Here's Looking At You: Quantification Of Quotidian Exposure To Faces

10.32920/ryerson.14646384.v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Nicole Andrea Sugden

Keyword(s):

Genetic Predisposition ◽

Natural Environment ◽

Extensive Experience ◽

Emotional Faces ◽

Development Of Expertise ◽

Face Exposure

The majority of adults are face experts, excelling at perceiving, recognizing, and discriminating amongst faces. This expertise begins to develop in infancy, but it is currently unclear whether it develops primarily based on extensive experience or on a genetic predisposition. The amount of face experience typically received in infancy and adulthood has not been quantified previously. Through the use of head-mounted cameras, this study describes the exposure to faces received by 1-and 3-month-old infants and adults in their natural environment. Adults see faces significantly less often (13% of the time) than 1-and 3-month-oldinfants(37% and 38%, respectively). Infants see more female, homogenous-age, own-race, inverted, and emotional faces than adults. They also view more up-close faces than adults, which reflects the different interactions infants and adults have with faces. These results are discussed in terms of the relations between face exposure and the development of expertise.

Download Full-text

Taking Stock of Reality: Biased Perceptions of the Costs of Romantic Partners’ Sacrifices

Social Psychological and Personality Science ◽

10.1177/1948550619896671 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 12 (1) ◽

pp. 54-62 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Mariko L. Visserman ◽

Francesca Righetti ◽

Amy Muise ◽

Emily A. Impett ◽

Samantha Joel ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Natural Environment ◽

Experience Sampling ◽

Romantic Partners ◽

Costs And Benefits ◽

Romantic Couples ◽

Extensive Experience ◽

Self Interest ◽

The Relationship

When romantic partners sacrifice their own self-interest to benefit the relationship, the sacrificer or recipient may—for various reasons—be biased in how they perceive the costs that the sacrificer incurs. In Study 1, romantic couples ( N = 125) rated their own and their partner’s costs after a conversation about a sacrifice in the laboratory, followed by extensive experience sampling in their natural environment. In Study 2, a preregistered experiment, individuals ( N = 775) imagined a scenario in which they, their partner, or an unknown person sacrificed and rated the associated costs and benefits. Both studies demonstrated a consistent discrepancy between perceptions of own and partner sacrifice, driven primarily by people underestimating their own sacrifice costs and overestimating the benefits (Study 2). Results across studies showed that this underestimation bias helps people to feel better and feel more satisfied in the relationship when giving up their own goals and preferences for the relationship.

Download Full-text

Random isn't real: How the patchy distribution of ecological rewards may generate “incentive hope”

Behavioral and Brain Sciences ◽

10.1017/s0140525x18002005 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 42 ◽

Author(s):

Laurel Symes ◽

Thalia Wheatley

Keyword(s):

Natural Environment ◽

Random Distribution ◽

Spatiotemporal Distribution ◽

Patchy Distribution ◽

Distribution Of Resources

AbstractAnselme & Güntürkün generate exciting new insights by integrating two disparate fields to explain why uncertain rewards produce strong motivational effects. Their conclusions are developed in a framework that assumes a random distribution of resources, uncommon in the natural environment. We argue that, by considering a realistically clumped spatiotemporal distribution of resources, their conclusions will be stronger and more complete.

Download Full-text

Extreme self-sacrifice beyond fusion: Moral expansiveness and the special case of allyship

Behavioral and Brain Sciences ◽

10.1017/s0140525x18001620 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 41 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Daniel Crimston ◽

Matthew J. Hornsey

Keyword(s):

General Theory ◽

Biological Markers ◽

Natural Environment ◽

Relevant Dimension ◽

Special Case

AbstractAs a general theory of extreme self-sacrifice, Whitehouse's article misses one relevant dimension: people's willingness to fight and die in support of entities not bound by biological markers or ancestral kinship (allyship). We discuss research on moral expansiveness, which highlights individuals’ capacity to self-sacrifice for targets that lie outside traditional in-group markers, including racial out-groups, animals, and the natural environment.

Download Full-text