See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/237062022

Do you see what I see? Learning to detect micro expressions of emotion

Article  in  Motivation and Emotion · September 2012

DOI: 10.1007/s11031-011-9257-2

CITATIONS READS

39 3,420

1 author:

Carolyn Hurley
Northern Virginia Community College - Loudoun Campus
22 PUBLICATIONS   330 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Micro Expression Recognition View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Carolyn Hurley on 17 December 2013.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Motiv Emot (2012) 36:371–381
DOI 10.1007/s11031-011-9257-2
ORIGINAL PAPER
Do you see what I see? Learning to detect micro expressions
of emotion
Carolyn M. Hurley
Published online: 11 November 2011
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011
Abstract The ability to detect micro expressions is an
important skill for understanding a person’s true emotional
state, however, these quick expressions are often difficult
to detect. This is the first study to examine the effects of
boundary factors such as training format, exposure, moti-
vation, and reinforcement on the detection of micro
expressions of emotion. A 3 (training type) by 3 (rein-
forcement) fixed factor design with three control groups
was conducted, in which 306 participants were trained and
evaluated immediately after exposure and at 3 and 6 weeks
post-training. Training improved the recognition of micro
expressions and the greatest success was found when a
knowledgeable instructor facilitated the training and
employed diverse training techniques such as description,
practice and feedback (d’s [ .30). Recommendations are
offered for future training of micro expressions, which can
be used in security, health, business, and intercultural
contexts.
Keywords Micro expression
Facial expression

Emotion
Training
This work was submitted in partial fulfillment of a Doctor of
Philosophy degree at the University at Buffalo by the author. Any
opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in
this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the Transportation Security Administration, the Department
of Homeland Security, or the United States of America. The author
would like to thank Dr.’s Mark Frank and David Matsumoto for loan
of the Micro Expression Training Tool, second edition.
C. M. Hurley (&)
Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th street,
Arlington, VA 22202, USA
e-mail: Carolyn.Hurley@tsa.dhs.gov
Introduction
If facial expressions of emotion were delivered uniformly
each and every time an emotion was elicited, eventually all
of us would be near perfect perceivers of others. However,
pressures to conceal or mask one’s true feelings may result
in emotional displays that are quick or fragmented (called
micro momentary expressions, Haggard and Isaacs 1966;
or micro expressions, Ekman and Friesen 1969). Since
daily life features many pressures to conceal or mask one’s
emotions, as a function of status, culture, context, polite-
ness, and so forth (Ekman 1972), the ability to accurately
perceive and interpret these quick expressions would
improve our interpersonal skills, allowing us to better
understand individuals’ true emotional states.
The ability to ‘‘read’’ others is advantageous for the
average person, but in particular for clinicians and security
practitioners where the ability to understand others can
result in more informed judgments regarding threats to
oneself and others. Practitioners are already utilizing web-
based micro expression (ME) training in security (e.g.,
Department of State, Department of Homeland Security,
Department of Defense) and health contexts, although
testing of these efforts has been largely limited to clinical
populations (e.g., Marsh et al. 2010; Russell et al. 2006,
2008). Identifying effective training methods is imperative,
especially in these critical situations where a superior
understanding of emotion can significantly improve our
national security and quality of life.
The best available research in concealment of emotion
suggests that these masked emotional signals, particularly
MEs, are very difficult to detect (Ekman and Friesen 1969,
1974a; Etcoff et al. 2000; Porter and ten Brinke 2008).
Recent research has found that it is possible to train these
skills in a short period (Matsumoto and Hwang, in press),
123
372
yet few boundary factors that may affect training success
have been explored. This manuscript examines the train-
ability of MEs of emotion, the optimal method of training,
the role of motivating factors, the effect of reinforcement,
and the retention of training materials over a 6-week per-
iod. This will help identify more effective training meth-
ods, which can be used to train individuals—such as those
in national security contexts—who may encounter con-
cealed emotions like MEs.
Background
Micro expressions of emotion
Emotions can be defined as ‘‘short-lived psychological-
physiological phenomena that represent efficient modes of
adaptation to changing environmental demands’’ (Levenson
1994, p. 123). Emotions are automatic responses that are
triggered—aroused in a fraction of a second—by environ-
mental stimuli that alter our attention and organize biological
responses, preparing us to react. Emotions are complex and
involve a number of bodily response systems such as
expression, muscular tonus, voice, and autonomic nervous
system activity (Levenson 1994).
Besides unique internal signals, emotions also generate
external signals—such as facial expressions—that provide
clues of these internal changes. A significant body of lit-
erature has examined the basic emotions of anger, con-
tempt, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise,
revealing that each appears to have a characteristic
expression that is universal across cultures (e.g., Ekman
2003; Elfenbein and Ambady 2002). The universal pro-
duction of these facial signals suggests that these emotional
expressions are genetically determined and biology is lar-
gely responsible for establishing which facial movements
are associated with certain emotions (DeJong 1979;
DeMyer 1980).
A ME is a special case of the basic emotional expression,
which was first discovered by Haggard and Isaacs (1966)
while studying clinical interviews. They believed MEs were
caused by an unconscious repression of conflict and that
those expressions occurred too quickly to be seen in real
time. Ekman and Friesen (1969, 1974b) undertook a more
rigorous program of study that fully articulated the nature of
MEs. After examining recorded psychiatric interviews
frame-by-frame they found that MEs were emotional
expressions that ‘‘leaked’’ out when individuals attempted to
inhibit or manage their facial displays (Ekman, 2003). They
concluded that these quick expressions represented signs of
concealed emotion, as uninhibited or naturally occurring
emotional expressions generally last several seconds in
length or more (Hess and Kleck 1990).
123
Motiv Emot (2012) 36:371–381
The existence of MEs has been verified in studies of
concealment (Porter and ten Brinke 2008) and is relevant to
high-stakes contexts like law enforcement and national
security. For example, if someone is transiting a security
checkpoint and is in possession of illegal drugs, he may
have a fear of discovery. He will in all likelihood try to
hide these feelings, so any emotional clues he produces
may be more subtle then in a context where he is not trying
to manage his behavior. Research has shown that the
ability to detect MEs is related to skill at detecting
deception in high-stakes scenarios (Ekman and O’Sullivan
1991, 2006; Ekman et al. 1999), likely because it is easier
to judge veracity when an observer is able to accurately
understand how the target is feeling. This research
emphasizes the importance of ME recognition skills for
any individual whose profession requires interpersonal
interaction or deception detection.
Facial and micro expression training
Scientists have long endeavored to train people to better
recognize facial expressions. As early as the 1920s
researchers had students study pictorals or verbal descrip-
tions of facial expressions (Allport 1924; Guilford 1929;
Jarden and Fernberger 1926; Jenness 1932). However, the
absence of clear stimulus materials (drawings versus pho-
tographs) and clear identification of expressions limited
this training research. After researchers began to system-
atically study and define the muscle movements inherent in
emotional expressions they were able to create detailed
facial coding systems (e.g., Ekman and Friesen 1978; Izard
1979). This allowed researchers to create standardized sets
of valid emotion training and testing materials (e.g.,
BART, Ekman and Friesen 1974b; PoFA, Ekman and
Friesen 1975; JACFEE, Matsumoto and Ekman 1988;
JACBART, Matsumoto et al. 2000).
The Japanese and Caucasian Brief Affect Recognition
Test (JACBART) was the first published test of micro
expression recognition accuracy (MERA) that was rigor-
ously evaluated (Matsumoto et al. 2000). The JACBART
created the appearance of more dynamic expressions, as
each poser’s neutral face was imposed before and after the
emotional expression face, reducing the after effects of the
stimuli. All expression images were scored with the Facial
Action Coding System (FACS; Ekman and Friesen 1978)
to ensure the same muscle actions occurred for each
emotion and were consistent with universally recognized
expressions (Ekman 2003). Additionally, these images
were tested with an international audience to ensure cross-
cultural agreement (Biehl et al. 1997). Matsumoto and
colleagues provided evidence of internal and temporal
reliability and convergent and concurrent validity for this
test across five studies and found similar accuracy patterns
Motiv Emot (2012) 36:371–381
even with the differences made to presentation speed and
judgment task (Matsumoto et al. 2000).
This ME testing procedure evolved into a self-instruc-
tional training tool, originally called the Micro Expression
Training Tool (METT; now available as the METT
Advanced at face.paulekman.com and the Microexpression
Recognition Tool [MiX] at www.humintell.com). The
METT is presented as a stand-alone training tool; it offers a
pre-test, a training section, practice examples with feed-
back, a review section, and a post-test. The stimuli used in
these training tools are laboratory produced which provides
the necessary consistency and reliability of expression,
poser, intensity, angle and so forth to provide scientific test
of MERA. However, use of this type of materials limits the
ability to generalize to naturally occurring spontaneous
expression, which have more dynamic features (Naab and
Russell 2007).
Researchers have used versions of the METT to
train department store employees and trial consultants
(Matsumoto and Hwang, in press) and individuals with
Schizophrenia (Marsh et al. 2010; Russell et al. 2006,
2008) to detect MEs. A 2-h instructor led session using the
MiX not only significantly improved Korean department
store employees’ ability to identify MEs (N = 81, 18%
increase), but also led to higher social and communication
skills scores (Matsumoto and Hwang, in press). A similar
experiment using a small group of trial consultants also
showed improvements in accuracy (N = 25, 18%
increase). Further analyses revealed no skill decay over a
2-week period for both groups (Matsumoto and Hwang, in
press).
The METT has also been used to train clinical patients
with emotion recognition deficiencies to more accurately
recognize emotion (Marsh et al. 2010; Russell et al. 2006,
2008). Training individuals with Schizophrenia to read
facial expressions using the METT resulted in a significant
improvement in ME recognition at the post-test (9%
increase, Russell et al. 2006; 18% increase, Russell et al.
2008), illustrating the tool’s robustness to different popu-
lations. These studies support a meaningful training-accu-
racy relationship for identifying MEs, as well as, highlight
some possible social benefits.
Researchers have used other materials to teach others
about facial expressions. Stickle and Pellegreno (1982) and
Elfenbein (2006) used the Pictures of Facial Affect (PoFA,
Ekman and Friesen 1975) to train American students to
recognize emotional expressions (Elfenbein also used a
subset of Chinese posing facial expressions Wang and
Markham 1999). Although both studies reported success
for training, the authors did not report either the pre and
post accuracy scores and within subjects change (Stickle
and Pellegreno 1982) or the baseline recognition accuracy
373
(Elfenbein 2006). Those limitations inhibit interpretation of
these data. These studies also did not examine the ability to
detect quick expressions—such as MEs—further limiting
the ability to compare these methods to standardized tools
such as the METT or MiX.
Boundary factors to training
While research demonstrates the validity of using
commercial ME training tools to train recognition skills
(Matsumoto and Hwang, in press; Russell et al. 2006,
2008), little research has analyzed the underlying factors
associated with these skill improvements. Training formats
such as simple feedback (Elfenbein 2006), lecture and
practice (Stickle and Pellegreno 1982), and the METT/MiX
(Matsumoto and Hwang, in press) have all improved
expression recognition; but it is unknown which methods
have produced the greatest improvements or had the
greatest retention, due to differences in both testing mate-
rials and measures of effectiveness. It is also unknown
which format and materials are optimal for training indi-
viduals to detect MEs.
These studies revealed that individuals can be trained to
recognize laboratory produced MEs fairly quickly and
effectively, however, retention has only been examined in
one study and only at 2 weeks (Matsumoto and Hwang, in
press). Although training with the METT can improve
individuals’ recognition in as little as a few hours, the
length that this training outlasts the post-test is unknown.
Skill decay is an important variable to examine as many
military or government employees may only be able to
receive ME training once a year or once in a career span.
Another factor to consider is that understanding emo-
tional expressions is a skill that may improve with practice.
People who have repeated exposure to individuals who try
to conceal their emotions or who scrutinize nonverbal
behavior for their jobs—such as law enforcement officers,
judges, clinical psychologists, and secret service person-
nel—are often more accurate judges of how others are
feeling (Ekman and O’Sullivan 1991; Ekman et al. 1999).
Studies that have repeatedly tested the same participants
have found they improved without training (Matsumoto
et al. 2000). This suggests that repeated exposure to the
task or stimuli may serve as a training function as well and
should be examined.
Motivation can also influence a person’s ability to learn
material. Even though micro expression training may
improve MERA for all individuals, those who are more
motivated may learn and retain more material. Motivation
to learn is positively related to skill acquisition (Colquitt
et al. 2000), deeming it an important area for investigation.
It is important to examine individuals’ motivation to learn
123
374
both at the start and completion of each testing phase, as
motivation may be affected by external factors such as the
quality or content of the training or assignment to the
training or control group. Any differences must be con-
trolled for to insure that any gains made post-training can
be properly attributed to the training.
Overall, the previously published studies raise questions
regarding the optimal method of training, the role of
exposure and motivating factors, and the persistence of
training effects over time. It is important to examine these
boundary factors that may reduce skill loss so that
researchers can identify more effective training techniques.
The METT is an ideal instructional tool for testing these
differences. This training can be self-administered or
administered by an instructor in a group setting and pro-
vides enough stimulus materials to examine skill retention.
This will allow us to assess these factors in an existing and
well-used training.
Based on the above literature review, which found sig-
nificant improvements in MERA with different iterations
of the METT training (Matsumoto and Hwang, in press;
Russell et al. 2006, 2008), the following set of specific
hypotheses are proposed:
H1 ME Training will significantly improve participants’
MERA and result in greater skill retention, opposed to the
control conditions, which will experience no change in
MERA.
Although training by feedback alone has significantly
improved expression recognition skills (Elfenbein 2006),
ME recognition is an advanced skill which requires
understanding of subtle differences among expressions.
Thus,
H2 An instructor-led, multi-faceted ME training condi-
tion will produce the greatest increases in MERA, opposed
to ME training conditions that are self-led, or only provide
feedback to participants.
Any increased exposure to training material should also
provide an advantage to the exposed group. Thus,
H3 Reinforcement will significantly improve retention of
MERA.
Previous studies have assumed that a comparison group
assigned to do nothing during the training time serves as an
adequate control for examining training effects. Factors
such as mere exposure to stimuli or motivation to learn
could affect ME post-test scores or moderate effectiveness
of training. Thus, three control groups will also be exam-
ined to answer the following research question:
RQ1 What is the effect of motivation and simple expo-
sure on MERA?
123
Motiv Emot (2012) 36:371–381
Method
Participants
Three hundred thirty four (334) participants were recruited
from large introductory communication courses. An in-
class announcement advertised the study as ‘‘an evaluation
of students’ nonverbal communication skills’’ and inter-
ested students signed up for three 1-h appointments through
an online sign-up system. Participants who completed the
study received 3 h of research credit in partial fulfillment
of their 5 h departmental requirement.
Design
The study employed a 3 (training type—instructor feed-
back; instructor feedback plus description; or self led) by 3
(reinforcement—none; at time 2 only; or at time 3 only)
fixed factor design with three control groups (traditional
control; control with additional exposure of items; or
control with a motivating lecture). The four times at which
participants’ accuracy at judging MEs was assessed (pre-
training, immediately after training, 3 weeks later, and
6 weeks later) was treated as a within-subject independent
variable. The dependent variable was the participants’
accuracy on the various ME tests. Participants were ran-
domly assigned to each condition.
Conditions
Participants in the control conditions received no training
to serve as comparison groups to the training manipula-
tions. Participants in the ‘‘traditional’’ control condition
occupied themselves for the length of the manipulation and
were not exposed to any other emotional expression items.
Participants in the ‘‘exposure’’ control condition were
exposed to the same stimulus items (photographs of facial
expressions) as the training conditions during the manip-
ulation period, but received no feedback or other infor-
mation to facilitate their judgment. Participants in the
‘‘motivating lecture’’ control condition were provided with
a lecture on the importance of accurately perceiving and
interpreting human emotion based on the work of Ekman
(2001, 2003), but were not exposed to any other facial
expression material.
Training techniques previously published were com-
bined to allow for a fair comparison and evaluation of these
different training methods. Participants in both the ‘‘feed-
back only’’ training and ‘‘full instruction’’ training condi-
tions received the METT training led by an instructor
highly knowledgeable in the area of facial expressions of
emotion (the author). The difference was that the feedback
only training manipulation consisted solely of feedback
Motiv Emot (2012) 36:371–381
regarding the MEs of emotion (available in the practice
section of the METT), whereas in the full instruction
training manipulation the instructor also discussed subtle
differences among expressions (according to the ‘‘training’’
and ‘‘review’’ sections of METT) and answered questions
raised by participants. Participants in the ‘‘self-led’’ train-
ing condition also received training via the METT. These
participants led themselves through the training, feedback,
and review sections of the METT on a personal computer
(monitored by the instructor). The self-led training group
was exposed to the same materials as the full instruction
training group except the instructor was not allowed to
answer questions or discuss subtle differences to mirror a
true self-led training environment. The length of time was
standardized (25 min) for all six manipulations (both
training and control).
Reinforcement was manipulated by randomly assigning
the training participants to either receive or not receive
re-training at their second and third appointments.
Refreshers were identical in format to participants’ original
training conditions (i.e., feedback only, full instruction, or
self-led) although the instruction time was reduced to
15 min. Trained participants were randomly assigned into
one of three Refresher conditions: approximately one-third
received no refresher training, one-third received refresher
training at time 2, and one-third received refresher training
at time 3.
Stimulus materials
The second version of the METT was used for the testing
and training of MERA. The laboratory produced METT
expression items involve full-face flash displays that show
a subject’s neutral expression, a quick expression flash
(1/15th of a second), and then a return to the subject’s
neutral face. The METT training is divided into five sec-
tions: (1) a 14-item pre test (anger, contempt, disgust, fear,
happiness, sadness, and surprise, each shown twice), (2) a
training section in which each of the universal expressions
are introduced and described, (3) a 42-item practice sec-
tion, (4) a review section, and (5) a 28-item post-test (the
same seven emotions shown four times). Elements of this
training program were manipulated to form the stimulus
materials used to assess MERA as well as functioned as the
training materials in the training manipulations. To enable
three post-training assessment periods, a pilot test was
conducted to evaluate the difficulty of the expression items
so they could be grouped into equivalent post-tests. (The
third post-test was also used to assess MERA at the pre-test
period.) The 42 ME items taken from the pre-test and post-
test sections of the METT were shown separately to 12
communication undergraduates, who judged each of these
items at the speed of 1/15th second. These 42 items were
375
then divided into three sets to create three MERA post-
tests, each having two examples of each emotion. Paired
samples t-tests revealed no significant differences in test
difficulty among the three tests. The mean difficulty for
each of these tests based on the pilot data was 0.63 (post-
test 1), 0.66 (post-test 2), and 0.62 (post-test 3).
Procedure
Time 1
This study was conducted over an 8-week period and was
approved by the University’s Institutional Review Board.
Participants were scheduled in small groups for hour-long
sessions at three points in the semester. Participants were
randomly assigned to one of the six conditions and each
condition was run separately. One instructor (the author)
led all sessions. After arrival, participants completed an
informed consent document and then completed a demo-
graphic questionnaire and personality indexes. Then the
instructor provided an overview of the experiment and
explained the ME test procedure to the group. The format
and procedure of each ME test was identical. At this point
in the experiment the pre-test was administered according
to the procedure described below.
Before each test, participants were asked to indicate
their confidence in their ability to perform well, as well as
their motivation to correctly identify the ME items. Con-
fidence was measured using a 1 (Very poor) to 7 (Very
good) rating to the question: How well do you think you
will do at recognizing the upcoming facial expressions of
emotion? Motivation was assessed using a 1 (Not Moti-
vated) to 7 (Very Motivated) rating response to the ques-
tion: How motivated are you to recognize people’s
emotional expressions?
Next, participants viewed the fourteen-item ME test.
Each item was projected on a blank wall in the research
room at the speed of 1/15th of a second. Participants were
given approximately 10 s to judge each expression by
circling the appropriate response on the provided answer
sheet (choices included anger, contempt, disgust, fear,
happiness, sadness, surprise, and none of the above). After
all items had been judged, participants indicated their
confidence in their judgments. Post-confidence was mea-
sured using a 1 (Very poor) to 7 (Very good) rating to the
question: How well do you think you did at recognizing
these facial expressions of emotion?
After the pre-test was completed, the next 25 min served
as the manipulation period for the experiment. Control
participants received no training, and training participants
received ME training in one of three styles described pre-
viously. After the manipulation, all participants completed
the fourteen-item ME post-test (1) according to the
123
376 Motiv Emot (2012) 36:371–381

procedure described above. After the post-test participants
were reminded of their next research appointment, and
dismissed from the research space.
Time 2
Exactly 3 weeks after the first session, participants returned
to the research space. At this time participants in the
training conditions were randomly assigned as a group to
one of the three Reinforcement conditions: none, refresher
at time 2, or refresher at time 3. Participants assigned to a
refresher at time 2 received 15 min of training based on
their original training condition. After the manipulation
participants completed the fourteen-item ME post-test (2)
according to the procedure described previously. After all
participants completed the post-test they were reminded of
their next research appointment, and dismissed from the
research space.
Time 3
Exactly 6 weeks after the original training, participants
returned to the research space. Participants assigned to a
refresher at time 3 received 15 min of training based on
their original training condition. After the manipulation
participants completed the fourteen-item ME post-test (3)
according to the procedure described previously. After the
post-test, all participants completed a questionnaire
exploring how this study had impacted their lives. Last,
participants were debriefed regarding the purpose of the
study, provided research credit, and dismissed from the
research space.
Results
Participants
A total of 334 students participated at Time 1, with a 92%
completion rate (N = 306). Analyses were conducted to
determine if there were any differences in the demographic
makeup (age, gender, and ethnicity) of the 306 final subject
sample and the 28 participants who did not complete the
study. These analyses revealed no significant demographic
differences between the group who completed the study
and the group that dropped out. From hence forth, only the
final sample (N = 306) is discussed.
The participants were 174 female (57%) and 132 male
(43%) undergraduates with an average age of 20.13
(SD = 3.08) years. Participants were mostly Caucasian
(70.9%), but there were also participants who identified
themselves as Asian or Pacific Islander (11.1%), African or
Caribbean (8.8%), Hispanic (6.2%), Middle Eastern
(1.6%), or another ethnic background (1.4%). Participants
were mostly sophomores (38.2%) and juniors (32.7%),
although some seniors (15.0%) and freshman (13.1%) also
participated (1.0% did not list class year).
Motivation
In this study, participants were asked to rate how motivated
they were on a one item scale (1 = Not Motivated to
7 = Very Motivated). Independent samples t tests were
conducted to examine motivation differences between
untrained participants and trained participants. One sig-
nificant difference was uncovered for the pre-test,
t (304) = -2.133, p = .034, d = -.24, suggesting that
trained participants (M = 5.51, SD = 1.07) were more
motivated to succeed than the controls (M = 5.23,
SD = 1.04) before the manipulation. At this point in the
experiment participants had not received any information
regarding the training manipulation so the cause of the
greater motivation level is unknown. There were no sig-
nificant differences in motivation between controls
(M = 5.18, SD = 1.06) and training (M = 5.40, SD =
1.19) participants after the manipulation was introduced. A
one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine change in
motivation at Time 1. No significant differences were
uncovered; suggesting that assignment to a training group
did not significantly increase motivation to perform well in
this paradigm.
Pearson correlations were computed to examine the
relationship between motivation and accuracy. Motivation
was not significantly related to accuracy at any test for
control participants. For trained participants, motivation
was significantly positively related to accuracy at post-test
1, r (212) = .191, p = .005, and post-test 3, r (212) =
.157, p = .021, revealing that trained participants who
were more motivated to succeed were more accurate on
these tests. Since motivation was not significantly related to
accuracy at the pre-test—the only test in which groups
differed in motivation—it was dropped as a potential
covariate in ensuing analyses.
Confidence
In the current study confidence in judgment was measured
on a one-item scale (1 = Very poor to 7 = Very good)
both before and after each ME test. Pearson correlations
were computed to examine the relationship between con-
fidence and accuracy for both trained and control partici-
pants. All but two relationships were significant (Table 1).
The only negative relationship occurred for trained par-
ticipants at the pre-test, all other relationships were posi-
tive. This suggests that people’s perceptions regarding their

123
Motiv Emot (2012) 36:371–381 377

Table 1 Relationship between confidence and accuracy

Condition Confidence Accuracy
Pre-test Post-test 1 Post-test 2 Post-test 3

Control Pre- -.010 .170 .223* .260*

Post- .404*** .408*** .337** .598***
Training Pre- -1.77** .246*** .215** .155*
Post- .388*** .535*** .316*** .254***
* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

MERA were not so different from their objective ability control conditions and the self-led training condition. There
after MEs had been defined. was a significant main effect at post-test 2, F (5, 300) =
3.388, p = .005. Bonferroni post hoc tests revealed that the
Training effects full instruction training participants were significantly
more accurate than the traditional control participants. At
H1 predicted a significant main effect for training, such post-test 3 there was a significant main effect for condition,
that trained participants would improve in accuracy post F (5, 300) = 8.328, p \ .001. Bonferroni post hoc tests
manipulation at Time 1 and retain this improvement, revealed that full instruction training participants were
whereas controls would experience no change in accuracy. significantly more accurate than the traditional control,
A mixed model ANOVA was conducted to examine the motivating lecture control, feedback only training, and self-
differences in accuracy across time within each of the six led training participants. There was no significant differ-
conditions. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of ence between the full instruction training condition and the
sphericity had been violated, v2 (5) = 14.849, p = .011, exposure control condition at post-test 3.
therefore degrees of freedom were corrected using To further explore the within subjects differences,
Huynh–Feldt estimates of sphericity (e = .994). There was paired samples t-tests were conducted for each of the six
a significant main effect for time, F (2.983, 894.954) = conditions to examine accuracy change over time. A total
104.967, p \ .001, g2 = .259. Pairwise comparisons uncov- of 3 comparisons (pre-test vs. post-test 1, post-test 1 vs.
ered that accuracy was significantly different (p \ .001) for post-test 2, and post-test 2 vs. post-test 3) were conducted
all tests except between post-test 2 and post-test 3, showing for each condition. The significant differences are outlined
that accuracy improved from pre-test to post-test 1 and in the Table 2. Between the pre-test and post-test at Time
post-test 2. 1, all three training conditions significantly increased in
There was also a significant main effect for condition, accuracy (feedback only: ?14.19%; full instruction:
F (5, 300) = 4.994, p \ .001, g2 = .077. Pairwise com- ?19.52%; and self-led ?10.66%), and two of the control
parisons indicated that the full instruction training condi- conditions experienced no significant increase (traditional:
tion was significantly more accurate than the traditional ?1.43%; and exposure: -0.76%), revealing support for
control and motivating lecture control conditions, but was H1. Surprisingly one of the control conditions (motivating
not significantly different from the control group with
exposure, or feedback only training, or self-led training Table 2 Within subjects comparisons for accuracy from test to test
conditions.
Condition Pre-test Post-test 1 Post-test 2
A significant interaction was revealed for time by con- versus versus versus
dition, F (14.916, 894.954) = 5.421, p \ .001, g2 = .083. post-test 1, t post-test 2, t post-test 3, t
To further explore this interaction, one-way ANOVAs
Control
were conducted at each test (pre-test, post-test 1, post-test
Traditional .560 3.477** -2.065*
2, and post-test 3) to examine between subject differences.
Exposure -.205 2.554* 1.745
There were no significant differences at the pre-test,
Motivating lecture 2.143* 3.266** -1.929
revealing that all groups began at approximately the same
Training
skill level. A significant difference was revealed at post-test
1, F (5, 300) = 7.561, p \ .001. Bonferroni post hoc tests Feedback only 7.346*** 2.908** -1.586
revealed that the three control conditions were significantly Full instruction 8.757*** 3.106** 1.430
less accurate than the two instructor-led training condi- Self-led 5.635*** 6.289*** -3.898***
tions. There were no significant differences between the * p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

123
378 Motiv Emot (2012) 36:371–381

(?14.19%), t (143) = 1.811, p \ .05, d = .30, supporting

H2. There were no significant differences between the
accuracy change of the feedback only and self-led
conditions.

The role of refreshers

H3 predicted that refreshers would aid in retention of

Fig. 1 Accuracy across time and conditions
lecture: ?6.15%) also significantly increased from the pre-
test to post-test 1, t (28) = 2.143, p = .041, d = -.40.
Between post-test 1 and post-test 2, all of the conditions
significantly improved in accuracy, suggesting a possible
exposure or practice effect to the stimuli, or that the
material shown in post-test 2 was easier than the other
tests, although pilot testing suggested that all three tests
were equivalent in difficulty. Between post-test 2 and post-
test 3, both the traditional control condition (-5.95%) and
the self-led training condition (-6.91%) significantly
decreased.
H1 was partially supported, as the combined training
participants outperformed control participants and more
specifically the full instruction training participants out-
performed most controls on all tests. However, the moti-
vating lecture control group also significantly improved
after the manipulation, suggesting an effect for the moti-
vating lecture. Additionally, all control groups significantly
improved from post-test 1 to post-test 2. This pattern of
results is illustrated in Fig. 1.
Type of training
training material. A mixed model ANOVA showed a sig-
nificant main effect for time, F (2, 410) = 23.338, p \
.001, g2 = .102 (Table 3). Pairwise comparisons revealed
that accuracy was significantly higher for post-tests 2 and 3
compared to post-test 1 (p \ .001). There was also a sig-
nificant main effect for condition, F (2, 205) = 4.017,
p = .019, g2 = .038. Pairwise comparisons indicated that
the full instruction condition was significantly more accu-
rate than the self-led condition. There was no main effect
for refresher type.
There was a significant interaction for time by condition,
F (4, 410) = 4.300, p = .002, g2 = .040. This interaction
was previously explored and reported, and revealed that full
instruction condition improved significantly more than the
self-led and feedback only conditions. The two-way inter-
actions for time by refresher, and condition by refresher, and
the three-way interaction for time by refresher by condition,
were not significant.
Paired samples t tests (post-test 1 vs. post-test 2, post-
test 2 vs. post-test 3, and post-test 1 vs. post-test 3) were
conducted to evaluate MERA retention for each of the
three refresher manipulations within the three training
groups. In the feedback only condition, the time 2 refresher
group significantly improved in accuracy after the
refresher, t (21) = 3.346, p = .003, d = .71 (post-test 1 to
post-test 2). T tests also revealed that accuracy significantly
decreased from post-test 2 to post-test 3, t (21) = -3.186,
p = .004, d = -.68. No other significant differences,
Table 3 Within subjects differences for ME accuracy over time
Training type Refresher N Accuracy
type
Post-test Post-test Post-test
1 (%) 2 (%) 3 (%)

Feedback only None 27 74.60 78.70 78.57

H2 predicted that the full instruction training would result At time 2 22 70.45 80.30 72.40
in greater improved accuracy compared to feedback only At time 3 25 83.43 86.67 85.14
and self-led trainings. Independent samples t tests (one- Full instruction None 24 81.55 85.07 91.96
tailed) were conducted to examine the differences in
At time 2 25 78.00 87.33 89.43
improvement from the pre-test to post-test 1 for the three
At time 3 22 78.25 84.47 88.31
training types. Tests revealed that the full instruction
Self-led None 25 72.29 85.33 74.57
condition (?19.52%) improved significantly more than
At time 2 20 71.79 80.83 76.43
both the self-led condition (?10.66%), t (138) = 3.021,
At time 3 24 72.32 88.89 83.93
p \ .005, d = .51, and the feedback only condition

123
Motiv Emot (2012) 36:371–381
including improvements for the time 3 refresher group,
were uncovered.
In the full instruction condition, the time 2 refresher
group significantly increased in accuracy from post-test 1
to post-test 2, t (24) = 2.402, p = .024, d = .48, and post-
test 1 to post-test 3, t (24) = 3.578, p = .002, d = .72. For
the time 3 refresher group, paired samples t tests revealed
that accuracy significantly increased from post-test 1 to
post-test 3, t (21) = 3.241, p = .004, d = .69. No other
significant differences were uncovered.
In the self-led condition, the no refresher group signif-
icantly increased in accuracy from post-test 1 to post-test 2,
t (24) = 3.496, p = .002, d = .70. Accuracy at post-test 3
was significantly less than at post-test 2, t (24) = -4.064,
p \ .001, d = -.81. This was the only non-refresher group
that performed significantly different on one of the post-
tests. For the time 2 refresher group, paired samples t tests
revealed success for the refresher in significantly increas-
ing accuracy from post-test 1 to post-test 2, t (19) = 2.323,
p = .031, d = .52. For the time 3 refresher group, accu-
racy significantly increased from post-test 1 to post-test 2,
t (23) = 5.175, p \ .001, d = 1.06, and from post-test 1 to
post-test 3, t (23) = 3.646, p = .011, d = .74, revealing an
increase prior to the refresher. No other significant differ-
ences were uncovered.
These inconsistent results do not support H3. The time 2
refresher groups did experience significant increases in
accuracy after their refresher, but this result did not outlast
the time period. Actually, all groups increased at Time 2
(although not all changes were significant) suggesting that
the refresher may not have caused increases but rather by
some condition of the ME test.
Discussion
This study provides the first data comparing different
methods of training micro expressions, the effects of
motivation and exposure on recognition, and skill retention
over three points in time. As predicted, the training was
successful. At the pre-test, there were no significant dif-
ferences in accuracy based on condition, but after the
manipulation trained participants performed better on post-
tests 1, 2 and 3 (76, 84, and 82% respectively) than controls
(64, 75, and 73% respectively). Further, having an expert
present to guide participants through the subtle differences
among these expressions and answer questions was an
advantage over the other tested training methods. The full
instruction training condition continually provided consis-
tent results: it was the only training condition that was
significantly more accurate than one or more control con-
ditions on all three post-tests.
379
These results revealed that the best method for using the
METT in a short session was to fully explore all sections of
the program including the training and review, have a
knowledgeable instructor describe subtle differences
between the expressions, and practice identifying the ME
items and provide feedback to trainees. This suggests that
feedback paired with additional training techniques may
produce a more effective training manipulation. Although
the METT has been designed as a self-instructional tool to
train emotion recognition, this method of training was
considerably less effective compared to an instructor-led
training.
Two explanations for this finding may be that the full
instruction training provided both more material than the
self-led training (instructor answered questions) as well as
enthusiasm for the topic. This study does not definitively
show which factor provided significant benefits. However,
the surprising finding that the motivating lecture control
group also significantly increased at after the manipulation
(?6%) suggests that the instructor’s enthusiasm may have
provided motivation to concentrate or attend closer to the
post-test. Further research should examine the both the role
of content and instructor in training ME skills, as there may
be some ideal combination of content and charisma that
produces the greatest effects.
In this experiment, the same instructor was used for all
trials in attempt to keep the presentation consistent and
eliminate the possibility of attention or motivation biases
caused by the instructor’s appearance or presentation style.
However, this is also a limitation of the study since the
instructor was aware of the hypotheses and experimental
design, which could have unintentionally affected por-
trayals within the experiment.
Research examining confidence of judgment has gen-
erally not found a relationship between one’s confidence in
judgment and the accuracy of that judgment (DePaulo et al.
1997; Patterson et al. 2001). The current study revealed a
clear relationship between confidence and MERA: before
individuals were introduced to the concept of MEs, their
confidence and accuracy were not calibrated, but after
individuals had seen MEs, they became calibrated such that
accurate judges were more confident and less accurate
judges were less confident. Previous studies examining
emotion recognition have not found this strong a link. In
this study, participants’ confidence in interpreting the MEs
was significantly positively correlated to their accuracy
post-testing period, even though they had never received
feedback on their performance. This may suggest a very
parsimonious means to determine whether trainees under-
stand the material—the trainer merely has to ask. The
novelty of this finding suggests that this relationship should
be verified in subsequent research. Of particular importance
123
380
would be to replicate this finding with naturally occurring
MEs, which may be more difficult to spot.
In this study a possible repeated exposure effect was
found, as untrained individuals improved without train-
ing—and most markedly in the repeated exposure control.
If practice—or exposure—improves performance, this
suggests additional training time would be beneficial. One
limitation of the current study was the limited time spent
training (25 min) and refreshing (15 min) ME skills. Per-
haps this is the reason why the reinforcement sessions were
ineffective. This data suggests that exposure is an impor-
tant element for learning, and future studies should explore
increased exposure and training time manipulations.
A limitation of the current study was all conditions
performed significantly better on post-test 2 (as compared
to the pre-test and post-test 1), which suggests that the
stimuli utilized in post-test 2 may have been easier than the
other tests. Pilot tests were conducted to ensure that the ME
items were divided into equally difficult post-tests, and
while not significant the pattern revealed by the means
suggests that post-test 2 was slightly easier. Although the
availability of a subject pool was prohibitive in this sense,
future research should counterbalance the order of these
tests to insure that accuracy is due to the manipulation, not
the ease of any particular test.
Another limitation was the nature of the MEs used to
both test and train recognition. These MEs were full-face
but very quick expressions of emotion that were imbedded
within a poser’s neutral expression. Research has shown
that spontaneous expressions are more difficult to interpret
than posed expressions, as often naturally occurring
expressions blend with other emotions or expressions
(Naab and Russell 2007). Naturally occurring MEs may not
engage every action unit, do not occur at the same speed or
intensity every time, may be masked or covered by other
expressions, and accuracy of recognition may be affected
by lighting, angle, attention, and the observer’s cognitive
load (Porter and ten Brinke 2008). Length of expression
itself is an additional variable that was not examined in this
study; it is possible that good ME perceivers could identify
MEs that last for varying lengths of time, as they would
naturally occur. While this study presented a necessary first
step to understand boundary factors, these results should be
repeated using more ecologically valid stimuli.
It is important to explore this training on samples of real
world practitioners—such as law enforcement, behavior
detection officers, physicians, clinical groups, and negoti-
ators. However, this training is only useful to real world
practitioners if it relates to a real world skill. One study
under review (Frank et al. 2011) found that the METT
training resulted in significantly better ability to catch ‘‘real
life micros’’ for Coast Guard officers. Although these
officers almost doubled their abilities to accurately read
123
Motiv Emot (2012) 36:371–381
these MEs, their average post training accuracy (38%) was
much lower than ME accuracy for posed photographs seen
both in their study (78%) and this current study (81%
across all post-tests). The posed faces selected for training
with the METT are not representative of all of the facial
expressions encountered daily, and therefore future
research is required to determine whether these are the best
materials for training spontaneous expression recognition.
There is a need to correctly recognize and interpret a
person’s true feelings in any number of interpersonal,
health, business, legal, and social contexts. The detection
of concealed or masked emotions is invaluable in law
enforcement and national security settings, medical con-
texts and the corporate world—where better understanding
of our suspects, patients, or partners can allow us to make
more informed decisions about a person’s true feelings and
intent. In any context, the ability to recognize emotional
displays can make us more effective perceivers of others,
which can enhance the quality of our interpersonal rela-
tionships and reduce the potential for misunderstanding.
This study was among the first to evaluate the specific
features and use of the METT, a facial expression training
program currently in use in security and health contexts.
These findings validate use of the METT for improving
MERA, suggest the training persists at 6 weeks, and further
provide the optimal way to deploy that training. Previous
work suggests that this type of training will translate to real
time spontaneously expressed MEs, but this particular tool
requires further testing to conclusively demonstrate its utility
across the wide variety of situations seen in daily life.
References
Allport, F. H. (1924). Social psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Biehl, M., Matsumoto, D., Ekman, P., Hearn, V., Heider, K., Kudoh,
T., et al. (1997). Matsumoto and Ekman’s Japanese and
Caucasian facial expressions of emotion (JACFEE): Reliability
data and cross-national differences. Journal of Nonverbal
Behavior, 21, 3–21. doi:10.1023/A:1024902500935.
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an
integrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path
analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology,
85, 678–707.
DeJong, R. N. (1979). The neurologic examination. Hagerstown, MD:
Harper & Row.
DeMyer, W. (1980). Technique of the neurologic examination. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
DePaulo, B. M., Charlton, K., Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. J., &
Muhlenbruck, L. (1997). The accuracy–confidence correlation
in the detection of deception. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 1, 346–357. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0104_5.
Ekman, P. (1972). Universals and cultural differences in facial
expression of emotion. In J. Cole (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on
motivation (Vol. 19, pp. 207–283). Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.
Motiv Emot (2012) 36:371–381
Ekman, P. (2001). Telling Lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace,
politics, and marriage. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
Ekman, P. (2003). Emotions revealed: Recognizing faces and feelings
to improve communication and emotional life. New York: Henry
Holt & Co.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). Nonverbal leakage and cues to
deception. Psychiatry, 32, 88–106.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1974a). Detecting deception from the
body or the face. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
29, 124–129. doi:10.1037/h0036006.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1974b). Nonverbal behavior and
psychopathy. In R. J. Friedman & M. Katz (Eds.), The
psychology of depression: Contemporary theory and research
(pp. 3–31). Washington, D.C.: Winston and Sons.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1975). Pictures of facial affect
instrument. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1978). Facial action coding system.
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Ekman, P., & O’Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American
Psychologist, 46, 189–204. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.46.9.913.
Ekman, P., & O’Sullivan, M. (2006). From flawed self-assessment to
blatant whoppers: The utility of voluntary and involuntary
behavior in detecting deception. Behavioral Sciences & The
Law, 24, 673–686. doi:10.1002/bsl.729.
Ekman, P., O’Sullivan, M., & Frank, M. G. (1999). A few can catch a
liar. Psychological Science, 10, 263–266. doi:10.1111/1467-
9280.00147.
Elfenbein, H. A. (2006). Learning in emotion judgments: Training
and the cross-cultural understanding of facial expressions.
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 30, 21–36. doi:10.1007/s10919-
005-0002-y.
Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. (2002). On the universality and
cultural specificity of emotion recognition: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 128, 203–235. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.
128.2.203.
Etcoff, N. L., Ekman, P., Magee, J. J., & Frank, M. G. (2000). Lie
detection and language comprehension. Nature, 405, 139. doi:
10.1038/35012129.
Frank, M. G., Matsumoto, D. M., Ekman, P., Kang, S., & Kurylo, A.
(2011). Improving the ability to recognize micro-expressions of
emotion. Manuscript under review.
Guilford, J. P. (1929). An experiment in learning to read facial
expression. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 24,
191–202. doi:10.1037/h0069973.
Haggard, E. A., & Isaacs, K. S. (1966). Micromomentary facial
expressions as indicators of ego mechanisms in psychotherapy.
In L. A. Gottschalk & A. H. Auerbach (Eds.), Methods of
research in psychotherapy (pp. 154–165). New York: Appleton
Century Crofts.
Hess, U., & Kleck, R. E. (1990). Differentiating emotion elicited and
deliberate emotional facial expressions. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 20, 369–385. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420200502.
Izard, C. E. (1979). The maximally discriminative facial movement
coding system. Unpublished manuscript; Instructional Resources
Center, University of Delaware.
View publication stats
381
Jarden, E., & Fernberger, S. (1926). The effects of suggestion on the
judgment of facial expressions of emotion. American Journal of
Psychology, 37, 565–570. doi:10.2307/1414917.
Jenness, A. (1932). The effects of coaching subjects in the recognition
of facial expressions. Journal of General Psychology, 7,
163–178.
Levenson, R. W. (1994). Human emotion: A functional view. In P.
Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion:
Fundamental questions (pp. 123–126). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Marsh, P. J., Green, M. J., Russell, T. A., McGuire, J., Harris, A., &
Coltheart, M. (2010). Remediation of facial emotion recognition
in schizophrenia: Functional predictors, generalizability, and
durability. American Journal of Psychiatric Rehabilitation, 13,
143–170. doi:10.1080/15487761003757066.
Matsumoto, D., & Ekman, P. (1988). Japanese and Caucasian facial
expressions of emotion (JACFEE) [Slides]. San Francisco, CA:
Intercultural and Emotion Research Laboratory, Department of
Psychology, San Francisco State University.
Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H. S. (in press). Evidence for training the
ability to read microexpressions of emotion. Motivation and
Emotion. Retrieved from http://www.humintell.com/wp-content/
uploads/2011/05/Uncorrected-Proof2.pdf.
Matsumoto, D., LeRoux, J., Wilson-Cohn, C., Raroque, J., Kooken,
K., Ekman, P., et al. (2000). A new test to measure emotion
recognition ability: Matsumoto and Ekman’s Japanese and
Caucasian brief affect recognition test (JACBART). Journal of
Nonverbal Behavior, 24, 179–209. doi:10.1023/A:10066681
20583.
Naab, P. J., & Russell, J. A. (2007). Judgments of emotion from
spontaneous facial expressions of New Guineans. Emotion, 7,
736–744. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.7.4.736.
Patterson, M. L., Foster, J. L., & Bellmer, C. (2001). Another look at
accuracy and confidence in social judgments. Journal of Nonver-
bal Behavior, 25, 207–219. doi:10.1023/A:1010675210696.
Porter, S., & ten Brinke, L. (2008). Reading between the lies:
Identifying concealed and falsified emotions in universal facial
expressions. Psychological Science, 19, 508–514. doi:10.1111/j.
1467-9280.2008.02116.x.
Russell, T. A., Chu, E., & Phillips, M. L. (2006). A pilot study to
investigate the effectiveness of emotion recognition in schizophre-
nia using micro-expression training tool. British Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 45, 579–583. doi:10.1348/014466505X90866.
Russell, T. A., Green, M. J., Simpson, I., & Coltheart, M. (2008).
Remediation of facial emotion perception in schizophrenia:
Concomitant changes in visual attention. Schizophrenia Research,
103, 248–256. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2008.04.033.
Stickle, F. E., & Pellegreno, D. (1982). Training individuals to label
nonverbal facial cues. Psychology in the Schools, 19, 384–387. doi:
10.1002/1520-6807(198207)19:3\384:AID-PITS2310190321[
3.0.CO;2-A.
Wang, L., & Markham, R. (1999). The development of a series of
photographs of Chinese facial expressions of emotion. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 397–410. doi:10.1177/0022022
199030004001.
123