The Face and Person Perception: Insights from Social Cognition

1. The Face and Person Perception: Insights from Social Cognition Kimberly A. Quinn and C. Neil Macrae

2. Foundation of the study • Social-cognitive dynamics of face perception • Processing multiple social-category cues • The categorization–identification interface • Conclusion and Discussion Contents

3. Understanding the dynamics of social categorization • Considering visual processing (bottom-up process) and semantic knowledge (top-down process) for understanding in face perception • Derived from Bruce and Young (1986) dual route model I. Foundation of the study

4. Reminder of Bruce & Young theory

5. Debate of identity-nonspecific information’s role, and previous studies showed: • Dissociation between abstract generic information from faces and face recognition • Integrated processing of identity-specific and -nonspecific information • Explain where visually derived semantic codes related to identity-nonspecific information, and how extra-facial factors influence face processing -> social-cognitive perspective Main Focus

6. Social perceivers automatically and inevitably perceive others according to visible dimensions such as sex, race, and age (Fiske, 1998) • Brewer’s (1988) dual-process model: perceivers choose implicitly between stereotyping and individuation • Fiske and Neuberg’s (1990) continuum model: priority to stereotyping and depicting individuation as a correction process II. Social-cognitive dynamics of face perception

7. Brewer’s model (1988)  primitive categorization • Fiske and Neuberg’s (1990)  initial categorization Emphasize social categorization of faces.

8. Social-cognitive models  person perception rather than face recognition, and primarily to the construal of unfamiliar rather than familiar individuals. • These models assumed stereotyping sufficient for identity-specific information, therefore identity-non specific information processing is not needed.

9. Three experiments from Quinn and Macrae (2005) • Experiment 1: showed social categorization need an appropriate processing goal • Experiment 2: if perceiver didn’t categorize stimuli, the reaction times won’t be differ between repeated and new stimuli Experiment 3: the efficiency of sex categorization depended on the age of a target, but age categorization was not influenced by variation in target sex. III. Processing multiple social-category cues

10. Single category selection • Perceiver using relevant dimension and inhibit irrelevant ones. • Quinn and Macrae (2005) second experiment. • Stereotype activation is also selective. • Challenge on finding: Wiese, Schweinberger, and Neumann (2008) recently reported ERP version of Quinn and Macrae’s multiple-category repetition-priming experiment.

11. b. Multiple-category integration  Quinn & Macrae’s third experiment  Freeman et.al easy and difficult-to-categorize faces’ task

12. c. Integrating processing of social-category cues and other social cues  cues to differentiate sex (facial features and specific facial expression) Male  angry Female  fear

13.  gaze direction and emotional expression There is still debate Fear  averted gaze Happy  direct gaze

14.  race categorization and emotional expression Anger expression identified faster in African people Happy expression identified faster in Caucasian

15.  Voice Cues Raki´c, Steffens, and Mummendey (2011), who used a ‘who said what?’ paradigm to examine the separate and combined influences of voice and facial cues in person perception

16. Contextual cues Perceivers do not categorize by race when another dimension of categorization is more useful in the ongoing context. Example: T-shirt colour denoted coalitions that race did not.

17. Social-cognitive evidence thus suggests that the processing of identity-nonspecific information in faces is extremely flexible and responsive to such factors as processing goals, semantic knowledge, and contextual cues.

18. Social categorization influences identity recognition • ‘cross-race’ or ‘other-race’ effect. • social categorization also plays a critical role in shaping own- and other-race face processing. • Other race identity recognition could also be sensitive to social categorization (making in-group and out-group) • Social categorization can even affect how individual features are perceived. • Emotional recognition IV. The categorization–identification interface

19. b. Identity recognition influences social categorization  it is easier to extract categorical information from known versus unknown faces.  before a perceiver can recognize a target’s unique identity, the target’s face must first receive basic visual processing.  primacy of categorical thinking  Identity recognition appears to be heavily reliant on the extraction of configural information across multiple features

20. Categorization vs identification Quinn, Mason, and Macrae (2010) used automatic priming paradigm to investigate whether and when participants would automatically respond to unfamiliar and familiar others according to identity versus social category

21. Emphasis on the processing of identity-nonspecific (primarily social-category) information. • The contribution of social cognition face perception is twofold. a. social categorization b. importance of extra-facial (prejudice) V. Conclusion

22. A comprehensive account of face perception requires, at minimum, the consideration of three issues. a. Model should specify whether and how various forms of identity-specific and -nonspecific information are integrated b. Specify the downstream consequences of such integration c. Make clear the nature and extent of online feedback from long-term memory during face processing.

23. Which social categorization needed or automatically came out when we’re looking at a person? • Procedures and results in Quinn and Macrae’s study should be explained in more details. Discussion