Does culture moderate the encoding and recognition of negative cues? Evidence from an eye-tracking study.

Samantha Leigh Falon, Laura Jobson, Belinda Jayne Liddell
Author Information
  1. Samantha Leigh Falon: School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Kensington, Australia. ORCID
  2. Laura Jobson: School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
  3. Belinda Jayne Liddell: School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Kensington, Australia.

Abstract

Cross-cultural research has elucidated many important differences between people from Western European and East Asian cultural backgrounds regarding how each group encodes and consolidates the contents of complex visual stimuli. While Western European groups typically demonstrate a perceptual bias towards centralised information, East Asian groups favour a perceptual bias towards background information. However, this research has largely focused on the perception of neutral cues and thus questions remain regarding cultural group differences in both the perception and recognition of negative, emotionally significant cues. The present study therefore compared Western European (n = 42) and East Asian (n = 40) participants on a free-viewing task and a subsequent memory task utilising negative and neutral social cues. Attentional deployment to the centralised versus background components of negative and neutral social cues was indexed via eye-tracking, and memory was assessed with a cued-recognition task two days later. While both groups demonstrated an attentional bias towards the centralised components of the neutral cues, only the Western European group demonstrated this bias in the case of the negative cues. There were no significant differences observed between Western European and East Asian groups in terms of memory accuracy, although the Western European group was unexpectedly less sensitive to the centralised components of the negative cues. These findings suggest that culture modulates low-level attentional deployment to negative information, however not higher-level recognition after a temporal interval. This paper is, to our knowledge, the first to concurrently consider the effect of culture on both attentional outcomes and memory for both negative and neutral cues.

References

  1. Vision (Basel). 2019 May 18;3(2): [PMID: 31735822]
  2. Cognition. 2019 Mar;184:119-129 [PMID: 30594878]
  3. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1991 Jul;17(4):693-701 [PMID: 1832433]
  4. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2012 May;97(4):465-9 [PMID: 22498686]
  5. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2007 Mar;2(1):33-52 [PMID: 26151918]
  6. Psychol Res. 2014 Jul;78(4):566-73 [PMID: 23975116]
  7. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 May 8;109(19):7241-4 [PMID: 22509011]
  8. Annu Rev Psychol. 2013;64:335-59 [PMID: 22994921]
  9. Cogn Sci. 2017 Jan;41(1):242-258 [PMID: 26671451]
  10. Cogn Sci. 2014 Sep-Oct;38(7):1493-506 [PMID: 24646291]
  11. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Aug 30;102(35):12629-33 [PMID: 16116075]
  12. J Vis. 2011 May 27;11(5):5 [PMID: 21622729]
  13. Mem Cognit. 1992 May;20(3):277-90 [PMID: 1508053]
  14. Behav Brain Sci. 2010 Jun;33(2-3):88-90 [PMID: 20546651]
  15. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Sep 16;100(19):11163-70 [PMID: 12960375]
  16. Behav Brain Sci. 2010 Jun;33(2-3):61-83; discussion 83-135 [PMID: 20550733]
  17. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2006 Jun;6(2):102-9 [PMID: 17007231]
  18. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2011 Jan;37(1):114-20 [PMID: 20718547]
  19. Emot Rev. 2009;1(2):99-113 [PMID: 19421427]
  20. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2010 Jul;5(4):391-400 [PMID: 22866061]
  21. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 1994;19(4):313-33 [PMID: 8047637]
  22. Behav Brain Sci. 2016 Jan;39:e229 [PMID: 26189677]
  23. Behav Res Ther. 1995 Mar;33(3):335-43 [PMID: 7726811]
  24. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001 Nov;81(5):922-34 [PMID: 11708567]
  25. Psychol Bull. 1992 Sep;112(2):284-309 [PMID: 1454896]
  26. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009 Sep;97(3):500-16 [PMID: 19686004]
  27. PLoS One. 2013 Oct 07;8(10):e77405 [PMID: 24116226]
  28. Trends Cogn Sci. 2005 Oct;9(10):467-73 [PMID: 16129648]
  29. J Cogn Neurosci. 2007 Nov;19(11):1872-87 [PMID: 17958489]
  30. Memory. 2014;22(8):1041-51 [PMID: 24345183]
  31. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988 Jun;54(6):1063-70 [PMID: 3397865]
  32. Mem Cognit. 2005 Jan;33(1):98-106 [PMID: 15915796]
  33. Learn Mem. 2003 Jul-Aug;10(4):270-4 [PMID: 12888545]
  34. Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol. 2023 Jan;29(1):85-95 [PMID: 34968094]
  35. Prog Brain Res. 2009;178:203-12 [PMID: 19874971]
  36. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 1996 Apr;6(2):237-42 [PMID: 8725966]
  37. PLoS One. 2020 Nov 16;15(11):e0242501 [PMID: 33196671]
  38. Memory. 2015;23(7):991-1000 [PMID: 25105759]
  39. Psychol Sci. 2002 Jan;13(1):34-40 [PMID: 11892776]
  40. PLoS One. 2008 Aug 20;3(8):e3022 [PMID: 18714387]
  41. Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):437-42 [PMID: 9176953]
  42. J Cogn Neurosci. 2008 Jul;20(7):1161-73 [PMID: 18284340]
  43. Psychon Bull Rev. 2015 Jun;22(3):694-700 [PMID: 25520200]
  44. Behav Neurosci. 2012 Dec;126(6):819-25 [PMID: 23067382]
  45. Neuron. 2001 Aug 30;31(4):523-35 [PMID: 11545712]
  46. Cogn Sci. 2006 Mar 4;30(2):381-99 [PMID: 21702819]
  47. Psychol Aging. 2008 Jun;23(2):263-86 [PMID: 18573002]
  48. Psychol Bull. 2002 Jan;128(1):3-72 [PMID: 11843547]
  49. Int J Psychol. 2022 Jun;57(3):377-386 [PMID: 34908163]
  50. Nat Neurosci. 2001 Nov;4(11):1139-45 [PMID: 11600889]
  51. Biol Psychol. 2017 Oct;129:62-72 [PMID: 28782584]
  52. Behav Res Methods. 2010 Aug;42(3):671-84 [PMID: 20805589]
  53. Cereb Cortex Commun. 2020 Jul 21;1(1):tgaa032 [PMID: 34296105]
  54. Prog Brain Res. 2009;178:95-111 [PMID: 19874964]
  55. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2004 Sep 29;359(1449):1367-78 [PMID: 15347528]
  56. Memory. 2000 Mar;8(2):95-109 [PMID: 10829126]
  57. Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6 [PMID: 9176952]
  58. Prog Brain Res. 2009;178:137-50 [PMID: 19874966]
  59. Am Psychol. 2008 Oct;63(7):602-14 [PMID: 18855491]
  60. Cogn Emot. 2018 Sep;32(6):1339-1346 [PMID: 28976237]
  61. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2010 Oct;32(8):871-80 [PMID: 20383801]
  62. PLoS One. 2009 Dec 16;4(12):e8238 [PMID: 20016829]
  63. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2022 Feb 15;17(2):206-217 [PMID: 34282842]
  64. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008 Mar;94(3):365-81 [PMID: 18284287]
  65. J Cross Cult Psychol. 2009;40(3):349-360 [PMID: 20234851]
  66. Memory. 2018 Jul;26(6):751-758 [PMID: 29173027]
  67. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2010 Jun;5(2-3):227-35 [PMID: 20558408]
  68. Psychol Rev. 1959 May;66(3):183-201 [PMID: 13658305]
  69. Psychol Res. 2008 May;72(3):304-10 [PMID: 17410379]
  70. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2010 Jun;5(2-3):236-41 [PMID: 20083532]
  71. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2007;30:123-52 [PMID: 17417939]
  72. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2010 Jul;5(4):420-30 [PMID: 26162188]

MeSH Term

Humans
Cues
Eye-Tracking Technology
Attention
Recognition, Psychology
Attentional Bias

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0cuesnegativeWesternEuropeanneutralEastAsiangroupgroupsbiascentralisedmemorydifferencestowardsinformationrecognitiontaskcomponentsattentionalcultureresearchculturalregardingperceptualbackgroundperceptionsignificantstudyn=socialdeploymenteye-trackingdemonstratedCross-culturalelucidatedmanyimportantpeoplebackgroundsencodesconsolidatescontentscomplexvisualstimulitypicallydemonstratefavourHoweverlargelyfocusedthusquestionsremainemotionallypresentthereforecompared4240participantsfree-viewingsubsequentutilisingAttentionalversusindexedviaassessedcued-recognitiontwodayslatercaseobservedtermsaccuracyalthoughunexpectedlylesssensitivefindingssuggestmodulateslow-levelhoweverhigher-leveltemporalintervalpaperknowledgefirstconcurrentlyconsidereffectoutcomesmoderateencodingcues?Evidence

Similar Articles

Cited By