過去情境影響當下決策判斷的機制

期末報告

過去情境影響當下決策判斷的機制

中　華　民　國　105　年　10　月　28　日

應已在各學門如心理物理學、社會科學、管理經濟學等領域獲得廣 泛的研究。但情境效應通常會造成兩種相左的現象：其一為同化現 象，也就是當下的判斷會依附之前的判斷；其二為對比現象，也就 是當下的判斷會遠離之前的判斷。本計劃藉由一連串的行為實驗研 究之前情境是如何影響當下的決策判斷，期能了解是何種機制造成 同化或對比現象。研究結果顯示情境效應的產生端賴之前刺激物的 知覺特性以及受試者對之前刺激物的反應判斷。細究發現之前刺激 物的知覺特性會造成對比現象。反之，受試者對之前刺激物的反應 判斷會造成同化現象。進一步的研究發現，此種機制不僅在受試者 對知覺刺激物的判斷上可觀察到，在高層次的語意判斷也可發現。 因此，根據本計畫的研究結果，我們認為之前刺激物的知覺或語意 特性以及受試者對之前刺激物的判斷會影響現象對比或同化現象的 發生。 中 文 關 鍵 詞 ： 同化、對比、連續性效應、分類

英 文 摘 要 ： Judgments pertaining to the same target may be profoundly influenced by the context in which they are made. Two types of such decision bias, assimilation effects and contrast effects, have been frequently reported in the literature and have been a central topic in main fields, such as psychophysics, social judgment and marketing. However, how these two opposing consequences are determined remains obscure. In this project, we conducted a series of behavioral experiments to explicate the mechanisms

underlying the assimilative and contrastive consequences of preceding effects. During categorization of a sequence of randomly presented stimuli, categorization performance regarding current stimuli was influenced by the local sequential context provided by previous trials. Such sequential effects depend on both the perceptual and decisional component of preceding trials. When the

perceptual attributes of preceding stimuli were controlled, the context provided by preceding responses slanted current categorization judgment toward assimilative consequences (assimilation effects). In contrast, when preceding responses were held fixed, the context provided by

preceding stimuli slanted current categorization judgment toward contrastive consequences (contrast effects).

Furthermore, this pattern of findings is not limited to perceptual stimuli, but can be generalized at a higher semantic level. In sum, this project suggests that the perceptual/semantic and decisional components of preceding trials play an important role in mediating the consequences of preceding effects.

科技部補助專題研究計畫成果報告

（□期中進度報告/□期末報告）

（計畫名稱）

計畫類別：■個別型計畫 □整合型計畫

計畫編號：MOST104－2410－H－004－049－

執行期間：2015 年 08 月 01 日至 2016 年 07 月 31 日

執行機構及系所：國立政治大學心智、大腦與學習研究中心

計畫主持人：徐慎謀

共同主持人：

計畫參與人員：吳昭蓉

本計畫除繳交成果報告外，另含下列出國報告，共 _1_ 份：

□執行國際合作與移地研究心得報告

■出席國際學術會議心得報告

□出國參訪及考察心得報告

中 華 民 國 105 年 10 月 28 日

過往的研究已發現對事務的判斷取決於當下所處的情境。此情境效應已在各學門如心理物理學、社會 科學、管理經濟學等領域獲得廣泛的研究。但情境效應通常會造成兩種相左的現象：其一為同化現象， 也就是當下的判斷會依附之前的判斷；其二為對比現象，也就是當下的判斷會遠離之前的判斷。本計 劃藉由一連串的行為實驗研究之前情境是如何影響當下的決策判斷，期能了解是何種機制造成同化或 對比現象。研究結果顯示情境效應的產生端賴之前刺激物的知覺特性以及受試者對之前刺激物的反應 判斷。細究發現之前刺激物的知覺特性會造成對比現象。反之，受試者對之前刺激物的反應判斷會造 成同化現象。進一步的研究發現，此種機制不僅在受試者對知覺刺激物的判斷上可觀察到，在高層次 的語意判斷也可發現。因此，根據本計畫的研究結果，我們認為之前刺激物的知覺或語意特性以及受 試者對之前刺激物的判斷會影響現象對比或同化現象的發生。 關鍵詞: 同化、對比、連續性效應、分類

Judgments pertaining to the same target may be profoundly influenced by the context in which they are made. Two types of such decision bias, assimilation effects and contrast effects, have been frequently reported in the literature and have been a central topic in main fields, such as psychophysics, social judgment and marketing. However, how these two opposing consequences are determined remains obscure. In this project, we conducted a series of behavioral experiments to explicate the mechanisms underlying the assimilative and contrastive consequences of preceding effects. During categorization of a sequence of randomly presented stimuli, categorization performance regarding current stimuli was influenced by the local sequential context provided by previous trials. Such sequential effects depend on both the perceptual and decisional components of preceding trials. When the perceptual attributes of preceding stimuli were controlled, the context provided by preceding responses slanted current categorization judgment toward assimilative consequences (assimilation effects). In contrast, when preceding responses were held fixed, the context provided by preceding stimuli slanted current categorization judgment toward contrastive consequences (contrast effects). Furthermore, this pattern of findings is not limited to perceptual stimuli, but can be generalized at a higher semantic level. In sum, this project suggests that the perceptual/semantic and decisional components of preceding trials play an important role in mediating the consequences of preceding effects.

Classical perceptual decision-making theories often assume that there is a direct mapping between stimulus magnitude and corresponding perceptual judgments. From this perspective, the information conveyed by stimuli may serve as a sole basis for the judgments. However, decisions are not made in isolation. Instead, they are often situated within a rich context shaped by preceding material and thereby are biased. It has long been established that preceding contexts play a crucial role in biasing current decision-making (Helson, 1964; Laming, 1997; Lockhead, 2004). However, less clarity surrounds the direction of the effect of preceding context. On one hand, preceding context produce contrast effects in target judgment. For example, the same target person is judged to be less hostile when preceded by a hostile person (e.g., Adolf Hitler) than when preceded by a peaceful person (e.g., the pope; Herr, 1986). On the other hand, preceding context yields assimilation effects in target judgment. The length of the Mississippi river, for example, is judged to be longer if compared with a high rather than a low numeric standard (Jacowitz & Kahneman, 1995). In sum, two types of such decision bias have been frequently reported in the literature: (a) Assimilation effects - current stimuli are judged as closer to immediately preceding stimuli than they actually are, and (b) Contrast effects – current stimuli are judged as away from immediately preceding stimuli than they actually are. One essential issue is thus raised regarding how these two opposing consequences (or directions) are determined. To date, empirical evidence is still lacking as to explicating the mechanisms that mediate these two types of bias.

Category learning research has suggested that the consequences of the effects of preceding context may be attributed to the perceptual/decisional components of preceding trials (Jones, Love, & Maddox, 2006). Indeed, the effect of preceding context seems to depend on the quality of preceding stimuli (i.e., the effect of the perceptual component). Previous research has demonstrated that during judgment on line length (Ward & Lockhead, 1971), stronger preceding effects could be found when the perceptual attributes of stimuli, such as the luminance and line length, were reduced. In support, during the magnitude estimation of a sequence of tones of varying loudness (Jesteadt, Luce, & Green, 1977), once the response to the previous stimuli was controlled, participants tended to label the same tone in a different manner when it was preceded by tones varying in loudness. In contrast, preceding effects also seem to reflect the repetition of the responses (i.e., the effect of the decisional component) that have been recently reinforced. In the studies of probabilistic learning, participants consistently exhibited a bias toward whichever response was correct on previous trials. For example, during a two-choice task with equal rates of reinforcement for responses A and B, participants’ overall rate of choosing A was 50%, but this value was 60% on trials following the reinforcement of A and 40% on trials following reinforcement of B (Engler, 1958).

In the present project, a series of experiments were carried out to investigate the mechanisms underlying the assimilative and contrastive consequences of preceding effects. In our recent study, the two opposing consequences can be concurrently observed in sequential effects during categorization tasks (Hsu & Lee, 2016; Hsu & Yang, 2013), indicating that sequential dependencies may provide a window to tap into those phenomena. Here, sequential effects indicate that when a sequence of stimuli is presented, the decisions regarding the stimuli in current trials vary according to the local sequential context shaped by the stimuli presented in immediately preceding trials (Garner, 1953). Taken together, this project aimed to examine how perceptual and decisional components of preceding trials may shape current categorization decisions, leading to different consequences of sequential effects.

Experiment 1

We firstly reanalyzed the data collected from our previous study (Hsu & Yang, 2013) to probe the roles of perceptual and decisional influences of preceding trials on current decisions.

Method

Participants. Fifteen right-handed participants without past neurological or psychiatric history participated in this experiment. All had normal or corrected-to-normal vision and provided their written informed consent.

Stimuli. Ten continua of morphed facial expressions from fear to disgust were created using FantaMorph (Abrosoft). In each continuum, a disgusted prototype was morphed 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% and 90% of the physical distance to an identity-matched fearful prototype, resulting in 11 face images (i.e., fearful and disgusted prototypes, 90:10, 80:20, 70:30, 60:40, 50:50, 40:60, 70:30, 80:20 and 10:90 fear-disgust morphed faces). The prototypical expressions of fear and disgust were selected from FEEST (Young, Perrett, Calder, Sprengelmeyer, & Ekman, 2002) . A total of 110 face stimuli were used (10 continua of different identities × 11 stimuli per continuum). The face images subtended a horizontal visual angle of 6.8° and a vertical angle of 8.6° around the center of the screen. The viewing distance was 60 cm.

Procedure. Each trial began with a 600-ms fixation cross located in the center of the screen, followed by a 400-ms presentation of a facial expression. A blank screen was presented at the offset of the face stimulus and participants were instructed to categorize whether the face was fearful or disgusted via a key press with no time limitation. Performance feedback was not provided during the experiment. The key press initiated a new trial after a 500-ms inter-trial interval. Trials were blocked by continua. In other words,

participants had to complete 10 blocks, with a break between blocks. Within each block, the order of face stimuli from the same continuum was randomized. Each face was repeated 9 times, resulting in a total of 99 trials in each block (9 repetitions x 11 expressions per continuum). To acquaint the participants with the procedure, the experiment began with 1-2 blocks of practice trials, with different sets of face continua not being used in the experiment.

Results

Categorization data of expression continua. For each expression continuum, categorization data were calculated as the percentage of choices corresponding to the “fear” or “disgust” emotion category for each morphed face (Fig. 1). Responses to stimuli at the same morph steps were averaged, irrespective of their sequential context. Although the exact data patterns varied across continua and participants, a highly consistent picture emerged. In accord with previous evidence (Hsu & Yang, 2013), the categorization data of each continuum fell into two clear regions with an abrupt category shift, and each region belonged to the emotion category that corresponded to the prototype at that end. In general, a morphed face blended with more elements of fear or disgust from the prototypes, i.e., a smaller distance between the prototype and the morphed face, was more likely to be categorized as “fear” or “disgust”, respectively.

To control for the variability in the locations of the fear-disgust borderline across continua and participants so as to properly examine the effect of sequential context, we chose to analyze three types of face images from each emotion category: the prototypes (P-face), the morphs close to the category boundary (B-face), and the morphs lying at the mid-points of the P-and B-faces (M-face). These faces were all highly recognizable and were judged as belonging to a distinct emotion category with categorization rates above 77.78% for each continuum and each individual (P-face: mean ± SEM = 95.59 ± 0.88%, after collapsing across continua, emotion categories, and participants; M-face: 94.56 ± 0.66%; B-face: 87.95 ± 0.73%). The gray bars in Fig. 1 illustrate an example of how these target faces were selected.

Figure 1. An example of the categorization data. The data were taken from one of fear-disgust continua from a single participant. The expression continuum ranges from the prototypical expression of fear to the prototypical expression of disgust in 10 morphing steps. It should be noted that depending on the continua and individuals, the exact location of a category boundary was between 70:30 and 30:70 fear-disgust morphs. The gray bars indicate the expression stimuli selected for analyzing sequential effects. The notations P, M and B represent the P-, M- and B-faces, respectively.

The role of the perceptual component of preceding trials. Because evidence has shown that sequential contexts exert the strongest influence on the categorization of ambiguous stimuli (Hampton, Estes, & Simmons, 2005; Stewart, Brown, & Chater, 2002; Zotov, Jones, & Mewhort, 2011), all of our analyses focused exclusively on ambiguous expressions at the boundaries between two emotion categories, where the percentages of “fear” and “disgust” responses were approximately 50%. The proportion of “fear” responses to the ambiguous faces were first analyzed as a function of the preceding stimuli (Fig. 2). Next, the obtained results were collapsed across continua. The preceding stimuli were the previously selected P-faces, M-faces, and B-faces, depending on whether preceding stimuli were from the “fear” emotion category (white zone) or from the “disgust” category (gray zone).

responses to the faces in current trials, only preceding stimuli whose categorization responses were modal responses were considered. Here, modal responses were defined as the dominant or the majority category choices that participants assigned to a given face stimulus. As a result, the effect of previous responses could be controlled because all the preceding stimuli were associated with the same response (“disgust” in the gray zone or “fear” in the white zone) but differed in their perceptual distance to the current faces. In turn, the effect of the perceptual component could be isolated and studied. When the preceding faces originated from the “fear” emotion category (the white zone in Fig. 2), the proportion of the “fear” categorization judgments of the current ambiguous faces were increased, with decreasing relative distance between the preceding and current faces (linear trend analysis, F(1,14) = 30.57, p < 0.001). Conversely, when the preceding stimuli originated from the “disgust” category (gray zone in Fig. 2), the proportion of the “fear” responses to the current ambiguous faces were increased (F(1, 14) = 20.85, p < 0.001), with increasing relative distance between the preceding and current faces.

Figure 2. The effect of the perceptual component of preceding stimuli on the “fear” responses to current ambiguous faces. Only preceding stimuli with modal responses were considered to control the effect of preceding responses. The white zone indicates that the preceding stimuli are from the “fear” emotion category, whereas the gray zone indicates that the preceding stimuli are from the “disgust” category. The solid or dashed circles, respectively, represent the distant preceding expressions from the “disgust” or “fear” categories, whereas the solid or dashed squares, respectively, represent the nearby preceding expressions from the two categories. Error bars represent ±SEM.

The above data showed that there was decreased accuracy to the current ambiguous faces after more distant expressions from the same category or increased accuracy to the current ambiguous faces after more distant expressions from the opposite category. This pattern

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 P M B B M P Th e p ro p o rtio n o f " fear " re sp o n ses

provides evidence for contrast effects when the relative distance between the preceding and current expressions was increasingly large, given that the current stimulus was more likely to be judged as away from the category of the distant preceding stimulus. However, a complementary indication of the present results is that responses to the current ambiguous faces were more accurate after more nearby preceding expressions from the same category, or more errors were induced after more nearby preceding expressions from the opposite category. In this view, when the relative distance was increasingly small, the current stimulus was judged as close to the category of the nearby preceding stimulus. This suggests that the findings of this experiment could be alternatively explained in terms of assimilation effects.

To clarity whether the findings were due to assimilation effects, contrast effects or both, we examined responses to the current expressions that were preceded by a member of one category relative to after preceded by a member of the other category. Because contrast effects could be observed when the relative distance between successive expressions was large, we expected that participants would classify current stimuli as further from the category of the distant preceding stimuli. Indeed, the present results showed more “fear” responses to the current ambiguous faces after the distant P-faces from the “disgust” category (solid circle in Fig. 2) than after the distant P-faces from the “fear” category (dashed circle; paired t-test; paired t-test, t(14) = 2.62, p = 0.02). Given that our previous findings also revealed a possible involvement of assimilation effects when the relative distance was small, we expected that participants would classify current stimuli as close to the category of the nearby preceding stimuli. As expected, more “fear” responses to the current ambiguous faces were observed after the nearby B-faces from the “disgust” category (dashed square in Fig. 2) than by the nearby B-faces from the opposite category (solid square; t(14) = 6.32, p < 0.001).

The role of the decisional component of preceding trials. To examine whether the decisional component of preceding trials affected categorization judgment of current stimuli, we analyzed how the “fear” responses to the ambiguous faces varied when preceded by ambiguous faces associated with “fear” and “disgust” responses, respectively. Because the perceptual attributes of preceding stimuli (i.e., ambiguous faces) remained constant but the associated responses differed, we reasoned that the effect of the perceptual component could be controlled and in turn, the effect of the decisional component could be isolated. For this analysis, ambiguous faces in preceding trials were chosen because they provide a sufficient number of both the “fear” and “disgust” responses for analysis. The results showed that participants were more likely to repeat previous responses (Fig. 3; paired t-test, t(14) = 9.86, p < 0.001). In other words, they were biased to assimilate current responses towards the category membership assigned to the preceding ambiguous expressions.

Figure 3. The effect of the decisional component of preceding stimuli on the “fear” responses to current ambiguous faces. The responses were sorted according to whether the preceding stimuli were categorized as “fear” or “disgust”. Only ambiguous faces were considered as the preceding stimuli to control the effect of the perceptual component of preceding trials. Error bars represent ±SEM.

Discussion

During categorization of a sequence of randomly presented expressions, categorization performance regarding current expressions was influenced by the local sequential context provided by previous trials. Such sequential effects depend on both the perceptual and decisional components of preceding trials. When the perceptual attributes of preceding stimuli are controlled, the context provided by preceding responses may slant current categorization judgment toward assimilative consequences (assimilation effects). When preceding responses are controlled, relative distance between two successive stimuli may determine how current expressions were categorized. Intriguingly, two types of categorization biases were likely to be equally involved in this context. On one hand, when the relative distance between two successive expressions was relatively large, participants were biased to categorize the current expressions as away from the category of the immediately preceding expressions (contrast effects). On the other hand, when the relative distance was relatively small, participants were biased to assimilate responses towards the category of the preceding expressions (assimilation effects).

Experiment 2

Experiment 2 aimed to further examine the respective roles of perceptual and decisional components of preceding trials in current decisions. Given that the perceptual component of preceding trials may result in both assimilation and contrast effects, in this experiment, we

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

"fear" response "disgust" response

Th e p ro p o rtion o f " fear " re sp o n ses

manipulated perceptual attributes of stimuli by reducing the presentation time to explore to what extent the consequence of sequential effects may depend on the perceptual component of preceding trials.

Method

Participants. Fifteen right-handed participants without past neurological or psychiatric history participated in the experiment. All had normal or corrected-to-normal vision and provided their written informed consent.

Stimuli and procedure. The stimuli and procedure were as in Experiment 1, with the exception that the faces were presented for only 33 ms.

Results

Categorization data of expression continua. As before, for each continuum, categorization data were calculated as the percentage of choices corresponding to the “fear” or “disgust” emotion category for the individual morphed faces. The categorization data for each continuum also fell into two clear regions, each of which belonged to the emotion category corresponding to the prototype at that end. Moreover, three types of face images from each emotion category were selected as preceding stimuli.

The role of the perceptual component of preceding trials. Similarly, we only considered preceding stimuli whose categorization responses were modal responses to control the effects of preceding responses. A somewhat different pattern of results was found as compared with those obtained in Experiment 1 (Fig. 4). A linear relationship between relative distances and categorization performance was found only when the ambiguous expression was preceded by the faces originated from the “disgust” category (the gray zone; linear trend analysis, F(1,14) = 5.95, p = 0.029), but not by the faces originated from the “fear” category (the white zone; linear trend analysis, F(1,14) = 1.45, p = 0.24). This finding indicates that the proportion of the “fear” categorization judgment on the current ambiguous faces was linearly increased with increasing relative distances between the current and preceding stimuli.

Figure 4. The effect of the perceptual component of preceding stimuli on the “fear” responses to current briefly-presented ambiguous face. Only preceding stimuli with modal responses were considered to control the effect of preceding responses. The white zone indicates that the preceding stimuli are from the “fear” emotion category, whereas the gray zone indicates that the preceding stimuli are from the “disgust” category. The solid or dashed circles, respectively, represent the distant preceding expressions from the “disgust” or “fear” categories, whereas the solid or dashed squares, respectively, represent the nearby preceding expressions from the two categories. Error bars represent ±SEM.

Further analyses revealed that the proportion of the “fear” responses to the current ambiguous faces were enhanced after the nearby B-faces from the “fear” category (dashed square in Fig. 4) than after the nearby B-faces from the “disgust” category (solid square; paired t-test, t(14) = 3.37, p = 0.005). This finding indicates that participants were biased to categorize the current expressions as close to the category of the near preceding expressions (assimilation effect). In contrast to the results obtained in Experiment 1, no contrast effect was observed, as there was no significant difference in the proportions of the “fear” responses when the current expressions followed the distant P-faces from the “disgust” category (solid circle) or the distant P-faces from the “fear” category (dashed circle; t(14) = 1.47, p = 0.16).

The role of the decisional component of preceding trials. As in Experiment 1, the

proportion of the “fear” responses to the current ambiguous expressions were higher following preceding “fear” responses compared with following preceding “disgust” responses (Fig. 5; solid square; paired t-test, t(14) = 7.42, p < 0.001). Accordingly, when the expressions were briefly presented, participants also tended to assimilate current responses towards the category of the preceding ambiguous expressions.

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 P M B B M P Th e p ro p o rtion o f " fear " re sp o n ses

Figure 5. The effect of the decisional component of preceding stimuli on the “fear” responses to current briefly-presented ambiguous faces. The responses were sorted according to whether the preceding stimuli were categorized as “fear” or “disgust”. Only ambiguous faces were considered as the preceding stimuli to control the effect of the perceptual component of preceding trials. Error bars represent ±SEM.

Discussion

As compared with the results reported in Exp. 1, this experiment revealed that a brief presentation of a stimulus may diminish contrast effects while assimilation effects remain intact. These findings suggest that contrast effects are tightly linked to the perceptual quality of stimuli. In contrast, assimilation effects are more associated with preceding responses, because the manipulation of the perceptual component of preceding trials has little impact on the effects.

Experiment 3

Experiment 3 was set out to examine whether the obtained findings are limited to perceptual stimuli, or can be generalized at a higher semantic level. Accordingly, in this experiment, continua of perceptual stimuli were replaced with continua of numerical stimuli, whereas the rest of the design would closely mimic those in previous experiments.

Method

Participants. Fifteen right-handed participants without past neurological or psychiatric history participated in this experiment. All had normal or corrected-to-normal vision and provided their written informed consent.

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

"fearful" response "disgust" response

Th e p ro p o tion o f " fear " re sp o n ses

Stimuli. We modified the design of a previous research (Mussweiler & Strack, 1999). As shown in Table 1, participants were presented with 5 questions. For each question, there were 9 potential answers forming an answer continuum. To ensure that participants did not familiarize and then habituated to those answers, the values of the answers were not fixed but randomly generated within a small range.

Question Actual

answer

Continua of answers 1-9

Antarctic: mean temperature in winter (℃) -68 1: (-178 to -152), 2: (-151 to -125), 3: (-124 to -98),

4: (-97 to -71), 5: (-70 to -44), 6: (-43 to -17), 7: (-16 to 10), 8: (11 to 37), 9: (36 to 64) Gandhi: age 78 1: (1 to 15), 2: (16 to 31), 3: (32 to 47), 4: (48 to 63), 5: (64 to 79), 6: (80 to 95), 7: (96 to 111), 8: (112 to 127), 9: (128 to 143) Whale: length (m) 33 1: (0.1 to 0.4), 2: (0.5 to 0.9), 3: (1 to 7), 4: (8 to 13), 5: (14 to 20), 6: (21 to 49), 7: (50 to 78), 8: (79 to 107), 9: (108 to 136)

Einstein: year of first visit to United States 1921 1: (1730 to 1764), 2: (1765 to 1799), 3: (1800 to

1834), 4: (1835 to 1869), 5: (1870 to 1904), 6: (1905 to 1939), 7: (1940 to 1965), 8: (1966 to 1997), 9: (1992 to 2016)

Aristotle: year of birth -322 1: (-1574 to -1304), 2: (-1303 to -1033), 3: (-1032 to

-762), 4: (-761 to -491), 5: (-490 to -220), 6: (-119 to 151), 7: (152 to 422), 8: (423 to 693), 9: (694 to 964)

Table 1. The stimuli used in Experiment 3.

Procedure. Participants had to complete 5 blocks, one block for each question and they were informed the question before the start of each block. Within each block, the order of 9 numerical stimuli (i.e., potential answers) from the same continuum was randomized. Each answer was repeated 9 times, resulting in a total of 81 trials in each block (9 repetitions x 9 answers per continuum).

Each trial began with a 600-ms fixation cross located in the center of the screen, followed by a 400-ms presentation of a potential answer. A blank screen was presented at the offset of the face stimulus and participants were instructed to categorize whether the provided answer was high or low to describe the question of the block via a key press within 2 seconds. Performance feedback was not provided during the experiment. The key press initiated a new trial after a 1000 ms inter-trial interval.

Results

Categorization data of answer continua. For each question, categorization data of the corresponding answer continuum were calculated as the percentage of choices corresponding to the “high” or “low” response category for each potential answer (Fig. 6). Responses to each answer were averaged, irrespective of their sequential context. Similarly, although the exact data patterns varied across continua and participants, a consistent pattern also emerged, in which the categorization data of each continuum fell into two clear regions with an abrupt category shift, and each region belonged to the “high” or “low” category.

As before, to control for the variability in the locations of the borderline across continua and participants so as to properly examine the effect of sequential context, we chose to analyze three types of answers from each category: the answers at both ends of a continuum (P-answer), the answers close to the category boundary (B-answer), and the answers closer to the B-answers (M-answer). These stimuli were all highly recognizable and were judged as belonging to a distinct category for each continuum and each individual. The gray bars in Fig. 6 illustrate an example of how these stimuli were selected.

Figure 6. Categorization data for the answer continuum. Data were obtained after being collapsed across the participants. The continuum expresses 9 potential answers as indicated in Table 1. It should be noted that depending on the continua and participants, the exact location of a category boundary varies. The gray bars indicate the answer stimuli selected to analyze sequential effects. The notations P, M and B represent the P-, M- and B-answers, respectively.

The role of the perceptual component of preceding trials. In accord with previous experiments, we analyzed to what extent current judgment on ambiguous answers would be influenced, respectively, by the perceptual and decisional components of preceding trials. To this end, the “high” responses to the ambiguous answers were analyzed as a function of the preceding stimuli (Fig. 7). Next, the obtained results were collapsed across continua. The preceding stimuli were the previously selected P-answers, M-answers, and B-answers, depending on whether preceding stimuli were from the “high” response category (white zone) or from the “low” category (gray zone).

To isolate the role of the perceptual component of preceding trials in categorization responses to the answers provided in current trials, we only considered preceding stimuli whose categorization responses were modal responses as in previous experiments. Distinct from previous results in Exp. 1 and 2, the proportion of the “high” categorization judgments of the current ambiguous answers did not significantly differ as a function of preceding stimulus type, no matter when the preceding faces originated from the “high” response category (the white zone in Fig. 7; F(1,14) = 1.18, p = 0.32) or from the “low” response category (gray zone in Fig. 7; F(1, 14) = 1.48, p = 0.24).

Figure 7. The effect of the perceptual component of preceding stimuli on the “high” responses to current ambiguous answers. Only preceding stimuli with modal responses were considered to control the effect of preceding responses. The white zone indicates that the preceding stimuli are from the “high” response category, whereas the gray zone indicates that the preceding stimuli are from the “low” category. The solid or dashed circles, respectively, represent the distant preceding answers from the “low” or “high” categories, whereas the solid or dashed squares, respectively, represent the nearby preceding answers from the two categories. Error bars represent ±SEM.

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 P M B B M P Th e p ro p o rtion o f " h ig h " re sp o n ses

In contrast to the results reported in Exp. 2, contrast effects were observed in this experiment, as there was an increased proportion of “high” responses to the current ambiguous answers after the distant P-answers from the “low” category (solid circle in Fig. 2) relative to when preceded by the distant P-answers from the “high” category (dashed circle; paired t-test, t(14) = 3.54, p = 0.003). However, no assimilation effect was found. The proportion of “high” responses to the ambiguous answers were comparable after the nearby B-answers from the “low” category (dashed square in Fig. 2) and after the nearby B-answers from the opposite category (solid square; t(14) = 0.21, p = 0.84).

The role of the decisional component of preceding trials. To examine whether the decisional component of preceding trials affected categorization judgment of current stimuli, we analyzed how the “high” responses to the ambiguous answers varied when preceded by ambiguous answers associated with “high” and “low” responses, respectively (Fig. 8). In line with the results in Exp. 1 and 2, participants were more likely to repeat previous responses (paired t-test, t(14) = 2.78, p < 0.02). In other words, they were biased to assimilate current responses towards the category membership assigned to the preceding ambiguous expressions.

Figure 8. The effect of the decisional component of preceding stimuli on the “high” responses to current ambiguous answers. The responses were sorted according to whether the preceding stimuli were categorized as “high” or “low”. Only ambiguous answers were considered as the preceding stimuli to control the effect of the perceptual component of preceding trials. Error bars represent ±SEM.

Discussion

During categorization of a sequence of randomly presented semantic stimuli, categorization

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

"high" response "low" response

Th e p ro p o rtion o f " h ig h " re sp o n ses

performance regarding current stimuli was influenced by the local sequential context provided by previous trials. Such semantic sequential effects also depend on both the perceptual and decisional components of preceding trials. When the semantic attributes of the stimuli are controlled, the context provided by preceding responses may slant current categorization judgment toward assimilative consequences. When preceding responses are held fixed, the context provided by preceding stimuli may slant current categorization judgment toward contrastive consequences.

Conclusion

One difficulty with studying the role of perceptual and decisional components in the directions of sequential effects is that repeated instances of the same stimulus always lie in the same category. This phenomenon produces a confounding between previous stimuli and responses that makes the decisional and perceptual effects difficult or impossible to separately identify. To break the relationship between stimulus and response, we assess the effect of the previous category while the previous stimulus is held constant, giving a measure of the decisional sequential effect. Reciprocally, we evaluate the effect of the previous stimulus while controlling for the previous response provides a measurement of the perceptual sequential effect.

The overall results point towards a consistent pattern, in which assimilation effects may result from preceding responses. Specifically, participants exhibit a tendency to repeat their categorization judgment. In contrast, contrast effects are related to the nature of preceding stimuli. When perceptual quality of the stimuli is rendered poor, contrast effects diminish. Intriguingly, this pattern of findings is not limited to perceptual stimuli. Rather, we suggest that our findings are a general phenomenon and can be extend to at a semantic level of categorization judgment as demonstrated in Exp. 3.

References

Engler, J. (1958). Marginal and Conditional Stimulus and Response Probabilities in Verbal-Conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 303-317. doi:Doi 10.1037/H0040170

Garner, W. R. (1953). An informational analysis of absolute judgments of loudness. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 218-224.

Hampton, J. A., Estes, Z., & Simmons, C. L. (2005). Comparison and contrast in perceptual categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and

Cognition, 31, 1459-1476.

Helson, H. (1964). Current Trends and Issues in Adaptation-Level Theory. American Psychologist, 19, 26-38. doi:Doi 10.1037/H0040013

Hsu, S. M., & Lee, J. S. (2016). Relative judgment in facial identity perception as revealed by sequential effects. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 78, 264-277.

doi:10.3758/s13414-015-0979-1

Hsu, S. M., & Yang, L. X. (2013). Sequential Effects in Facial Expression Categorization. Emotion, 13, 573-586. doi:Doi 10.1037/A0027285

Jacowitz, K. E., & Kahneman, D. (1995). Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1161-1167.

Jesteadt, W., Luce, R. D., & Green, D. M. (1977). Sequential Effects in Judgments of Loudness. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 3, 92-104. doi:Doi 10.1037//0096-1523.3.1.92

Jones, M., Love, B. C., & Maddox, W. T. (2006). Recency effects as a window to

generalization: separating decisional and perceptual sequential effects in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 316-332.

Laming, D. R. J. (1997). The measurement of sensation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lockhead, G. R. (2004). Absolute judgments are relative: A reinterpretation of some

psychophysical ideas. Review of General Psychology, 8, 265-272. doi:Doi 10.1037/1089-2680.8.4.265

Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999). Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the achoring paradigm: a selective accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 136-164.

Stewart, N., Brown, G. D. A., & Chater, N. (2002). Sequential effects in categorization of simple perceptual stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 3-11.

Ward, L. M., & Lockhead, G. R. (1971). Response system processes in absolute judgment. Perception & Psychophysics, 9, 73-78.

Young, A. W., Perrett, D. I., Calder, A. J., Sprengelmeyer, R., & Ekman, P. (2002). Facial expression of emotion: stimuli and test (FEEST). Bury St. Edmunds: Thames Valley Test Company.

Zotov, V., Jones, M. N., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (2011). Contrast and assimilation in

categorization and exemplar production. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 73, 621-639. doi:DOI 10.3758/s13414-010-0036-z

科技部補助專題研究計畫出席國際學術會議心得報告

日期：105 年 7 月 20 日

一、參加會議經過

The presented results were obtained based on the collective budget from this and previous grants. Attending this conference serves two purposes: (1) to receive feedback on the presented data and (2) to get inspired for the next project. I had an oral presentation on May 7th in the “Social cognition”

symposium. Although the attendees were fewer than expected because conference dinner was

approaching, I still received some great comments which immediately trigger my idea for the next MEG experiment. Moreover, this conference also offered an opportunity to get acquainted with other

researchers, such as the symposium host Fiona Newell.

二、與會心得

In general, I undoubtedly benefit a lot, particularly the discussion from the symposia “The effect of prior brain states on information processing” and “Judgement”, as they are relevant to my current research theme. Moreover, some familiar faces in the field of cognitive psychology also attended this conference. It is exciting to hear their keynote speeches. It is worth mentioning that this conference is surprisingly organized. Formal lunch and afternoon refreshment are served everyday while registration fee charges little and most of the attendees are approachable. In the future, I will probably put the meeting held by the

計畫編號

MOST 104－2410－H－004－049

計畫名稱

過去情境影響當下決策判斷的機制

出國人員

姓名

徐慎謀

服務機構

及職稱

政治大學心智大腦與學習中心

助理研究員

會議時間

105 年 5 月 5 日至

105 年 5 月 8 日

會議地點

西班牙格瑞那達

會議名稱

(中文)心理環境國際會議

(英文) 2016 International Meeting of the Psychonomic Society

發表題目

(中文)之前情境對人臉意識知覺的影響

三、發表論文全文或摘要

四、建議

五、攜回資料名稱及內容

The PDF version of the program and abstract book

六、其他

WKDW YDULHG LQ OHQJWK 2Q HDFK WULDO SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH DVNHG WR UHPHPEHU WKH QXPEHU DQG WKHQ ZHUH VKRZQ D WDUJHW OLQH $IWHU D GHOD\ WKH\ UHSURGXFHG WKH OHQJWK RI WKH WDUJHW OLQH XVLQJ DQ DGMXVWDEOH OLQH 2QFH WKH\ ZHUH VDWLV¿HG ZLWK WKH OHQJWK RI WKHLU UHSURGXFWLRQ WKH\ WKHQ UHSRUWHG WKHLU PHPRUL]DWLRQ QXPEHU ,Q WZR H[SHULPHQWV ZH GHPRQVWUDWH WKDW SDUWLFLSDQWV XQGHU D KLJK FRJQLWLYHORDGH[KLELWDVWURQJHUFHQWUDOWHQGHQF\ELDVWKDQZKHQ XQGHUDORZFRJQLWLYHORDG$OWKRXJKQRWDQWLFLSDWHGDWWKHRXWVHW ZHDOVR¿QGWKDWMXGJPHQWVH[KLELWDQDQFKRULQJELDV

(PDLO-RKQ6PLWKVPLWKM#FDPGHQUXWJHUVHGX

Knowing-It-All But Still Learning: Perceptions of One’s Own Knowledge and Belief Revision.

6$5$ +$*È University of Lisbon .5,67,1$ 5 2/621 University of Washington

2XUOD\WKHRULHVVXJJHVWWKDWSHRSOHZKRDUHRYHUFRQ¿GHQWLQWKHLU NQRZOHGJHDUHOHVVOLNHO\WRUHYLVHWKDWNQRZOHGJHZKHQVRPHRQH HOVH R൵HUV DQ DOWHUQDWLYH EHOLHI 6LPLODUO\ ZH PLJKW DVVXPH WKDW SHRSOH ZKR DUH ZLOOLQJ WR UHYLVH WKHLU EHOLHIV PLJKW QRW EH YHU\ FRQ¿GHQWLQWKHLUNQRZOHGJHWREHJLQZLWK:HFRQGXFWHGVWXGLHV WKDWFDOOWKHVHOD\WKHRULHVLQWRTXHVWLRQ,Q6WXG\N ZH DVNHGFKLOGUHQDJHGWR\HDUVDQGFROOHJHVWXGHQWVDERXWIDPLOLDU HJJUHHQDQGXQIDPLOLDUHJFKDUWUHXVHFRORUQDPHV,Q6WXG\  ZH DVNHG SDUWLFLSDQWV RI WKH VDPH DJH JURXSV N   DERXW IDPLOLDUHJEUXVKXQIDPLOLDUHJUXJEHDWHUDQGDSSDUHQWO\ IDPLOLDUHJKDPPHUVKDSHGFKRFRODWHREMHFWV,QERWKVWXGLHV SDUWLFLSDQWV KDG WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR NHHS RU UHYLVH WKHLU RULJLQDO DQVZHUV DIWHU VHHLQJ KRZ D SHHU DQVZHUHG WKH VDPH TXHVWLRQV <RXQJ FKLOGUHQ ZHUH VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ PRUH RYHUFRQ¿GHQW LQ WKHLU NQRZOHGJHHJWKDWWKH\NQHZZKDWFKDUWUHXVHPHDQWandPRUH OLNHO\ WR UHYLVH WKHLU LQLWLDO EHOLHIV HJ WR FKRRVH DQRWKHU FRORU DIWHU VHHLQJ D SHHU FKRRVH D GL൵HUHQW FRORU WKDQ ROGHU FKLOGUHQ DQG DGXOWV:H GLVFXVV WKH SRWHQWLDO FDXVHV DQG IXQFWLRQV RI WKLV GLVVRFLDWLRQEHWZHHQWKHFRQ¿GHQFHZLWKZKLFKEHOLHIVDUHKHOGDQG WKHUHYLVLRQRIWKRVHEHOLHIVDFURVVGHYHORSPHQW

(PDLO6DUD+DJiVDUDKDJD#ISXOSW

7KH 5HODWLYH ,QÀXHQFH RI 3HUFHSWLRQ DQG 0HPRU\ LQ Producing the Central Tendency Bias.

6($1 '8))< -2+1 60,7+ DQG 6$5$+$//5(' Rutgers University, Camden.

7ZR H[SHULPHQWV WHVW WKH H൵HFW RI PHPRU\ DQG SHUFHSWLRQ RQ HVWLPDWHV RI FDWHJRUL]HG VWLPXOL :KHQ UHFDOOLQJ VWLPXOL SHRSOH FRPELQH LQH[DFW PHPRULHV RI VWLPXOL ZLWK LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKH GLVWULEXWLRQ LQ ZKLFK WKH\ DUH HPEHGGHG UHVXOWLQJ LQ D FHQWUDO WHQGHQF\ ELDV ([SHULPHQW  H[SORUHV WKH UROH RI PHPRU\ LQ SURGXFLQJWKLVELDV3DUWLFLSDQWV1 FRPSOHWHGDOLQHHVWLPDWLRQ WDVNZKHUHWKH\YLHZHGWDUJHWOLQHVRQDFRPSXWHUDQGUHSURGXFHG WKHLUOHQJWKE\DGMXVWLQJDVHFRQGOLQHWRHTXDOWKHWDUJHWMemory condition SDUWLFLSDQWV VDZ WKH WDUJHW OLQH ZKLFK GLVDSSHDUHG DQG KDG WR UHSURGXFH LWV OHQJWK IURP PHPRU\ Perception condition SDUWLFLSDQWVDGMXVWHGWKHVHFRQGOLQHZKLOHWKHWDUJHWOLQHZDVVWLOO SUHVHQW8VLQJGXPP\YDULDEOHUHJUHVVLRQZHH[DPLQHGbiasRYHU RUXQGHUHVWLPDWLQJWKHUHSURGXFWLRQOHQJWKE\actual stimulus size ZH IRXQG WKDW SDUWLFLSDQWV LQ WKH PHPRU\ FRQGLWLRQ KDG VWURQJHU QHJDWLYH VORSHV ȕ   DQG ODUJHU LQWHUFHSWV ȕ   WKDQ LQ WKH SHUFHSWLRQ FRQGLWLRQ SHUFHSWLRQ FRQGLWLRQ DV UHIHUHQFH FDWHJRU\7KHRPQLEXVDQDO\VLVZDVVLJQL¿FDQW>)  S@DVZHUHFRH൶FLHQWVIRUERWKLQWHUFHSWDQGVORSHS

,Q([SHULPHQWZHWHVWHGWKHH൵HFWRIWDUJHWSUHVHQWDWLRQWLPHRQ HVWLPDWHV 3DUWLFLSDQWV 1  YLHZHG WDUJHW OLQHV IRU HLWKHU  RUPLOOLVHFRQGVXQGHUDZKLWHQRLVHPDVNWKHQUHSURGXFHG WKHLUOHQJWK:HIRXQGSUHVHQWDWLRQWLPHGLGQRWD൵HFWWKHVORSHRU LQWHUFHSWVRIWKHELDVE\DFWXDOVL]HLQWKHVHWKUHHFRQGLWLRQV:H GLVFXVVWKHUHODWLYHUROHRIPHPRU\DQGSHUFHSWLRQLQSURGXFLQJWKH FHQWUDOWHQGHQF\ELDV (PDLO6HDQ'X൵\VHGX൵\#VFDUOHWPDLOUXWJHUVHGX $1'$/8&,$, ,,5220 6$785'$<7+0$<

TS29 Social Cognition

N-Equality: More People, Less (Concern for) Equality?

67(3+(1 0 *$5&,$ University of Michigan$9,6+$/20 725University of Notre Dame

'RLQHTXDOLW\FRQFHUQVDQGWKHUHIRUHLQHTXDOLW\DYHUVLRQGLPLQLVK ZLWKJURXSVL]H"&RQFHUQVRYHUHFRQRPLFLQHTXDOLW\LQSDUWLFXODU SOD\DFHQWUDOUROHLQGHEDWHVRYHUODZDQGSXEOLFSROLF\LQDUHDV UDQJLQJIURPWD[DWLRQDQGUHJXODWLRQWRWKHVFRSHDQGQDWXUHRIWKH PRGHUQZHOIDUHVWDWH7KHSUHVHQWVWXGLHVFRQWULEXWHWRLQHTXDOLW\ UHVHDUFK E\ H[DPLQLQJ ZKHWKHU SHRSOH¶V ZLOOLQJQHVV WR WROHUDWH LQHTXDOLW\ GHSHQGV LQ SDUW RQ WKH QXPEHU RI UHFLSLHQWV RI WKH UHVRXUFHVWREHGLVWULEXWHG%XLOGLQJRQRXUHDUOLHU1(ৼHFW¿QGLQJV WKDW VKRZ KRZ VRFLDO FRPSDULVRQ DQG FRPSHWLWLYH PRWLYDWLRQ GHFUHDVH DV WKH QXPEHU RI FRPSHWLWRUV LQFUHDVHV *DUFLD  7RU 7RU  *DUFLD  *DUFLD7RU  6FKL൵  ZH ¿QG WKDWDVWKHQXPEHURIUHFLSLHQWVLQFUHDVHVVRFLDOFRPSDULVRQEDVHG FRQFHUQV DERXW UHODWLYH RXWFRPHV GLPLQLVK WKHUHE\ LQFUHDVLQJ WROHUDQFH IRU LQHTXDOLW\  6WXG\  DQDO\]HG IDFXOW\ VDODU\ GDWD IURP  IDFXOW\ PHPEHUV RI WKH HQWLUH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 7H[DV V\VWHP ¿QGLQJ WKDW WKH YDULDQFH RI VDODULHV ZLWKLQ DQ DFDGHPLF GHSDUWPHQW SRVLWLYHO\ FRUUHODWHV ZLWK GHSDUWPHQW VL]H 6WXG\  HPSOR\HGDEHWZHHQVXEMHFWVGHVLJQDVNLQJSDUWLFLSDQWVWRFKRRVH EHWZHHQDOORFDWLRQVDPRQJJURXSVRIUHFLSLHQWVZKLOHYDU\LQJWKH QXPEHU UHFLSLHQWV DFURVV WKH WZR FRQGLWLRQV ¿QGLQJ SDUWLFLSDQWV SUHIHUUHG WKH HTXDO SD\R൵ VLJQL¿FDQWO\ PRUH LQ WKH VPDOO1 FRQGLWLRQWKDQLQWKHODUJHU1RQH6WXG\UHODWHGWKHH൵HFWRI1 RQLQHTXDOLW\FRQFHUQVWRVRFLDOFRPSDULVRQVKHGGLQJIXUWKHUOLJKW RQ WKH PHFKDQLVP XQGHUO\LQJ WKH H൵HFW7RJHWKHU WKHVH ¿QGLQJV EHDU LPSRUWDQW LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU SROLF\ SUDFWLFH DQG UHVHDUFK RQ LQHTXDOLW\

(PDLO$YLVKDORP7RUDWRU#QGHGX

(൵HFWV RI 3UHFHGLQJ &RQWH[W RQ &RQVFLRXV )DFH Perception.

6+(1028 +68 -+$2521* :8 National Chengchi University.

+RZ DQ H[WHUQDO SLHFH RI LQIRUPDWLRQ JDLQV DFFHVV WR FRQVFLRXV SURFHVVLQJ KDV EHHQ RQH RI WKH FHQWUDO LVVXHV LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH +RZHYHUWKHUROHRISUHFHGLQJFRQWH[WRQFRQVFLRXVSHUFHSWLRQLV VWLOOSRRUO\XQGHUVWRRG,QWKLVVWXG\SDUWLFLSDQWVZHUHLQVWUXFWHG WRYLHZDEULHÀ\SUHVHQWHGPDVNHGIDFHIURPWULDOWRWULDOVXFKWKDW WKH\ZHUHDEOHWRUHFRJQL]HWKHLGHQWLW\RIWDUJHWIDFHVFRQVFLRXV IDFH LGHQWL¿FDWLRQ LQ VRPH WULDOV EXW ZHUH RQO\ DEOH WR GHWHFW WKH SUHVHQFH RI WKH WDUJHWV FRQVFLRXV IDFH GHWHFWLRQ ZLWKRXW

LGHQWL¿FDWLRQ LQ VRPH RWKHU WULDOV DQG QRW DEOH WR GHWHFW WKH SUHVHQFHRIWKHWDUJHWVLQWKHUHVWRIWULDOV7KHEHKDYLRUDOUHVXOWV VKRZHGWKDWWKHSHUIRUPDQFHVRIERWKFRQVFLRXVIDFHLGHQWL¿FDWLRQ DQG GHWHFWLRQ ZHUH ELDVHG E\ WKH SUHFHGLQJ FRQWH[W VKDSHG E\ SUHFHGLQJ UHVSRQVHV 6SHFL¿FDOO\ SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH PRUH OLNHO\ WRUHVSRQGQRWFRQVFLRXVO\SHUFHLYLQJWDUJHWVZKHQWKH\PDGHWKH VDPHUHVSRQVHVQRWVHHLQJWKHWDUJHWVLQSUHFHGLQJWULDOV0(* GDWDSURYLGHGIXUWKHUHYLGHQFHDQGUHYHDOHGWKDWSUHFHGLQJFRQWH[WV DVVKDSHGE\SUHFHGLQJUHVSRQVHVGL൵HUHQWLDOO\PRGXODWHGSKDVH FOXVWHULQJEHIRUHWKHSUHVHQWDWLRQRIWKHWDUJHWIDFHV,QWULJXLQJO\ WKRVH FRQWH[WXDO H൵HFWV ZHUH LQGHSHQGHQW RI SUHFHGLQJ VWLPXOXV W\SHV7KHRYHUDOO¿QGLQJVWKXVVXJJHVWWKDWFRQVFLRXVSHUFHSWLRQ LVD൵HFWHGE\SUHFHGLQJFRQWH[W)XUWKHUPRUHWKHFRQWH[WSURYLGHG E\ SUHFHGLQJ UHVSRQVHV LQVWHDG RI SUHFHGLQJ VWLPXOL PD\ VODQW FXUUHQWFRQVFLRXVMXGJHPHQWWRZDUGDVVLPLODWLYHFRQVHTXHQFHV (PDLO6KHQ0RX+VXVPKVX#QFFXHGXWZ

&RRSHUDWLRQ DQG 3XQLVKPHQW (൵HFWV RI )DFLDO Appearance and Facial Expression.

5$28/ %(// /$85$ 0,(7+ $;(/ %8&+1(5 Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf )DFLDO FXHV DUH XVHG WR IRUP ¿UVW LPSUHVVLRQVRIVWUDQJHUV3HRSOHPDNHWUXVWZRUWKLQHVVMXGJPHQWV EDVHGRQIDFLDODSSHDUDQFHDORQH$FFRUGLQJWR%URZQDQG0RRUH WKHSXQLVKPHQWRIPLVOHDGLQJVLJQDOVRISURVRFLDOLW\VHUYHV WR LQFUHDVH VLJQDO UHOLDELOLW\ ,Q WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ ZH GLUHFWO\ H[DPLQHGKRZFRRSHUDWLRQDQGSXQLVKPHQWDUHLQÀXHQFHGE\IDFLDO LPSUHVVLRQV3DUWLFLSDQWVSOD\HGDSULVRQHU¶VGLOHPPDJDPHZLWK LQWHUDFWDQWVZKRHLWKHUKDGDOLNDEOHRUXQOLNDEOHIDFLDODSSHDUDQFH ([SHULPHQWRUHLWKHUKDGDVPLOLQJRUQHXWUDOIDFLDOH[SUHVVLRQ ([SHULPHQW  $ PXOWLQRPLDO PRGHO ZDV XVHG WR GLVWLQJXLVK EHWZHHQ IRXU W\SHV RI SXQLVKPHQW PRUDOLVWLF SXQLVKPHQW DQWLVRFLDO SXQLVKPHQW K\SRFULWLFDO SXQLVKPHQW DQG LUUDWLRQDO SXQLVKPHQW )DFLDO OLNDELOLW\ DQG VPLOLQJ LQFUHDVHG WKH JOREDO DPRXQW RI SXQLVKPHQW LPSRVHG RQ XQFRRSHUDWLYH LQWHUDFWDQWV 7KLVH൵HFWZDVLQGLUHFWUDWKHUWKDQGLUHFWLWZDVVROHO\GXHWRDQ LQFUHDVHGZLOOLQJQHVVWRFRRSHUDWHZLWKOLNDEOHORRNLQJDQGVPLOLQJ LQGLYLGXDOVZKLFKLQWXUQSURYLGHGPRUHRSSRUWXQLW\IRUPRUDOLVWLF SXQLVKPHQW WKH PRVW FRPPRQ IRUP RI SXQLVKPHQW REVHUYHG LQ RXUH[SHULPHQWV6PLOLQJHYHQGHFUHDVHGWKHDYHUDJHVWUHQJWKRI SXQLVKPHQW LPSRVHG RQ WKH LQWHUDFWDQWV VXJJHVWLQJ WKDW LW PD\ VHUYHDVDIRUPRIDSSHDVHPHQW7KHUHVXOWVKDYHLPSOLFDWLRQVIRU WKHRULHVDERXWKRZIDFLDOHPRWLRQVDUHXVHGLQVRFLDOH[FKDQJH (PDLO5DRXO%HOOUDRXOEHOO#KKXGH +HUH¶V/RRNLQJDW<RX7KH(൵HFWRI)DFLDO0RWLRQDQG Gaze Shifts on Judgements of Attractiveness.

),21$11(:(//3,..,+2=25$.1$8)University of Dublin, Trinity College Dublin$1'5(:7:22'6Xperiment. mobi, Surrey+$11,.,,6.,University of Dublin, Trinity College Dublin

(\H JD]H GLUHFWLRQ IDFLOLWDWHV VRFLDO DWWHQWLRQ DQG WKH SHUFHSWLRQ RI IDFLDO H[SUHVVLRQV EXW LW LV DOVR DQ LPSRUWDQW GHWHUPLQDQW IRU WKH DHVWKHWLF HYDOXDWLRQ RI IDFHV 7\SLFDOO\ VWXGLHV RQ IDFLDO DWWUDFWLYHQHVVUHSRUWWKDWLPDJHVRIIDFHVZLWKGLUHFWH\HJD]HRQ WKH REVHUYHU DUH SUHIHUUHG RYHU LPDJHV RI WKH VDPH IDFHV ZLWK DYHUWHGJD]H+RZHYHULQWKHQDWXUDOZRUOGWKHH\HVDUHFRQVWDQWO\ LQPRWLRQDQGWKHVHG\QDPLFFKDQJHVFDQRIWHQRFFXUZLWKULJLG YLHZSRLQWRUQRQULJLGH[SUHVVLRQFKDQJHVRIWKHIDFH,QDVHULHV RIH[SHULPHQWVZHLQYHVWLJDWHGKRZH\HJD]HGLUHFWLRQD൵HFWVWKH

DWWUDFWLYHQHVV UDWLQJV RI DQ XQIDPLOLDU IDFH ZKHQ DQ H[SUHVVLRQ FKDQJHRFFXUUHG([SHULPHQWRUDFURVVIXOORUôYLHZVRIWKH IDFH([SHULPHQW)LUVWZHIRXQGWKDWIDFHVLQZKLFKWKHUHZDV DQH\HJD]HVKLIWWRZDUGVUDWKHUWKDQDZD\IURPWKHREVHUYHUZHUH UDWHGDVPRUHDWWUDFWLYHSDUWLFXODUO\ZKHQDQH[SUHVVLRQFKDQJHG IURP QHXWUDO WR VPLOLQJ 7KH ORZHVW UDWLQJV ZHUH SURYLGHG ZKHQ WKHH\HJD]HVKLIWHGWRZDUGVWKHREVHUYHUEXWZKHQWKHH[SUHVVLRQ FKDQJHG IURP VPLOLQJ WR QHXWUDO 6HFRQG IRU QHXWUDO IDFHV RQO\ ZH IRXQG WKDW KHDG RULHQWDWLRQ D൵HFWHG WKH EHQH¿W RI H\H JD]H IDFHVZHUHUDWHGDVPRUHDWWUDFWLYHZKHQWXUQHGVOLJKWO\DZD\IURP WKH REVHUYHU LUUHVSHFWLYH RI H\H JD]H VKLIWV DOWKRXJK JD]H VKLIWV WRZDUGVWKHREVHUYHUZHUHOHVVDWWUDFWLYHLQDIXOOIDFHYLHZ2XU UHVXOWVVXJJHVWWKDWSHUFHSWLRQRIH\HJD]HIRUH[SUHVVLRQRUVRFLDO DWWHQWLRQ PD\ QRW EH LQGHSHQGHQW IURP WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ H\H JD]H SURYLGHVIRUWKHDHVWKHWLFMXGJHPHQWVRIIDFHV

Email:)LRQD1HZHOO¿RQDQHZHOO#WFGLH

,QYHVWLJDWLQJ WKH 1HXUDO &RUUHODWHV RI$൶OLDWLRQ %DVHG on Shared Aesthetic Preferences.

+$55< )$50(5$1721,$ +$0,/721 University College London.

'LVFRYHULQJ WKDW RWKHU SHRSOH VKDUH VLPLODU SUHIHUHQFHV WR RXUVHOYHVKDVEHHQGHPRQVWUDWHGWROHDGWRLQFUHDVHGMXGJPHQWVRI ERWKVLPLODULW\DQGD൶OLDWLRQ$WSUHVHQWKRZHYHUWKHUHKDVEHHQ OLWWOH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI WKH QHXUDO EDVLV RI OHDUQLQJ DERXW VKDUHG SUHIHUHQFHV RU WKH SDWKZD\V E\ ZKLFK VXFK VKDUHG SUHIHUHQFHV LQÀXHQFHMXGJPHQWVRID൶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൵HUHQWFRQIHGHUDWH$QDO\VLVRIWKHI05,GDWDVKRZHG WKDW REVHUYLQJ WKH GL൵HUHQW FRPSDUHG WR VLPLODU FRQIHGHUDWH OHG WR JUHDWHU DFWLYDWLRQ LQ D QXPEHU RI DUHDV KHDYLO\ OLQNHG WR VRFLDOOHDUQLQJDQGWKHUHSUHVHQWDWLRQRIYDOXHLQFOXGLQJELODWHUDO RUELWRIURQWDO DQG ELODWHUDO PHGLDO SUHIURQWDO FRUWLFHV 7KHVH ¿QGLQJVVKHGOLJKWRQKRZZHIRUPMXGJHPHQWVRIRWKHUVEDVHGRQ RXUNQRZOHGJHRIWKHLUSHUVRQDOWDVWH

EFFECTS OF PRECEDING CONTEXT ON CONSCIOUS FACE

PERCEPTION.

Shen-Mou Hsu, Jhao-Rong Wu

Certificate of Participation

have presented the paper entitled

at the International Meeting of the Psychonomic Society

PS 2016

held in Granada, Spain, from May 5th to May 8th, 2016.

M. Teresa Bajo Scientific Committee Chair

日期:2016/07/22

科技部補助計畫

無研發成果推廣資料

計畫主持人：徐慎謀 計畫編號： 104-2410-H-004-049-計畫名稱：過去情境影響當下決策判斷的機制 成果項目 量化 單位 質化 （說明：各成果項目請附佐證資料或細 項說明，如期刊名稱、年份、卷期、起 訖頁數、證號...等） 　　　　　　　 國 內 學術性論文 期刊論文 0 篇 研討會論文 0 專書 0 本 專書論文 0 章 技術報告 0 篇 其他 0 篇 智慧財產權 及成果 專利權 發明專利 申請中 0 件 已獲得 0 新型/設計專利 0 商標權 0 營業秘密 0 積體電路電路布局權 0 著作權 0 品種權 0 其他 0 技術移轉 件數 0 件 收入 0 千元 國 外 學術性論文 期刊論文 0 篇 研討會論文 1

Hsu, S.-M. &amp; Wu, J.-R.(2015). Effects of preceding context on conscious face perception. International Meeting of the Psychonomic Society 2016. 專書 0 本 專書論文 0 章 技術報告 0 篇 其他 0 篇 智慧財產權 及成果 專利權 發明專利 申請中 0 件 已獲得 0 新型/設計專利 0 商標權 0 營業秘密 0

品種權 0 其他 0 技術移轉 件數 0 件 收入 0 千元 參 與 計 畫 人 力 本國籍 大專生 0 人次 碩士生 0 博士生 0 博士後研究員 0 專任助理 0 非本國籍 大專生 0 碩士生 0 博士生 0 博士後研究員 0 專任助理 0 其他成果 （無法以量化表達之成果如辦理學術活動 、獲得獎項、重要國際合作、研究成果國 際影響力及其他協助產業技術發展之具體 效益事項等，請以文字敘述填列。）　　

請就研究內容與原計畫相符程度、達成預期目標情況、研究成果之學術或應用價

值（簡要敘述成果所代表之意義、價值、影響或進一步發展之可能性）、是否適

合在學術期刊發表或申請專利、主要發現（簡要敘述成果是否具有政策應用參考

價值及具影響公共利益之重大發現）或其他有關價值等，作一綜合評估。

1. 請就研究內容與原計畫相符程度、達成預期目標情況作一綜合評估

■達成目標

□未達成目標（請說明，以100字為限）

　　□實驗失敗

　　□因故實驗中斷

　　□其他原因

說明：

2. 研究成果在學術期刊發表或申請專利等情形（請於其他欄註明專利及技轉之證

號、合約、申請及洽談等詳細資訊）

論文：□已發表　□未發表之文稿　■撰寫中　□無

專利：□已獲得　□申請中　■無

技轉：□已技轉　□洽談中　■無

其他：（以200字為限）

3. 請依學術成就、技術創新、社會影響等方面，評估研究成果之學術或應用價值

（簡要敘述成果所代表之意義、價值、影響或進一步發展之可能性，以500字

為限）

Humans constantly have to adapt their strategies in response to

changing opportunities and threats in nature. Such an adaptation to

a dynamic environment may thus result in privileged access to recent

information. The results obtained in this project are significant,

because they provide a solid psychological basis for a better

understanding of the effects of recent information on

decision-making.

4. 主要發現

本研究具有政策應用參考價值：■否　□是，建議提供機關

（勾選「是」者，請列舉建議可提供施政參考之業務主管機關）

本研究具影響公共利益之重大發現：■否　□是　

說明：（以150字為限）

Assimilation and contrast effects in current decision are separately

associated with preceding stimuli and responses.