倒置的脸被认为是“不那么人性化”吗?

IF 2.1 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-30 DOI:10.1037/xhp0001167
Adam Eggleston, Richard Cook, Harriet Over
{"title":"倒置的脸被认为是“不那么人性化”吗?","authors":"Adam Eggleston, Richard Cook, Harriet Over","doi":"10.1037/xhp0001167","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>According to perceptual dehumanization theory (PDT), faces are only perceived as \"truly human\" when processed in a configural fashion. Consistent with this theory, previous research indicates that when faces are inverted, a manipulation hypothesized to disrupt configural processing, the individuals depicted are attributed fewer uniquely human qualities. In a seminal paper, Hugenberg et al. (2016) reported that faces appeared less creative, less thoughtful, less empathetic, and possessed less \"humanness\" when inverted. Across four highly powered and preregistered experiments, we demonstrate that inversion does not influence the attribution of uniquely human traits specifically. Rather, in line with research on face processing, inversion impedes face encoding more generally, causing trait attributions to tend toward the mean. Positively valanced faces (i.e., those judged to be trustworthy when presented upright) are perceived to be less creative, considerate, thoughtful, and empathetic when inverted. Conversely, negatively valanced faces (i.e., those judged to be untrustworthy when presented upright) are judged to be more creative, considerate, thoughtful, and empathetic when inverted. Furthermore, we show that the effect of inversion on judgments of \"humanness\" reflects a general phenomenon that can be replicated with other (nonface) stimulus categories that also possess a canonical orientation. These findings suggest that a key line of evidence for PDT is considerably less convincing than it first appears. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":50195,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are upside-down faces perceived as \\\"less human\\\"?\",\"authors\":\"Adam Eggleston, Richard Cook, Harriet Over\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/xhp0001167\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>According to perceptual dehumanization theory (PDT), faces are only perceived as \\\"truly human\\\" when processed in a configural fashion. Consistent with this theory, previous research indicates that when faces are inverted, a manipulation hypothesized to disrupt configural processing, the individuals depicted are attributed fewer uniquely human qualities. In a seminal paper, Hugenberg et al. (2016) reported that faces appeared less creative, less thoughtful, less empathetic, and possessed less \\\"humanness\\\" when inverted. Across four highly powered and preregistered experiments, we demonstrate that inversion does not influence the attribution of uniquely human traits specifically. Rather, in line with research on face processing, inversion impedes face encoding more generally, causing trait attributions to tend toward the mean. Positively valanced faces (i.e., those judged to be trustworthy when presented upright) are perceived to be less creative, considerate, thoughtful, and empathetic when inverted. Conversely, negatively valanced faces (i.e., those judged to be untrustworthy when presented upright) are judged to be more creative, considerate, thoughtful, and empathetic when inverted. Furthermore, we show that the effect of inversion on judgments of \\\"humanness\\\" reflects a general phenomenon that can be replicated with other (nonface) stimulus categories that also possess a canonical orientation. These findings suggest that a key line of evidence for PDT is considerably less convincing than it first appears. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50195,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001167\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/30 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001167","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

根据感知非人化理论(PDT),只有在以结构方式处理人脸时,人脸才会被视为“真正的人类”。与这一理论一致的是,先前的研究表明,当人脸被倒置时,被描绘的个体被赋予的独特人性更少。在一篇具有开创性意义的论文中,Hugenberg等人(2016)报告称,当脸被倒置时,看起来没有那么有创造力,没有那么深思熟虑,没有那么有同情心,也没有那么“人性”。在四个强大且预先注册的实验中,我们证明了反转不会特别影响人类独特特征的归因。相反,与人脸处理的研究一致,反转更普遍地阻碍了人脸编码,导致特征归因倾向于均值。积极有价值的面孔(即那些在直立时被认为是值得信赖的面孔)在倒置时被认为不那么有创造力、体贴、体贴和同理心。相反,负面评价的面孔(即那些在直立时被认为不可信的面孔)在倒置时被认为更有创造力、体贴、体贴和同理心。此外,我们还表明,反转对“人性”判断的影响反映了一种普遍现象,这种现象可以与其他(非致命)刺激类别复制,这些刺激类别也具有规范方向。这些发现表明,PDT的一条关键证据线远没有最初出现的那么令人信服。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Are upside-down faces perceived as "less human"?

According to perceptual dehumanization theory (PDT), faces are only perceived as "truly human" when processed in a configural fashion. Consistent with this theory, previous research indicates that when faces are inverted, a manipulation hypothesized to disrupt configural processing, the individuals depicted are attributed fewer uniquely human qualities. In a seminal paper, Hugenberg et al. (2016) reported that faces appeared less creative, less thoughtful, less empathetic, and possessed less "humanness" when inverted. Across four highly powered and preregistered experiments, we demonstrate that inversion does not influence the attribution of uniquely human traits specifically. Rather, in line with research on face processing, inversion impedes face encoding more generally, causing trait attributions to tend toward the mean. Positively valanced faces (i.e., those judged to be trustworthy when presented upright) are perceived to be less creative, considerate, thoughtful, and empathetic when inverted. Conversely, negatively valanced faces (i.e., those judged to be untrustworthy when presented upright) are judged to be more creative, considerate, thoughtful, and empathetic when inverted. Furthermore, we show that the effect of inversion on judgments of "humanness" reflects a general phenomenon that can be replicated with other (nonface) stimulus categories that also possess a canonical orientation. These findings suggest that a key line of evidence for PDT is considerably less convincing than it first appears. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
9.50%
发文量
145
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance publishes studies on perception, control of action, perceptual aspects of language processing, and related cognitive processes.
期刊最新文献
Speeded classification of visual events is sensitive to crossmodal intensity correspondence. Proactive suppression is an implicit process that cannot be summoned on demand. First impressions from faces in dynamic approach-avoidance contexts. Between-task transfer of item-specific control is replicable and extends to novel conditions. No evidence in favor of the existence of "intentional" binding.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1