Decoding complex emotions and humanization show related face processing effects.

Abstract

Inferring others' complex emotions is central to ascribing humanness to others. However, little past research has investigated the perceptual processes linking the inference of complex emotions to judging others' humanness. To this end, we disrupted the low-level perceptual processes typically employed in face processing via face inversion. Of interest was whether the inversion-driven deficits in complex emotion judgments and in humanness judgments were related. In three experiments, we find that disrupting efficient face processing via face inversion undermined the accurate decoding of complex emotions from the eyes (Experiments 1a, 1b, and 2) and triggered more dehumanized evaluations of target eye regions (Experiments 1a and 1b) and faces (Experiment 2). Critically, these inversion effects on emotion decoding and dehumanization were positively correlated. People who demonstrated stronger inversion effects on the accuracy of decoding complex emotions also demonstrated stronger inversion effects on dehumanizing evaluations. Taken together, these findings provide novel evidence that sensitivity to complex emotions and (de)humanization are related through a shared perceptual basis in efficient face processing.

Perceptual dehumanization theory: A critique.

“…Arguably more direct evidence for PDT comes from studies that measure the effects of inversion on explicit attributions of humanness. For example, participants appear to judge inverted faces as “less human-like” than upright faces (Cassidy et al, 2022; Hugenberg et al, 2016). While this superficially appears to be strong evidence for PDT, again a crucial control condition has not been appropriately incorporated.…”

Are upside-down faces perceived as “less human”?

“…The majority of research testing PDT has sought to manipulate the extent to which facial images are processed configurally and measure the effect of such manipulations on the attribution of humanity to the individuals depicted (Cassidy et al, 2017; Fincher & Tetlock, 2016; Fincher et al, 2017; Hugenberg et al, 2016; Wilson et al, 2018). Although several paradigms have been adopted, by far the most common approach used in PDT research is to invert faces and measure the impact on perceptions of humanness (Cassidy et al, 2022; Civile et al, 2019; Deska & Hugenberg, 2017; Fincher & Tetlock, 2016; Fincher et al, 2017; Hugenberg et al, 2016; Wilson et al, 2018). Proponents of PDT maintain that inverted faces are attributed to less humanity because orientation inversion selectively impairs configural processing (Deska & Hugenberg, 2017; Fincher et al, 2017).…”

“…The attribution of humanness has been operationalized in a number of different ways. In some research, it is measured directly, for example by asking participants “how human” individuals appear (Cassidy et al, 2022; Hugenberg et al, 2016). In other research, humanity is inferred from the attribution of uniquely human character traits.…”

A Functional and Neuroanatomical Model of Dehumanization

“…This form of dehumanization restrains empathy and emotional contagion when a person chooses, for example, to keep from empathizing with a destitute beggar or from considering another's feelings in social hierarchies and dominance (Berthoz et al, 2006;Haidt, 2001Haidt, , 2007Ligneul et al, 2017;Moll et al, 2005). Dehumanization may result from the inhibition of tendencies to empathize when perceiving individuals of decreased physical or social status, including unattractiveness, facial disfigurement (Alaei et al, 2021;Cassidy et al, 2022;Hartung et al, 2019), and low socioeconomic status (Sainz et al, 2019). An individual's tendency to use animalistic dehumanization decreases the more the individual's spatial and temporal features resemble the self (Hasson and Frith, 2016;Northoff and Huang, 2017;Scalabrini et al, 2019) and the more dissimilar those features are to those of animals, as suggested by electroencephalographic μ suppression in face-to-face dyadic interactions (Simon and Gutsell, 2021).…”

“…This form of dehumanization restrains empathy and emotional contagion when a person chooses, for example, to keep from empathizing with a destitute beggar or from considering another’s feelings in social hierarchies and dominance (Berthoz et al, 2006; Haidt, 2001, 2007; Ligneul et al, 2017; Moll et al, 2005). Dehumanization may result from the inhibition of tendencies to empathize when perceiving individuals of decreased physical or social status, including unattractiveness, facial disfigurement (Alaei et al, 2021; Cassidy et al, 2022; Hartung et al, 2019), and low socioeconomic status (Sainz et al, 2019).…”