Say That to My Face

Everyone knows that human communication involves far more than just words- we also benefit from a wide range of powerful nonverbal cues, such as body language, tone, and pheromones. Of all these cues available to us, the ability to read facial expressions and identify emotion in faces is one of the most crucial in human social interactions. Faces are so important to us that the human brain contains a sophisticated network dedicated to the processing of face-related information.

We develop our non-verbal communication tool kit from the moment we are born, and, as with all aspects of brain function, the more we practice, the better we become. However, modern technology use, typified by at least several hours a day¹ of interaction solely with a screen may be eroding our ability to read nonverbal cues effectively. In 1987, according to one estimate, we spent on average six hours per day in face to-face social interaction, and four via electronic media.² In 2007 the proportion had reversed, with almost eight hours a day spent socializing via electronic media, and only two and a half hours in face-to-face social interaction. Young people are particularly avid text-based communicators- in 2013, 96% of young people ages 16-24 used text message every day to contact friends and family, and three-quarters used social networks. Face-to-face communication was less popular, with only 63% talking face-to-face with friends or family daily.³

Communicating via text is, of course, completely verbal- it depends solely upon words or in the case of emoticons, images. Perhaps it is unsurprising then, that people who spend excessive amounts of time on the Internet have deficits in face processing ability.⁴ Research has established that when you show people pictures of faces and everyday objects, such as tables, the brain waves elicited from looking at the pictures of faces is larger than for tables, meaning that the faces have more significance for the average observer. A particular study looked at excessive Internet users, defined as those who were experiencing social and personal problems related to their Internet use. On average, excessive Internet users were using the Internet for six hours per day. When excessive Internet users viewed faces and tables, they had smaller brain wave responses compared to controls. This result suggests that for excessive Internet users, faces were of no more importance than everyday inanimate objects. Although it is unclear how this reduced EEG response to faces affects an excessive Internet users ability to socialize effectively, the importance of face processing in effective communication means the impact is likely to be significant.

However, the good news is that the brain is continuously adapting to its immediate environment. While excessive screen time may impede face-processing skills, the removal of screens improves them. Research shows that removing screens from pre-teens for just five days significantly improved their ability to read the emotion in the faces and actions of others, compared to their counterparts who remained plugged in.5 A group of sixth grade children attended a five day overnight educational camp which banned the use of screen technology, provided increased opportunities for face-to-face communication, and increased exposure to the natural world. A second group of children continued their normal daily activities for the same time period, which included screen technology use. Both groups reported on average using 4.5 hours of screen time per day, with approximately an hour texting, 2.5 hours watching TV and an hour video gaming. Before and after the five days, children were shown pictures of faces displaying different emotions and also watched videos of people interacting with the verbal cues removed. They were then asked to judge what emotions were being depicted in the pictures and videos. The children who attended the camp improved significantly more in reading facial emotions and reading the non-verbal emotional cues of others. However, we cannot be sure whether it was the removal of screens, the increased face-to-face opportunities or the experience of nature that improved nonverbal ability. In any event, from a neuroscience perspective, this is a wonderful example of neuronal plasticity: it is not so much that an impairment is being corrected, as simply the brain developing the correct response to immediate needs.

Children do not have as high a level of expertise in face processing as adults as face processing ability develops throughout childhood and adolescence.⁶ Gaining expertise in face processing is dependent upon our face-to-face experiences: therefore experiences dominated by screen technology may result in children being at a disadvantage in what has previously been the most basic mode of human communication.

Many questions remain- such as whether a certain type of screen use is contributing to deficits in face processing, or whether it is just the extended time spent without face-to-face interactions, - or indeed whether exposure to a nature itself has a fast and significant impact.

References

Rideout, V.J., Foehr, U.G., & Roberts, D.F. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8–18 year-olds. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.

Ofcom. (July 18, 2012). The communications market report 2012. Retrieved from http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/market-data/commu…

Sigman, A. (2009). Well connected? The biological implications of “social networking.” Biologist, 56, 14–20. Retrieved from http://www. aricsigman.com/IMAGES/Sigman_lo.pdf.

He, J.B., Liu, C.J., Guo, Y.Y., & Zhao, L. (2011). Deficits in early stage face perception in excessive Internet users. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 303–308.

Uhls, Y.T., et al. (2014). Outdoor education camp without screens improves preteen nonverbal emotion cues. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 387-392.

Pascalis, O., de Martin de Viviés, X., Anzures, G., Quinn, P.C., Slater, A.M., Tanaka, J.W., & Lee, K. (2011). Development of face processing. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2, 666-675.