The role of attachment style in the holistic perception of expression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attachment style theory posits that the quality of early child-caregiver relationships will shape an individual’s feelings and behaviors in adult relationships. In face recognition, individuals who are rated as highly anxious in their attachment style are faster and more accurate in their judgments of facial expression than non-anxious individuals. In this study, we investigated the timing of processes that link expression recognition and attachment style. We hypothesized that highly anxious people perceive expressions more holistically than non-anxious people. To test the relationship between the holistic expression recognition and attachment style, we created expression composites by joining the top and bottom halves of happy and angry expressions that formed either congruent (e.g., angry top + angry bottom) or incongruent (e.g., angry top + happy bottom) expressions. Neutral face composites (e.g., angry top + neutral bottom) and isolated halves (e.g., angry top only) were used as baseline comparisons. In this experiment, participants (n = 36) were asked to report the expression in the cued top (or bottom) half of the face as “happy” or “angry”. Faces were randomly presented at stimulus onset asynchronies (SOA’s) of 17, 50, or 250 ms and then masked. After the expression task, participants completed the Revised Adult Attachment Style Questionnaire (RAAS). Our main results showed that participants performed significantly better in the congruent condition and significantly worse in the incongruent condition relative to the neutral and isolated conditions. The congruency effect was evident even at the shortest SOA indicating that expressions were perceived holistically after an exposure duration as brief as 17 ms. Reaction time analysis showed that the magnitude of the holistic effect increases with a higher anxious attachment style score. Together these results suggest that: 1) holistic perception of expression occurs rapidly and 2) the expression advantage of anxiously attached individuals might be mediated by holistic mechanisms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".