Judgments of genuine, suppressed, and faked facial expressions of pain.

An augmenting model of the judgment process that attaches considerable importance to the context in which information is provided was supported and judges were able to distinguish genuine pain faces from baseline expressions but, relative to genuinePain faces, attributed more pain to faked faces and less pain to suppressed ones.

Abstract

The process of discriminating among genuine, suppressed, and faked expressions of pain was examined. Untrained judges estimated the severity of pain being experienced when viewing videotaped facial expressions of chronic pain patients undergoing a painful diagnostic test or dissimulating reactions. Verbal feedback as to whether pain was experienced also was provided, so as to be either consistent or inconsistent with the facial expression. Judges were able to distinguish genuine pain faces from baseline expressions but, relative to genuine pain faces, attributed more pain to faked faces and less pain to suppressed ones. Advance warning of deception did not improve discrimination but led to a more conservative or nonempathic judging style. Verbal feedback increased or decreased judgments, as appropriate, but facial information consistently was assigned greater weight. An augmenting model of the judgment process that attaches considerable importance to the context in which information is provided was supported.