Sequential Effects in Judgements of Attractiveness: The Influences of Face Race and Sex

In perceptual decision-making, a person’s response on a given trial is influenced by their response on the immediately preceding trial. This sequential effect was initially demonstrated in psychophysical tasks, but has now been found in more complex, real-world judgements. The similarity of the current and previous stimuli determines the nature of the effect, with more similar items producing assimilation in judgements, while less similarity can cause a contrast effect. Previous research found assimilation in ratings of facial attractiveness, and here, we investigated whether this effect is influenced by the social categories of the faces presented. Over three experiments, participants rated the attractiveness of own- (White) and other-race (Chinese) faces of both sexes that appeared successively. Through blocking trials by race (Experiment 1), sex (Experiment 2), or both dimensions (Experiment 3), we could examine how sequential judgements were altered by the salience of different social categories in face sequences. For sequences that varied in sex alone, own-race faces showed significantly less opposite-sex assimilation (male and female faces perceived as dissimilar), while other-race faces showed equal assimilation for opposite- and same-sex sequences (male and female faces were not differentiated). For sequences that varied in race alone, categorisation by race resulted in no opposite-race assimilation for either sex of face (White and Chinese faces perceived as dissimilar). For sequences that varied in both race and sex, same-category assimilation was significantly greater than opposite-category. Our results suggest that the race of a face represents a superordinate category relative to sex. These findings demonstrate the importance of social categories when considering sequential judgements of faces, and also highlight a novel approach for investigating how multiple social dimensions interact during decision-making

Thinking No-One's Thought

What is it that dramaturgs do? Is there a dramaturg that has never been faced with this question? Contemplating possible answers, I am reminded of lists provided by former teachers of the activities performed by a dramaturg: background research, analysis, observing rehearsals, being a first audience, writing program notes and grant applications, and so on. While such lists may indeed provide an initial impression of the kind of activities with which dramaturgs often occupy their time, they do not offer insight into the specificities of the dramaturg’s role in the creative process. Importantly, the use of the term specificities here does not in any way imply an argument for an essential or singular way of doing dramaturgy; on the contrary, we might suppose that there exist almost as many ways of doing dramaturgy as there are dramaturgs. Nonetheless, if we examine the dramaturg’s function within the creative process, instead of considering the particular manner in which each dramaturg individually fulfills a preordained role, we can begin to distinguish some common characteristics that make an appearance time and again

Visual Illusions can Facilitate Sport Skill Learning

Witt, Linkenauger, and Proffitt (Psychological Science, 23, 397–399, 2012) demonstrated that golf putting performance was enhanced when the hole was surrounded by small circles, making it look larger, relative to when it was surrounded by large circles, making it look smaller. In the present study, we examined whether practicing putting with small or large surrounding circles would have not only immediate effects on performance, but also longer-lasting effects on motor learning. Two groups of nongolfers practiced putting golf balls to a 10.4-cm circle (“hole”) from a distance of 2 m. Small or large circles were projected around the hole during the practice phase. Perception of hole size was affected by the size of the surrounding circles. Also, self-efficacy was higher in the group with the perceived larger hole. One day after practice, participants performed the putting task, but without visual illusions (i.e., a retention test). Putting accuracy in retention was greater for the group that had practiced with the perceived larger hole. These findings suggest that the apparently larger target led to the more effective learning outcome