title: Beliefs alter holistic face processing ... if response bias is not taken into account.
abstract: The composite paradigm is widely used to quantify holistic processing (HP) of faces, but there is debate regarding the appropriate design (partial vs. complete) and measures in this task. Here, we argue that some operational definitions of HP are problematic because they are sensitive to top-down influences, even though the underlying concept is assumed to be cognitively impenetrable. In Experiment 1, we told one group of participants that the target face half would remain the same on 75% of trials and another group that it would change on 75% of trials. The true proportion of same/different trials was 50%-groups only differed in their beliefs about the target halves. In Experiment 2, we manipulated the actual proportion of same/different trials in the experiment (75% of trials were the same for one group; 75% of trials were different for another group) but did not give explicit instructions about proportions. In both experiments, these manipulations influenced response biases that altered partial design measures of HP while the complete design measure was unaffected. We argue that the partial design should be abandoned because it has poor construct validity.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN,  USA.
authors.forename: Jennifer J
authors.initials: JJ
authors.lastname: Richler
authors.forename: Olivia S
authors.initials: OS
authors.lastname: Cheung
authors.forename: Isabel
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Gauthier
mesh_terms: D015982:Bias; D005145:Face; D005260:Female; D005556:Form Perception / Q000502:physiology*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual / Q000502:physiology*; D010775:Photic Stimulation / Q000379:methods; D011594:Psychometrics / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D021641:Recognition, Psychology / Q000502:physiology*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2009 Sep;20(9):1108-17
references.pmid: 19694980
references.citation: Cognition. 2007 May;103(2):331-6
references.pmid: 16842769
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2004 Mar 9;14(5):391-6
references.pmid: 15028214
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2011 Apr;22(4):464-71
references.pmid: 21393576
references.citation: Child Dev. 2003 Sep-Oct;74(5):1297-313
references.pmid: 14552399
references.citation: Vision Res. 2009 Nov;49(23):2856-61
references.pmid: 19716376
references.citation: Atten Percept Psychophys. 2009 Apr;71(3):530-40
references.pmid: 19304644
references.citation: Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2011 Apr 15;20(2):129-134
references.pmid: 21643512
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2004 Nov;15(11):762-8
references.pmid: 15482448
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 2010 Mar;48(4):933-44
references.pmid: 19944710
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2008 Nov;34(6):1356-68
references.pmid: 18980400
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1998 Jul;105(3):482-98
references.pmid: 9697428
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 1991 Winter;3(1):71-86
references.pmid: 23964806
references.citation: Cognition. 2007 Apr;103(1):34-79
references.pmid: 16616910
references.citation: Dev Sci. 2009 Mar;12(2):236-48
references.pmid: 19143797
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2008 Dec;34(6):1327-36
references.pmid: 19045978
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2002 Apr;28(2):431-46
references.pmid: 11999864
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2010 Jan;21(1):38-43
references.pmid: 20424020
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006 Aug;32(4):1023-39
references.pmid: 16846295
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2007 Jan;11(1):8-15
references.pmid: 17129746
references.citation: Perception. 1987;16(6):747-59
references.pmid: 3454432
references.citation: Vision Res. 1996 Jun;36(12):1761-71
references.pmid: 8759445
references.citation: Vision Res. 2011 Feb 9;51(3):333-42
references.pmid: 21130798
references.citation: J Exp Child Psychol. 2007 Jan;96(1):57-70
references.pmid: 17007869
references.citation: Vision Res. 2009 Feb;49(4):470-8
references.pmid: 19135077
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1955 Jul;52(4):281-302
references.pmid: 13245896
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 2010 Dec;48(14):4057-92
references.pmid: 20875437
references.citation: J Vis. 2008 Apr 10;8(4):3.1-13
references.pmid: 18484842
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 2011 Apr;49(5):1226-1235
references.pmid: 21333662
references.citation: Cogn Neuropsychiatry. 2002 Feb;7(1):15-39
references.pmid: 16528403
references.citation: Cogn Sci. 2007 Sep 10;31(5):911-24
references.pmid: 21635322
references.citation: Child Dev. 2010 Mar-Apr;81(2):568-80
references.pmid: 20438461