Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Distorted Social World - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Integration of facial features into unified whole is easier with all features
    - - the encoding of spatial distance between facial features
    - - Believed to be more critical in face recognition than feature-based processing
      - Research indicates that faces are processed differently than other complex visual stimuli
  - - - Developed by Thompson (1980)
      - Demonstrates how we perceive faces differently when inverted
      - Even familiar faces can be hard to recognise when distorted
      - Exemplifies limitations of our face recognition system under altered condition
    - - Developed by Yin (1969)
      - People are slower to recognise faces presented upside down compared to upright
      - Similar effects occur with contrast inversion, where negative images of faces are harder to recognise
      - Reliance on holistic processing for upright faces and shift to feature-based processing when inverted
    - - Participants are asked to recognise faces or determine if features are the same or different
        
        In one experiment, ppts focus on either the eyes or the mouth of paired faces to assess recognition speed and accuracy
        
        When the top and bottom halves are aligned, ppts often take longer to recognise identical features due to holistic processing creating a new face perception
        
        When halves are misaligned, ppts can more quickly identify identical features as they are not processed as a single face
        
        Highlights impact of holistic processing on our ability to differentiate between facial features
        
        Persists even with cartoon faces
      - Young et al (1987)
      - Implications
        
        Suggests that our perception of faces is fundamentally different from our perception of non-face objects
        
        Robbins & McKone (2007), no difference in speed to identify aligned vs misaligned dogs
        
        Raises questions about nature of visual perception and how we categorise objects in our environment
    - - Feature processing
        
        Involves analysing indivudual parts of an object, rather than whole (typically used for complex objects, such as inverted faces)
        
        Makes it difficult to detect abnormalities (such as Thatcher Illusion), where distortions are less noticeable in inverted faces
        
        Thatcher Illusion demonstrates that strange features in an upright face can go unnoticed when the face is inverted, highlighting differences in processing
        
        When faces are processed featurally, they are treated like other objects, complicating recognition
        
        Difficulty in recognising inverted faces support the idea that our brain is specialised for facial processing
      - Holistic processing
        
        Refers to the ability to perceive faces as unified wholes, enhancing recognition for upright faces
        
        When faces are presented normally, holistic processing is activated
        
        Composite face illusion illustrates how holistic processing can obscure individual features, making it challenging to recognise parts of a face when they are aligned
        
        Misalignment of facial halves allows for feature recognition, as its not processed as a single unit
        
        Not observed when faces are inverted, as holistic processing doesn't occur, similar recognition times for upright vs inverted
  - - - Fusiform Face Area (FFA)
        
        Located in fusiform gyrus of temporal lobe
        
        Heightened BOLD signals when viewing faces
        
        Crucial for face perception, reinforcing idea of specialised cognitive mechanisms
        
        Location of FFA on underside of temporal lobe is significant for understanding of its role
        
        FFA's activation consistent with behaviour
        
        Contrasted with regions activated by non-face objects
      - Occipital Face Area (OFA)
        
        Located in occipital lobe
        
        Object perception activates diff. brain areas compared to face perception
      - Hippocampus
        
        Crucial for memory formation and spatial navigation
        
        In medial temporal lobe, close to areas for visual processing
      - Parahippocampal place area (PPA)
        
        Particularly involved in processing spatial info
        
        Suggest modular organisation in the brain where diff. areas specialise in diff. stimuli
      - Lateral Occipital Area (LOA)
        
        Primarily responsible for visual processing of everyday objects
        
        Shows increased activation when ppts view images of objects compared to faces or landscapes
        
        Located towards the occipital lobe
    - - LOA's response to objects contrasts PPA's response to places
      - May have evolved to enhance efficiency
  - - - Training can induce FFA activation
      - Ppts learned to recognise subtle differences among greebles, leading to increased activation in FFA
      - Supports idea that FFA is not for faces but for any expertise area
    - - Studies supporting the expertise often have small sample sizes and questionable replicability
      - Recent p-curve suggests that previous criticisms may be unfounded, as it found no compelling evidence against expertise effect
      - Murty - FFA activates in response to touching faces, even in congenitally blind
        
        Challenges notion that FFA activation is solely based on visual experience
- - - - Developmental
        
        More common, affecting individuals with normal visual processing, not linked to cognitive ability
        
        Approximately 2-3% of population may exhibit symptoms
      - Acquired
        
        Results from brain damage due to trauma, stroke or neurological conditions
        
        Often persisting for life
        
        Cases were documented post-World Wars
        
        May also experience broader visual cognitive deficits
    - - Often struggle to recognise familiar faces, especially in unfamiliar contexts
      - Changes in appearance can severely impact recognition
      - Social situations can become challenging due to misunderstandings and feelings of social awkwardness
      - May develop alternative recognition strategies, such as relying on voices
      - Lack of public awareness can lead to social difficulties
    - - Complexity of face recognition
        
        Individuals often lack insight into their face recognition abilities, particularly children
        
        Can lead to challenges in self-report questionnaires, which may not be sensitive or specific enough for accuracy
        
        Objective tests such as memorising or matching faces are recommended to complement self-report
      - Limitations of traditional methods
        
        Traditional tests often involve recognising famous faces or familiar individuals, can vary based on age culture and personal interest
        
        Familiarity can skey results, making it difficult to assess true recognition
        
        Objective tests, while more controlled, can be frustrating to individuals with difficulties, potentially leading to incompletion
      - Prosopagnosia Index (PI-20)
        
        Self-report questionnaire that assesses face recogntiion ability on a continuum frome xcellent to poor
        
        High scores indicate more pronounced features of prosopagnosias
        
        Strong correlation between PI-20 and objective measures of face perception
      - Objective measures of face recognition
        
        Correlation between self-report and objective
        
        Higher PI-20 correlates with lower performance on face memory tests, indicating self-reported abilities are specific to face recognition tasks
        
        Distinction between face memory and car memory highlights specificity of face recognition abilities
        
        Challenges
        
        Challenging for individuals with face recognition difficulties leading to frustration and potential test abandonment
        
        Design must consider cognitive load on participants to ensure accurate results
        
        Future reserach aims to develop user-friendly assessment tools
      - Limits of self-report
        
        No official DSM-5 diagnosis
        
        Self-report are quick and easy but may lack sensititvity or specificity
- - - - Participants were quicker to identify letter changes on faces with direct gaze compared to averted
        
        Suggests that direct gaze not only captures attention but also facilitates better processing of facial information
  - - - Cognitive interviews aim to improve accuracy of eyewitness accounts by creating a supporting environmetn
      - However, necessity of face-to-face interaction may hinder recall due to direct gaze
      - Studies indicate that ppts may perform better when not visually engaged with interviewer, during video interviews or closed eyes
        
        Rob Nash's research explored effects of gaze direction in interviews, finding minimal impact on recall accuracy, suggesting need for further research
      - Balance between rapoort and minimising gaze effects remains critical
    - - Studies where ppts remembered faces better when they were initially presented with direct gaze
    - - Demonstrated that faces shown with direct gaze were recalled more accurately in a surprise memroy test
    - - Extended this by showing that direct eye contact during communication enhances recall of verbal information
- - - - Developed by Correll et al
      - Examines how racial biases influence decision-making under stress
      - Ppts view images of black and white men holding either guns or non-threatneing objects and must decide to shoot or not
      - Measures response times, revealing biases
    - - Ppts are quicker to shoot armed black individuals compared to armed white individuals
      - Ppts are faster to refrain from shooting unarmed white individuals than unarmed black individuals, bias in threat perception
      - Objects held by black individuals are more likely to be perceived as violent while similar objects are seen as neutral with white individuals
      - Other studies indicate that even African-American ppts exhibit shooter bias (linked to cultural stereotypes rather than personal beliefs)
        
        Mere exposure to cultural stereotypes portraying African-Americans as aggressive can lead to dangerous misidentifications
        
        Challenges the notion that in-group favouritisim naturally leads to out-group hostility, specifica conditions like perceived threat are necessary for bias to emerge
    - - Ecological validity is questioned, ppts are not actually shooting but pressing buttons after brief image reviews
      - Variability in image features (appearance, clothing, posture) may affect results
      - Darker objects may be harder to discern against darker skin
  - - - Refers to tendency to misidentify unarmed individuals as armed, particularly influenced by race and threat perception
      - Challenges traditional view that in-group favouritism leads to out-group hostility
      - More pronounced in contexts perceived as threatening, such as certain clothing or environments
      - Bias is absent when the target is from a non-threatening groups, such as Asians or women
      - Can be triggered by minimal cues, such as arbitrary group assignments, demonstrating fragility of bias
    - - Perception of threat is a crucial factor in driving shooter bias
        
        When ppts are primed with images of threatening vs non-threatening outgroups
      - Race of indiviudal depicted in stimuli sig affects shooter bias but not a sole factor
      - Minimal group manipulation paradigm illustrates how trivial characteristics can influence bias, with ppts more likely to mistake unarmed suspects from different groups as armed
      - High sensitivity to interpersonal threat correlates with a greater likelihood of perceiving objects as dangerous, enhancing shooter bias
    - - Mang et al demonstrated that shooter bias increased when ppts were primed with threatening out-groups
      - Plant & Perouchet's research with police officers showed that extensive practice on shooter tasks could eliminate bias
      - Johnson et al found that sleep deprivation can worsen overall task performance but did not increase racial bias
      - Kramer (2019) revealed that being observed (body cameras) could reduce shooter bias
    - - Recent studies have use eye tracking to understanding decision-making during shooter tasks
      - During practice trials, ppts focused longer on hands of unarmed white targets, indicating reliance on visual cues to confirm safety before shooting
      - In experiment trials, ppts showed a shift in behaviour, being quicker to incorrectly shoot unarmed white targets compared to black targets
      - Increased attention to white targets' hands and heads reflects attempt to counteract earlier biases, leading to more false alarms
    - - Focused on low-level cognitive porcesses invovled in object perception and decision-making related to racial biases
      - Pleskac et al employed a drift diffusion model to analyse DM processes, providing a framework for understnading shooter bias
      - This model helps explain how biases can influence spped and accuracy of decisions in high-stress situations
    - - Training programs that focus on reducing shooter bias show promise esepcially through extensive practice on shooter tasks
      - Awareness of being observed can lead to more cautious DM
      - Future research should explore additioanl methods for moderating bias, including cognitive behavioural strats and community engagement
    - - Findings on shooter bias have sig. implications for police training and policy
      - Need for bias awareness and accountability measures
      - Implementing body cameras and training programs can mitigate effects of racial bias
  - - - The starting point (prior bias) indicates an individual's predisposition towards one decision over another before evidence is processed
      - Non-decision time accounts for processes that occur before or after the DM such as motor response
      - The drift rate reflect the spped of evidence accumulation (steeper indicates faster DM)
    - - Prior bias
        
        Refers to inherent predisposition towards a deicison before any evidence is considered
        
        May have a bias to shoot based on previous experiences or stereotypes
        
        Can significantly influence the speped and nature of DM
      - Drift rate
        
        The rate at which evidence is accumulated over time, impacting how quickly a decision is reached
        
        Higher drift rate indicates faster processing of info, while lower suggest more caution
        
        Racial biases can distort drift rate, leading to quicker identification of threats based on stereotypes
      - Decision thresholds
        
        Distance between decision thresholds represents the amount of evidence required to make a choice
        
        Smaller distance indicates a lower threshold for making a decision, while a larger decision requires more evidence (a more careful approach)
        
        Can be influenced by social biases, where individuals may set higher thresholds when making decisions about people of different races
      - Evidence accumulation
        
        Not linear; refelcts the complexities of real-world scenarios, where perception is influenced by various factors
        
        Model incorporates a wiggly line to represent the fluctating nature of evidence as it is gathered over time
        
        Fluctuation illustrates how ppts may shift between shoot and not shoot options
    - - Interaction between PB, DR and DT can lead to rapid or delayed DM
      - A ppt with a strong PB to shoot may reach a decision quickly, potentially overlooking critical evidence
      - Understanding interactions is crucial for addressing issues related to racial bias
    - - Simplifies DM process into visual and distinct elements
      - Model is structured around the x axis and y axis
        
        X - progression of time during the DM process
        
        Y - accumulation of evidence towards a decisions
      - Shows two decision thresholds (one for shoot and one for not shoot)