Unconscious Social Relation Threats: Invisible Boss Face Biases Attention

Overview

Journal Atten Percept Psychophys

Publisher Springer

Specialties Psychiatry
Psychology

Date 2021 Dec 22

PMID 34935121

Authors

Yanliang Sun

Luzi Xu

Xinyu Luo

Yanju Ren

Xiaowei Ding

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Threatening stimuli as a kind of salient information often guide attentional orienting. Besides physically threatening stimuli, social threats can also strongly bias attention, even in the absence of conscious awareness. However, the available evidence mainly came from studies on an emotional face. It is unclear whether social relation threats, such as a boss face without emotional expressions, can also direct attentional orienting unconsciously. This study aimed to reveal the extent to which the attentional system has developed to process threatening stimuli by exploring whether invisible social relation threats unconsciously biased attention. We asked graduate and undergraduate students to perform a modified Posner's cue-target task, in which the probe was preceded by a pair of competitive face cues (an advisor's face and another faculty member's face), rendered invisible through continuous flash suppression. Experiment 1a's results showed that the advisor's face reflexively oriented graduate students' spatial attention, which was significantly correlated with subjective social threat evaluation. However, Experiment 1b showed that an invisible advisor's face did not induce the same effect in undergraduate students, as they reported significantly fewer threats from their advisors than graduates. To ensure the robustness of this new effect, we preregistered a replicate study and successfully replicated the above results in Experiments 2a and 2b. Our findings provide evidence for the existence of an attentional orienting bias toward invisible social relation threats. These results suggest that the attentional system evolved to promote the exploration of our visual environment for threatening social relation signals.

References

Abrams R, Christ S . Motion onset captures attention. Psychol Sci. 2003; 14(5):427-32. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.01458. View

Caharel S, Courtay N, Bernard C, Lalonde R, Rebai M . Familiarity and emotional expression influence an early stage of face processing: an electrophysiological study. Brain Cogn. 2005; 59(1):96-100. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandc.2005.05.005. View

Carlson J, Reinke K . Masked fearful faces modulate the orienting of covert spatial attention. Emotion. 2008; 8(4):522-9. DOI: 10.1037/a0012653. View

Carlson J, Reinke K . Spatial attention-related modulation of the N170 by backward masked fearful faces. Brain Cogn. 2010; 73(1):20-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandc.2010.01.007. View

Devue C, Bredart S . Attention to self-referential stimuli: can I ignore my own face?. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2008; 128(2):290-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.02.004. View

Driver J . A selective review of selective attention research from the past century. Br J Psychol. 2002; 92 Part 1:53-78. View

Fang F, He S . Cortical responses to invisible objects in the human dorsal and ventral pathways. Nat Neurosci. 2005; 8(10):1380-5. DOI: 10.1038/nn1537. View

Heyman T, Moors P . Frequent words do not break continuous flash suppression differently from infrequent or nonexistent words: implications for semantic processing of words in the absence of awareness. PLoS One. 2014; 9(8):e104719. PMC: 4130538. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0104719. View

Jiang Y, Costello P, He S . Processing of invisible stimuli: advantage of upright faces and recognizable words in overcoming interocular suppression. Psychol Sci. 2007; 18(4):349-55. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01902.x. View

10.

Lau J, Burt M, Leibenluft E, Pine D, Rijsdijk F, Shiffrin N . Individual differences in children's facial expression recognition ability: The role of nature and nurture. Dev Neuropsychol. 2009; 34(1):37-51. PMC: 2797312. DOI: 10.1080/87565640802564424. View

11.

Ledoux J . Emotional networks and motor control: a fearful view. Prog Brain Res. 1996; 107:437-46. DOI: 10.1016/s0079-6123(08)61880-4. View

12.

Liew S, Ma Y, Han S, Aziz-Zadeh L . Who's afraid of the boss: cultural differences in social hierarchies modulate self-face recognition in Chinese and Americans. PLoS One. 2011; 6(2):e16901. PMC: 3040187. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016901. View

13.

Lin Z, He S . Seeing the invisible: the scope and limits of unconscious processing in binocular rivalry. Prog Neurobiol. 2008; 87(4):195-211. PMC: 2689366. DOI: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2008.09.002. View

14.

Luck S, Gaspelin N, Folk C, Remington R, Theeuwes J . Progress Toward Resolving the Attentional Capture Debate. Vis cogn. 2021; 29(1):1-21. PMC: 7872136. DOI: 10.1080/13506285.2020.1848949. View

15.

Ludwig K, Hesselmann G . Weighing the evidence for a dorsal processing bias under continuous flash suppression. Conscious Cogn. 2015; 35:251-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2014.12.010. View

16.

McCormick P . Orienting attention without awareness. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1997; 23(1):168-80. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.23.1.168. View

17.

Nissens T, Failing M, Theeuwes J . People look at the object they fear: oculomotor capture by stimuli that signal threat. Cogn Emot. 2016; 31(8):1707-1714. DOI: 10.1080/02699931.2016.1248905. View

18.

Padmala S, Pessoa L . Motivation versus aversive processing during perception. Emotion. 2014; 14(3):450-4. PMC: 4110899. DOI: 10.1037/a0036112. View

19.

Padmala S, Sirbu M, Pessoa L . Potential reward reduces the adverse impact of negative distractor stimuli. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2017; 12(9):1402-1413. PMC: 5629819. DOI: 10.1093/scan/nsx067. View

20.

Pannese A, Hirsch J . Self-face enhances processing of immediately preceding invisible faces. Neuropsychologia. 2010; 49(3):564-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.12.019. View