Event-related potentials reveal early attention bias for negative, unexpected behavior

Abstract

Numerous studies have documented that expectancy-violating (EV) behavior (i.e., behavior that violates existing person impressions) elicits more effortful cognitive processing compared to expectancy-consistent (EC) behavior. Some studies also have shown that this effect is modulated by the valence of behavior, though this finding is inconsistent with some extant models of expectancy processes. The current research investigated whether the valence of EV information affects very rapid attentional processes thought to tag goal-relevant information for more elaborative processing at later stages. Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were recorded as participants read depictions of behavior that either were consistent with or violated established impressions about fictitious characters. Consistent with predictions, a very early attention-related ERP component, the frontal P2, differentiated negative from positive EV behavior but was unaffected by the valence of EC behavior. This effect occurred much earlier in processing than has been demonstrated in prior reports of EV effects on neural response, suggesting that impression-formation goals tune attention to information that might signal the need to modify existing impressions.

Regulatory Effects of Reward Anticipation and Target on Attention Processing of Emotional Stimulation

“…Rewards help stimuli with insignificant features capture attention, even if the rewards subsequently disappear, or the stimulus is independent of the target (Wang, 2016), and when rewards are combined with distraction stimuli, the choice of goals may be hindered (Fan et al, 2014). Numerous studies have found attention biases toward negative stimuli in cognitive processes, which means that individuals detect negative, and threatening stimuli quickly (Jerónimo et al, 2017). Negative faces, especially threatening faces, attract attention, and prolong attention maintenance or reduce attention disengagement ability (Fox et al, 2001).…”

Virtual Reality for Research in Social Neuroscience

“…In addition to studies using the International Affective Picture System [5] or standard facial expressions [6], social neuroscientists have used sentences [7,8], paragraphs [9,10] and scripted imagery of social events [11]. Unfortunately, static and simplistic stimuli may not be representative of real-life social encounters, and tasks with static stimuli may result in ceiling effects [12,13].…”

“…Many of the pioneering paradigms in social neuroscience reflect a noteworthy emphasis upon laboratory control and experiments that involve participants observing static stimuli (e.g., simple, static representations of socially relevant stimuli; static photographs of emotionally valenced facial expressions). In addition to studies using the International Affective Picture System [ 5 ] or standard facial expressions [ 6 ], social neuroscientists have used sentences [ 7 , 8 ], paragraphs [ 9 , 10 ] and scripted imagery of social events [ 11 ]. Unfortunately, static and simplistic stimuli may not be representative of real-life social encounters, and tasks with static stimuli may result in ceiling effects [ 12 , 13 ].…”

Functional Significance of Conflicting Age and Wealth Cross-Categorization: The Dominant Role of Categories That Violate Stereotypical Expectations

“…Turner et al ( 1987 ) showed that, when the behavior is consistent with the stereotype of a particular category (nominative fit), this category would be the dominant category, as the behavior information directs the perceiver to the stereotype-consistent category. However, a large number of studies since then have found that the perceiver pays attention to the target that contradicts the stereotype expectancy (Bettencourt et al, 1997 ; Dickter and Gyurovski, 2012 ; Garcia-Marques et al, 2016 ; Jerónimo et al, 2016 ). People engage in more effortful cognitive processing (Jerónimo et al, 2016 ), reorganize the “wrong description” (contradicting the expectancy), perceive the stereotype-inconsistent target as atypical, make more explanations about and prefer external attributions for the behavior (Sekaquaptewa et al, 2003 ; Sekaquaptewa and Espinoza, 2004 ), and make the stereotype-inconsistent behavior conform to their stereotype.…”

“…However, a large number of studies since then have found that the perceiver pays attention to the target that contradicts the stereotype expectancy (Bettencourt et al, 1997 ; Dickter and Gyurovski, 2012 ; Garcia-Marques et al, 2016 ; Jerónimo et al, 2016 ). People engage in more effortful cognitive processing (Jerónimo et al, 2016 ), reorganize the “wrong description” (contradicting the expectancy), perceive the stereotype-inconsistent target as atypical, make more explanations about and prefer external attributions for the behavior (Sekaquaptewa et al, 2003 ; Sekaquaptewa and Espinoza, 2004 ), and make the stereotype-inconsistent behavior conform to their stereotype. Furthermore, the shifting standards model suggests that the target is evaluated with reference to the stereotype expectations of that particular category; the perceiver makes extreme judgments (Biernat and Vescio, 2002 ) and uses ironic language more often in response to the target who behaves in a manner contrary to expectation (Burgers and Beukeboom, 2014 ), so as to maintain stereotypic expectancies.…”