Page 26 - Demo

24Chapter 2and implicit attention paradigms. For example, in free- viewing paradigmswhere two faces are presented at the same time, people attend longer tothe more attractive face (Leder, Mitrovic, & Goller, 2016). Crucially, sustained attention for attractive faces is still apparent after controlling forlow-level features, such as luminance and contrast (J. Li, Oksama, & Hyönä,2016), suggesting that the actual configuration of the face contributed to theattentional bias, and not just low-level differences between attractive andunattractive faces. Furthermore, it has recently been suggested that attractiveness interferes with top-down goals. Specifically, presenting attractivefaces reduces performance in a visual search task and target orientationjudgement (Nakamura & Kawabata, 2014; Sui & Liu, 2009).A well-known paradigm by which attentional biases can be measured isthe dot- probe task (van Rooijen, Ploeger, & Kret, 2017). In the dot-probetask, participants view two photographic stimuli presented briefly (typicallyfor approx. 300 ms) on the left and right of the display. Next, one of thesestimuli is replaced by a probe. Participants are instructed to quickly andaccurately indicate the location of the probe. The interpretation of possible results is straightforward: since participants selectively attend to salientimages, participants respond faster when the probe appears at the same location as the attention-grabbing image (i.e., a congruent trial). Thus, wecan infer attentional biases from reaction times (RTs) in the dot-probe task.This paradigm has also been used to investigate attentional bias as a function of attractiveness. For example, Maner et al. (2007) used a modifieddot-probe paradigm that presented only one picture per trial. Their findingsshowed that participants disengaged slower from attractive faces than neutral faces; suggesting that attractiveness holds attention (Maner, Gailliot, &DeWall, 2007). This effect has since been replicated in further studies thatemployed the original dot-probe paradigm (Y. Ma et al., 2015, 2019): theyfound that single individuals had trouble disengaging from attractive faces,but did not find evidence that attractive faces capture attention. Thus,while both studies found evidence for a disengagement effect of attractiveness, evidence for immediate capture of attention has not been found usingthe dot-probe paradigm.However, the previous studies investigating bottom-up effects of attractiveness on attention suffer from three methodological limitations. First, Maet al. (2015, 2019) paired face stimuli with pictures of objects. Therefore,instead of two faces competing for attention (e.g. attractive and intermediately attractive), there was one face and one household object. Thus, thesaliency of the neutral stimuli differed very strongly from the faces they werepaired with. Second, Ma et al. (2015, 2019) and Maner et al. (2007) onlycompared attractive faces with intermediately attractive faces. Given thatboth attractive and unattractive faces may possess features that distinguishthem from an average face (Lin, Fischer, Johnson, & Ebner, 2020; Said &Todorov, 2011), including the comparison between intermediately attractiveand unattractive faces is necessary to conclude that specifically attractivefaces modulate attention. Third, Ma et al. presented stimuli for 500 ms,which is not an ideal presentation duration to study initial engagement, because individuals can shift attention within this time period (Petrova, Wentura, & Bermeitinger, 2013). As a consequence, it remains unclear whetherthe attractiveness of a face influences immediate attentional capture.Apart from a general preference for attractiveness, humans also have anaesthetic preference for symmetry (Bertamini, Rampone, Makin, & Jessop,2019; Che, Sun, Gallardo, & Nadal, 2018; A. Little, 2014). Importantly,this preference seems widespread in nature: bilateral symmetry is associated with increased mating success in multiple animal species (Møller &Thornhill, 1998). In humans, attractive faces tend to be more symmetrical than unattractive faces (Perrett et al., 1999; Rhodes, Sumich, & Byatt, 1999). People perceive them as healthy looking (B. Jones et al., 2001;Rhodes et al., 2007) and indeed, symmetry has been linked to genetic healthand developmental stability, which would explain why a preference for symmetrical partners could be beneficial (A. C. Little et al., 2011). Becauseof the saliency of symmetry, Wagemans (1995) suggested that it should bedetected rapidly. While it has been shown that women can correctly identifysymmetrized versions of a male face in a forced choice paradigm (Oinonen& Mazmanian, 2007), it has not yet been established whether such symmetrical faces rapidly modulate the attention of viewers. The evolutionarysignificance of symmetry might translate into an attentional bias towardssymmetrical partners. Thus far, no study directly investigated whether thatis indeed the case by comparing modulation of attention by symmetrized,original and asymmetrized stimuli.Because humans have such a strong preference for attractive people,they might pick up other variant and invariant facial characteristics morereadily in attractive faces. For example, people identify facial expressionsmore quickly in attractive faces than in unattractive faces (Taylor & Bryant,2016), and classify attractive faces more rapidly and accurately in a sexclassification task (Hoss, Ramsey, Griffin, & Langlois, 2005). In addition,one may want to know what information an attractive person is perceivingfrom the environment by following their gaze to infer their desires and goals(Baron-Cohen, 2014), and obtain social information about them. Thesesources of information might increase the likelihood of a successful approach,because the network of collected information can help to create an exchangeof shared interests. Alternatively, mimicking the gaze of attractive oppositesex conspecifics might facilitate becoming the object of attraction, becausemimicking can increase bonding (Lakin & Chartrand, 2003; Prochazkova &Kret, 2017). In line with this idea, single people are more likely to mimicattractive others (Farley, 2014; Birnbaum, Mizrahi, & Reis, 2019), and couples show more mimicry compared to platonic friends (Maister & Tsakiris,2016). Thus, copying the gaze direction of an attractive other might enand implicit attention paradigms. For example, in free-viewing paradigmswhere two faces are presented at the same time, people attend longer tothe more attractive face (Leder, Mitrovic, & Goller, 2016). Crucially, sustained attention for attractive faces is still apparent after controlling forlow-level features, such as luminance and contrast (J. Li, Oksama, & Hyönä,2016), suggesting that the actual configuration of the face contributed to theattentional bias, and not just low-level differences between attractive andunattractive faces. Furthermore, it has recently been suggested that attractiveness interferes with top-down goals. Specifically, presenting attractivefaces reduces performance in a visual search task and target orientationjudgement (Nakamura & Kawabata, 2014; Sui & Liu, 2009).A well-known paradigm by which attentional biases can be measured isthe dot-probe task (van Rooijen, Ploeger, & Kret, 2017). In the dot-probetask, participants view two photographic stimuli presented briefly (typicallyfor approx. 300 ms) on the left and right of the display. Next, one of thesestimuli is replaced by a probe. Participants are instructed to quickly andaccurately indicate the location of the probe. The interpretation of possible results is straightforward: since participants selectively attend to salientimages, participants respond faster when the probe appears at the same location as the attention-grabbing image (i.e., a congruent trial). Thus, wecan infer attentional biases from reaction times (RTs) in the dot-probe task.This paradigm has also been used to investigate attentional bias as a function of attractiveness. For example, Maner et al. (2007) used a modifieddot-probe paradigm that presented only one picture per trial. Their findingsshowed that participants disengaged slower from attractive faces than neutral faces; suggesting that attractiveness holds attention (Maner, Gailliot, &DeWall, 2007). This effect has since been replicated in further studies thatemployed the original dot-probe paradigm (Y. Ma et al., 2015, 2019): theyfound that single individuals had trouble disengaging from attractive faces,but did not find evidence that attractive faces capture attention. Thus,while both studies found evidence for a disengagement effect of attractiveness, evidence for immediate capture of attention has not been found usingthe dot-probe paradigm.However, the previous studies investigating bottom-up effects of attractiveness on attention suffer from three methodological limitations. First, Maet al. (2015, 2019) paired face stimuli with pictures of objects. Therefore,instead of two faces competing for attention (e.g., attractive and intermediately attractive), there was one face and one household object. Thus, thesaliency of the neutral stimuli differed very strongly from the faces they werepaired with. Second, Ma et al. (2015, 2019) and Maner et al. (2007) onlycompared attractive faces with intermediately attractive faces. Given thatboth attractive and unattractive faces may possess features that distinguishthem from an average face (Lin, Fischer, Johnson, & Ebner, 2020; Said &Todorov, 2011), including the comparison between intermediately attractiveIliana Samara 17x24.indd 24 08-04-2024 16:34