Is it better to use an audiovisual message with “strong tones,<\/strong>” perhaps from an expert virologist (such as Roberto Burioni), while being interviewed by a famous TV host, so as to make the message more effective and incisive? Or better “calm tones<\/strong>” from a famous science popularizer (Alberto Angela), speaking in an “informal” setting? Or better “serious and institutional tones<\/strong>” from the political leader called to manage the crisis (the Honorable Giuseppe Conte)? <\/p>\n Ah, obviously, all in one minute! This was the time available to expose the participants to our small research in which three audiovisual messages, communicated by the three mentioned characters, of one minute each, were shown. <\/p>\n The answer as to which video was most effective in terms of appreciation and “emotional responses<\/strong>” is presented by us at SR Labs<\/a><\/strong>, together with our partner JUNGLES<\/a>, with whom we designed the research, which took place through a participation mode completely carried out online, in which we combined the results of the innovative technique based on the automatic analysis of emotional facial expressions with those of a short traditional questionnaire on appreciation.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div> In our research, 34 people<\/strong> (mostly university students of the course in “Applied Cognitive Sciences to Ergonomics and User and Customer Experience,” at the Catholic University of Milan, students we thank together with all the other volunteer participants) were invited via an e-mail to participate in the study. Receiving a link, the participants comfortably opened from their own PC at home each of the three videos urging them to respect the “stay home” rule, from three very different characters: Roberto Burioni, Alberto Angela and Giuseppe Conte. <\/p>\n Each of them, shown in random order (the order of presentation of the videos was random for each individual participant), communicated the need to respect the “stay home” rule during the COVID-19 epidemic emergency. Obviously the three videos are very different, so the research intends to highlight here the integrated approach of innovative technologies and traditional techniques to explore the impact of communication on people, without the possibility of generalizing the results given the smallness of the sample composed of 34 people.<\/p>\n<\/div> The objective of the questionnaire was to explore the level of appreciation, in terms of “verbal statements<\/strong>“.<\/p>\n For this reason, some items asked each individual participant to put the three videos in order of preference, from the most liked to the least liked<\/strong>. Other items explored the participants’ interests in terms of television programs. All items were presented after viewing the audiovisual messages, so as not to risk “anticipating” and thus influencing in any way the spontaneous emotional reaction to the three videos. <\/p>\n No other items were included in order to place greater emphasis on the possibility of demonstrating<\/strong>, in this research, the potential of integrating traditional techniques, such as questionnaires, with innovative technologies like those that detect and measure emotions through facial expression analysis<\/strong>, specifically in terms of ‘non-verbal expressions.’ We emphasize this distinction to attempt to show how the match between ‘verbal statements’ and ‘non-verbal expressions’ opens up new research scenarios. <\/p>\n But let us now begin to consider the results arising from the analysis of the short questionnaire<\/strong>.<\/p>\n From this, it is clear that, within the target group described, a preference emerges for the calm and informal tones of a scientific communicator who is highly regarded by public opinion, both compared to a virologist who bluntly explains why people must stay home, and to a political leader who must maintain the utmost seriousness within an institutional communication format.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div> Up to this point, we have understood the “WHAT,” but not yet the “WHY.” To understand the why, neuroscience and experimental psychology come to our aid.<\/p>\n<\/div> In fact, we know that, thanks also to the brilliant scientific research of Stephen Porges (a leading expert in neurophysiology) and his “polyvagal theory<\/strong>“, facial expressions represent direct reactions of the nervous system (similar to the psychophysiological ones reflected by the cardiac and respiratory systems, etc.).<\/p>\n For this reason, facial expressions can be very useful for exploring spontaneous “non-verbal” reactions, alongside the “verbal” and more “rational” ones (meaning more reasoned and less spontaneous) collected through questionnaires.<\/p>\n<\/div> With the theory of so-called “Fear Arousing Appeals<\/strong>,” a theoretical framework commonly used in communication campaigns when a message attempts to persuade audience members to adopt “healthier” behavior.<\/p>\n For campaigns based on “negative emotions” (such as fear, but also other emotions like “sadness” in our case) to be more effective, they must induce a moderately high level of emotion following an inverted “U” pattern. This pattern begins with an increase in negative emotions until reaching a peak or “emotional apex,” which then subsides, resulting in a kind of final “relief” compared to the fear (or sadness) elicited at the beginning of the message.<\/p>\n By providing solutions or explanations in the final part of the communication (also known in psychological jargon as “coping instructions”) that help reduce or avoid the threat underlying the negative emotions (fear or sadness), a sense of “relief” is elicited through the possibility of facing or managing the danger presented in the message, thereby also conveying the hope of being able to reduce or avoid the threat itself.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div> Analyzing the emotions reflected in the participants’ faces<\/strong> while watching the three videos\u2014given also the difficult general context caused by the Covid-19 emergency\u2014sadness is undoubtedly the most predominant emotion, at least in absolute values (after the neutral expression, which in all three videos is just over 80%, as the videos were not “designed to evoke emotion”):<\/p>\n<\/div> To better understand these percentages, it must be kept in mind that every emotional expression (fear, anger, sadness, joy, etc.) reveals itself with a percentage ranging from 0% to 100%. An expression of joy at 100%, for example, might be manifested when a person finds out they have won the lottery! Obviously, apart from special cases, it is rare for people to show an emotional expression at its maximum intensity of 100%<\/strong>. <\/p>\n In the majority of cases, when people watch videos, they react with facial expressions that, taking joy as an example again, represent a “sketch” of an emotional expression (such as a hint of a smile), a precursor to expressions of joy. These reveal a slight satisfaction or contentment (what we psychologists also call “engagement”), rather than a full-blown expression of “joy” in the common sense of the term.<\/p>\n For this reason, when we talk about emotions such as “joy” or “sadness” at 10%, we are referring to an expression that, in that second or those seconds, shows a hint of a facial muscle configuration that organizes itself to express that emotion slightly<\/strong> (i.e., at 10%) compared to what its maximum intensity of expression (100%) could be.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div> Now studying the progression of emotions<\/strong> during exposure to the various videos, we can see different “trends” (different “stories,” told in different ways):<\/p>\n<\/div>How the research took place<\/h2><\/div>
\n
Understanding the why<\/h3><\/div>
Neuroscience<\/h5><\/div>
Experimental Psychology<\/h5><\/div>
Emotion Analysis<\/h3><\/div>
\n
Emotional Trends<\/h3><\/div>
\n