No influence of eye gaze on emotional face processing in the absence of conscious awareness

The human brain has evolved specialised mechanisms to enable the rapid detection of threat cues, including emotional face expressions (e.g., fear and anger). However, contextual cues – such as gaze direction – influence the ability to recognise emotional expressions. For instance, anger paired with direct gaze, and fear paired with averted gaze are more accurately recognised compared to alternate conjunctions of these features. It is argued that this is because gaze direction conveys the relevance and locus of the threat to the observer. Here, we used continuous flash suppression (CFS) to assess whether the modulatory effect of gaze direction on emotional face processing occurs outside of conscious awareness. Previous research using CFS has demonstrated that fearful facial expressions are prioritised by the visual system and gain privileged access to awareness over other expressed emotions. We hypothesised that if the modulatory effects of gaze on emotional face processing occur also at this level, then the gaze-emotion conjunctions signalling self-relevant threat will reach awareness faster than those that do not. We report that fearful faces gain privileged access to awareness over angry faces, but that gaze direction does not modulate this effect. Thus, our findings suggest that previously reported effects of gaze direction on emotional face processing are likely to occur once the face is detected, where the self-relevance and locus of the threat can be consciously appraised

Social alignment matters: Following pandemic guidelines is associated with better wellbeing

Background: In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, most countries implemented physical distancing measures. Many mental health experts warned that through increasing social isolation and anxiety, these measures could negatively afect psychosocial wellbeing. However, socially aligning with others by adhering to these measures may also be benefcial for wellbeing. Methods: We examined these two contrasting hypotheses using cross-national survey data (N=6675) collected fortnightly from participants in 115 countries over 3 months at the beginning of the pandemic. Participants reported their wellbeing, perceptions of how vulnerable they were to Covid-19 (i.e., high risk of infection) and how much they, and others in their social circle and country, were adhering to the distancing measures. Results: Linear mixed-efects models showed that being a woman, having lower educational attainment, living alone and perceived high vulnerability to Covid-19 were risk factors for poorer wellbeing. Being young (18–25) was associated with lower wellbeing, but longitudinal analyses showed that young people’s wellbeing improved over 3 months. In contrast to widespread views that physical distancing measures negatively afect wellbeing, results showed that following the guidelines was positively associated with wellbeing even for people in high-risk groups. Conclusions: These fndings provide an important counterpart to the idea that pandemic containment measures such as physical distancing negatively impacted wellbeing unequivocally. Despite the overall burden of the pandemic on psychosocial wellbeing, social alignment with others can still contribute to positive wellbeing. The pandemic has manifested our propensity to adapt to challenges, particularly highlighting how social alignment can forge resilience

Digital contact does not promote wellbeing, but face-to-face does: a cross-national survey during the Covid-19 pandemic

With restricted face-to-face interactions, COVID-19 lockdowns and distancing measures tested the capability of computer-mediated communication to foster social contact and wellbeing. In a multinational sample (n = 6436), we investigated how different modes of contact related to wellbeing during the pandemic. Computer-mediated communication was more common than face-to-face, and its use was influenced by COVID-19 death rates, more so than state stringency measures. Despite its legal and health threats, face-to-face contact was still positively associated with wellbeing, and messaging apps had a negative association. Perceived household vulnerability to COVID-19 reduced the positive effect of face-to-face communication on wellbeing, but surprisingly, people’s own vulnerability did not. Computer-mediated communication was particularly negatively associated with the wellbeing of young and empathetic people. Findings show people endeavored to remain socially connected, yet however, maintain a physical distance, despite the tangible costs to their wellbeing

Trust in science boosts approval, but not following of COVID-19 rules

How essential is trust in science to prevent the spread of COVID-19? Previous work shows that people who trust in science are more likely to comply with official guidelines, which suggests that higher levels of compliance could be achieved by improving trust in science. However, analysis of a global dataset (n=4341) suggests otherwise. Trust in science had a small, indirect effect on adherence to the rules. It affected adherence only insofar as it predicted people's approval of prevention measures such as social distancing. Trust in science also mediated the relationship between political ideology and approval of the measures (more conservative people trusted science less and in turn approved of the measures less). These effects varied across countries, and were especially different in the USA. Overall, these results mean that any increase in trust in science is unlikely to yield strong immediate improvements in following COVID-19 rules. Nonetheless, given its relationships with both ideology and individuals' attitudes to the measures, trust in science may be leveraged to yield longer-term and more sustained social benefits

Facing the pandemic with trust in science

How essential is trust in science to prevent the spread of COVID-19? People who trust in science are reportedly more likely to comply with official guidelines, implying that higher levels of adherence could be achieved by improving trust in science. However, analysis of a global dataset (n = 4341) suggests otherwise. Trust in science had a small, indirect effect on adherence to the rules. Nonetheless, it predicted people’s approval of prevention measures such as social distancing, and bridged political ideology and approval of the measures (conservatives trusted science less and in turn approved of the measures less). These effects were stronger in the USA than in other countries. Even though any increase in trust in science is unlikely to yield strong behavioural changes, given its relationships with both ideology and individuals’ attitudes to the measures, trust in science may be leveraged to yield longer-term sustainable social benefits

Social influence matters: we follow pandemic guidelines most when our close circle does

Why do we adopt new rules, such as social distancing? Although human sciences research stresses the key role of social influence in behaviour change, most COVID-19 campaigns emphasize the disease’s medical threat. In a global data set (n = 6,675), we investigated how social influences predict people’s adherence to distancing rules during the pandemic. Bayesian regression analyses controlling for stringency of local measures showed that people distanced most when they thought their close social circle did. Such social influence mattered more than people thinking distancing was the right thing to do. People’s adherence also aligned with their fellow citizens, but only if they felt deeply bonded with their country. Self-vulnerability to the disease predicted distancing more for people with larger social circles. Collective efficacy and collectivism also significantly predicted distancing. To achieve behavioural change during crises, policymakers must emphasize shared values and harness the social influence of close friends and family

Joining a group diverts regret and responsibility away from the individual

It has recently been proposed that a key motivation for joining groups is the protection from the negative consequences of undesirable outcomes. To test this claim, we investigated how experienced outcomes triggering loss and regret impacted people's tendency to decide alone or join a group, and how decisions differed when voluntarily made alone versus in group. Replicated across two experiments, participants (n = 125 and n = 496) selected whether to play alone or contribute their vote to a group decision. Next, they chose between two lotteries with different probabilities of winning and losing. The higher the negative outcome, the more participants switched from deciding alone to with others. When joining a group to choose the lottery, choices were less driven by outcome and regret anticipation. Moreover, negative outcomes experienced alone, not part of a group vote, led to worse subsequent choices than positive outcomes. These results suggest that the protective shield of the collective reduces the influence of negative emotions that may help individuals re-evaluate past choices

Bases neurales des influences contextuelles lors des décisions perceptives sociales

Everyday social decisions require the combination of multiple sources of information and therefore build upon abundant contextual elements such as the social cues of emitters (e.g., gaze direction, emotion, gesture), the attentional focus of observers, their mood and their past experience. The work conducted during this Ph.D. (including three main studies in healthy human subjects) aimed at characterizing the cognitive and neural mechanisms of contextual influences in social settings. The first Electroencephalography (EEG) study manipulated the attentional focus of participants while they processed social signals. Using model-based behavioral and single-trial EEG analyses, the second study aimed at characterizing the mechanisms underlying the integration of multiple social cues from faces and the role of anxiety in this integration,. Finally, the third study used model-based behavioral and pupillometric analyses to investigate the mechanisms by which prior experience with individual identities influences the perception of their emotion. While co-emitted social cues interact by boosting bottom-up processing of relevant threat signals within 200 ms after stimulus onset, prior experience enacts as a top-down contextual factor biasing decisions toward expected options, and attention and individual traits (anxiety) modulate the relative contribution to social processing of relevant neural regions. Altogether, these findings shed light on the distinct cognitive mechanisms underlying the influence of different contextual factors during perceptual decisions in social settings.Les décisions que nous prenons au quotidien nécessitent le traitement de plusieurs sources d'information, et dépendent par conséquent de nombreux éléments contextuels tels que les indices sociaux provenant d'un émetteur ainsi que le centre de l'attention, l'humeur et l'expérience passée de l'observateur. Le travail réalisé durant cette thèse a eu pour but de caractériser les mécanismes cognitifs et neuraux sous-tendant l'impact de ces éléments contextuels sur la prise de décision dans un environnement social. La première étude d'électroencéphalographie (EEG) a manipulé l'attention de l'observateur lors du traitement des indices sociaux. Grâce à des analyses comportementales et EEG basées sur la modélisation, la seconde étude a caractérisé les mécanismes qui sous-tendent l'intégration des indices sociaux extraits d'un visage et l'influence de l'anxiété sur cette intégration. Enfin, en conjuguant modélisation et enregistrements pupillaires, la troisième étude a caractérisé l'influence de l'expérience apriori sur la perception de l'émotion. Alors que les indices sociaux émis simultanément interagissent en renforçant le traitement ascendant 'bottom-up' des signaux pertinents de menace, l'expérience apriori agit comme un facteur contextuel descendant 'top-down' qui biaise les décisions vers les options attendues, tandis que l'attention et les caractéristiques de l'observateur modulent la contribution relative de régions pertinentes dans le traitement de stimuli sociaux. Les résultats mettent en lumière les différents mécanismes cognitifs qui sous-tendent l'influence de facteurs contextuels distincts lors de la prise de décision perceptive dans un environnement social