Configural Face Processing How Face Coverings Impact Social

Configural Face Processing: How Face Coverings Impact Social Judgements in the COVID-19 Era Linsey Culkins Psychology Department, Minnesota State University Moorhead, 1104 7 th Avenue South, Moorhead, MN 56563 Introduction: Results: Method: Along with our physiological immune system (which mounts a defense against pathogens following exposure), the Behavioral Immune System (BIS) functions to keep people healthy by initiating behaviors which involve the avoidance of potential sources of infection so that communicable diseases are not spread (Murray & Schaller, 2016). In as little as 100 milliseconds of observing stimuli, individuals respond to cues in their environment, make inferences about safety, and act accordingly (Bryan et al. , 2012). Factorial ANOVAs were done find out if Eye Visibility or Mask Wearing impacted trust, social distance, and fear ratings across four conditions. Results indicated no significant findings for any of these three variables. Participants: Conclusion: Previous research has shown that people have a bias toward over perceiving disease cues (Miller & Maner, 2012). In the Era of COVID-19, it is yet to be determined if face masks are perceived as a disease cue, as an indication that the wearer is following appropriate social norms, or something else (Makhanova & Shepherd, 2020). No support for hypotheses was found. Trust: Eye Visibility: f(1, 63) = 1. 34, p > 0. 05 Nose and Mouth visibility: f(1, 63) = 0. 53, p > 0. 05 Interaction: f(1, 63) = 0. 57, p > 0. 05 One of the cognitive mechanisms that facilitates trust inferences is configural face processing (Fincher 2019; Lischke, et al. , 2018; Quadflieg et al. , 2012; Wilson et al. , 2017). Configural face processing differs from featural processing because it relies on perceiving a face as a gestalt rather than as separate individual features. It is known that inverting a face disrupts configural face processing, but it is not known if obstructing features does so. This research was intended to expand knowledge of how perception of face coverings could impact behaviors, affects, and cognitive processes. Social Distancing: Eye Visibility: f(1, 63) = 1. 16, p > 0. 05 Nose and Mouth visibility: f(1, 63) = 0. 73, p > 0. 05 Interaction: f(1, 63) = 0. 00, p > 0. 05 eyes, nose, and mouth will be less than trustworthiness ratings of a face with all features visible, but trust ratings will be similar when only parts of the face covered— regardless of whether that be the eyes or the nose and mouth. Social Distancing: Perception of a person wearing a Perception of the eyes, nose, and mouth being covered will increase fear responses in participants. • 17. 6% male • 80. 9 % female • 1. 5% non-binary. Materials: Procedure: • Qualtrics Software • 4 Target images (Ma et al. 2015) • Positive And Negative Affect Survey (Watson & Clark, 1994) • Trust Survey (Olivera-La Rosa et al. , 2020) PANAS was administered before and after target faces were viewed. After each face was viewed, participants answered one trust question and one social distancing question relating to each face. Limitations: • Lab Setting • Small Sample size Future Directions: Future studies could use a more diverse sample that is not limited to college students. Another possibility could be to gather additional information up front about participants. Trust: Trustworthiness ratings of a face with obstructed Fear: 67 Students at MSUM (M = 20. 16, SD = 1. 87) In real life, individuals are confronted with sensory data affecting the BIS which would not be limited only to what they see on a computer screen. Hypotheses: mask will not affect social distance comfort levels of participants when target eyes are obstructed. Gender, race, and attractiveness of targets was held constant in all conditions. Fear: Eye Visibility: f(1, 63) = 1. 20, p > 0. 05 Nose and Mouth visibility: f(1, 63) = 0. 44, p > 0. 05 Interaction: f(1, 63) = 0. 39, p > 0. 05 Questions: Could perceived vulnerability to disease during a pandemic affect trust, fear, or social distancing? Could configural face processing be attuned to anything we consider to be normal on a human face and not just the eyes, nose, and mouth? References: Bryan, R. , Perona, P. , & Adolphs, R. (2012). Perspective distortion from interpersonal distance is an implicit visual cue for social judgments of faces. PLo. S ONE, 7(9), e 45301. http: //doi. org /10. 1371/journal. pone. 0045301 Fincher, K. M. (2019) Social antecedents and perceptual consequences of how we look at others. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(1), 143 -157. http: //dx. doi. org/ 10. 1037/xge 0000506 Lischke, A. , Junge, M. , Hamm, A. O. , & Weymar, M. (2018) Enhanced processing of untrustworthiness in natural faces with neutral expressions. Emotion, 18(2), 181 -189. http: //dx. doi. org/10. 1037/emo 0000318 Ma, D. S. , Correll, J. , & Wittenbrink, B. (2015). The Chicago Face Database: A Free Stimulus Set of Faces and Norming Data. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 1122 -1135. Makhanova, A. & Shepherd, M. (2020). Behavior immune system linked to responses to the threat of COVID-19. Personality and Individual Differences, 167(Dec 1), 110221. http: //dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. paid. 2020. 110221 Miller, S. L. & Maner, J. K. (2012). Overperceiving disease cues: The basic cognition of the behavioral immune system. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1198 -1213. 1037/a 0027198 Murray, D. R. & Schaller, M. (2016). The behavioral immune system: Implications for social cognition, social interaction, and social influence. In J. M. Olson & M. P. Zanna (Eds. ), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 53, pp. 75 -129). Elsevier Academic Press. http: //dx. doi. org/10. 1016/bs. aesp. 2015. 09. 002 Olivera-La Rosa, A. , Chuquichambi, E. , & Ingram, G. (2020). Keep your (social) distance: Pathogen concerns and social perception in the time of COVID-19. Personality and Individual Differences, 166, Article 110200. http: //dx. doi. org/10. 1016/j. paid. 2020. 110200 Quadflieg, S. , Todorov, A. , Laguesse, R. , & Rossion, B. (2012) Normal face-based judgements of social characteristics despite severely impaired holistic face processing. Visual Cognition 20(8), 865 -882. http: //dx. doi. org/10. 1080/13506285. 2012. 707155 Watson, D. & Clark, L. A. (1994) Manual for the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule - Expanded Form. The University of Iowa. http: //doi. org /10. 17077/48 vt-m 4 t 2 Wilson, J. P. , Young, S. G. , Rule, N. O. , & Hugenberg, K. (2017) Configural processing and social judgments: Face inversion particularly disrupts inferences of human-relevant traits. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 74(Jan), 1 -7. https: //doi. org/10. 1016/j. jesp. 2017. 007