, In  P.,  P.  a  Ekman  147-173). Fordyce,  Ganchrow,  47,  in  (Ed.),  E.  J.  R., A  Review  in  the  University  V.  Steiner,  of  human  Autonomic  emotions.  research: face  methods  1970-1980.  (2nd  ed.  pp.  for  chronic  pain  S. E d e l s t e i n ,  and  Mosby. E.,  Kleiner,  M.,  multidisciplinary  approach  to  psychotic  (1983).  Press.  Behavioral C.  V.  J.  depression.  Perceptual  the  and  E.  expression  Motor  of  Skills,  379-390.  Gracely,  R.  H.  assessment. assessment Gracely, of  Emotion  Louis:  W.  d i s t i n g u i s h e s among  (1982).  (1976).  St.  (1978).  pain  H.  Cambridge  W.  illness.  L.  Oster,  S. F r i e s e n ,  R.  sensory  (1983). In  (pp. H.  R.  language  Melzack  71-77).  McGrath,  and  Pain  New  P.,  affective  (Ed.),  Pain  York: &  and  pain  pain  measurement  Raven  Dubner,  verbal  ideal  R.  and  Press. (1978).  Ratio  scales  d e s c r i p t o r s . Pain,  5,  113.  /  Gracely,  R.  H.,  analgesia:  McGrath,  of  G.  (1966). in a  Social  Psychology,  J.  A.  laboratory  (1979).  communication nonverbal  J.  A.  accuracy Hopkins  (1979).  tooth  pulp  but  Narcotic  not  the  sensations. Science,  (1984). and  the  In  posed  face  General  G.,  G.,  Sweden: A.  Measures  the  R.  The  31, A.  Rollman,  C.  pain  H.  E., of  Rosenthal  sex  role for  and  and  nonverbal  (Ed.),  Skill  differences &  in  (pp.  32-67).  Hain. Communication  B a l t i m o r e , ML.:  The  John  the  judging  upper facial  camera"  and  lower  parts  e x p r e s s i o n s : II  pictures.  J o u r n a l of  23-36. N.,  G.  of  S  New B.  Mararazzo, York:  (1983). Pain,  Man's  face  J.  D.  (1978).  Wiley. The 17,  and  validity  of  369-376. mimic  language.  Lund,  Litterateur.  House,  B.  J., a  interobserver  distribution  Personality  differences:  "candid  measures.  (1969).  Student  roles,  Individual  basis  Wiens,  experimental  expressions  Press.  communication. a  J o u r n a l of  gender  Nonverbal  (1944).  as  facial  O e l g e s c h l a g e r , Gunn  Psychology,  R.  Hjortsjo,  In  e x p r e s s i o n s and  Nonverbal Harris,  Gender,  expressive style.  G.  human  10 8 - 1 1 1 .  skills.  Mass.:  N.  of  Harper,  _4_,  University  Hanawalt,  and  R.  intensity  setting.  communication:  Cambridge,  House,  the  R e c o g n i t i o n of  judged  Hall,  painful  Dubner,  1261-1263.  Gubar,  Hall,  a  Fentanyl reduces  Unpleasantness 203,  P.,  effects.  Campbell,  M.  B.  (1981).  agreement:  Calculation,  J o u r n a l of  Behavioral  formulas Assessment,  1 14.  3,  37-57.  Hyde,  S.  acute  (1985). pain  doctoral  in a  S.,  K.M.,  Craig,  Subcommittee definitions  K.  Dreger  E.  on  Swalm,  D.  C.  pain of  with  population. Unpublished British  on  The  in  (1971).  E.  (1979).  Q.  Columbia,  Prkachin, in  nonverbal  preparation. f o r the  (1979).  usage.  of  S.,  differences  Pain  Pain, and  modern  Study  terms:  6,  R.  of A  Pain:  list  of  249-252.  emotion  r e s e a r c h . In  Handbook  E.  Sex  emotions  culture  Chicago:  Lee,  Association  notes  and  •.,  (1985).  Taxonomy).  (1969).  (Eds.),  496-510).  back  University  Manuscript  and  personality  Izard,  B.,  (International  C.  low  associated  Canada.  judgment.  I.A.S.P.  Izard,  chronic  Gerhard,  S  pain  expressive behavior  dissertation.  Vancouver, Hyde,  Facial  B.  constructs Cattell,  personality  &  in R.  theory  M.  (pp.  Aldine. The  face  of  emotion.  New  York:  Appleton-  Crofts. Izard,  C.  movement  coding  Delaware, Jacox, H.  A.  K.  Jacox  M.  &  Cross  S. New  York:  (1977).  (pp.  Slovic,  A  (Eds.),  facial  Del.: University  of  Center. of  pain.  In  W.  P a i n : Meaning  L.  and  Smith, management  Spectrum.  source  139-166). P.,  Newark,  assessment  Assessment  Pain:  professionals D.,  C.  discriminative  Resources  The  (Ed.),  Kahneman,  (MAX).  (1980).  75-88).  Johnson,  system  maximally  Instructional  Mersky,  (pp.  The  of book  clinical  pain.  f o r nurses  Boston:  S. T v e r s k y ,  A.  Little  In  and  K.  other  Brown  (1982).  A.  &  health  Co.  Judgment  115.  under  uncertainty: Heuristics  University Kazdin, New  A.  Keefe,  F.  (1980).  Harper  J.,  a  observation back  pain  Keefe,  F.  face  of  methodology.  Kleck, K.  In  The  being  C.  observed  responses Social  to  Z.,  on  H.  S.  expressions.  a  Development  Cook, in  behavior  (1918).  A.  an  in chronic  low  363-375. (1984). pain  Direct  patients during  59-68.  on  Scherer,  13,  back  o r g a n i z a t i o n of  a  behavior  the P.  in  face-to-  development  Ekman  research  (Eds.),  of  a  Handbook  (pp.440-505).  Press. R. S  C.,  Cartwright-Smith,  Lanzetta,  J.  T.  J.,  (1976).  subjective,  stimuli.  13,  Journal  psychology.  of  behavior  W.  low  20,  expressive  painful  Psychology,  Langfeld,  Pain,  R.  Vaughan,  B. , C o l b y ,  H.,  Observations  K.  in c l i n i c a l  Therapy,  behavior  University  E.,  (1982).  Behavior  i n nonverbal  R.  design  for assessing pain  pain  (1982).  Cambridge  R.  W i l k i n s , R.  interaction:  methods  A.  examination.  A.  Cambridge  Row.  Block,  patients.  observation  Kendon,  Research  and  method  J.,  physical  biases.  Press.  E.  York:  and  Journal of  and  Vaughan,  Effects  of  physiological  Personality  and  172-184. The  of  judgment  of  emotions  Abnormal  and  Social  Cartwright-Smith,  J.,  a  from  facial  Psychology,  13,  172-184. Lanzetta,  J.  T.,  Effects  of  nonverbal  and  autonomic  Psychology,  dissimulation  arousal. Journal  33,  35 4 - 3 7 0 .  of  on  Kleck,  R.  emotional  Personality  E.  (1976).  experience  and  Social  of  116.  Lanzetta, of  J.  T.,  nonverbal  Social  S. K l e c k ,  affect  Psychology,  LaRusso,  L.  (1978).  nonverbal LeResche, candid  cues.  L.  in  S  accompanying  ( 1970).  Journal  of  Facial  Journal  of  of  paranoid  Abnormal  and  decoding  Personality  S.  of  F.  Social  of  pain:  Nonverbal  (1984).  Science  patients  Psychology,  expression  Journal  Dworkin, pain.  Encoding  and  12-19.  Sensitivity  (1982).  L.,  E.  humans.  16,  photographs.  LeResche,  R.  87, A  463-471.  study  Behavior,  Facial  and  to  of  7,  46-56.  expression  Medicine,  19,  1325-  1330. Leventhal,  H.,  physical  a  Everhart,  illness.  personality  and  In  C.  •. E.  (1979). Izard  psychotherapy  Emotion,  (Ed.),  (pp.  pain,  E m o t i ons  263-299).  and  in  New  York:  Plenum  Press. Leventhal,  H.,  indicators (Eds.), (pp.  J.  •.  C.  illness  E.  distress.  (1965). In  cognition New  York:  (1980).  Low  S. and  Facial  S.  disease:  a  C.  E.  as  Izard  personality: Empirical  Studies  Springer. back  Vol.  expressions  Tomkins,  pain.  publications: Association  mental  Raven  Sharp,  Affect,  Research  Main,  of  296-318).  Loeser,  and  a  58.  Pain  In for  J.  J.  Bonica  (Ed.),  research  in  nervous  (pp.363-377).  New  York:  Press. L.,  a  Waddell,  behavior.  In  6. C.  (1982). J.  Main  Chronic (Ed.),  pain,  distress  Clinical  psychology  ——  and  general  New  York:  Melzack,  R.  properties  medicine:  A  behavioral  i  perspecitve  (pp.  1-62).  Plenum. (1975). and  The  scoring  McGill  Pain  methods.  Questionnnaire:  Pain,  1_,  and  277-299.  Major  117.  Melzack,  R.  Melzack York:  (Ed.),  Raven  Melzack,  R.,  theory. Melzack, York:  (1983).  Science,  N.  L.  situation Journal  facial the  I n R.  and a s s e s s m e n t  ( p p . 1 - 5 ) . New  D.  Weisz,  6.  Pain  (1982).  M.,  of chronic  and f a m i l y (1940). upon  M.  (1965).  Mechanisms:  A new  971-979.  R.  The c h a l l e n g e  pain  G.  M.  to depression,  dynamics.  judgment  (1982).  face  a Waring,  The e f f e c t  expressions  human  D.  150,  o f Abnormal  0'Sullivan,  measurement.  of pain.  New  Books.  N.,  adjustment  measurement  P.  & Wall,  Penguin S.  of pain  Press.  relationship  Munn,  Pain  & Wall,  R.,  Mohamed,  Concepts  Pain,  5,  (1978). marital  282-292.  o f t h e knowledge  of emotion  from  of the  facial  expressions.  and S o c i a l  Psychology,  35,  Measuring  the a b i l i t y  to  I n P. Ekman  (Ed.),  of emotion.  (2nd e d . pp. 2 8 1 - 3 1 7 ) .  The  324-338. recognize  Cambridge  Emotion  in  University  Pre s s . Patrick,  C.  Observer Journal Paulley,  J . W.,  •., a P r k a c h i n ,  of acute  and S o c i a l  a Haskell,  without  pain:  drugs.  0.  Facial  M.  ( i n press).  action  determinants.  Psychology.  J . (1975).  Journal  K.  Treatment  of Psychosomatic  of Research,  367-374.  Polunin,  I. (1977).  disease of  judgments  K.  of Personality  migraine 19,  J . , Craig,  (Monograph).  t h e body  Prieto,  The b o d y  a s an i n d i c a t o r o f h e a l t h  In J . B l a c k i n g  (pp. 85-98).  E. J . , a G e i s i n g e r ,  New  York:  K. F.  (Ed.), Academic  (1983).  The  and  anthropology  Press.  Factor  analytic  118.  studies  of the McGill  (Ed.],  Pain  measurement  Raven  Press.  Prkachin,  K,  M.,  expression 21,  K.  Judging  K.  •.  Sensory  M. , C u r r i e ,  nonverbal  Behavioral Redican, facial  Rinn,  and a s s e s s m e n t  S Craig,  of pain:  Questionnaire.  (1985).  decision  I n R.  Melzack  (pp. 63-70).  Influencing theory  New  York:  nonverbal  analysis.  Pain,  399-409.  Prkachin,  (2nd  Pain  W.  A.,  expressions  Science, K.  N.  15,  (1982).  (1984).  expressions: mechanisms Bui l a t i n , Rosenthal, studies  Psychology, Rosenthal,  employ 29,  R.  (1982).  £ P.  behavior  research R.,  ( 1983). Journal  perspective Emotion  face  Press.  facial  facial  expressions.  Psychological  Estimating judges'  effective  reliabilities  ratings. Journal  of  in  Clinical  Ekman  Conducting (Eds.),  judgment  Handbook  (pp. 287-361). B.  M.  studies.  o f methods  Cambridge  ( 1979).  I n K. in  communication.  I n R.  (Ed.),  i n nonverbal  communication:  Individual  Cambridge  Press.  Sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n  i n nonverbal  (pp. 68-103).  R,  nonverbal  University  accomodation  differences  human  i n t h e human  University of  on  o f t h e n e u r o l o g i c a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l  S. D e P a u l o ,  Skill  of  342-345.  Scherer,  Rosenthal,  •.  52-77.  (1973).  that  (Ed.),  Cambridge  f o r producing  R.  Canadian  The n e u r o p s y c h o l o g y  A review  95,  of pain.  An e v o l u t i o n a r y  e d . pp. 2 1 2 - 2 8 0 ) . R.  K.  408-420.  d i s p l a y s . I n P. Ekman  W.  S Craig,  Mass:  Rosenthal  Qe1geschager,  Gunn  S. H a i n . Scherer,  K.  R.,  & Ekman,  P.  (1982).  Methodological  issues i n  1 19.  studying (Eds.), Cpp.  nonverbal Handbook  1^44).  Schwartz, muscle  G.  o f methods  Cambridge  Schwartz, Klerman, imagery  S.  and s u b j e c t i v e  E., F a i r ,  G.  L.  P.  [1976).  i n depressed  Scherer,  i n nonverbal  behavior  G.  L.  Ekman  research  [ 1980).  experience  during  Psychophysiology,  L., S a l t , Facial  S P.  Press.  L . , S. A h e r n ,  Sex d i f f e r e n c e s . G.  I n K. R.  University  E . , Brown,  patterning  imagery:  behavior.  P.,  muscle  17,  Mandel,  and n o n d e p r e s s e d  subjects.  affective  75-82.  M.  patterning  Facial  R., to  a  affective  Science,  19H,  489-491. Stark-Ademec, sexism:  Jacox  Canadian  M.  L.  (Ed.),  Pain:  R.  Aronson  Teske,  (Eds.),  K.,  reports Tomkins, Emotion  Daut,  S.  C.  S.  R.  behavioral  f o r nurses  Boston:  Little  (1982).  16,  I n A.  and o t h e r Brown  health  a Co.  Lindsey,  psychology  K.  a E.  ( V o l . 3, p p .  (1983).  o b s e r v a t i o n s and p a t i e n t s '  self-?  289-296.  Affect face  pain.  Addison-Wesley.  nurses'  Pain,  of  23-34.  L . , a C l e e l a n d , C. S.  between  free  of nonsexist  of c l i n i c a l  of s o c i a l  Mass.:  i n t h e human  C ,  book  25,  p e r c e p t i o n . I n G.  Handbook  of pain.  University Turk,  Person  Reading,  Relationship  A source  Science  to the conduct  Measurement  (pp. 107-137).  (1969).  395r449).  guide  (1984).  Psychologist,  (1977).  professionals Taqiuri,  a K i m b a l l , M.  A psychologists  research. Stewart,  C ,  theory.  I n P. Ekman  (2nd ed. pp. 353—395).  (Ed.), Cambridge  Press. Meichenbaum, medicine:  •., a G e n e s t ,  A cognitive  M.  (1983).  behavioral  P a i n and  perspective.  New  120.  York:  Guilford  Tursky,  Press.  B. , J a m n e r ,  L.  Perception  Profile:  assessment  of  Vaughan,  K.  B.,  instigation autonomic Journal Von  19,  C.  1319-  design Wolff, Pain  B.  Behavior J.  T.  to  a  of  Johnson, nonverbal  observer  approach Therapy,  (1980). facial  model's  E.,  the 376-394.  expressive  of  Social  Pain  Vicarious and  d i s p l a y of 38,  McMillan,  expression  concern.  to  Psychology, a  The  13,  expressive  Social M.  ( 1 982).  M.  pain: Science  pain.  909-923.  J.  (1984).  Patient and  Medicine,  1324.  Builetin, B.  report.  c o n d i t i o n i n g of  L.,  R.  psychophysical  P e r s o n a l i t y and  and  Weisenberg,  Winer,  S. F r i e d m a n ,  Lanzetta,  and  Consequences distress  a  A  responses  of  Baeyer,  pain  •.,  M.  (1977).  84,  (1971).  (2nd  ed.).  B.  (1971).  Psychology,  78,  and  pain  control.  Psychological  1008-1044.  J.  endurance  Pain  as  Statistical New  York:  Factor a  in  experimental  McGraw-Hill.  a n a l y s i s of  specific  292-298.  principles  pain  human  factor.  pain  Journal  responses: of  Abnormal  121.  APPENDIX  A  Name:  Rating Form  No Discomfort  1  2  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Distracting  1  2  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Annoying  1  2  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Uncomfortable  1  2  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Unpleasant  1  2  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Irritating  1  2  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Upsetting  1  2  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Distressing  1  2  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Miserable  1  2  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Frightful  1  2  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Dreadful  1  2  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Horrible  1  2  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Agonizing  1  2  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Intolerable  1  2  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Unbearable  1  2  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Excruciating  1  2  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  i  No Discomfort  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  32  33  34  35  36  3  Distracting  21  22  23  2A  25  26  27  28  32  3  34  35  36  3  Annoying  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  32  3  34  35  36  3  Uncomfortable  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  32  3  34  35  36  3  Unpleasant  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  32  3  34  35  36  3  Irritating  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  32  3  34  35  36  3  Upsetting  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  32  3  34  35  36  3  Distressing  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  32  3  34  35  36  3  Miserable  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  32  3  34  35  36  3  Frightful  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  32  3  34  35  36  3  Dreadful  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  32  3  34  35  36  3  Horrible  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  32  3  34  35  36  3  Agonizing  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  32  3  34  35  36  3  Intolerable  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  32  3  34  35  36  3  Unbearable  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  32  3  34  35  36  3  Excruciating  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  32  33  34  35  36  3  K>  No Discomfort  38  39  AO  Al  A2  A3  AA  AS  A6  A7  A8  A9  50  51  52  53  5A  55  Distracting  38  39  AO  Al  A2  A3  AA  AS  A6  A7  A8  A9  50  51  52  53  5A  55  Annoying  38  39  AO  Al  A2  A3  AA  A5  A6  A7  A8  A9  50  51  52  53  5A  55  Uncomfortable  38  39  AO  Al  A2  A3  AA  AS  A6  A7  A8  A9  50  51  52  53  5A  55  Unpleasant  38  39  AO  Al  A2  A3  AA  AS  A6  A7  AS  A9  50  51  52  53  SA  55  Irritating  38  39  AO  Al  A2  A3  AA  AS  A6  A7  A8  A9  50  51  52  53  5A  55  Upsetting  38  39  AO  Al  A2  A3  AA  AS  A6  A7  A8  A9  SO  51  52  S3  SA  55  Distressing  38  39  AO .  Al  A2  A3  AA  AS  A6  A7  A8  A9  50  51  52  53  5A  55  Miserable  38  39  AO  Al  A2  A3  AA  AS  A6  A7  A8  A9  50  51  52  53  5A  55  Frightful  38  39  AO  Al  A2  A3  AA  AS  A6  A7  A8  A9  SO  51  52  53  5A  55  Dreadful  38  39  AO  Al  A2  A3  AA  AS  A6  A7  A8  A9  50  51  52  53  5A  55  Horrible  38  39  AO  Al  A2  A3  AA  AS  A6  A7  A8  A9  50  51  52  53  5A  55  Agonizing  38  39  AO  Al  A2  A3  AA  A5  A6  A7  A8  A9  50  51  52  53  5A  55  Intolerable  38  39  AO  Al  A2  A3  AA  AS  A6  A7  A8  A9  50  51  52  53  5A  55  Unbearable  38  39  AO  Al  A2  A3  A4  AS  A6  A7  A8  A9  50  51  52  53  5A  55  Excruciating  38  39  AO  Al  A2  A3  AA  AS  A6  A7  A8  A9  50  51  52  53  5A  55  No  Discomfort  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  Distracting  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  Annoying  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  Uncomfortable  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  Unpleasant  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  Irritating  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  Upsetting  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  Distressing  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  Miserable  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  Frightful  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  Dreadful  56  57  58  59  60  61 .  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  Horrible  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  Agonizing  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  Intolerable  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  Unbearable  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  Excruciating  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  <  No Discomfort  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  Distracting  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  Annoying  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  Uncomfortable  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85 .  86  87  88  89  90  91  Unpleasant  74 ' 7 5  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  Irritating  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  Upsetting  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  Distressing  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  Miserable  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  Frightful  74  75 -  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  Dreadful  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  Horrible  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  Agonizing  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  Intolerable  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  Unbearable  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  Excruciating  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  No Discomfort  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  Distracting  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  Annoying  92  93  94  95  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  Uncomfortable  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  Unpleasant  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  Irritating  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  Upsetting  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  Distressing  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  Miserable  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  Frightful  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  Dreadful  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  Horrible  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  • 92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  Intolerable.  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  Unbearable  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  Excruciating  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102 ,  103  104  105  106  107  108  Agonizing  :  96  97  98  99  No Discomfort  109  HO  111  112  113  114  118  119  120  121  122  123  124  Distracting  109  110  111  112  113  114  118  119  120  121  122  123  124  Annoying  109  110  111  112  113  114  118  119  120  121  122  123  124  Uncomfortable  109  110  111  112  113  114  118  119  120  121  122  123  124  Unpleasant  109  110  111  112  113  114  118  119  120  121  122  123  124  Irritating  109  110  111  112  113  114  118  119  120  121  122  123  124  Upsetting  109  110  111  112  113  114  118  119  120  121  122  123  124  Distressing  109  110  111  112  113  114  118  119  120  121  122  123  124  Miserable  109  110  111  112  113  114  118  119  120  121  122  123  124  Frightful  109  110  111  112  113  114  118  119  120  121  122  123  124  Dreadful  109  HQ  ' 111  112  113  114  118  119  120  121  122  123  124  118  119  120  121  122  123  124  Horrible  109  110  111  112  113  114 118  119  120  121  122  123  124  Agonizing  109  110  111  112  113  114 118  119  120  121  122  123  124  Intolerable  109  110  111  112  U3  114 118  119  120  121  122  123  124  Unbearable  109  110  111  112  113  114 118  119  120  121  122  123  124  Excruciating  109  110  111  112  113  114  i  00  No Discomfort  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  139  140  Distracting  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  139  140  Annoying  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  139  140  Uncomfortable  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  139  140  Unpleasant  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  139  140  Irritating  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  139  140  Upsetting  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  139  140  Distressing  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  139  140  Miserable  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  139  140  Frightful  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  139  140  Dreadful  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  139  140  Horrible  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  139  140  Agonizing  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  139  140  Intolerable  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  139  140  Unbearable  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  139  140  Excruciating  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  139  140  No Discomfort  IA1  142  143  144  145  146  147  148  Distracting  141  142  143  144  145  146  147  148  Annoying  141  142  143  144  145  146  147  148  Uncomfortable  141  . 142  143  144  145  146  147  148  Unpleasant  141  142  143  144  145  146  147  148  Irritating  141  142  143  144  145  146  147  148  Upsetting  141  142  143  144  145  146  147  148  Distressing  141  142  143  144  145  146  147  148  Miserable  141  142  143  144  145  146  147  148  Frightful  141  142  143  144  145  146  147  148  Dreadful  141  142  143  144  145  146  147  148  Horrible  141  142  143  . 144  145  146  147  148  Agonizing  141  142  143  144  145  146  147  148  Intolerable  141  142  143  144  145  146  147  148  Unbearable  141  142  143  144  145  146  147  148  Excruciating  141  142  143  144  145  146  147  148  o  131'.  APPENDIX  B  132.  Instructions In  our  expressions are  lab of  have  discomfort  presently  another  we  Study  been  from  interested  person's  for  in  discomfort  1  studying  receiving how  when  peoples'  painful  stimuli.  a c c u r a t e l y people viewing  that  facial We  can  rate  person's  facial  expressions. I  would  like  to  you  a  people  you  are  experiences  of  people  volunteers  were  different  the  give  kinds  of  facial  expressions.  which  they  strong  pressure  These  stimuli  all  cases,  subjects endure  acute They  a p p l i e d to varied  felt  were  the  went  asked  people  throughout  the  range  attempt  facial  not  that  the  no  were  finger  above  1/2  2  from  reported  be  been  expressions  to  as  peoples' tests  in  and  had  the  bone.  seconds.  levels  much  as  of  In  where  of the  they  could  Under  these  r e a c t i o n s , which  varied  marde t o  for  These  noticeable levels  d e s c r i p t o r s on  has  to  terminated. their  of  heat,  form  the  effects on  series  uncomfortable,  be  the  radiant  index  varied  a  to  watch.  stimulation  shock,  i t  of  to  looking at  through  their  background  about  noxious  s t i m u l a t i o n to  conditions,  of  study  in duration  stimuli  which  and  However,  a  received electric  the  sensation,  in  little  your  rating  present  a l l  reported  about  to  equal  form. numbers  levels  of  unpleasantness. The faces As  video  segments  during  the  sole  focus  the  segments  have  brief  been  of  you  are  p r e s e n t a t i o n of  this  study  specially  i s on  selected  see  the  show  peoples'  various  stimuli.  facial and  expressions a l l  carefully  editted  133. so  that  All  you  will  see  only  of  the  original  portions  head  movements  have  editting.  To  the  were  on  people the  eye  wall  which  you  about  what The  blank The  control  in  in  of  videotape  see  the  segments  segments  you  are  of  each  number  announced  on  the  listed  on  placing  your  As  you  your  descriptors  you  the  upcoming  correspond forms.  This  your  rating  the  left  shown  on  descriptors are  the  the  used use  severity thought  was  chose  a  the  these  the  to  a  descriptor  such  order  in  information  by  the  a  6  your  announced  by  second rating.  a  voice  The  numbers  segment  numbers  help  guide  you  in  list  of  places. there  of  each  in  no  moderate  is a  form This  who  discomfort".  experiencing  no  randomly  the  make  people  was  or  stimulation.  subject's  person  spots  little  any  descriptors  the  "no  that  forms  side  movements  have  unpleasantness. by  of  descriptor  person might  to  of  see  We  will  appropriate  levels  several  segment.  with  on  see  of  separated  be  or  one  so  are  will  can  i f you  use  you  the  You  example,  time  are  in  of  of  rate  ratings  same  stimuli.  of  rating  increasing  list  to  selection eye  will  the  or  to  disclose  gave  segment  tape  indicate  then  won't  subjects'  beginning  the  segments  the  which  you  by  body  due  segments.  rating  during  on  expressions.  revealed  either cues  Thus  video  facial  which  fixate  them.  the  the  that  possible  a l l  indicating  would  tapes  eliminated  for  these  segment  rating  subjects'  i n s t r u c t e d to  front  movements  scrambled  been  the  in  which is  the  received  the  making  your  distress.  For  discomfort  you  If  you  level  thought of  as " d i s t r e s s i n g " .  pain  134.  To the  make  a rating  appropriate  from  that  segment would  Do  8 the person number  you have  There long.  segment  descriptor.  circle  choose  any  number  that  F o r example, felt  d e s c r i p t o r and  i s on t h e same  from  was  circle  row  i f you d e c i d e d  the stimulus  "8" a c r o s s  across  that  "unpleasant"  t h e word  in you  "unpleasant".  questions?  a r e 148 s e g m e n t s  There  the best  are 5 i n i t i a l  to rate. practice  The  video  segments.  i s 26  minutes  135.  APPENOIX  C  136.  POST—EXPERIMENTAL  QUESTIONNAIRE Name  1.  How  accurate  viewing  do  their  you  think  facial  you  are  at  expressions?  judging  (circle  people one)  Not a t a l l accurate  Very accurate  1 2.  Have  2  you  people  3.  had  any  of  4 the  experiencing  5  6  7  following interactions  b.  i n t e r a c t i n g with anyone e x p e r i e n c i n g (more t h a n 6 months) p a i n .  c.  none i t easier  females  or  (check  one)  males  c.  no  above.  for  you  to  from  judge  the  observing  feelings  their  of  facial  chronic  either expressions?  difference  Remembering  that  the  expressions,  expressions rated  the  who have been term p a i n .  females  b.  facial  of  males  with  pain?  i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h many p e o p l e demonstrating acute or s h o r t  a.  4.  3  a.  Is  from  the  sole how  well  represented  subjects  Very representative  as  focus  the  of  did range  this  you of  study  feel  the  distress  was  on  facial you  experiencing. Not a t a l l representative  137.  5.  I f you r a t e d expressions what  lead  the representativeness as  5 o r more  you t o s e e them  would you as  of the please  facial indicate  unrepresentative.  138.  APPENDIX  •  139.  Debriefing As in  stated  how  people  related  to  In  three  related  to  rate  prior  different  of  studies facial  facial  you  viewed  were  the  significant  Thus  the  video  of  in  our  a  cold  pressor  motion  test.  the  context  more  your  on are  to  complex  higher  the  rating.  seeing  show  enables  There relates  of  is  interested  facial  the  visual  me  two  what have  expressions  facial  found  in  and  in  which  to  evaluate  The  posed  you  studies. which  used  facial  patients" a  movements  order  to  role  you  i t  was  control  expressions.  independent  we  eletric  studies  in  of  movements  pain  to  segments  prior  we  previous  the  pain  expressions  back  the  how  combinations  which  viewed  video  facial  expressions  small  consistently  person's  i n the  a l l the  a  i t i s unclear the  giving  the  posed  identify were  cues.  were  Although  of  This facial  ratings. hypotheses effect  on  your  complexity The  that  significant  in  your  to  a l l passible  saw  test,  you  able  However,  research  happened  to  expressions  you  previous  necessary  control  study  communicate  d u p l i c a t e the  actually  visual  pain.  movements  segments  found  saw  types  movements  other  facial  to  of  1  this  were  p o r t r a y a l s of  attempted  range  we  movements  independent  shock,  instructions  self^reported  these  judges,  the  Study  pain.  constellation  well  in  for  of  second  I am  does  investigating.  making  ratings. the  It  facial  the  focuses  portrayed  that  higher an  first  expressions  i s expected  expression  hypothesis  movements  the  The  the  the  will  be  effect  of  sequentiona11y  versus  140.  as  a single  with  a  expression.  single  segments  unified  i n which  Besides  in  preliminary  step  their  expression  same  attempting  expressions  for  the  It i s predicted  training  towards  health  patient's  expressions. Are  there  any  questions?  are  this  development  workers  from  be  to  seen  of  the  segments  higher  than  sequentially. role  research  more  observing  the  rated  i n v e s t i g a t e the  judgments the  care  pain  movements to  observer  will  that  of is  a possible  facial also  a  method  accurately  assess  patient's  facial  141 .  APPENDIX  E  142.  Gracely  Scale  Affective Descriptors and  Scaled  Descriptors  of  Pain  Scores  Scaled  Scores  a No  Discomfort  0.0  b Distracting  3.1  Annoying  3.5  Uncomfortable  3.S  Unpleasant  4.0  Irritating  4.7  Upsetting  6. 1  Distressing  7.7'  Mi s e r a b l e  11.7  Frightful  12.4  Dreadful  15.0  Horrible  17.S  Agonizing  25.1  Intolerable  26.7  Unbearable  26.8  Excruciating  38.7  a T h i s d e s c r i p t o r was added non-pain base p o i n t .  to  the  original  scale  to  provide  b F r o m G r a c e l y , R. H., M c G r a t h , P., S. D u b n e r , R. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . R a t i o s c a l e s o f s e n s o r y and a f f e c t i v e v e r b a l p a i n d e s c r i p t o r s . P a i n , 5, 5-18.  a  143.  APPENDIX  F  144.  Hypothesis  1 - 2 X 4 of  Source Sex  SS  ANOVA  sex  of  df  MS  1  194.03998  Error  1153.34708  48  24.02806  Le ve 1  741.02791  3  58.65509 468.68156  X Lev,  Error  x  level  complexity  194.03998  Sex  judge  F  P  8.08  0.0066  247.00930  75.89  0.0001  3  19.55170  6.01  0.0007  144  3.25473  145.  APPENDIX G  146.  Hypothesis  1 - Simple Level  Source  SS  Effects of  df  f o r Sex  o f Judge  and  Complexity  MS  F  Sex  a t L1  2.89042  1  2.89042  0.34  Sex  a t L2  24.77658  1  24.77658  2.93  Sex  a t L3  100.13106  1  100.13106  11.85  0.001  Sex  a t L4  124.89902  1  124.89902  14.78  0.001  1622.02864  192  8.44807  Lev-Male  195.58139  3  65.19380  20.03  0.001  Lev-Female  604.10161  3  201.36720  61.87  0.001  Error  468.68156  144  3.25473  Error  147.  APPENDIX  H  148.  Hypothesis Level  1 - Newman-Keuls of Complexity  Post  Hoc  f o r Each  Comparisons f o r  Sex o f  Judge  Males  X1  X2  X4  X3  2. 59  4.65  5. 93  6. 08  2.06  3.34  3.49  X1  .  *  X2  1 . 2 8 1 . 4 3  X4  0.15  Fern a 1 e s  X1  X2  X1  X2  X3  X4  3. 07  6.06  8.91  9. 09  2.99  5 . 84  6. 02  2. 85  3.04  0.18  X3  =  .001  **  =  .025  *  =  .05  149.  APPENDIX  I  150.  Hypothesis of  Source Sex  2 - 3 X 2 X 3  Configuration  SS  ANOVA X Level  df  Sex of  o f Judge  X  Type  Complexity  MS  F  p  7.65  0.008  36.85  0.0001  3.94  0.0227  170.29088  1  170.29088  Error  1067.81038  48  22.24605  Level  151.10846  2  75.554423  16.15179  2  8.07590  Error  196.84912  96  2.05051  Config  174.98137  1  174.98137  33.29  0.0001  Sex  30.67999  1  30.67999  5.84  0.0195  252.29390  48  5.25612  37.74372  2  18.87186  14.51  0.0001  6.82375  2  3.41188  2.62  124.82809  96  Sex  X Lev  X Conf  Error  Conf S  X Lev  X C X L  Error  1 . 30029  n.s.  151 .  APPENDIX  J  152.  Hypothesis  2 - Simple  Effects  Level  Source  SS  of  df  f o r Type  of Configuration  and  Complexity  MS  F  Conf  a t L2  9.01020  1  9.01020  3. 44  Canf  a t L3  68.80702  1  68.80702  2 6 . 27  0.001  Conf  a t L4  134.90822  1  134.90822  51.51  0.001  Error  377.12199  1 44  2.61890  Le v a t Overlap  169.73417  84.86709  50.65  0.001  19.11802  9.55901  5.71  0.025  Le v a t Non-over Error  321.67721  1 92  1.67540  n. s .  153.  APPENDIX  K  154.  Hypothesis  2 - Newman-KeuIs of  Complexity  Post  by T y p e  Non-Overlapping  hoc C o m p a r i s o n s of  Configuration  Configurations  X2  X3  X4  4.23  4.65  5.10  0.42  0.87  *  —  X2  X3  0.45  Overlapping  Configurations  X2  X3  X4  4.83  6.31  7.42  -  **  X2  1.48  2.54  _  X3  * **  1.11  = .025 - .001  f o r Level  155.  APPENDIX  L  156.  Hypothesis  2 - Simple Type  Source  SS  Sex a t Overlap  effects  of  df  f o r Sex o f J u d g e  and  Configuration  MS  F  p  172.76642  1  172.76642  12.56  0.001  28.20460  1  28.20460  2.05  n.s.  1320.10428  96  13.75109  Config f o r Males  29.55685  1  29.55685  5.62  0.025  Config f o r Females  176.10072  1  176.10072  33.50  0.001  Error  252.29390  48  5.25612  Sex a t Non-Overlap Error  157.  APPENDIX M  158.  Hypothesis  2 - Simple and  Source  Level  E f f e c t s f o r Sex of  of  Judge  Complexity  SS  df  MS  F  Sex  a t L2  24.37S91  1  24.37891  2. 78  Sex  a t L3  50.33S02  1  50.33902  5. 73  Sex  at  111.72490  1  111.72490  12. 72  0.001  1264.65984  144  8.78236  L4  Error  0. 025  Level f o r Males  35.12025  17.56013  8.56  0.005  Level f o r Females  132.13797  66.06899  32.22  0.001  Error  196.84912  96  2.05051  159.  APPENDIX  N  160.  Hypothesis  2 - Newman-Keuls  Level  Post  of Complexity  Male  by  hoc C o m p a r i s o n s f o r Sex o f  Judges  X2  X3  X4  4.03  4.77  5.21  0.74  1.18  r; X2  X3  *  0.44  Female  X2  Judges  X2  X3  X4  5.02  6.19  7.32 #  1.17  X3  *  Judge  *** 2.30 ** 1.13  =  ** ***  0.025 =  0.01 =  0.001  161.  APPENDIX  0  162.  Instructions In  our  expressions are  lab  have  of discomfort  presently  another  we  been  from  interested  person's  f o r Study  studying  receiving  i n how  discomfort  2  when  peoples'  painful  accurately viewing  stimuli.  people  that  facial  can  We rate  person's  facial  ex p r e s s i o n s . I  would  like  to give  experiences  of  people  volunteers  were  different  the people  kinds  of  facial  expressions.  which  they  strong  pressure  These  experiment people  varied  was  t h e same  control  their  much  discomfort  varied  from  it  they  of  this  second  to  felt.  study  Under  only  above  parts.  In t h e f i r s t  and r a t e d  part  of the  b u t were  i t s  study  instructed  as t h e y both  the  could  conditions,  throughout  rating  form.  However,  of  people  know  and how were not  felt  the  and asked  that  the people  varied  levels of  level  were  subjects  which  selected  part the  the s t i m u l i  endure  had  The  to t r y  which  in  t h e bone.  the  s o no o n e w o u l d  where  and  to 2 seconds.  In a l l c a s e s ,  levels  your  finger  of  peoples'  of tests  heat,  1/2  These  on  a series  levels of sensation,  t o be a s much  on  from  the  at the effects  radiant  index  expressions  noticeable  reactions,  descriptors  two  stimulation  be t e r m i n a t e d .  their  into  facial  uncomfortable, stimulation  to t h e i r  stimulation  the  received  shock,  to  watch.  stimulation  through  in duration  the  In  went  to  looking  noxious  electric  divided  received  discomfort.  acute  applied  background  you a r e about  i n a study  They  received  stimuli  you a l i t t l e  the  reported range  of  f o r the purposes  discomfort  will  be  163.  focused  on.  The  video  faces  during  As  sole  the  segments so All  the  you  been  control  in  front in  from  for  of  these  the  video  subjects  were  facial  expressions.  In  order  which  you  about  what The  blank The  of  a l l our  see  the  subjects  segments  you  are  during of  which each  indicating  the  number  announced  on  the  listed  on  placing  your  person  your  was  rating  rating  have  tape  two  trying  in  you  hide  body  or  selection  or  to  eye  one  of  several  see  random  movements spots  little  or  his  the or  no  disclose  any  the  to  be  This  first her  make  their  scrambled  the  order  in  information  by  announced  the  will  a  S  your  segment.  with  hide  stimulation.  separated  are  of  condition  randomly that  will  or  and  so  appropriate The  selection  control have  upcoming  forms. the  editted  due  will  a  are  correspond  tasks. to  by  on  a l l  expressions.  either  we  gave  rate  time  the  facial  segments  segment  of  expressions  carefully  condition  won't  the  beginning  You  videotape  rating  space  stimuli.  revealed  you  of  addition,  to  various  which  i n s t r u c t e d to  segments  peoples'  segments.  non-instruction  the  and  cues  Thus  show  facial  fixate  comprised  where  the  tapes  see  the  subjects'  possible  them.  is  i s on  eliminated  i n s t r u c t e d to  videotape  segments  the  to  of  selected  original  movements The  specially  the  were  eye  study  of  the  wall  this  have  about  presentation  only  To  the  are  see  editting.  on  you  will  movements  people  of  been  portions  head  brief  focus  have  that  segments  by  second rating.  a  voice  The  numbers  segment  numbers  help  guide  you  in  i f  the  expression  or  place. i s to facial  decide  164.  not. much  The  second  i s to  discomfort the As  you  can  descriptors indicates same  see  shown  of  stimluli. rating  person on on  increasing  list  the  Two  was  to  left of  used  of  s t i m u l u s and  the you  and  would  circle I f you  was  place the  use  an  form  who  of which  is  the the  i n making  the  i n the  "X"  they  their  facial  expression,  you  would  under  the  words  across  from  the  word  "unpleasant".  are  five  practice  actual  study.  hidden"  The  du r a t i o n . there  any  questions?  and  your  hide box  their under  from  not  place circle  and  12  "X"  the  then  i s approximely  as felt  facial the  the  trying  an  are  segment  i n segment  were  segments tape  to  across  person  form  eighth  i n the  "8"  and  "not  rating  trying  number  thought  the  unpleasant  Are  people  descriptors  was  the  each  list  received  the  person  by  for  of  is a  by  the  annoyed  There  there  This  to  thought  stimulus  how  unpleasantness.  how  i f you  "annoyed".  forms  side  these  follows:  "hidden"  possible  experiencing.  the  use  as  subject's discomfort.  examples  expression,  accurately  rating  levels  are  as  your  descriptors  You  of  rate  word word  felt to  the hide  i n the number  60 9  box "12"  segments minutes  in  165.  APPENDIX  P  Name: Rating Form  N  ?  N  N  ?  ?  N  ?  N  N  ?  N  ?  N  ?  N  ?  N  ?  N  ?  N  ?  2  No Discomfort  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Distracting  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Annoying  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Uncomfortable  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Unpleasant  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Irritating  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  u  12  Upsetting  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Distressing  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Miserable  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Frightful  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Dreadful  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Horrible  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Agonizing  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Intolerable  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Unbearable  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Excruciating  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Name:  Rating Form  N  ?  N  ?  N  N  ?  ?  N  ?  N  ?  N  N  ?  N  ?  N  ?  N  ?  N  ?  ?  No Discomfort  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Distracting  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Annoying  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Uncomfortable  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Unpleasant  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Irritating  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Upsetting  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Distressing  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Miserable  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Frightful  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Dreadful  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Horrible  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Agonizing  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Intolerable  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Unbearable  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Excruciating  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  "  Name:  Rating Form  N  N  N  N  N  N  N  N  N  e n  e n  e n  e n  N t  e n  e n  N  e n  e n  N  e n  e n  No Discomfort  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Distracting  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Annoying  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Uncomfortable  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Unpleasant  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Irritating  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Upsetting  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Distressing  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Miserable  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Frightful  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Dreadful  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Horrible  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Agonizing  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Intolerable  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Unbearable  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Excruciating  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Name:  Rating Form  N  ?  e e n n  N  ?  N  N  N  N  ?  N  N  ?  N  ?  N  ?  N  ?  ?  ?  ?  1  e e n n  e e n n  e e n n  e e n n  e e n n  e e n n  e e n n  e e n n  e e n n  e e n n  N  ?  e e n n  No Discomfort  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  Distracting  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  Annoying  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  Uncomfortable  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  Unpleasant  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  Irritating  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  Upsetting  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  Distressing  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  Miserable  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  Frightful  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  Dreadful  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  Horrible  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  Agonizing  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  Intolerable  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  Unbearable  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  Excruciating  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  Name:  Rating Form  e e n n  e e n n  e e n n  e e n n  e e n n  e e n n  No D i s c o m f o r t  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  Distracting  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  Annoying  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  Uncomfortable  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  Unpleasant  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  Irritating  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  Upsetting  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  Distressing  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  Miserable  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  Frightful  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  Dreadful  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  Horrible  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  Agonizing  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  Intolerable  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  Unbearable  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  Excruciating  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  -  171 .  APPENDIX Q  r-  172.  Debriefing As in  how  related  stated  i n the  people  rate  to  non-hidden From  facial  particularly  facial  expressions.  people  muscles  muscles  most'  trying  to  segments  around likely  control you  involving  muscles  facial  exprerssions  the  which  me  expressions The will  hidden  gathered effect  in  movements  you  viewed  evaluate  I am  than  lower  Besides  face  r a t i n g s of  different  study,  were prior to  in  has  controlling these  i f  someone  is  The  facial the  face  imitations research  to  you  or  of  with  the  actual low  back  imitations  control  independent  video  expressions  upper  show  been  makes  expressions.  the  This role  observer  investigating  showing  only  movements. the  oF  visual control  oF  Facial  i s that  judges  to  the  have  models,  r a t i n g s of  i n v e s t i g a t e the  judgments  face  discomfort  same  on  upper  movements  Secondarily,  peoples'  using  instructions  attempting on  the  i t  versus  ratings.  hypothesis  prior  either  in order  the  expressions  in a  our  hidden  expression.  necessary  more  your  expressions  was  your  major  chose  comparing  to on  Found  expressions  which  even  p o r t r a y a l s of from  rate  forehead  facial  interested  facial  sources  active  expressions  It  Facial  in  enabales  as  These  actual  context  were  is  difficulty  and  remain  solely  face.  patients.  to  of  clinical  eyes  study  people  experience the  2  this  types how  and  their  viewed  lower  pain  different  pain,  that  Study  instructions  neurological,  suggested  for  this  role  research  I  to to  will  be  ratings see  what  discomfort. of is  facial also  a  173.  preliminary for  training  their  step  towards  health  patient's  the  care  pain  workers  from  expressions. Are  there  any  development  questions?  to  of  more  observing  the  a possible accurately patient's  method assess facial  174.  APPENDIX  R  175.  Hypothesis  3 - 2 X 2 X 2 Face  Source  SS  ANOVA  X Level  df  Sex o f Judge  of Complexity  MS  Sex  0.22501  1  Error  1.84095  48  Area  0.78647  1  0.78647  X Area  0.05147  1  0.05147  Error  3 . 75061  48  0.07814  Level  1.43793  1  1.43793  Sex  0.00834  1  0.00834  1.18915  48  0.02477  Face Sex  X Lev  Error  Area  X Area o f  0.22501  F 5.87  0.0193  10. 07  0.0026  0.03835  0. 66  58. 05 0. 34  X Lev  0.00147  0.00147  0. 09  Sex X A r e a X Level  0.00383  0.00383  0. 23  Error  0.79852  48  P  0.01664  n. s,  0.0001  176.  APPENDIX  S  177.  Hypothesis  4 - 2 X 2 X 2 of  Source Jud  Cond  Judge  SS  AN 0 V A  X Level  df  Judgment of  MS  1  179.77621  6 . 00094  1  6.00094  85.91140  1  85.91140  Error  994.27808  96  10.35706  Le ve 1  261.70392  Jud  X Sex  X Sex  Complexity  179.7762 1  Sex  Condition  F  P  17.36 0.  58  0.0001 n. s .  8. 29  0.0049  261.70392  123.20  0.0001  Jud  X Lev  0.00886  0.00886  0.00  n. s,  Sex  X Lev  1.93676  1.93676  0. 91  n. s,  J u d X Sex X Level  4. 1 1307  4.11307  1 . 94  n . s,  Er ro r  203.92025  96  2.12417  178.  APPENDIX  T  179.  Hypothesis  4 - Simple  Effects Sex  Source  SS  Jud Cond f o r Male  f o r Judgment  Condition  and  o f Judge  df  MS  F  p  257.12043  1  257.12043  12.41  0.001  J u d Cond f o r Female  8.56659  1  8.56659  0.41  n.s.  Sex a t J u d Cond 1  23.25048  23.25048  2.24  n.  Sex a t Jud Cond  68.65835  68.65835  6.63  Er r o r  2 994.27808  96  10 . 3 5 7 0 6  0.025  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items