Graphs

Yin (1969) Exp 1

• found a robust inversion effect for faces that was larger than that for other sets of stimuli supporting the specificity account of face recognition mechanisms

Diamond & Carey (1986)

• found a robust inversion effect for dog images as that for faces (when observes were experts dog breeders) supporting the expertise account of face recognition mechanisms

Parr & Heintz (2006) Exp1

• The inversion effect suggests that chimps like humans, show face configural processing

Parr & Heintz (2006) Exp2

• shows significant impairments when faces were manipulated to disrupt second-order relations, both the split feature trials and the split plus rearranged feature trials.

Parr & Heintz (2006) Exp3

• pixelating faces using a large radius filter, affecting both first- and second-order relations, affects subjects’ recognition performance

Gauthier et al., (1999)

• Similar FFA activation for faces and Greebles for Greeble experts supporting the expertise account of face recognition mechanisms

Michel et al (2006)

Golby et al (2001)

• showed superior recognition memory for same-race compared to other-race faces

Golby et al (2001)

• revealed that compared to other-race faces, same-race faces were associated with greater activation in the FFA previously identified as areas of initial specialization for the perception of faces.

• FFA was more active for same- race than for other-race faces in at least 84% of participants.

Vizioli et al (2010)

• Western Caucasian & East Asian observers were more accurate at recognizing same-race compared to other-race faces

• This was indexed by the larger inversion effect recorded for same vs other race faces.

Vizioli et al (2010)

• The amplitude of the face inversion effect was largest for own-race vs other-race faces.

• The reduce behavioural and N170 inversion effect for other-race faces could be due to reduce expertise at scrutinizing configural information.

Gervais et al (2011) maths scores

• being objectified damages women’s maths score`

• after being objectified men increase maths score

Gervais et al (2011) gaze affecting women’s body

• Objectifying gaze affected women’s body self-perception indexed by measures of body surveillance, body shame, and body dissatisfaction

Avenanti et al (2005) exp1

• Decreased muscle activation (i.e., lower MEPs) in response to observing pain compared to non-painful or neutral conditions.

Reed et al (2003)

• Inversion disrupts our ability to exploit configural information

Bernard et al (2012)

• Both male & female showed a reduced inversion effect for sexualized women → perceiving them as object-like / featural processing

• Both male & female P showed a robust inversion effect for sexualized men perceiving them as face/body-like / configural processing

Berard et al (2015) Exp1

• replicated results of 2012 study

• larger inversion effect for men

• small effect for women = processed like objects

Berard et al (2015) Exp2a

• Pixelating sexual body parts eliminated difference in configural processing between sexualized female & male bodies.

• P showed a normal inversion effect (harder to recognize inverted images) for both women and men.

• No difference in recognition performance between sexualized female and male bodies after pixelation

Berard et al (2015) Exp2B

• pixelating reduces objectification

Bernard et al (2015) Exp 3

• humanising allowed for inversion effect preving objectification

• both men & women show reduced IE in response to sexualised images of women

Bernard et al (2018)

• larger n170 amplitude for

  • female bodies compared to male

  • sexualsied bodies compared to non

  • inverted images compared to upright

• lack of inversion effect for sexualised bodies suggest reduced configural processing

• women more likely to be portrayed as sexual & when non sexualised, are less likely to be processes holsitically

Bernard et al (2019) Exp1

• skin exposure does not necessarily cause objectification;

• bodies were processed holistically whether they had a lot of skin showing or not.

Bernard et al (2019) Exp2

• Posture, not amount of skin exposure, is the key driver of cognitive objectification.

• Suggestive postures lead to treating bodies more like objects (less holistic/configural processing).

Bernard et al (2019) Exp3

• Bodies in suggestive postures are processed less configurally and are more objectified

• this effect is driven by the suggestiveness of the posture, not by differences in body shape or asymmetry

Kteily et al et al (2015)’s Exp1

• Arabs & muslims were rated as signfic less evolved than other groups

• american & europeans were rated significantly more evolved

Kteily et al et al (2015)’s Exp1a

• uses personality & empathy test

• doctors & americans seen as more evolved than mexican immigrants, welfare recipients & muslims

Kersbergen & Robinsons (2019) Exp1

• obese americans were considered less evolved than americans

Kersbergen & Robinsons (2019) Exp2

• Us citizen condition 39% of p donated

• for obese us charity 16%

Kersbergen & Robinsons (2019) Exp3

• obese individuals were dehumanised

  • indians had larger dehumanisation

• more likely to reduce animal suffering

Boysen et al (2020) Exp1

• mental illness is dehumanised

• over ½ SD separated rationing of p w/MI from americans

• less dehumanised than violent criminals but more than americans

Boysen et al (2020) Exp3

• blatant dehumanisation most prevalent for violent criminals then ppl w/MI & americans

• Mi is highly stigmatised

Bruneau et al (2018)

• Low-status groups are dehumanised similarly to animals, with specific brain regions (IPC, IFC, dMPC) showing no distinction between animals and dehumanised humans.

• IFC helps drive this dehumanisation.

Sellaro et al (2015)

• congruent trial = faster RT due to alignment w/attuitude

• incongruent trial = slower RT suggesting automatic associations even w/out explicit prejudice

• Anodal stimulation significantly reduced implicit bias

• reduction of D-IAT scores suggests MPFC is recruited to control for implicit bias

Civile et al (2019) Exp1

• stronger FIE for regular faces

• weaker inversion effect for autistic faces

• labelling faces as autistic results in configural processing

Civile et al (2019) Exp2

• showed larger inversion effect after humanising info about faces labelled as autistic

Makumel et al (2010)

• hand cued p to perfrom full hand grasp

• p smiled or formed depending on cue

• suggest existence of multiple systems w/neural

Avenanti et al (2005) exp1

• decreased motor excitability during observation of needle in model’s hand

  • Inhibitory sensorimotor response → decreased muscle activation in response to observing pain

• Higher MEP amplitude w/Q-tip on hand

Avenanti et al (2005) exp2

• no significant modulation of MEP amplitude recorded from FDI or ADM muscles when observers viewed foot stimulations

• watching pain stimulation didn’t elecit MEPs

• showing specific activation

Avenanti et al (2005) exp3

• results were consistent w/selectivity in ½

• MEP recorded from ADM muscle during needled = decreased muscle activation

• anatomically specific pain response → doesn’t affect MEPs in unrelated muscles

Aventant et al (2010)

• Watching painful stimuli applied to ingroup (same-race) models led to a significant reduction in MEPs from the FDI muscle

  • muscle corresponding to the observed pain site.

• No MEP reduction was found when watching outgroup (other-race) models in pain.

• No differences were found in the ADM muscle (a control muscle not involved in the pain), confirming muscle specificity.

• P’s race (Black or White) did not influence the results — both groups showed similar patterns.

• suggests that sensorimotor empathy is both muscle-specific and socially biased, showing stronger neural mirroring for ingroup pain.

Aventant et al (2010) violet skin effect

• Painful stimulation to ingroup hands led to a significant reduction in MEP amplitude in the FDI muscle (the observed pain site).

• No significant MEP reduction was found for the ADM muscle (not stimulated), regardless of group — confirming muscle-specificity.

• A mixed-model ANOVA showed no interaction or main effect of participant race — both Black and White participants showed similar MEP modulation.

• MEP reduction was greater for:

  • Ingroup models > Outgroup

  • Violet model > Outgroup

Mino-Palvello et al (2008) AS & empathy

• Individuals w/AS showed no differences in sensorimotor empathy across the stimuli presented

• neurotypical had a large decrease in MEP for pain only → showing empathy for pain

• AS didn't significantly show reduced MEP for pain

  • didnt show the index of empathy

Adam & Galinksy (2012) exp1 results

P who wore a lab coat made fewer errors on incongruent trials than those who did not wear a lab coat

• those wearing a lab coat made about half as many errors as those not

• No difference in errors was found between the two groups on non-incongruent trials.

Adam & Galinksy (2012) exp2 results

• P who wore a doctor’s coat found more differences than those who wore a painter’s coat or only saw a doctor's coat

• no significant difference in performance between P who saw a doctor’s coat & those who wore a painter’s coat.

• Wearing a doctor’s coat may have enhanced sustained attention, possibly because of the symbolic association with careful, detail-oriented professions (like medicine).

• Simply seeing a doctor’s coat was not enough to boost attention → wearing it was necessary to see the benefits.

• Wearing a painter’s coat did not produce the same effect, suggesting that the meaning of the clothing matters in cognitive performance.

Adam & Galinksy (2012) exp3 results

• P who wore a doctor’s coat, found significantly more differences than those who identified with a doctor's coat → simply identifying with the idea of a doctor's coat wasn’t as effective as actually wearing it

• P in the identifying-with-a-doctor’s-coat condition found more differences than those wearing a painter’s coat → suggests that priming did increase attention somewhat, but not as much as actually wearing it.

• P in the painter’s coat condition performed the worst, reinforcing the idea that the symbolic meaning of clothing matters.

example of divided attention (Strayer & Johnston, 2001)

• a simulated driving task → allowed them to examine the effects of engaging in cell phone conversation on various aspects of driving performance

• results showed P who were involved in cell phone conversations were more prone to missing stimulated traffic signals & exhibited slower reaction times

  • degree of impairment was consistent regardless of whether phone was used in a handheld or hands free mode

• cell phone convo disrupts driving performance by diverting attention to a cognitively engaging task that competes w/mental focus required of safe driving

• illustrates dangers of multitasking within complex environments

Civile & Obhi (2017) exp 1

• p wearing uniforms had slower RT overall (poorer task performance)

• suggests that wearing uniform affects cognitive processing

• no significant difference between black/white faces

  • distractor not race

  • implies uniform was responsible for reduced performance

• wearing uniform primes wearer to be more vigilant leading to greater distraction

Civile & Obhi (2017) exp 2

• faster RT in congruent trials suggest attention was already directed there

  • attentional bias more attentions drawn

• p wearing police uniform showed attentional bias for hoodies (quicker RT if dot behind)

• no significant attentional bias between back/white faces

• uniform increased attentional capture by clothes associated w/perceived threat

Civile & Obhi (2017) exp 3

• attentional bias towards hoodies (Low SES) only occurred when p wore police uniform

  • attentional bias based on perceived social class

• simply seeing uniform had no effect

• no difference between black vs white

• police uniforms & bias towards to lower SES are linked

  • supports enclothed cognition

Heeren et al (2017) results

• show attentional bias for social threat

• shown in probe detection/discrimination task

• faster response to problem replacing threat stimuli

  • not present in non-anxious

  • suggest cognitive mechanisms maintains anxiety

Mclaren et al (2021)

• Young children show latent inhibition from simple pre-exposure, consistent with slower learning.

• Older groups do not, suggesting developmental changes in attentional control or learning systems.

• Supports the idea that experience with stimuli can interfere with learning, especially in early development.

Rodriguez exp 1 (2010)

• Female rats spent more time in the landmark area than males.

• This indicates that females relied more on the visual landmark, while

• Males tended to rely more on the geometric shape of the pool.

• There is a sex difference in spatial cue preference:

  • Females → prefer landmarks

  • Males → prefer geometric configuration

Rodriguez exp 2 (2010)

• Females showed stronger preference for the landmark cue.

• Both sexes successfully used both types of cues when tested individually

• difference is preferential, not an inability – not an innate limitation.

Civile & Chamizo et al (2014) exp 1

• Configural arrangement of landmarks is crucial for spatial memory.

• Males navigated better overall

• flipping near landmarks disrupted performance more than flipping far ones

Civile & Chamizo et al (2014) exp 2

• performance was above chance in control & flipped far

• rats in inverted did not perform well → disrupted navigation

  • spent less time in z due to confusion

Civile, Chamizo, (2020) exp1a

• best performance in normal conditions

• worst performance in inverted

  • rats struggled when spatial arrangement is flipped

• Z alone isnt sufficient

  • rely on Z & near (B & C)

Civile, Chamizo, (2020) exp1b

• B & C alone had weak effect

  • contributed navigation but less affective without z

• Z alone provided strong guidance

  • rats stayed in quadrant