Face Mask Reduces the Effect of Proposer's (Un)Trustworthiness on Intertemporal and Risky Choices.

Loreta Cannito, Stefano Anzani, Alessandro Bortolotti, Alberto Di Domenico, Riccardo Palumbo
Author Information
  1. Loreta Cannito: Department of Psychological Sciences, Health and Territory (DiSpuTer), University G. d'Annunzio of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti Scalo, Italy.
  2. Stefano Anzani: Center for Advanced Studies and Technology (CAST), University "G. d'Annunzio" of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti Scalo, Italy.
  3. Alessandro Bortolotti: Center for Advanced Studies and Technology (CAST), University "G. d'Annunzio" of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti Scalo, Italy.
  4. Alberto Di Domenico: Department of Psychological Sciences, Health and Territory (DiSpuTer), University G. d'Annunzio of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti Scalo, Italy.
  5. Riccardo Palumbo: Center for Advanced Studies and Technology (CAST), University "G. d'Annunzio" of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti Scalo, Italy.

Abstract

Previous literature suggested that individuals increase temporal and risk discounting at the presence of a proposer whose face is perceived as untrustworthy, suggesting the activation of protective choice patterns. By the way, the COVID-19 pandemic has substantially transformed the way we interact with other people, even bringing us into situations where the face of the person making a proposal is not fully visible, because of the mask. With the current study, we aimed at verifying if the effect of proposer's facial (un)trustworthiness on discounting behavior is modulated by mask wearing. In two different experiments, participants performed traditional delay and probability discounting tasks with masked proposers manipulated across trustworthiness levels. Results highlighted that, even after checking for subject-specific emotion recognition ability with masked faces, the presence of a masked untrustworthy proposer increases both delay and probability discounting parameters, although the effect is not statistically significant and smaller than the one detected at the presence of an untrustworthy proposer without a mask. These results suggest that the ability to perceive the proposer's (un)trustworthiness is affected by the mask, with a consequent less strong effect of proposer's (un)trustworthiness on choice behavior on both intertemporal and risky choices. Limits and possible implications are outlined and discussed.

Keywords

References

  1. Front Psychol. 2021 Jun 09;12:642102 [PMID: 34177697]
  2. Exp Econ. 2017;20(4):878-893 [PMID: 29151807]
  3. J Exp Child Psychol. 2018 May;169:118-125 [PMID: 29357990]
  4. PLoS One. 2020 Dec 23;15(12):e0243708 [PMID: 33362251]
  5. Addict Behav. 2020 Oct;109:106463 [PMID: 32454227]
  6. Pers Individ Dif. 2022 Jan;184:111195 [PMID: 36540665]
  7. Am J Public Health. 2017 Aug;107(8):e13-e21 [PMID: 28640686]
  8. Front Psychol. 2021 Aug 13;12:640548 [PMID: 34489776]
  9. Behav Res Methods. 2010 Feb;42(1):351-62 [PMID: 20160315]
  10. PLoS One. 2021 Sep 30;16(9):e0257740 [PMID: 34591895]
  11. Front Psychol. 2013 Jun 19;4:355 [PMID: 23801977]
  12. Eur J Investig Health Psychol Educ. 2021 Nov 19;11(4):1474-1484 [PMID: 34842683]
  13. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2009 Oct;17(5):283-90 [PMID: 19803627]
  14. Psychol Health. 2023 Sep-Oct;38(9):1194-1214 [PMID: 34822253]
  15. PLoS One. 2017 Dec 28;12(12):e0190142 [PMID: 29284019]
  16. Neurosci Res. 2012 Apr;72(4):283-8 [PMID: 22285602]
  17. Sci Rep. 2021 Mar 10;11(1):5577 [PMID: 33692417]
  18. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2019 Jun;148(6):1008-1021 [PMID: 31070393]
  19. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1999 Mar;128(1):78-87 [PMID: 10100392]
  20. Brain Sci. 2022 May 13;12(5): [PMID: 35625029]
  21. PLoS One. 2019 May 28;14(5):e0217224 [PMID: 31136620]
  22. J Cogn Neurosci. 2021 Jul 07;:1-19 [PMID: 34232999]
  23. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2004 Nov;36(4):630-3 [PMID: 15641408]
  24. Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2022 Jan 10;7(1):1 [PMID: 35006366]
  25. J Exp Anal Behav. 2016 Sep;106(2):156-63 [PMID: 27644448]
  26. Front Psychol. 2022 Mar 17;13:856971 [PMID: 35369259]
  27. Front Psychol. 2020 Sep 25;11:566886 [PMID: 33101135]
  28. Behav Res Methods. 2017 Aug;49(4):1494-1502 [PMID: 27620283]
  29. Psych J. 2022 Feb;11(1):43-50 [PMID: 34747121]
  30. Med Sci Educ. 2021 May 20;31(4):1273-1277 [PMID: 34035987]
  31. Iperception. 2021 Nov 30;12(6):20416695211058480 [PMID: 34925752]
  32. Cogn Emot. 2019 Mar;33(2):378-385 [PMID: 29482469]
  33. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2020 Aug;149(8):1567-1586 [PMID: 31916837]
  34. Sci Rep. 2018 Jan 10;8(1):398 [PMID: 29321533]
  35. Front Psychol. 2015 Aug 04;6:1130 [PMID: 26300822]
  36. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019 Nov 1;76(11):1176-1186 [PMID: 31461131]
  37. Eur J Ageing. 2021 Jul 23;19(3):413-422 [PMID: 36052182]
  38. Sci Rep. 2022 Apr 12;12(1):6127 [PMID: 35414098]
  39. Br J Psychol. 2021 Nov;112(4):934-963 [PMID: 33969477]
  40. Dev Sci. 2016 Nov;19(6):1011-1019 [PMID: 26799458]
  41. Brain Sci. 2022 Jan 12;12(1): [PMID: 35053841]
  42. PLoS One. 2021 May 18;16(5):e0251393 [PMID: 34003836]
  43. PLoS One. 2021 Apr 23;16(4):e0249792 [PMID: 33891614]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0discountingmasktrustworthinesspresenceproposerfaceuntrustworthyeffectproposer'sundelayprobabilitymaskedriskperceivedchoicewayevenbehaviorabilityPreviousliteraturesuggestedindividualsincreasetemporalwhosesuggestingactivationprotectivepatternsCOVID-19pandemicsubstantiallytransformedinteractpeoplebringingussituationspersonmakingproposalfullyvisiblecurrentstudyaimedverifyingfacialmodulatedwearingtwodifferentexperimentsparticipantsperformedtraditionaltasksproposersmanipulatedacrosslevelsResultshighlightedcheckingsubject-specificemotionrecognitionfacesincreasesparametersalthoughstatisticallysignificantsmalleronedetectedwithoutresultssuggestperceiveaffectedconsequentlessstrongintertemporalriskychoicesLimitspossibleimplicationsoutlineddiscussedFaceMaskReducesEffectProposer'sUnTrustworthinessIntertemporalRiskyChoicestaking

Similar Articles

Cited By