Abstract
Research on visual attention triggered by face gender is still relatively sparse. In the present study, three experiments are reported in which male and female participants were required to estimate the midpoint of a line (i.e., the “line bisection task”): at each end of the line a face was presented. Depending on the experimental condition, faces could be of the same gender (i.e., two males or two females) or the opposite gender. Experiments 1 and 2 converged in showing that when a male face was presented at the right and a female face at the left endpoint of the line, a clear rightward bias emerged compared to the other experimental conditions, indicating that male faces captured attention more than female faces. Importantly, male faces used across Experiments 1 and 2 were rated as more threatening than female faces, suggesting that perceived level of threat may have been responsible for the observed bias toward the male face. Experiment 3 corroborated this hypothesis by finding an attentional bias toward the male face with high threat (angry) faces but not with low threat (smiling) faces.
References
(2006). They all look the same to me (unless they’re angry): From out-group homogeneity to out-group heterogeneity. Psychological Science, 17, 836–840.
(2012). Non-threatening other-race faces capture visual attention: Evidence from a dot-probe task. Plos One, 7, e46119.
(2008). Modulation of hemispatial neglect by directional and numerical cues in the line bisection task. Neuropsychologia, 46, 426–433.
(1999). Line bisection performance of normal adults: Two subgroups with opposite biases. Neurology, 53, 527–532.
(1998). Physical and psychological representations of faces: Evidence from morphing. Psychological Science, 9, 476–483.
(2010). Dissociation of facial attractiveness and distinctiveness processing in congenital prosopagnosia. Visual Cognition, 18, 641–654.
(2012). Listening to numbers affects visual and haptic bisection in healthy individuals and neglect patients. Neuropsychologia, 50, 913–925.
(2010). Crossmodal interaction between the mental number line and peripersonal haptic space representation in sighted and blind individuals. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 72, 885–890.
(2012). Listening to white noise counteracts visual and haptic pseudoneglect. Perception, 41, 1395–1398.
(2004). Sex differences in face gender recognition in humans. Brain Research Bulletin, 63, 443–449.
(2009). Phenomenological characteristics of attentional biases towards threat: A critical review. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 33, 221–234.
(2010). Mechanisms of Attentional Biases towards Threat in the Anxiety Disorders: An Integrative Review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 203–216.
, (2012). Famous faces but not remembered spaces influence vertical line bisections. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 34, 919–924.
(1998). Variation among nonclinical subjects on a line bisection task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 834.
(2012). Social status gates social attention in humans. Biology Letters, 8, 450–452.
(2005). Brain lateralisation of emotional processing: Historical roots and a future incorporating ‘dominance’. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 4, 3–20.
(2006). Numbers and space: A cognitive illusion? Experimental Brain Research, 168, 254–264.
(2005). Effects of motivational cues on perceptual asymmetry: Implications for creativity and analytical problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 263–275.
(2012). The role of right and left posterior parietal cortex in the modulation of spatial attentional biases by self and non-self face stimuli. Social Neuroscience, 7, 359–368.
(2010). Sex differences in face processing: Are women less lateralized and faster than men? Brain and Cognition, 73, 167–175.
(1974). Effects of uniqueness, sex of subject, and sex of photograph on facial recognition. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 39, 109–110.
(2003). Facing prejudice: Implicit prejudice and the perception of facial threat. Psychologycal Science, 14, 640–643.
(2010). Gender differences in brain activation during encoding and recognition of male and female faces. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 4, 55–67.
(2009). Enhanced visual short-term memory for angry faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 363–374.
(2000). Pseudoneglect: A review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks. Neuropsychologia, 38, 93–110. doi: 10.1016/s0028-3932(99)00045-7
(2010). Facial cues of dominance modulate the short-term gaze-cuing effect in human observers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 277, 617–624.
(1996). Tactile rod bisection: Hemispheric activation and sex differences. Neuropsychologia, 34, 1115–1121.
(2010). When attractiveness demands longer looks: The effects of situation and gender. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1858–1871.
(2002). Sex differences in face recognition: Women’s faces make the difference. Brain and Cognition, 50, 121–128.
(2012). Beauty is better pursued: Effects of attractiveness in multiple-face tracking. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 553–564.
(2011). Women’s own-gender bias in face recognition memory: The role of attention at encoding. Experimental Psychology, 58, 333–340.
(2012). Who are you looking at? The influence of face gender on visual attention and memory for own- and other-race faces. Memory, 20, 321–331.
(1998). The Karolinska Directed Emotional Faces–KDEF [CD-ROM]. Stockholm, Sweden: Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Psychology section, Karolinska Institutet ISBN 91-630-7164-9.
(1988). Gender as a social category. Developmental Psychology, 24, 755–765.
(1991). Detection Theory: A User’s Guide. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
(1993). Gender differences in recognition memory for faces and cars: Evidence for the interest hypothesis. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31, 447–448.
(1993). Effects of age and gender on perceived facial attractiveness. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 25, 135–142.
(2009). Fear extinction to an out-group face: The role of target gender. Psychologycal Science, 20, 155–158.
(2012). The relationship between vertical stimulation and horizontal attentional asymmetries. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 2384–2396.
(1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness the edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113.
(2008). A bias for the female face in the right hemisphere. Laterality, 13, 374–386.
(2006). Infants’ differential processing of female and male faces. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 59–62.
(2005). Infant categorization of faces: Ladies first. Developmental Review, 25, 212–246.
(2006). Higher face recognition ability in girls: Magnified by own-sex own-ethnicity bias. Memory, 14, 289–296.
(2007). Women remember more faces than men do. Acta Psychologica, 124, 344–355.
(1985). Perceptual asymmetries in face recognition. Brain and Cognition, 4, 197–218.
(1999). Are average facial configurations attractive only because of their symmetry? Psychological Science, 10, 52–58.
(1994). Sex-differences, weapon focus, and eyewitness reliability. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 413–420.
(1999). Weapon focus and gender differences in eyewitness accuracy: Arousal versus salience. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2328–2341.
(2010). Valence specific laterality effects in free viewing conditions: The role of expectancy and gender of image. Brain and Cognition, 74, 324–331.
(2009). Can beauty be ignored? Effects of facial attractiveness on covert attention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 276–281.
(2005). Effects of emotional face cueing on line bisection in neglect: A single case study. Neurocase, 11, 399–404.
(2010). A new ranking method for Principal Components Analysis and its application to face image analysis. Image and Vision Computing, 28, 902–913.
(2000). Recognition and sex categorization of adults’ and children’s faces: Examining performance in the absence of sex-stereotyped cues. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77, 269–291.
(1996). Demonic males: Apes and the origins of human violence. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
(2003). An own gender bias and the importance of hair in face recognition. Acta Psychologica, 114, 101–114.
(2012). Perception and motivation in face recognition: A critical review of theories of the cross-race effect. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 116–142.
