1. Let’s Play Ball:
Group Affiliation and Facial Expression
Sandra Alvarez, Justen Cox, Sheri Frazier, Logan Okuda
University of California, Santa Barbara
Introduction/Prior Research
• Happy face advantage- faster reaction times toward positive faces
(Leppänen 2003)
• Negative facial expressions hold attention longer than a positive facial
expression, therefore reaction times are slower (Fox year)
• Responding to an in-group member results in faster response time verses
an out-group member. (Troop 2001)
• Ingroup favoritism (Tajfel 1971)
Research Question
• Does a neutral or positive facial expression affect the response time for
cooperating (throwing a ball to) with in-group or outgroup member
Method
Participants
• 52 undergraduate participants from a research methods class at UCSB for
course credit.
Procedure
• Given photoset.
• They were asked to simply click the left or right arrow to select their
choice.
• Given an IOS scale that determined how connected they felt to UCSB, a
questionnaire on competitiveness, and were asked if they played
competitive sports against UCSB or UCLA.
Measures
• IOS Scale by Aron
• Sports Orientation
Questionnaire by Gill
Stimuli
• Photo sets from KDEF
database
Hypothesis/Results
• Hypothesis 1:
• Participants will pass the ball faster to ingroup members (UCSB)
than outgroup members (UCLA).
• Statistically significant [F(1,51)=91.743, p<.001]
• Participants threw the ball faster to ingroup members.
• Hypothesis 2:
• Participants will pass the ball faster to happy faces rather than
neutral, regardless of group affiliation.
• Not statistically significant [F(1,51)=2.917, p>.05]
• No happy face advantage found, no significant difference in time for
facial expression
• Hypothesis 3:
• Participants will pass the ball faster to ingroup happy faces rather
than out-group happy faces.
• Statistically significant [F(1,50)=6.771,p<.05]
• IOS moderator was not statistically significant
[F(1,50)=.591,p>.05]
• Participants were faster at choosing the photoset that had ingroup
happy faces.
• How much one felt integrated with UCSB did not significantly effect
reaction time
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Ingroup/Outgroup Selection
Hypothesis 1
Ingroup Selection Outgroup Selection
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Facial Expression
Hypothesis 2
Positive Neutral
References:
Tropp, L., & Wright, S. (2001). Ingroup Identification
As The Inclusion Of Ingroup In The Self.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 585-
600.
Leppänen, J., Tenhunen, M., & Hietanen, J. (2003).
Faster Choice-Reaction Times to Positive than to
Negative Facial Expressions. Journal of
Psychophysiology, 113-123.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories.
Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
Fox (input it later)
Discussion
• Findings
• Ingroup favoritism
• No happy face advantage
• Conflict between positive ingroup member and
positive outgroup member
• Limitations
• Number of trials and set up of study
• Number of participants
• Psychology students
• Time constraints
• Qualtrics & Internet Speed
• Future Study
• More studies looking at interaction between
facial expression and ingroup/outgroup
Aron, A., Aron E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other
in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596-612.