Background Daniel J. Carragher, Nicole A. Thomas ...

1 downloads 0 Views 402KB Size Report
The cheerleader effect occurs when the same face is more attractive in a group than alone1. It has been suggested that the cheerleader effect is caused by the ...
I get more attractive with a little help from my friends: Dual mechanisms underlie The Cheerleader Effect Daniel J. Carragher, Nicole A. Thomas, & Michael E. R. Nicholls College of Education, Psychology & Social Work, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia

The cheerleader effect occurs when the same face is more attractive in a group than alone1. It has been suggested that the cheerleader effect is caused by the hierarchical structure of 1 memory , wherein a group of faces is mentally summarised to 2 create an ensemble average , and individuals from the group are recalled as being more similar to the ensemble average than they really were3. Crucially, the ensemble average has average facial characteristics, which are highly attractive in faces4.

Experiment 1 (n = 28)

• Identical-Distractor > 0, t(27) = 3.18, p = .004, d = .60 • Control > Identical-Distractor, t(27) = 2.59, p = .015, d = .51 2.5%

So, is the cheerleader effect caused by hierarchical encoding?

Methods

In a within subjects design, the same target faces were shown once in a control group, and once in an experimental group.

1.5% 1% 0.5%

*

Alone Attractiveness

1.5% 1% 0.5%

Experiment 3 (n = 29)

Experiment 2 – Self-Distractors • The variance between different photographs of the same person means that the ensemble average will have average properties, and the cheerleader effect should occur

*

*

Control

Self-Distractor

a) Control > 0, t(28) = 3.27, p = .003, d = .61 a) House Distractor > 0, t(28) = 2.42, p = .022, d = .45 a) Control > House Distractor, t(28) = 2.14, p = .041, d = .43 b) House Targets > 0, t(28) = 2.81, p = .009, d = .52 2.5%

• • • • Cheerleader Effect

• The summarised ensemble average is not an ‘average’ face

Identical-Distractor

ns.

2%

0%

Experiment 1 – Identical Distractors

Control

*

• Control > 0, t(30) = 3.24, p = .003, d = .58 • Self-Distractor > 0, t(30) = 3.21, p = .003, d = .58 • Control = Self-Distractor, t(30) = 0.65, p = .519, d = .12 2.5%

The Cheerleader Effect = –

2%

Experiment 2 (n = 31)

Control Condition (All Experiments) Group Attractiveness

*

0%

Cheerleader Effect

To determine whether hierarchical encoding causes the cheerleader effect, we created group conditions that could (Expt. 2) or could not (Expt. 1, 3a) be summarised to create an average face. If the cheerleader effect is the result of hierarchical encoding, the effect should not occur when the ensemble average is not a highly attractive, average face.

Results

• Control > 0, t(27) = 4.71, p < .001, d = .89

Cheerleader Effect

Background

*

2% 1.5% 1% 0.5% 0%

*

*

*

Control

House Distractors

House Target

Expt 3a.

Experiment 3: a) House Distractors b) House Targets a) Averaging should not be possible with non-human distractors

b) Does the cheerleader effect occur for non-human stimuli?

?

Expt 3b.

Discussion • The cheerleader effect increases the attractiveness of an individual face by 1.5% - 2% • The effect also occurs for non-human stimuli • The effect was significantly reduced, but still occurred, when the ensemble average was not an average face (Expt. 1, 3a) • Hierarchical encoding cannot completely explain the cheerleader effect, suggesting another mechanism is involved REFERENCES

1. Walker, D., & Vul, E. (2014). Hierarchical encoding makes individuals in a group seem more attractive. Psychological Science, 25(1), 230-235. 2. Haberman, J., & Whitney, D. (2007). Rapid extraction of mean emotion and gender from sets of faces. Current Biology, 17(17), R751-R753. 3. Brady, T. F., & Alvarez, G. A. (2011). Hierarchical encoding in visual working memory: Ensemble statistics bias memory for individual items. Psychological Science, 22(3), 384-392. 4. Langlois, J. H., & Roggman, L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological science, 1(2), 115-121.