Are visual threats prioritized without awareness? A critical review and meta analysis involving 3 behavioral paradigms and 2696 observers

Hedger, N. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2733-1913, Gray, K. L. H. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6071-4588, Garner, M. and Adams, W. J. (2016) Are visual threats prioritized without awareness? A critical review and meta analysis involving 3 behavioral paradigms and 2696 observers. Psychological Bulletin, 142 (9). pp. 934-968. ISSN 1939-1455 doi: 10.1037/bul0000054

Abstract/Summary

Given capacity limits, only a subset of stimuli 1 give rise to a conscious percept. Neurocognitive models suggest that humans have evolved mechanisms that operate without awareness and prioritize threatening stimuli over neutral stimuli in subsequent perception. In this meta analysis, we review evidence for this ‘standard hypothesis’ emanating from three widely used, but rather different experimental paradigms that have been used to manipulate awareness. We found a small pooled threat-bias effect in the masked visual probe paradigm, a medium effect in the binocular rivalry paradigm and highly inconsistent effects in the breaking continuous flash suppression paradigm. Substantial heterogeneity was explained by the stimulus type: the only threat stimuli that were robustly prioritized across all three paradigms were fearful faces. Meta regression revealed that anxiety may modulate threat biases, but only under specific presentation conditions. We also found that insufficiently rigorous awareness measures, inadequate control of response biases and low level confounds may undermine claims of genuine unconscious threat processing. Considering the data together, we suggest that uncritical acceptance of the standard hypothesis is premature: current behavioral evidence for threat-sensitive visual processing that operates without awareness is weak.

Item Type	Article
URI	https://reading-clone.eprints-hosting.org/id/eprint/60087
Identification Number/DOI	10.1037/bul0000054
Refereed	Yes
Divisions	Life Sciences > School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences > Department of Psychology Life Sciences > School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences > Perception and Action
Publisher	American Psychological Association
Download/View statistics	View download statistics for this item