Literature DB >> 34918281

The spatial distance compression effect is due to social interaction and not mere configuration.

Zhongqiang Sun1,2, Chuyuan Ye3,4, Ting Sun3,4, Wenjun Yu3,4, Xinyu Li5,6.   

Abstract

In recent years, there has been a surge of interest in perception, evaluation, and memory for social interactions from a third-person perspective. One intriguing finding is a spatial distance compression effect when target dyads are facing each other. Specifically, face-to-face dyads are remembered as being spatially closer than back-to-back dyads. There is a vibrant debate about the mechanism behind this effect, and two hypotheses have been proposed. According to the social interaction hypothesis, face-to-face dyads engage a binding process that represents them as a social unit, which compresses the perceived distance between them. In contrast, the configuration hypothesis holds that the effect is produced by the front-to-front configuration of the two visual targets. In the present research we sought to test these accounts. In Experiment 1 we successfully replicated the distance compression effect with two upright faces that were facing each other, but not with inverted faces. In contrast, we found no distance compression effect with three types of nonsocial stimuli: arrows (Experiment 2a), fans (Experiment 2b), and cars (Experiment 3). In Experiment 4, we replicated this effect with another social stimuli: upright bodies. Taken together, these results provide strong support for the social interaction hypothesis.
© 2021. The Psychonomic Society, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Direction cues; Domain-specific processing; Social interaction; Social perception; Spatial distance memory

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34918281     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-021-02045-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  17 in total

Review 1.  Neural systems for recognizing emotion.

Authors:  Ralph Adolphs
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurobiol       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 6.627

2.  Deciphering the enigmatic face: the importance of facial dynamics in interpreting subtle facial expressions.

Authors:  Zara Ambadar; Jonathan W Schooler; Jeffrey F Cohn
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2005-05

3.  Two Equals One: Two Human Actions During Social Interaction Are Grouped as One Unit in Working Memory.

Authors:  Xiaowei Ding; Zaifeng Gao; Mowei Shen
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2017-07-18

4.  Joint attention enhances visual working memory.

Authors:  Samantha E A Gregory; Margaret C Jackson
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2016-06-30       Impact factor: 3.051

5.  Barriers block the effect of joint attention on working memory: Perspective taking matters.

Authors:  Samantha E A Gregory; Margaret C Jackson
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2018-07-19       Impact factor: 3.051

6.  Species sensitivity of early face and eye processing.

Authors:  Roxane J Itier; Patricia Van Roon; Claude Alain
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2010-08-01       Impact factor: 6.556

7.  The Representation of Two-Body Shapes in the Human Visual Cortex.

Authors:  Etienne Abassi; Liuba Papeo
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2019-12-04       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 8.  Toward a Social Psychophysics of Face Communication.

Authors:  Rachael E Jack; Philippe G Schyns
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2017-01-03       Impact factor: 24.137

9.  Holding Biological Motion in Working Memory: An fMRI Study.

Authors:  Xiqian Lu; Jian Huang; Yuji Yi; Mowei Shen; Xuchu Weng; Zaifeng Gao
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 3.169

10.  Adaptation aftereffects reveal representations for encoding of contingent social actions.

Authors:  Leonid A Fedorov; Dong-Seon Chang; Martin A Giese; Heinrich H Bülthoff; Stephan de la Rosa
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-07-02       Impact factor: 11.205

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.