Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Aug 27:10:1973.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01973. eCollection 2019.

Self-Construal Priming Affects Holistic Face Processing and Race Categorization, but Not Face Recognition

Xinge Liu  1 , Xingfen Liang  1 , Cong Feng  2 , Guomei Zhou  1   3
Affiliations

Self-Construal Priming Affects Holistic Face Processing and Race Categorization, but Not Face Recognition

Xinge Liu et al. Front Psychol. .

Abstract

Self-construal priming can affect an individual's cognitive processing. Participants who were primed with interdependent self-construal showed more holistic process bias than those who were primed with independent self-construal. The holistic processing of a face also differs across cultures. As such, the purpose of the present study was to explore whether the cultural differences in holistic face processing can be interpreted from the perspective of self-construal, as well as to investigate the relationship between self-construal and holistic face processing/face recognition/race categorization. In Experiment 1, participants were primed with control, interdependent, or independent self-construal, respectively, and then they completed a feature-space same-different task (Experiment 1A) or a composite face effect task (Experiment 1B). Results showed no priming effect in Experiment 1A, whereas independent self-construal priming resulted in less holistic processing in Experiment 1B. In Experiment 2, participants were primed with control, collective/interdependent, relational, or independent self-construal, respectively, and then they completed a Vanderbilt Holistic Face Processing Test and Cambridge Face Memory Test. Participants who were primed as independent showed greater congruency effect than the relational group. Self-construal priming had no effect on face recognition. In Experiment 3, we manipulated self-construal in the same way as that in Experiment 2 and monitored the eye movement of Chinese participants while they learned, recognized, and categorized their own-/other-race faces. Self-construal priming had no effect on face recognition. Compared with other groups, collective-/interdependent-self priming increased the fixation time of eyes and decreased the fixation time of nose in the race categorization task. These results indicated that the cultural differences in self-construal could not mirror the cultural differences in face processing in a simple way.

Keywords: composite face effect; face recognition; holistic processing; race; self-construal priming.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Example of an original face (the left-most face in each row), his spacing-composite faces (top row), and his featural-composite faces (bottom row) used in Experiment 1A. These illustrated examples did not appear in the actual experiment. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual for the publication of this image.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Mean sensitivity and correct response time as a function of priming and feature change type in Experiment 1A. The error bar included here and elsewhere refers to a 95% confidence interval.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Illustration of the standard composite task in Experiment 1B. Participants’ task was to determine whether the tops of the learn- and test-composite face were the same or different. In the congruent trials, the tops and bottoms were both the same or different; in incongruent trials, the tops were the same and the bottoms were different, or vice versa.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Mean sensitivity and correct response time as a function of priming, congruency, and alignment in Experiment 1B.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Illustration of six trials in the revised composite task in Experiment 2. Participants’ task was to select one composite face with the same target parts (here, the target is the top half) as that of learning composite face from three test composite faces (each rectangle above). Apostrophes indicate that distractor parts of the composite faces (bottom parts in this figure) have been phase-scrambled.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Examples of nine different kinds of target parts in alignment condition (A) and scramble condition (B) of the VHFPT in Experiment 2. In all trials, target parts were identified by a 2-pixel wide red line box. These illustrated examples did not appear in the actual experiment. Written informed consents were obtained from the two individuals for the publication of these images.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Accuracy (top panel) and correct response time (bottom panel) as functions of priming, congruency, and alignment in Experiment 2.
Figure 8
Figure 8
An example of face stimuli with area of interest (AOI) used in Experiment 3B. Written informed consents were obtained from the two individuals for the publication of these images. This illustrated example did not appear in the actual experiment. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual for the publication of the image.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Sensitivity as a function of priming and face race in Experiments 3A and 3B.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Proportional fixation duration as a function of priming, AOI and race in learning, recognition, and categorization stages in Experiment 3B.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Blais C., Jack R. E., Scheepers C., Fiset D., Caldara R. (2008). Culture shapes how we look at faces. PLoS One 3:e3022. 10.1371/journal.pone.0003022, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brewer M. B., Chen Y. R. (2007). Where (who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism. Psychol. Rev. 114, 133–151. 10.1037/0033-295X.114.1.133, PMID: - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brewer M. B., Gardner W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self-representations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 71, 83–93. 10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.83 - DOI
    1. Caldara R., Zhou X., Miellet S. (2010). Putting culture under the ‘spotlight’ reveals universal information use for face recognition. PLoS One 5:e9708. 10.1371/journal.pone.0009708, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Caparos S., Ahmed L., Bremner A., de Fockert J. W., Linnell K. J., Davidoff J. (2012). Exposure to an urban environment alters the local bias of a remote culture. Cognition 122, 80–85. 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.08.013, PMID: - DOI - PubMed