Perceptual dehumanization of faces is activated by norm violations and facilitates norm enforcement.

Abstract

This article uses methods drawn from perceptual psychology to answer a basic social psychological question: Do people process the faces of norm violators differently from those of others--and, if so, what is the functional significance? Seven studies suggest that people process these faces different and the differential processing makes it easier to punish norm violators. Studies 1 and 2 use a recognition-recall paradigm that manipulated facial-inversion and spatial frequency to show that people rely upon face-typical processing less when they perceive norm violators' faces. Study 3 uses a facial composite task to demonstrate that the effect is actor dependent, not action dependent, and to suggest that configural processing is the mechanism of perceptual change. Studies 4 and 5 use offset faces to show that configural processing is only attenuated when they belong to perpetrators who are culpable. Studies 6 and 7 show that people find it easier to punish inverted faces and harder to punish faces displayed in low spatial frequency. Taken together, these data suggest a bidirectional flow of causality between lower-order perceptual and higher-order cognitive processes in norm enforcement.

Facing humanness: Facial width-to-height ratio predicts ascriptions of humanity.

“…Very little work exists linking face perception with beliefs about others' humanity. What research does exist demonstrates that configural face processinga feature integration process unique to human faces -can trigger humanness in a bottom-up manner (e.g., Hugenberg et al, 2016;Fincher & Tetlock, 2016), as can certain facial features that trigger configural processing (e.g., direct eye gaze, Khalid, Deska, & Hugenberg, 2016;Young, Slepian, Wilson, & Hugenberg, 2014). However, the current work shows that at least one specific facial structure inherent in all faces, facial width-to-height ratio, signals humanity without manipulating configural face processing.…”

Configural face processing impacts race disparities in humanization and trust

“…The face is a basic cue to humanness, and configural face processing may send a signal that a face is human (Fincher & Tetlock, 2016; Hugenberg et al, 2016). Study 1 replicated and extended prior work (Hugenberg et al, 2016) by showing that reducing configural processing slows the activation of human-related concepts more for Black than White faces, thereby establishing a pattern for how configural face processing may interface with outgroup dehumanization.…”

“…Power analyses using r = 0.33 ( d = 0.70; a strong effect was expected on the basis of related work on face typical processing and dehumanization; Fincher & Tetlock, 2016) and alpha = 0.05 targeted 31 participants for 80% power to detect a Face Orientation × Target Race interaction on trustworthiness ratings. Fifty-one Indiana University undergraduates participated for course credit to ensure a sufficient sample size when taking exclusion criteria into account (i.e., identifying as Black, indicating that task instructions had not been followed, and making the same response to most or all faces).…”

“…For example, Hugenberg et al (2016) found that inverting a human face disrupted the tendency for faces to activate human-related concepts, disrupted the categorization of the face as human, and reduced ascriptions of human-related traits. Exemplifying the effects of such “perceptual dehumanization,” faces that are not afforded configural processing become easier to treat in less humane ways (Fincher & Tetlock, 2016). …”

“…How faces are processed may play an important role in activating basic concepts related to humanness, and in judging if faces have humanlike faculties (Deska, Almaraz, & Hugenberg, 2016; Fincher & Tetlock, 2016; Hugenberg et al, 2016). Further, people attend to and encode the features of ingroup and outgroup faces differently, with these differences corresponding to race-biased behaviors.…”