{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.044381491973559964, 'fraction_numerical': 0.027384324834749764, 'mean_word_length': 5.127167630057803, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Social facilitation and inhibition of emotional expression and communication.

Does the presence of others facilitate or inhibit emotional expression? Female "senders" (n = 45) viewed 12 emotionally loaded slides either alone or with another sender while responses were secretly videotaped. In Study 1, 14 "receivers" guessed the type of slide viewed by dyads more accurately (eta = .366). In Study 2, 42 receivers viewed 10 senders with friends, 10 with strangers, and 10 alone. One dyad member was covered so that only 1 sender was visible. Analysis revealed significant effects of condition (alone, friend, or stranger; eta = .456), slide type (sexual, scenic, unpleasant, or unusual; eta = .325), and the Condition x Slide Type interaction (eta = .350). Strangers had overall inhibitory effects on communication accuracy, whereas friends had facilitative effects on some slides and inhibitory effects on others. Thus, both social facilitation and inhibition of expression occurred on the basis of the emotional stimulus and personal relationship involved.