The emotions we feel may shape what we see

Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Our emotional state in a given moment may influence what we see, according to findings published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science. In two experiments, researchers found that participants saw a neutral face as smiling more when it was paired with an unseen positive image.

The research shows that humans are active perceivers, say psychological scientist Erika Siegel of the University of California, San Francisco and her coauthors.

"We do not passively detect information in the world and then react to it - we construct perceptions of the world as the architects of our own experience. Our affective feelings are a critical determinant of the experience we create," the researchers explain. "That is, we do not come to know the world through only our external senses - we see the world differently when we feel pleasant or unpleasant."

In previous studies, Siegel and colleagues found that influencing people's emotional states outside of conscious awareness shifted their first impressions of neutral faces, making faces seem more or less likeable, trustworthy, and reliable. In this research, they wanted to see if changing people's emotional states outside awareness might actually change how they see the neutral faces.

Using a technique called continuous flash suppression, the researchers were able to present stimuli to participants without them knowing it. In one experiment, 43 participants had a series of flashing images, which alternated between a pixelated image and a neutral face, presented to their dominant eye. At the same time, a low-contrast image of a smiling, scowling, or neutral face was presented to their nondominant eye - typically, this image will be suppressed by the stimulus presented to the dominant eye and participants will not consciously experience it.

At the end of each trial, a set of five faces appeared and participants picked the one that best matched the face they saw during the trial.

The face that was presented to participants' dominant eye was always neutral. But they tended to select faces that were smiling more as the best match if the image that was presented outside of their awareness showed a person who was smiling as opposed to neutral or scowling

In a second experiment, the researchers included an objective measure of awareness, asking participants to guess the orientation of the suppressed face. Those who correctly guessed the orientation at better than chance levels were not included in subsequent analyses. Again, the results indicated that unseen positive faces changed participants' perception of the visible neutral face.

Given that studies often show negative stimuli as having greater influence on behavior and decision making, the robust effect of positive in this research is intriguing and an interesting area for future exploration, the researchers note.

Siegel and colleagues add that their findings could have broad, real-world implications that extend from everyday social interactions to situations with more severe consequences, such as when judges or jury members have to evaluate whether a defendant is remorseful.

Ultimately, these experiments provide further evidence that what we see is not a direct reflection of the world but a mental representation of the world that is infused by our emotional experiences.

Explore further

Red or blue in the face? Study says conservatives show less emotion

More information: Erika H. Siegel et al, Seeing What You Feel: Affect Drives Visual Perception of Structurally Neutral Faces, Psychological Science (2018). DOI: 10.1177/0956797617741718
Journal information: Psychological Science

Citation: The emotions we feel may shape what we see (2018, April 11) retrieved 20 October 2019 from
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 11, 2018
more than ten times as many neurons impact on the earliest visual processing area from higher brain areas than from the retina, so it is hardly surprising that thought influences vision (and other senses).

Apr 11, 2018
Which is why of course humans are intrinsically anti-science. Objectivity is against our nature.

The human animal is incompatible with civilization. All of history and technology are efforts to force us to comply.

Domestication does have it's limits however. Ultimately we need to begin replacing the nasty bits altogether with more appropriate widgets we design from scratch.

You know, intelligent design. The human form of evolution.

Horses worked pretty well but there is a reason why people now drive cars instead. We replaced horses as soon as we were able.

Apr 11, 2018
Science wastes as much time correcting human ignorance as it does exploring new territory. Imagine the progress once we automate this process.

Apr 16, 2018
@ TheGhostofOtto1923
Which is why of course humans are intrinsically anti-science. Objectivity is against our nature. The human animal is incompatible with civilization. All of history and technology are efforts to force us to comply.

Of course! Human animals r incompatible with civilization that was created solely by them! Revelation! Thank u! U made my day! An excellent example of human(?) logic! What do u mean?! "to force us to comply"!? By whom?! Aliens?!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more