5-Second Science: Revisiting The Facial Feedback Hypothesis

In the history of psychological science, few ideas have captured public imagination as readily as the facial feedback hypothesis—the notion that simply arranging your facial muscles into a smile can make you feel happier.

This idea, both intuitively appealing and easy to test, gained empirical footing with a landmark study in the 1980s. However, its scientific credibility has since faltered in the face of failed replications and evolving standards for research transparency.

The Original Facial Feedback Study

The facial feedback hypothesis was most famously tested by Fritz Strack and colleagues in a 1988 study. Participants were told they were part of a study on dexterity and were asked to hold a pen in their mouth in one of two ways: either with their teeth (mimicking a smile) or with their lips (inhibiting a smile). They then rated how funny they found a series of cartoons. The key result: participants in the “smile” condition rated the cartoons as significantly funnier than those in the “pout” condition. This supported the idea that facial expressions themselves can influence emotional experience, not just reflect it.

At the time, the study was celebrated as a clever example of an unobtrusive manipulation—where participants were unaware of the true purpose, reducing demand characteristics. The finding dovetailed with broader theories of embodied cognition, which posit that bodily states can feed back into mental states. For decades, this study was frequently cited as textbook evidence for how facial expressions could alter emotional states.

Replication Failures

However, this finding did not survive rigorous scrutiny. In 2016, a large-scale replication project led by Eric-Jan Wagenmakers and conducted across 17 independent laboratories attempted to directly replicate Strack’s original experiment. Each lab followed a preregistered protocol, consulted with the original author to ensure fidelity to the original method, and collected data from over 2,000 participants in total. The result: a complete failure to replicate the original effect.

Importantly, this multi-lab replication used high-powered samples and open science practices, including preregistration and data sharing, to ensure transparency. While Strack accepted the results in principle, he noted subtle procedural differences that might have accounted for the failure. Yet such defenses fall flat in light of the replication’s methodological rigor and breadth. The outcome echoed broader concerns in psychology about the replicability of widely cited but weakly supported findings.

Current Status

Despite these setbacks, the hypothesis has not been entirely discredited. A comprehensive meta-analysis of 138 studies found that facial feedback does have a statistically significant effect on emotional experience, but the effect is small and highly variable.

For example, facial feedback effects are stronger when no emotionally evocative stimuli are present, and when participants are exposed to emotional sentences rather than pictures (Coles et al., 2019).

Recent multi-lab collaborations have further clarified the conditions under which facial feedback is most likely to influence emotion.

These findings suggest that while the facial feedback hypothesis holds some validity, its effects are context-dependent and generally modest.

In summary, the current consensus is that facial feedback can influence emotional experience, but the effect is small, variable, and sensitive to methodological nuances. The hypothesis remains a viable, though limited, explanation for the interplay between facial expression and emotion.

Key Takeaways

1. The original Strack and colleagues' (1988) study provided initial support for the facial feedback hypothesis through an unobtrusive manipulation involving pen placement to simulate facial expressions.

2. A high-powered, 17-lab replication effort in 2016 failed to reproduce the original effect, raising significant doubts about the robustness of the finding and highlighting issues of replicability in psychological science.

3. The replication failures were methodologically rigorous, incorporating preregistration and open science practices, and challenged the earlier enthusiasm surrounding the facial feedback effect.

4. Subsequent meta-analyses and multi-lab studies suggest that facial feedback can influence emotional experience, but the effect is small and highly context-dependent.

5. The facial feedback hypothesis is no longer viewed as a robust general principle but as a phenomenon that may occur under specific conditions, particularly when emotional stimuli are weak or absent.

Glossary

confidence interval (CI): a statistical range that estimates the precision of an effect size; a 95% CI suggests the true effect lies within the interval 95% of the time.

demand characteristics: cues in an experiment that may lead participants to guess the study’s purpose and change their behavior accordingly.

embodied cognition: a psychological theory suggesting that bodily states (like posture or facial expression) influence cognitive and emotional processes.

facial feedback hypothesis: the theory that facial muscle activity can influence emotional experience, such as smiling making a person feel happier.

null effect: a result in which no statistically significant difference is found between experimental conditions.

open science: a set of research practices that emphasize transparency, including sharing data, materials, and preregistered plans.

preregistration: the process of documenting hypotheses, methods, and analyses before collecting data, reducing bias and questionable research practices.

replication: the act of repeating a study to determine whether the original findings can be reproduced under the same or similar conditions.

unobtrusive manipulation: a research technique in which the independent variable is altered in a way that does not make participants aware of the manipulation's purpose or that they are being manipulated at all.

References

Acosta, A., Adams, R. B., Albohn, D. N., Allard, E., Beek, T. F., Benning, S. D., Blouin-Hudon, E.-M., Bulnes, L. C., Caldwell, T. L., Calin-Jageman, R., Capaldi, C. A., Carfagno, N., Chasten, K. T., Cleeremans, A., Connell, L., DeCicco, J. M., Dijkhoff, L., Dijkstra, K., Fischer, A., Foroni, F., Gronau, Q., Hess, U., Holmes, K. J., Jones, J. L. H., Klein, O., Koch, C., Korb, S., Lewinski, P., Liao, J., Lund, S., Lupiáñez, J., Lynott, D., Nance, C. N., Oosterwijk, S., Özdoğru, A. A., Pacheco-Unguetti, A., Pearson, B., Powis, C., Riding, S., Roberts, T., Rumiati, R., Senden, M., Shea-Shumsky, N. B., Sobocko, K., Soto, J. A., Steiner, T. G., Talarico, J. M., vanAllen, Z., Wagenmakers, E., Vandekerckhove, M., Wainwright, B. R., Wayand, J., Zeelenberg, R., Zetzer, E. E., & Zwaan, R. A. (2016). Registered replication report. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 917–928. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616676982

Buck, R. (1980). Nonverbal behavior and the theory of emotion: The facial feedback hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(5), 811–824. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.5.811

Cappella, J. (1993). The facial feedback hypothesis in human interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12(1-2), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X9301200104

Coles, N. A., Larsen, J. T., & Lench, H. C. (2019). A meta-analysis of the facial feedback literature: Effects of facial feedback on emotional experience are small and variable. Psychological Bulletin, 145(6), 610–651. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000194

Coles, N. A., March, D. S., Marmolejo‐Ramos, F., Banaruee, H., Butcher, N., Cavallet, M., Dagaev, N., Eaves, D., Foroni, F., Gorbunova, E., Gygax, P., Hinojosa Poveda, J. A., Ikeda, A., Kathin-Zadeh, O., Özdoğru, A., Parzuchowski, M., Ruiz-Fernández, S., Som, B., Suarez, I., Trujillo, N., Trujillo, S., Zee, T., Villalba-García, C., Willis, M., Yamada, Y., Ellsworth, P., Gaertner, L., Strack, F., Liuzza, M. T., & Marozzi, M. (2019). A multi-lab test of the facial feedback hypothesis by The Many Smiles Collaboration. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(6), 556–565. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0525-4

Coles, N. A., March, D. S., Marmolejo‐Ramos, F., Larsen, J. T., Arinze, N. C., Ndukaihe, I., Willis, M., Foroni, F., Reggev, N., Mokady, A., Forscher, P. S., Hunter, J., Kaminski, G., Yüvrük, E., Kapucu, A., Nagy, T., Hajdú, N., Tejada, J., Meister Ko. Freitag, R., Zambrano, D., Som, B., Aczél, B., Barzykowski, K., Adamus, S., Filip, K., Yamada, Y., Ikeda, A., Eaves, D., Levitan, C., Leiweke, S., Parzuchowski, M., Butcher, N., Pfuhl, G., Basnight-Brown, D., Hinojosa, J., Montoro, P. R., Javela D, L. G., Vezirian, K., IJzerman, H., Trujillo, N., Pressman, S., Gygax, P., Özdoğru, A., Ruiz-Fernández, S., Ellsworth, P., Gaertner, L., Strack, F., Marozzi, M., & Liuzza, M. T. (2022). A multi-lab test of the facial feedback hypothesis by the Many Smiles Collaboration. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(10), 1426–1440. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01438-2

Larsen, R., Kasimatis, M., & Frey, K. (1992). Facilitating the furrowed brow: An unobtrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis applied to unpleasant affect. Cognition & Emotion, 6(5), 321–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939208409689

McIntosh, D. (1996). Facial feedback hypotheses: Evidence, implications, and directions. Motivation and Emotion, 20(2), 121–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02249397

Soussignan, R. (2002). Duchenne smile, emotional experience, and autonomic reactivity: A test of the facial feedback hypothesis. Emotion, 2(1), 52–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.2.1.52

Strack, F., Martin, L. L., & Stepper, S. (1988). Inhibiting and facilitating conditions of the human smile: A nonobtrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 768–777. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.768

Wagenmakers, E.-J., Beek, T., Dijkhoff, L., Gronau, Q. F., Aczel, B., van Doorn, J., Dablander, F., Derks, K., Draws, T., Etz, A., Evans, N. J., Farrow, D., Fiedler, S., Forstmann, B. U., Haaf, J. M., Hinne, M., Hoekstra, R., Holmes, N. P., Jonas, K. J., Keller, L., Lei, C. L., Ly, A., Marsman, M., Matzke, D., Miller, J. K., Mohr, A. H., Mulder, M. J., Ragni, F., Sarafoglou, A., Stefan, A. M., Voelkel, J. G., Wacker, P., Xiang, C., Zwaan, R. A., & Schuck, N. W. (2016). A multi-lab replication of the facial feedback hypothesis: Comparing the original study with a replication project. Psychological Science, 27(7), 914–924. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616647174