Wearing a mask often disrupts social interactions because it covers parts of the face. Hence, masks with a printed smiling mouth (smiling masks) were designed to overcome this problem. In this study, we examine how wearing a smiling mask evokes affective impressions. The results show that people wearing a smiling mask are evaluated more eerily than those with a typical cloth mask or without any masks (Experiments 1). Moreover, people wearing a transparent mask (i.e., a mask whose area around the mouth is transparent) are evaluated less eerily than those with a smiling mask (Experiments 2). Our findings suggest that the realism inconsistency between facial features in the upper area and the printed mouth causes devaluation effects for people with a smiling mask. Our findings can be used as a reference for future mask designs that can promote healthy social interactions in a mask-wearing society, considering the potential return of infectious diseases and pandemics in the future.
CarbonC.-C. (2020). Wearing face masks strongly confuses counterparts in reading emotions. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 566886. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.566886
3.
CarragherD. J.HancockP. J. B. (2020). Surgical face masks impair human face matching performance for familiar and unfamiliar faces. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 5(1), Article 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00258-x
4.
de LeeuwJ. R. (2015). Jspsych: A JavaScript library for creating behavioral experiments in a web browser. Behavior Research Methods, 47(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0458-y
5.
DudarevV.KamataniM.MiyazakiY.EnnsJ. T.KawaharaJ. I. (2022). The attractiveness of masked faces is influenced by race and mask attitudes. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 864936. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.864936
6.
GoriM.SchiattiL.AmadeoM. B. (2021). Masking emotions: Face masks impair how we read emotions. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 669432. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.669432
7.
GrenvilleE.DwyerD. M. (2022). Face masks have emotion-dependent dissociable effects on accuracy and confidence in identifying facial expressions of emotion. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 7, Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-022-00366-w
8.
GrundmannF.EpstudeK.ScheibeS. (2021). Face masks reduce emotion-recognition accuracy and perceived closeness. PLoS One, 16(4), Article e0249792. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249792
9.
IkedaA.SasakiK.YamadaY. (2024). Human-to-human contagion of moral disgust based on physical contact. Letters on Evolutionary Behavioral Science, 15(2), 37–40. https://doi.org/10.5178/lebs.2024.119
10.
KamataniM.ItoM.MiyazakiY.KawaharaJ. I. (2021). Effects of masks worn to protect against COVID-19 on the perception of facial attractiveness. i-Perception, 12(3), Article 20416695211027920. https://doi.org/10.1177/20416695211027920
11.
KamataniM.MiyazakiY.KawaharaJ. I. (2023). Occlusion of faces by sanitary masks improves facial attractiveness of other races. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 953389. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.953389
12.
KawabeT.SasakiK.IhayaK.YamadaY. (2017). When categorization-based stranger avoidance explains the uncanny valley: A comment on MacDorman and Chattopadhyay (2016). Cognition, 129, 129–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.09.001
13.
LakensD.ScheelA. M.IsagerP. M. (2018). Equivalence testing for psychological research: A tutorial. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(2), 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918770963
14.
LederH.ForsterM.GergerG. (2011). The glasses stereotype revisited: Effects of eyeglasses on perception, recognition, and impression of faces. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 70(4), 211–222. https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185/a000059
15.
MacDormanK. F.ChattopadhyayD. (2016). Reducing consistency in human realism increases the uncanny valley effect; increasing category uncertainty does not. Cognition, 146, 190–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.019
16.
MheidlyN.FaresM. Y.ZalzaleH.FaresJ. (2020). Effect of face masks on interpersonal communication during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Public Health, 8, Article 582191. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.582191
17.
MiyazakiY.KamataniM.SudaT.WakasugiK.MatsunagaK.KawaharaJ. I. (2022). Effects of wearing a transparent face mask on perception of facial expressions. i-Perception, 13, Article 20416695221105910. https://doi.org/10.1177/20416695221105910
18.
MiyazakiY.KamataniM.TsurumiS.SudaT.WakasugiK.MatsunagaK.KawaharaJ. I. (2023). Effects of wearing an opaque or transparent face mask on the perception of facial expressions: A comparative study between Japanese school-aged children and adults. Perception, 52(11–12), 782–798. https://doi.org/10.1177/03010066231200693
19.
MiyazakiY.KawaharaJ.-I. (2016). The sanitary-mask effect on perceived facial attractiveness. Japanese Psychological Research, 58(3), 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12116
20.
NakamuraK.WatanabeK. (2019). Data-driven mathematical model of east-Asian facial attractiveness: The relative contributions of shape and reflectance to attractiveness judgments. Royal Society Open Science, 6(10), Article 182189. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.182189
21.
NakamuraK.WatanabeK. (2020). A new data-driven mathematical model dissociates attractiveness from sexual dimorphism of human faces. Scientific Reports, 10, Article 16588. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73472-8
22.
NoyesE.DavisJ. P.PetrovN.GrayK. L. H.RitchieK. L. (2021). The effect of face masks and sunglasses on identity and expression recognition with super-recognizers and typical observers. Royal Society Open Science, 8(3), Article 201169. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201169
23.
OosterhofN. N.TodorovA. (2008). The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(31), 11087–11092. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805664105
24.
ReberR.WinkielmanP.SchwarzN. (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science, 9(1), 45–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00008
25.
SasakiK.IhayaK.YamadaY. (2017). Avoidance of novelty contributes to the uncanny valley. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1792. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01792
26.
ShafferJ. P. (1986). Modified sequentially rejective multiple test procedures. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81(395), 826–831. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1986.10478341
27.
VenturaM.PalmisanoA.InnamoratoF.TedescoG.ManippaV.CaffòA. O.RivoltaD. (2023). Face memory and facial expression recognition are both affected by wearing disposable surgical face masks. Cognitive Processing, 24(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-022-01112-2
YamadaY.KawabeT.IhayaK. (2013). Categorization difficulty is associated with negative evaluation in the “uncanny valley” phenomenon. The Japanese Psychological Research, 55(1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468–5884.2012.00538.x
30.
YonemitsuF.SasakiK.GobaraA.YamadaY. (2021a). The clone devaluation effect: A new uncanny phenomenon concerning facial identity. PLOS ONE, 16(7), Article e0254396. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254396
31.
YonemitsuF.SasakiK.GobaraA.YamadaY. (2021b). The clone devaluation effect: Does duplication of local facial features matter?BMC Research Notes, 14, Article 400. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-021-05815-1
32.
YoshimuraN.YonemitsuF.SasakiK.YamadaY. (2022). Robustness of the aging effect of smiling against vertical facial orientation. F1000Research, 11, Article 404. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.111126.3
33.
ZhouW.ZhangX.ChenJ.WangL.ChenD. (2012). Nostril-specific olfactory modulation of visual perception in binocular rivalry. The Journal of Neuroscience, 32(48), 17225–17229. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2649-12.2012
