Social Message Account or Processing Conflict Account - Which Processes Trigger Approach/Avoidance Reaction to Emotional Expressions of In- and Out-Group Members?

Overview

Journal Front Psychol

Date 2022 Aug 15

PMID 35967716

Authors

Dirk Wentura

Andrea Paulus

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Faces are characterized by the simultaneous presence of several evaluation-relevant features, for example, emotional expression and (prejudiced) ethnicity. The social message account (SMA) hypothesizes the immediate integration of emotion and ethnicity. According to SMA, happy in-group faces should be interpreted as benevolent, whereas happy out-group faces should be interpreted as potentially malevolent. By contrast, fearful in-group faces should be interpreted as signaling an unsafe environment, whereas fearful out-group faces should be interpreted as signaling inferiority. In contrast, the processing conflict account (PCA) assumes that each face conveys two rather independent evaluative features, emotion and ethnicity. Thus, stimuli might be either affectively congruent or incongruent, and thereby exert influences on behavior. The article reviews the evidence with regard to the two accounts before reporting an experiment that aims at disentangling them. In an approach/avoidance task (AAT), either happy/fearful faces of German and Turks were presented or happy/fearful faces of young and old persons. There are prejudices against Turk/Middle-eastern persons (in Germany) as well as against old persons. For SMA, the two prejudices are of different type; thus prediction for the AAT diverge for the two group conditions. In contrast, for PCA both group features (i.e., Turk ethnicity and old age) are negative features (in comparison to their counterparts) which are affectively congruent or incongruent to the emotional expression. Hence, the results pattern in the AAT should be comparable for the two group conditions. In accordance with SMA but in contrast to PCA, we found different patterns for the two group conditions.

References

Paulus A, Renn K, Wentura D . One plus one is more than two: The interactive influence of group membership and emotional facial expressions on the modulation of the affective startle reflex. Biol Psychol. 2019; 142:140-146. DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2018.12.009. View

Putman P, Hermans E, van Honk J . Emotional stroop performance for masked angry faces: it's BAS, not BIS. Emotion. 2004; 4(3):305-11. DOI: 10.1037/1528-3542.4.3.305. View

Krieglmeyer R, Deutsch R, De Houwer J, De Raedt R . Being moved: valence activates approach-avoidance behavior independently of evaluation and approach-avoidance intentions. Psychol Sci. 2010; 21(4):607-13. DOI: 10.1177/0956797610365131. View

Fazio R, Sanbonmatsu D, Powell M, Kardes F . On the automatic activation of attitudes. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986; 50(2):229-38. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.50.2.229. View

Williams J, Mathews A, MacLeod C . The emotional Stroop task and psychopathology. Psychol Bull. 1996; 120(1):3-24. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.120.1.3. View

van der Schalk J, Hawk S, Fischer A, Doosje B . Moving faces, looking places: validation of the Amsterdam Dynamic Facial Expression Set (ADFES). Emotion. 2011; 11(4):907-20. DOI: 10.1037/a0023853. View

Pratto F, John O . Automatic vigilance: the attention-grabbing power of negative social information. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991; 61(3):380-91. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.61.3.380. View

Ebner N, Riediger M, Lindenberger U . FACES--a database of facial expressions in young, middle-aged, and older women and men: development and validation. Behav Res Methods. 2010; 42(1):351-62. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.42.1.351. View

Wentura D, Rothermund K, Bak P . Automatic vigilance: the attention-grabbing power of approach- and avoidance-related social information. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000; 78(6):1024-37. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.78.6.1024. View

10.

Frings C, Englert J, Wentura D, Bermeitinger C . Decomposing the emotional Stroop effect. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2009; 63(1):42-9. DOI: 10.1080/17470210903156594. View

11.

Weisbuch M, Ambady N . Affective divergence: automatic responses to others' emotions depend on group membership. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008; 95(5):1063-79. DOI: 10.1037/a0011993. View

12.

Craig B, Lipp O, Mallan K . Emotional expressions preferentially elicit implicit evaluations of faces also varying in race or age. Emotion. 2014; 14(5):865-77. DOI: 10.1037/a0037270. View

13.

Meissner F, Rothermund K . Estimating the contributions of associations and recoding in the Implicit Association Test: the ReAL model for the IAT. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012; 104(1):45-69. DOI: 10.1037/a0030734. View

14.

Macleod C . Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychol Bull. 1991; 109(2):163-203. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163. View

15.

Rinck M, Becker E . Approach and avoidance in fear of spiders. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2006; 38(2):105-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2006.10.001. View

16.

Gurbuz E, Paulus A, Wentura D . Involuntary evaluation of others' emotional expressions depends on the expresser's group membership. Further evidence for the social message account from the extrinsic affective Simon task. Br J Soc Psychol. 2022; 62(2):1056-1075. DOI: 10.1111/bjso.12619. View

17.

Logan G . Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: theory and data. Cogn Psychol. 1980; 12(4):523-53. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(80)90019-5. View

18.

Wilkowski B, Meier B . Bring it on: angry facial expressions potentiate approach-motivated motor behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010; 98(2):201-10. DOI: 10.1037/a0017992. View

19.

Kite M, Johnson B . Attitudes toward older and younger adults: a meta-analysis. Psychol Aging. 1988; 3(3):233-44. DOI: 10.1037//0882-7974.3.3.233. View

20.

Zhang X, Dalmaso M, Castelli L, Fiorese A, Lan Y, Sun B . Social attention across borders: A cross-cultural investigation of gaze cueing elicited by same- and other-ethnicity faces. Br J Psychol. 2020; 112(3):741-762. DOI: 10.1111/bjop.12476. View