View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Label Superiority Effect on Emotional Voices in Young Children

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Label Superiority Effect on Emotional Voices in Young Children
Language: English
Authors: Sho Ohigashi, Shuhei Takagi, Yusuke Moriguchi
Source: European Journal of Developmental Psychology. 2024 21(2):188-201.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 14
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Emotional Intelligence, Nonverbal Learning, Pictorial Stimuli, Foreign Countries, Auditory Stimuli, Aural Learning, Associative Learning, Young Children, Error Patterns, Accuracy
Geographic Terms: Japan
DOI: 10.1080/17405629.2024.2315755
ISSN: 1740-5629
1740-5610
Abstract: Emotion labels can be helpful for creating emotion categories. Russell and Widen (2002) demonstrated the label superiority effect; that is, emotion labels produce a more precise categorization of emotional faces than the corresponding emotional faces. The current study aimed to test the label superiority effect on emotional voices and examined whether emotion labels produce a more precise categorization of emotional voices than the corresponding emotional voices. Four- to six-year-olds were shown emotion categories, represented by a box, and emotion labels (e.g., 'happy' label) or corresponding unlabelled vocal expressions were used to specify the target emotions. The children had to decide which of a group of test voices should go into the box and which should be left out. We presented happy and angry voices in Experiment 1 and angry and fearful voices in Experiment 2. The results in Experiment 2, but not in Experiment 1, showed that children were more likely to correctly choose the target emotion using the emotion label than the emotional voices, partially confirming the label superiority effect on emotional voices.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1422695
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHTlJr1H_nbEy2bH7Bx_Z07AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDPK7HGeRCqO4isnsaQIBEICBmxl-3924UqYuj85xp8Wsd0UjmHnCrtjrU8_tt7aNBCvyr1WDH5ZS5kkEbkPCketbpzpKeTE6Jq2icaTx3XYfic_qnpJYradOTmSLtsvlXJKv-ZVrLNzJ3M9mp5FPfX3-VSJAeSRWQ6LU0qrU-KtIVUUGAV--RS23NGdYUqnkY2p7AThfrkNfaOM_h0TIwmTTnS8amqQypN6EfuyN
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0176845687;a9o01mar.24;2024Apr29.05:54;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0176845687-1">Label superiority effect on emotional voices in young children </title> <p>Emotion labels can be helpful for creating emotion categories. Russell and Widen (2002) demonstrated the label superiority effect; that is, emotion labels produce a more precise categorization of emotional faces than the corresponding emotional faces. The current study aimed to test the label superiority effect on emotional voices and examined whether emotion labels produce a more precise categorization of emotional voices than the corresponding emotional voices. Four- to six-year-olds were shown emotion categories, represented by a box, and emotion labels (e.g., 'happy' label) or corresponding unlabelled vocal expressions were used to specify the target emotions. The children had to decide which of a group of test voices should go into the box and which should be left out. We presented happy and angry voices in Experiment 1 and angry and fearful voices in Experiment 2. The results in Experiment 2, but not in Experiment 1, showed that children were more likely to correctly choose the target emotion using the emotion label than the emotional voices, partially confirming the label superiority effect on emotional voices.</p> <p>Keywords: Children; emotion category; emotion label; emotional voice</p> <hd id="AN0176845687-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The formation of emotion categories is a crucial aspect of young children's social and cognitive development. Emotion categories refer to a collection of emotional elements that share multiple common features. These features include physical characteristics such as facial movements, vocalizations, and changes in the autonomic nervous system; affective characteristics such as pleasure and displeasure; perceptual characteristics such as scenes and odours; and goal-oriented functional features (Barrett et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref1">2</reflink>]; Hoemann et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref2">9</reflink>]). Learning emotion categories is challenging for children owing to the complexity and variability of emotions. Despite this complexity and variability, children begin to learn about emotion categories during infancy and early childhood (Ruba & Repacholi, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref3">18</reflink>]; Widen & Russell, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref4">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>Emotion words play a vital role in the development of emotion categories and can affect a child's ability to understand and predict others' emotions and behaviours (Johanson & Papafragou, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref5">11</reflink>]; Russell & Widen, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref6">19</reflink>]). Specifically, labels help children to form various categories even when category members do not share much perceptual characteristics (Gliozzi et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref7">6</reflink>]; Plunkett et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref8">14</reflink>]). Labels may facilitate the abstraction of category structures by directing children's focus to commonalities between examples and further concretizing the distinctions between categories.</p> <p>One example of labels helping children to form emotion categories comes from research on the label superiority effect (i.e., Russell & Widen, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref9">19</reflink>]). Russell and Widen ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref10">19</reflink>]) examined whether emotion labels improve categorization among two- to seven-year-olds. In that study, the children were shown emotion categories represented by a box that only people who felt a certain way could fit into. The emotion label ('happy'), the matching unlabelled facial expression (smile), or the label and facial expression together were used to specify the target emotion. The children had to decide which of a group of test faces, people with different expressions, should go into the box and which should be left out. In other words, children had to match emotional faces to the emotion label, different emotional faces, or both as cues for classification. The results showed that emotion labels resulted in a more precise categorization than the corresponding emotional faces. This label superiority effect has been replicated in recent studies (e.g., Ikeda, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref11">10</reflink>]; Price et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref12">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>While previous studies have shown that emotion labels can help categorize emotional faces, it remains unclear whether they can also help categorize other emotional cues, such as voices (Brosch et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref13">4</reflink>]) and postures (Coulson, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref14">5</reflink>]). Out of these, research has shown that emotional voices play an important role in emotion perception (Brosch et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref15">4</reflink>]; Pell et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref16">13</reflink>]; Rigoulot & Pell, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref17">17</reflink>]). Moreover, emotional cues are highly variable and a single vocal behaviour can be associated with many emotion categories (Barrett, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref18">1</reflink>]). Thus, the label superiority effect is likely to be observed in emotional voices as emotional faces and emotional voices comprise emotion categories. The current study investigated whether emotion labels help children categorize emotional voices.</p> <p>This study tested the label superiority effect on emotional voices based on Russell and Widen's ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref19">19</reflink>]) procedure. Four- to six-year-olds participated in two experiments. A previous study showed that children of this age can distinguish emotional voices (Sauter et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref20">20</reflink>]). In that study, children between the ages of 5 and 10 were asked to select one of four pictures that best matched the emotion communicated in an auditory stimulus. Children as young as 5 years were able to interpret a variety of vocal cues that indicated emotions, such as positive (e.g., amusement), negative (e.g., anger), and neutral ones. Moreover, previous studies have shown that children have already acquired knowledge of corresponding emotion labels (Russell & Widen, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref21">19</reflink>]; Stifter & Fox, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref22">22</reflink>]). Indeed, Stifter and Fox ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref23">22</reflink>]) reported that preschool children identified and labelled the emotions of happiness, sadness, and anger when presented through either the face alone, the voice alone, or the face and voice together. We used emotion labels (e.g., 'happy') or vocal expressions (e.g., laughter) as cues for categorization. Label and voice were used to determine whether it is language or perceptual similarity that aids in emotion categorization. We presented happy and angry voices in Experiment 1 and angry and fearful voices in Experiment 2 to examine whether labels affect both positive vs. negative and negative vs. negative categories. We hypothesized that, as with the categorization of emotional faces, emotion labels would support a more precise categorization.</p> <hd id="AN0176845687-3">Experiment 1</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176845687-4">Materials and methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176845687-5">Participants</hd> <p>Seventy-one Japanese children participated in this study. Eleven of these were excluded because they were unable to complete the practice task. Therefore, 60 participants (<emph>M</emph> = 71.7 months, SD = 5.87 months, boy = 35) were included in the final analysis. Twenty participants were assigned to each condition (for conditions, see below; <emph>M</emph> = 70.5 months, SD = 5.92 months in the label condition; <emph>M</emph> = 71.9 months, SD = 6.27 months in the voice condition; <emph>M</emph> = 72.6 months, SD = 5.48 months in the label/voice condition). We confirmed that the children had no hearing impediments through parental reports. The children did not use headphones in this experiment. Parents were asked to participate in the experiment in a quiet room and those who agreed to this were recruited. This sample size was equal to that of Russell and Widen ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref24">19</reflink>]) as they used a similar methodology. We recruited children that were recorded in a database of a laboratory in Kyoto, Japan, and that of Cross Marketing Inc., a crowd-sourcing company in Tokyo, Japan. Ethical approval was granted by (Blinded for review). Written informed consent was obtained from the parents of all participants (children, in this case).</p> <hd id="AN0176845687-6">Stimuli</hd> <p>This study used the Montreal Affective Voices (MAV; Belin et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref25">3</reflink>]) because they are nonverbal affect bursts that may be used with children. MAV consist of a set of short vocal interjections on the vowel/a/expressing anger, disgust, fear, pain, sadness, surprise, happiness, sensual pleasure, and neutrality by 10 different actors. Children can recognize MAV using the forced-choice method (Grosbras et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref26">7</reflink>]). Each trial included two target voices (happy or angry) and four distractor voices (happy in the angry trial or angry in the happy trial; disgusted, fearful, and surprised). Another happy or angry voice was used as the cue. Different voices were used for each trial. All voices were female.</p> <hd id="AN0176845687-7">Procedure</hd> <p>This procedure was based on the method described by Russell and Widen ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref27">19</reflink>]). The experiments were conducted online. Parents remained close to their children. The participants were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions (label, voice, or label/voice). The participants participated in a practice trial and two test trials under all conditions. In the practice trial, the participants categorized dog sounds to ensure that they understood the rules of the task. In the test trials, they categorized emotional voices. A happy voice was the cue in the first trial, whereas an angry voice was the cue in the second. Discerning happy voices from negative voices is easier than discerning angry voices from other negative voices (Grossmann, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref28">8</reflink>]). Therefore, the happy trial preceded the angry trial to reduce the likelihood that participants would think they could not complete the assignment (Russell & Widen, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref29">19</reflink>]). The researcher shared Microsoft PowerPoint screens using the Zoom software. Figure 1 shows an example of the slides used in the voice conditions.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. An example of the slides used in the Voice Condition.</p> <hd id="AN0176845687-8">Label condition</hd> <p>The participants first participated in the practice phase. The target box was labelled 'dog. ' The experimenter showed each participant an empty box and explained that it was for dog sounds and that only cards that produce dog sounds could be placed inside the box. The experimenter then presented cards with animal sounds. Subsequently, the participants were asked to answer whether each card should be inside or outside the box. If the child indicated that the card should be inside the box, the experimenter placed it inside the box. If the child indicated that the card should be outside the box, the experimenter placed it outside the box. Card placement was randomized for each participant. There were two dog sounds. If the participant could not answer either correctly, the experimenter considered the participant to have failed the practice phase. Errors were not corrected and all answers were mildly praised.</p> <p>The test phase was conducted after the practice phase. A new box was introduced in the happy trial. The experimenter explained that the new box was for happy feelings, and that only cards that produce happy voices could be placed inside the box. The experimenter then randomly presented the participants with six voices (two happy, one angry, one disgusted, one fearful, and one surprised), one at a time. For each test expression, the experimenter asked, 'Should this card be inside or outside the box? ' If the child indicated that the card should be inside the box, the experimenter placed it inside the box. If the child indicated that the card should be outside the box, the experimenter placed it outside the box. The locations of the cards were randomized for each participant. Errors were not corrected and all answers were mildly praised.</p> <p>The procedure for the angry trial was identical to that of the happy trial, except that the label 'angry' replaced the label 'happy,' and different voices (two angry, one happy, one disgusted, one fearful, and one surprised) were presented.</p> <hd id="AN0176845687-9">Voice condition</hd> <p>The voice condition was the same as the label condition, except that, during the practice and test phases, the box was defined using a vocal example without a label. In the practice phase, instead of using the label 'dog' the experimenter presented the participant with a dog sound and explained that the box was for 'sounds similar to this animal' and only cards with the 'sounds like those made by this animal' could be placed inside the box. The cue sound was different from the test cards, which had dog sounds. The cue sound was played before the test sounds. The six cards were identical to those used in the label condition.</p> <p>The happy trial was the same as its counterpart in the label condition, except that, instead of using the label "happy, "the participant heard a happy vocal expression, and it was explained that 'this box is for voices that show this feeling, and only cards that produce sounds like this can be placed in the box.'</p> <p>The angry trial was identical to the happy trial, except that the voice defining the box was an angry expression.</p> <hd id="AN0176845687-10">Label/Voice condition</hd> <p>This condition combines the two preceding conditions. In the practice phase, the experimenter told the participant that'the box is for dog sounds like this [presenting the cue sound]. ' In the test phase, the experimenter told the participant that 'the box is designed for happy or angry voices like this [presenting cue voices].'</p> <hd id="AN0176845687-11">Analyses</hd> <p>The percentage of correct answers was calculated for each participant. We recorded the correct and incorrect answers for each test card. The target cards were considered correct if they were placed inside the box and incorrect if they were placed outside. The distractor cards were considered correct if placed outside the box, and incorrect if placed inside. For example, in the angry trial, when two angry voices were inside the box and the other four voices – including a happy voice – were outside, the experimenter recorded all the cards correctly. We used <emph>R</emph> (ver. 4.0.5) for subsequent analyses (R Core Team, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref30">16</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176845687-12">Results and discussion</hd> <p>Figure 2 shows the correct answer rates for each condition. The rate of correct answers in the happy and angry trials in the label condition was 85.8%. Under the label/voice condition, the rate was 86.7% and 81.7% in the happy and angry trials, respectively. For the voice condition, the rate was 82.5% and 74.2% in the happy and angry trials, respectively.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Rate of correct answers in experiments 1 and 2.</p> <p>To assess whether emotion labels influenced emotional voice categorization, we conducted a 3 (condition) × 2 (trial) mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA). There was a significant main effect of the trial, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref31">1</reflink>, 592.59) = 4.11, <emph>p</emph> = 0.047, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.067. That is, the score of the happy trial was higher than that of the angry trial. There was no significant effect of the condition, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref32">2</reflink>, 620.37) = 1.81, <emph>p</emph> = 0.17, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.060, and interaction, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref33">2</reflink>, 175.93) = 1.22, <emph>p</emph> = 0.30, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.041.</p> <p>Although children performed better in the label than the voice condition, we found no significant difference between the conditions, suggesting that the labels did not influence the categorization of happy and angry voices. Experiment 1 assessed whether labels affected positive vs. negative emotion categories. Thus, we used negative vs. negative stimuli in Experiment 2.</p> <hd id="AN0176845687-13">Experiment 2</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176845687-14">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176845687-15">Participants</hd> <p>Forty Japanese children (<emph>M</emph> = 67.0 months, SD = 0.65 months, male = 20) participated. Twenty participants were assigned to each condition. All participants passed the practice trial and we confirmed that none of the children had problems of hearing abilities through parental reports. In Experiment 2, we could not access participants online and thus decided to conduct in-person experiments. We recruited children from a kindergarten in Kyoto, Japan. The children participated in the experiment in a quiet room at the kindergarten. Thus, the parents were not near the children in Experiment 2. Ethical approval was the same as that in Experiment 1.</p> <hd id="AN0176845687-16">Stimuli</hd> <p>Each trial included two target voices (angry or fearful) and four distractor voices (fear in the angry trial; angry in the fear trial; sad, disgusted, and surprised).</p> <hd id="AN0176845687-17">Procedure</hd> <p>The procedure in Experiment 2 was almost the same as that in Experiment 1 except in the following three ways. First, although Experiment 1 was conducted via Zoom, we conducted Experiment 2 in person. We prepared chairs and a table, and the experimenter sat next to the children. Thus, the parents were not near the children in Experiment 2. Second, participants were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions (label or voice). Experiment 2 excluded the label/voice condition because the difference between the label and label/voice conditions in Experiment 1 was small and the difference between the label and voice conditions was larger, although not significantly so. Third, an angry voice was the cue in the first test trial, whereas a fearful voice was the cue in the second. The angry trial preceded the fear trial because, based on evidence that angry categories are acquired earlier than fearful categories (Widen & Russell, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref34">24</reflink>]), it is easier than the fearful trial. Except for the vocal expressions, the procedures for each condition were the same as those in Experiment 1.</p> <hd id="AN0176845687-18">Analyses</hd> <p>The analyses were the same as those in Experiment 1.</p> <hd id="AN0176845687-19">Results and discussion</hd> <p>Figure 2 shows the rate of correct answers for each condition. The rates of correct answers in the angry and fearful trials in the label condition were 82.5% and 80.8%, respectively. For the voice condition, the rates of correct answers in the angry and fearful trials were 73.3% and 66.7%, respectively.</p> <p>To assess whether emotion labels influenced emotional voice categorization, we conducted a 2 (condition) × 2 (trial) mixed-model ANOVA. There was a significant main effect of the condition, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref35">1</reflink>, 2722.22) = 9.55, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.20. In other words, the score of the label condition was higher than that of the voice condition. There was a marginally significant main effect of the trial, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref36">1</reflink>, 347.22) = 3.57, <emph>p</emph> = 0.066, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.086, and no significant interaction, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref37">1</reflink>, 125.00) = 1.29, <emph>p</emph> = 0.26, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.033.</p> <p>As the data collection method changed throughout the experiment (online or in person), we specifically analysed the performance of the anger trials. This is because the anger trials were identical throughout the experiments, except for whether the experiments were conducted online or in person. A two-sample <emph>t</emph>-test revealed that the results of the anger trials did not significantly differ between the studies, <emph>t</emph>(77.06) = 0.60, <emph>p</emph> = 0.55, <emph>d</emph> < 0.01.</p> <p>To compare the results of the positive vs. negative categorization (Experiment 1: happy and angry) with those of the negative vs. negative categorization (Experiment 2: anger and fear), a 2 (condition) × 2 (experiment) ANOVA was conducted. The results of the label and voice conditions in Experiment 1 were used. There was a significant main effect of the condition, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref38">1</reflink>, 1836.81) = 10.10, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.12, and experiment, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref39">1</reflink>, 781.25) = 4.30, <emph>p</emph> = 0.042, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> = 0.054, and no significant interaction, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref40">1</reflink>, 86.81) = 1.29, <emph>p</emph> = 0.49, <emph>η</emph><subs><emph>p</emph></subs><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> <0.01.</p> <p>The results showed a significant main effect of the condition, suggesting a label superiority effect on emotional voices. The differences in results between Experiments 1 and 2 may not be due to differences in the data collection method because we found no significant difference in anger trials between experiments. It should be noted that Experiment 2 was conducted in person, and the parents were not near the children in Experiment 2. We cannot deny the possibility that the absence of parents may affect children's responses.</p> <hd id="AN0176845687-20">General discussion</hd> <p>This study tested whether the presentation of emotion labels influences the categorization of emotional voices. Four- to six-year-olds were presented with emotion labels and/or voices as cues for categorization and asked to match the emotional voices to the cues. Experiment 1 used positive vs. negative stimuli and was conducted online, and Experiment 2 used negative vs. negative stimuli and was conducted in person.</p> <p>In Experiment 1, although children performed better in the label condition than in the voice condition, the labels did not influence the categorization of happy and angry voices. Moreover, the rate of correct answers for happy voices was higher than for angry voices. This may be because the happy voices of MAV (e.g., laughter) were more easily discernible than the other voices.</p> <p>In Experiment 2, labels influenced the categorization of angry and fearful voices. The differences in performance between the experiments could be attributed to whether the trials were positive vs. negative or negative vs. negative. This suggests that the label superiority effect is more evident in more similar categorizations (negative vs. negative) than in different categorizations (positive vs. negative). Perhaps, the label can make the distinctions between similar categories more concrete (for details, see the next paragraph and the limitations). The different performances between the two experiments may reflect a valence-based difference. This may not be due to a difference in whether the procedure was in person or online because the performance in angry trials did not significantly differ between studies.</p> <p>Previous studies have shown that children improve their categorization using emotion labels (Ikeda, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref41">10</reflink>]; Price et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref42">15</reflink>]; Russell & Widen, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref43">19</reflink>]). Specifically, children were more likely to match emotional faces to emotional labels than to different emotional faces, which is termed the label superiority effect. Moreover, the present study showed that emotion labels can help categorize emotional voices. Thus, this is the first study to demonstrate the label superiority effect on cues beyond visual features in young children. The label superiority effect in this study is important because it highlights the crucial role of labels in merging not only emotional faces but also highly variable emotional elements – including voices – into emotion categories. The exact mechanism of the label superiority effect in this study was unclear, but one possible explanation is that labels may facilitate the finding and abstraction of category structure (Gliozzi et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref44">6</reflink>]; Plunkett et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref45">14</reflink>]). Specifically, labels may direct children's focus to a category (e.g., 'angry') and commonalities between category and examples (e.g., the concept of 'angry' and angry voices) and making the distinctions between categories (e.g., the concept of 'angry' vs. 'fear') more concrete.</p> <p>It should be noted that our study partially showed the label superiority effect of emotional voices, but this effect may be more specific to contrasting emotions rather than emotions in general. Moreover, Experiment 2 clearly showed the label superiority effect of emotional voices in angry and fearful trials, but the results of the happy and angry trials were rather weak. This is a clear limitation of this study. If other emotions – such as disgust (the distractor in this study) or higher-order emotions such as shame, pride, and guilt – were the targets, participants' categorizing patterns may have been different. A label superiority effect is likely to be stronger in higher-order emotions (Widen et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref46">23</reflink>]). Future research should focus on various other emotions to reveal the process of emotion category development. Second, we conducted a combined analysis of Experiments 1 and 2. We assume that the differences in the data collection method (online vs. onsite) have little effect on children's responses because we did not find significant differences in the angry trials between Experiments 1 and 2. However, the lack of differences does not necessarily imply equivalence between the experiments, so we cannot conclude that the data collection method did not affect the results in this study. For example, an advantage of online experiments is the reduced psychological burden on the participants since they are often conducted in environments in which participants are comfortable, such as at home. Working on an experimental task is considered easier done online than at a laboratory (Sheskin et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref47">21</reflink>]). On the other hand, the disadvantage of online experiments is the lack of control over the experimental settings. We should assess this point in a future study. Third and relatedly, since we conducted Experiment 1 online, we need to consider the advantages and disadvantages of this method. Regarding this study, we cannot rule out the possibility that the timing of the visual and auditory stimuli did not match in the Zoom, which may have made it difficult for the children to answer the questions. Fourth, there may have been a potential order effect. We fixed the order of trials in both Experiments 1 and 2 based on evidence that anger categories are acquired earlier than fear categories (Widen & Russell, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref48">24</reflink>]). However, we cannot rule out the possibility that the trial order may have influenced the results. We should counterbalance the experimental order in future studies. Fifth, we did not assess the language ability in this study. Children in this study need to know the label 'happy' 'angry' 'fear', and these labels are generally acquired in 5- and 6-year-olds. Nevertheless, we cannot deny the possibility that the language ability can affect children's performances in this study. Future research can include language ability. Finally, there may have been potential cultural effects on the processing of emotional signals and expressions. For example, Japanese adults rated angry, disgusted, and fearful voices as less intense and less negative than Canadians (Koeda et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref49">12</reflink>]). This difference may have influenced participants' categorization of emotions in the current study. We need to investigate how cultural factors may influence emotion categorization. Despite this limitation, the present study is the first to confirm the label superiority effect on emotional voices. This finding supports the crucial role that emotion labels play in shaping highly variable emotion categories.</p> <hd id="AN0176845687-21">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <hd id="AN0176845687-22">Data, materials and/or code availability</hd> <p>All data and materials as well as the software application or custom code supporting the findings from this study comply with field standards and are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <ref id="AN0176845687-23"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref18" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Barrett, L. F. (2006). Are emotions natural kinds? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1 (1), 28 – 58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00003.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref1" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Barrett, L. F., Adolphs, R., Marsella, S., Martinez, A. M., & Pollak, S. D. (2019). Emotional expressions reconsidered: Challenges to inferring emotion from human facial movements. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 20 (1), 1 – 68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100619832930</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref25" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Belin, P., Fillion-Bilodeau, S., & Gosselin, F. (2008). The Montreal Affective Voices: A validated set of nonverbal affect bursts for research on auditory affective processing. Behavior Research Methods, 40 (2), 531 – 539. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.2.531</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref13" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Brosch, T., Grandjean, D., Sander, D., & Scherer, K. R. (2009). Cross-modal emotional attention: Emotional voices modulate early stages of visual processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21 (9), 1670 – 1679. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://direct.mit.edu/jocn/article-pdf/21/9/1670/1937876/jocn.2009.21110.pdf">http://direct.mit.edu/jocn/article-pdf/21/9/1670/1937876/jocn.2009.21110.pdf</ulink> https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21110</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref14" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Coulson, M. (2004). Attributing emotion to static body postures: Recognition accuracy, confusions, and viewpoint dependence. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28 (2), 117 – 139. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JONB.0000023655.25550.be</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref7" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Gliozzi, V., Mayor, J., Hu, J. F., & Plunkett, K. (2009). Labels as features (not names) for infant categorization: A neurocomputational approach. Cognitive Science, 33 (4), 709 – 738. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01026.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref26" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Grosbras, M. H., Ross, P. D., & Belin, P. (2018). Categorical emotion recognition from voice improves during childhood and adolescence. Scientific Reports, 8 (1), 14791. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-32868-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref28" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Grossmann, T. (2010). The development of emotion perception in face and voice during infancy. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, 28 (2), 219 – 236. https://doi.org/10.3233/RNN-2010-0499</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref2" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Hoemann, K., Xu, F., & Barrett, L. F. (2019). Emotion words, emotion concepts, and emotional development in children: A constructionist hypothesis. Developmental Psychology, 55 (9), 1830 – 1849. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000686</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ikeda, S. (2020). Young children do not label facial expressions spontaneously: A brief investigation of the label superiority effect. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 181 (6), 489 – 499. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2020.1825923</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johanson, M., & Papafragou, A. (2016). The influence of labels and facts on children's and adults' categorization. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 144, 130 – 151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.11.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koeda, M., Belin, P., Hama, T., Masuda, T., Matsuura, M., & Okubo, Y. (2013). Cross-cultural differences in the processing of non-verbal affective vocalizations by Japanese and Canadian listeners. Frontiers in Psychology, 4 (105), 1 – 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00105</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pell, M. D., Sethi, S., Rigoulot, S., Rothermich, K., Liu, P., & Jiang, X. (2022). Emotional voices modulate perception and predictions about an upcoming face. Cortex; a Journal Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior, 149, 148 – 164. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CORTEX.2021.12.017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plunkett, K., Hu, J. F., & Cohen, L. B. (2008). Labels can override perceptual categories in early infancy. Cognition, 106 (2), 665 – 681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Price, G. F., Ogren, M., & Sandhofer, C. M. (2022). Sorting out emotions: How labels influence emotion categorization. Developmental Psychology, 58 (9), 1665 – 1675. https://doi.org/10.1037/DEV0001391</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> R Core Team. (2020). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://<ulink href="http://www.r-project.org/">www.r-project.org/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rigoulot, S., & Pell, M. D. (2014). Emotion in the voice influences the way we scan emotional faces. Speech Communication, 65, 36 – 49. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SPECOM.2014.05.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ruba, A. L., & Repacholi, B. M. (2020). Do preverbal infants understand discrete facial expressions of emotion? Emotion Review, 12 (4), 235 – 250. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073919871098</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russell, J. A., & Widen, S. C. (2002). A label superiority effect in children's categorization of facial expressions. Social Development, 11 (1), 30 – 52. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00185</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sauter, D. A., Panattoni, C., & Happé, F. (2013). Children's recognition of emotions from vocal cues. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 31 (1), 97 – 113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.2012.02081.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sheskin, M., Scott, K., Mills, C. M., Bergelson, E., Bonawitz, E., Spelke, E. S., Fei-Fei, L., Keil, F. C., Gweon, H., Tenenbaum, J. B., Jara-Ettinger, J., Adolph, K. E., Rhodes, M., Frank, M. C., Mehr, S. A., & Schulz, L. (2020). Online developmental science to foster innovation, access, and impact. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24 (9), 675 – 678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.06.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stifter, C. A., & Fox, N. A. (1986). Preschool children's ability to identify and label emotions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 10 (4), 255 – 266. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00987483</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Widen, S. C., Christy, A. M., Hewett, K., & Russell, J. A. (2011). Do proposed facial expressions of contempt, shame, embarrassment, and compassion communicate the predicted emotion? Cognition and Emotion, 25 (5), 898 – 906. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2010.508270</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Widen, S. C., & Russell, J. A. (2003). A closer look at preschoolers' freely produced labels for facial expressions. Developmental Psychology, 39 (1), 114 – 128. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.39.1.114</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Sho Ohigashi; Shuhei Takagi and Yusuke Moriguchi</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref49"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1422695
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Label Superiority Effect on Emotional Voices in Young Children
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sho+Ohigashi%22">Sho Ohigashi</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shuhei+Takagi%22">Shuhei Takagi</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yusuke+Moriguchi%22">Yusuke Moriguchi</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22European+Journal+of+Developmental+Psychology%22"><i>European Journal of Developmental Psychology</i></searchLink>. 2024 21(2):188-201.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Emotional+Intelligence%22">Emotional Intelligence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Nonverbal+Learning%22">Nonverbal Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pictorial+Stimuli%22">Pictorial Stimuli</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Auditory+Stimuli%22">Auditory Stimuli</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Aural+Learning%22">Aural Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Associative+Learning%22">Associative Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+Children%22">Young Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Error+Patterns%22">Error Patterns</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Accuracy%22">Accuracy</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Japan%22">Japan</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/17405629.2024.2315755
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1740-5629<br />1740-5610
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Emotion labels can be helpful for creating emotion categories. Russell and Widen (2002) demonstrated the label superiority effect; that is, emotion labels produce a more precise categorization of emotional faces than the corresponding emotional faces. The current study aimed to test the label superiority effect on emotional voices and examined whether emotion labels produce a more precise categorization of emotional voices than the corresponding emotional voices. Four- to six-year-olds were shown emotion categories, represented by a box, and emotion labels (e.g., 'happy' label) or corresponding unlabelled vocal expressions were used to specify the target emotions. The children had to decide which of a group of test voices should go into the box and which should be left out. We presented happy and angry voices in Experiment 1 and angry and fearful voices in Experiment 2. The results in Experiment 2, but not in Experiment 1, showed that children were more likely to correctly choose the target emotion using the emotion label than the emotional voices, partially confirming the label superiority effect on emotional voices.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1422695
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1422695
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/17405629.2024.2315755
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
        StartPage: 188
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Emotional Intelligence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Nonverbal Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pictorial Stimuli
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Auditory Stimuli
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Aural Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Associative Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Young Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Error Patterns
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Accuracy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Japan
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Label Superiority Effect on Emotional Voices in Young Children
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sho Ohigashi
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Shuhei Takagi
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yusuke Moriguchi
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1740-5629
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1740-5610
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 21
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: European Journal of Developmental Psychology
              Type: main
ResultId 1