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

DSpace/Manakin Repository

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

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Post, Robert B.
dc.contributor.author Iwaki, Lica
dc.contributor.author Whitney, David
dc.contributor.author Haberman, Jason
dc.date.accessioned 2012-03-27T18:27:21Z
dc.date.issued 2012
dc.identifier.citation Post, Robert B., Jason Haberman, Lica Iwaki, and David Whitney. 2012. The frozen face effect: Why static photographs may not do you justice. Frontiers in Psychology 3:22. en_US
dc.identifier.issn 1664-1078 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:8457941
dc.description.abstract When a video of someone speaking is paused, the stationary image of the speaker typically appears less flattering than the video, which contained motion. We call this the frozen face effect (FFE). Here we report six experiments intended to quantify this effect and determine its cause. In Experiment 1, video clips of people speaking in naturalistic settings as well as all of the static frames that composed each video were presented, and subjects rated how flattering each stimulus was. The videos were rated to be significantly more flattering than the static images, confirming the FFE. In Experiment 2, videos and static images were inverted, and the videos were again rated as more flattering than the static images. In Experiment 3, a discrimination task measured recognition of the static images that composed each video. Recognition did not correlate with flattery ratings, suggesting that the FFE is not due to better memory for particularly distinct images. In Experiment 4, flattery ratings for groups of static images were compared with those for videos and static images. Ratings for the video stimuli were higher than those for either the group or individual static stimuli, suggesting that the amount of information available is not what produces the FFE. In Experiment 5, videos were presented under four conditions: forward motion, inverted forward motion, reversed motion, and scrambled frame sequence. Flattery ratings for the scrambled videos were significantly lower than those for the other three conditions. In Experiment 6, as in Experiment 2, inverted videos and static images were compared with upright ones, and the response measure was changed to perceived attractiveness. Videos were rated as more attractive than the static images for both upright and inverted stimuli. Overall, the results suggest that the FFE requires continuous, natural motion of faces, is not sensitive to inversion, and is not due to a memory effect. en_US
dc.description.sponsorship Psychology en_US
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.publisher Frontiers Research Foundation en_US
dc.relation.isversionof doi://10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00022 en_US
dc.relation.hasversion http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3282501/pdf/ en_US
dash.license LAA
dc.subject face perception en_US
dc.subject static images en_US
dc.subject dynamic images en_US
dc.subject attractiveness en_US
dc.subject fluency en_US
dc.title The Frozen Face Effect: Why Static Photographs May Not Do You Justice en_US
dc.type Journal Article en_US
dc.description.version Version of Record en_US
dc.relation.journal Frontiers in Psychology en_US
dash.depositing.author Haberman, Jason
dc.date.available 2012-03-27T18:27:21Z

Files in this item

Files Size Format View
3282501.pdf 814.3Kb PDF View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • FAS Scholarly Articles [6466]
    Peer reviewed scholarly articles from the Faculty of Arts and Sciences of Harvard University

Show simple item record

 
 

Search DASH


Advanced Search
 
 

Submitters