↓ Skip to main content

Invisible own- and other-race faces presented under continuous flash suppression produce affective response biases

Overview of attention for article published in Consciousness & Cognition, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Invisible own- and other-race faces presented under continuous flash suppression produce affective response biases
Published in
Consciousness & Cognition, January 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.concog.2016.12.012
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jie Yuan, Xiaoqing Hu, Yuhao Lu, Galen V. Bodenhausen, Shimin Fu

Abstract

One triumph of the human mind is the ability to place the multitudinous array of people we encounter into in- and out-group members based on racial characteristics. One fundamental question that remains to be answered is whether invisible own- and other-race faces can nevertheless influence subsequent affective judgments. Here, we employed continuous flash suppression (CFS) to render own- and other-race faces unperceivable in an affective priming task. Both on-line and off-line awareness checks were employed to provide more stringent control of partial awareness. Results revealed that relative to own-race faces, imperceptible other-race faces significantly facilitated participants' identification of negative words, suggesting an other-race derogation bias. When faces were presented consciously, we found that not only other-race faces facilitated detection of negative words, but also own-race faces facilitated detection of positive words. These findings together provide novel and strong evidence suggesting that invisible racial faces can bias affective responses.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 55 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 12 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 31 55%
Neuroscience 8 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 11 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 January 2017.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Consciousness & Cognition
#1,472
of 1,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#320,043
of 421,515 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Consciousness & Cognition
#34
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,706 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.8. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 421,515 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.