Search

Our research consists of studying the probability of humans being able to assess the differences between the valence of human faces in combination with simultaneous human vocalizations of high (pain and pleasure) and low (smile/laughter and neutral expression/speech) intensities. The study was conducted online and used a large sample (n=902) of respondents. The task was to categorize whether human vocalizations and facial expressions that can be considered semi-naturalistic were rated positive, neutral, or negative when presented with audio stimuli and pictures of faces. These had been extracted from freely downloadable online videos. Each rating participant (rater) was presented with four facial expressions (stimuli), accompanied by simultaneous vocalizations. Two of these were highly intense (pain and pleasure) and two of low intensity (laugh/smile and neutral). Using a Bayesian statistical approach, we could test for consistencies and due-to-chance probabilities. The outcomes support the prediction that the results (ratings) are not due to chance in all cases (so some ratings were not guesses, even though they might have been incorrect) — findings agreeing with the result from unimodal auditory rating but not in agreement with unimodal facial expressions ratings. The highly intense displays are incorrectly attributed. Therefore, we can assume that the auditory information is dominant in terms of certainty of the rating; yet it does not provide extra information for the case of highly intense affective expressions.

Our research consisted of two studies focusing on the probability of humans being able to perceive the difference between valence of human vocalizations of high (pain, pleasure and fear) and low intensity (laugh and neutral speech). The first study was conducted online and used a large sample (n=902) of respondents. The second study was conducted in a laboratory setting and involved a stress induction procedure. For both, the task was to categorize whether the human vocalization was rated positive, neutral or negative. Stimuli were audio records extracted from freely downloadable online videos and can be considered semi-naturalistic. Each rating participant (rater) was presented with five audio records (stimuli) of five females and of five males. All raters were presented with the stimuli twice (so as to statistically estimate the consistency of the ratings). Using a Bayesian statistical approach, we could test for consistencies and due-to-chance probabilities. The outcomes support the prediction that the results (ratings) are repeatable (not due to chance) but incorrectly attributed, decreasing the communication value of the expressions of fear, pain, and pleasure. Stress induction (in study two conducted on 28 participants) did have an impact on the ratings of male neutral and laugh – it caused decrease in correct attribution.

Objectives: Research of sexuality often times includes individuals who choose to be researched and are willing to undergo the procedures. Samples of population (students and self-selected enthusiasts) may not resemble the nation’s population structure nor general idea of random human even though the psychological mechanisms researched are thought to be universal. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between proximal measures of domain specific and non-specific excitation and inhibition in two (probabilistic and non-probabilistic) samples. Sample and settings: We collected approximately 400 individuals from Central European country – Czech Republic – via specialized agency to match the probabilistic sample and a second similarly sized sample via snowball sampling and online advertisements at the same time. The participants were asked to fill in two questionnaires widely used by sex researchers (Sexual Inhibition and Excitation Scale and Sociosexual Orientation Inventory), and one scale designed to map broader motivations to avoid aversive outcomes and motivation to approach goal-oriented outcomes (Behavioral Inhibition and Activation Scale). Hypotheses: We expected partial or complete confirmation of previously found results (general and sexuality specific activation and inhibition and sociosexuality). We also expected that the replication will be affected by the sample choice. Statistical analyses: To follow methodologies of previous studies used to create hypotheses we decided to use partial correlation controlling for age of the participant. Results: Generally, the non-probabilistic sample findings resembled the published results whereas the probabilistic sample differed, especially in men. Furthermore, findings from women were the more consistent of the two sexes when comparing the probabilistic and non-probabilistic sample outcomes. Our results, relying on correlational analyses as majority of studies does, provide a valuable insight to impact of sampling on results. Limitations: The sample size, thus larger than usual studies, could be higher. We have been unable to research latent variables due to methodological constrains of the method - correlation.

Our research consisted of two studies focusing on the probability of humans being able to perceive the difference between faces expressing pain versus pleasure. As controls, we included: smile, neutral facial expression, and expression of fear. The first study was online and was conducted using a large sample (n=902) of respondents. The second study was conducted in a laboratory setting and involved a stress induction procedure. For both, the task was to categorize whether the facial expression was rated positive, neutral or negative. Stimuli were faces extracted from freely downloadable online videos. Each rating participant (rater) was presented with five facial expressions (stimuli) of five females and five males. All raters were presented with the stimuli twice so as to evaluate the consistency of the ratings. Beforehand, we tested for stimuli differences using specialized software and found decisive differences. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, we could test for consistencies and due-to-chance probabilities. The results support the expectation that the results are not repeatable but indeed solely due to chance, diminishing the communication value of the expressions of pain and pleasure. The expression of fear was also rated due to chance, but not neutral and smile. Stress induction did have an impact on the perception of pleasure.