Page 94 - Demo

Chapter 492Hess & Blairy, 2001; K%u00fcnecke et al., 2014; Olszanowski et al., 2020; Rymarczyk et al., 2011, 2016; Sato et al., 2008). Enhanced corrugator activity, in contrast, has been linked to the perception of anger displays (Dijk, Fischer, et al., 2018; Hess & Blairy, 2001; K%u00fcnecke et al., 2014; Olszanowski et al., 2020; Peter-Ruf et al., 2017; Sato et al., 2008) and, less pronounced, for sadness displays (Hess & Blairy, 2001; K%u00fcnecke et al., 2014; Olszanowski et al., 2020).Importantly, instead of being only an epiphenomenon, facial mimicry has been proposed to aid emotion recognition (Drimalla et al., 2019; K%u00fcnecke et al., 2014; Sato et al., 2013). In line with seminal theories on emotion (Damasio, 1996; James, 1884), peripheral signals, such as facial expressions, can not only inform the producer about the physiological effects of emotions via interoceptive pathways (Critchley & Garfinkel, 2017). %u201cFacial feedback%u201d (Buck, 1980) might also act as an information source when another individual%u2019s expression is automatically mirrored, serving as a sensorimotor simulation of another person%u2019s emotional state (Wood et al., 2016). This view was supported by studies that showed a decline in emotion recognition performance if facial mimicry was voluntarily (Stel & van Knippenberg, 2008) or artificially (Neal & Chartrand, 2011) blocked. Yet, recent meta-analyses suggest that the effects of facial feedback on affective judgments, including emotion recognition, are not consistent (Coles et al., 2019; Holland et al., 2020). Moreover, facial mimicry does not seem to be a requirement for successful emotion recognition: A study in patients with M%u00f6bius syndrome has shown that, despite facial paralysis, these patients could still accurately recognize emotional expressions(Bogart & Matsumoto, 2010).Metacognition and Emotion RecognitionMetacognition describes the monitoring of one%u2019s own cognitive processes and has been claimed to be an immanent feature of human social interactions (Frith, 2012). Nevertheless, it is scarcely researched in the domain of emotion recognition. According to the few available studies on emotion recognition in healthy adults, a reliable metacognitive resolution (i.e., a clear subjective discrimination between correct and incorrect recognition), together with a general overconfidence has been found (B%u00e8gue et al., 2019; Dentakos et al., 2019). Furthermore, only direct trial-by-trial ratings, which can be used to estimate %u2018relative meta-accuracy%u2019, and not global beliefs about one%u2019s abilities, were found to be predictive of performance in emotion recognition tasks (Kelly & Metcalfe, 2011).Thus, while