Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica    2020, Vol. 52 Issue (5) : 584-596     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00584
Reports of Empirical Studies |
Influence of the valence of social actions on attentional capture: Focus on helping and hindering actions
ZHENG Xutao1,2,GUO Wenjiao1,CHEN Man1,JIN Jia3,YIN Jun1()
1 Department of Psychology, Ningbo University, Ningbo 315211, China
2 School of Psychology, Northeast Normal University, Changchun 130024, China
3 Academy of Neuroeconomics and Neuromanagement, Ningbo University, Ningbo 315211, China
Download: PDF(738 KB)   HTML Review File (1 KB) 
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks     Supporting Info

Reward-based learning plays an important role in selective attention. Recent studies have indicated that rewarded stimuli capture more attention after participants directly learned the association between the stimulus and reward, either presented as money or as social feedback. In addition to engaging in direct learning, people can acquire knowledge of stimuli by observing others, and how to interact with and respond to external stimuli. To adapt to our social world, it is critical to gain reputation information by observing whether people interact with each other positively or negatively. However, it remains unclear whether the valence of social actions influences the attentional priority of valence-associated stimuli. Therefore, the present study employed a widely used training-testing paradigm to investigate the influence of the valence of social actions on attentional capture.
Three experiments were conducted. In Experiment 1, the distractors in the actor’s color associated with positive (i.e., helping actions) or negative (i.e., hindering actions) valence of social actions were shown in a visual search task. We examined whether the attentional capture effect was influenced by the valence of social actions and whether the effects were different between positive and negative social actions. In Experiment 2, we investigated whether the attentional capture effect of the recipient’s color was influenced by the valence of social actions as well. To further examine the attentional priority between two individuals’ features involved in the negative social interaction, we directly compared the attentional capture effect between the actor’s color and the recipient’s color from the negative social interaction (i.e., hindering action) in Experiment 3. In the learning phase, participants were required to watch cartoonized videos adapted from Hamlin, Wynn, and Bloom (2007). In these videos, an actor interacted with a recipient in one of four different modes: valid helping (the actor helps the recipient successfully), invalid helping (the actor repeats the same action as helping but without effects on the recipient), valid hindering (the actor hinders the recipient successfully), and invalid hindering (the actor repeats the same action as hindering but without effects on the recipient). In this case, the valid helping action was more positive than invalid helping action in valence, but with the same action pattern, and the valid hindering action was more negative than invalid hindering action in valence, but with the same action pattern. During the testing phase, each trial started with the presentation of the fixation display (400~600 ms), which was followed immediately by the search display (1500 ms or until response). In the search display, the target was defined as the form singleton (e.g., one diamond among circles), while a distractor was a color singleton (additional-singleton) colored the same as the agent in the previously learned videos. Inside the target, a white line segment was oriented either vertically or horizontally, and inside each of the nontargets, a white line segment was tilted at 45° to the left or to the right. The search display was followed by a feedback display (1000 ms), which informed participants whether their responses in the previous trial were correct.
In the training phase, participants were able to successfully learn the association between agents’ color and their interaction information through observation, and the memory performance was not modulated by the interaction mode. However, in the test phase, the results showed that (1) In both Experiments 1 and 2, participants’ reaction time in the search display was longer when the additional-singleton distractors were shown than when none of the additional-singleton distractor were shown, which was referred to as a significant standard additional-singleton effect, suggesting that attention was captured by the additional-singleton distractor; (2) the attentional capture effect was significant when the additional-singleton distractor was associated with the valid hindering condition than when the additional-singleton distractor was associated with the invalid hindering condition, while no difference in the attentional capture effect was observed between valid and invalid helping conditions; (3) whether the additional-singleton distractor’s color was from the actor or the recipient involved in the negative social interaction, the attentional capture effect was present, but the additional-singleton distractor’s color associated with the actor showed a larger attentional capture effect than that associated with the recipient.
Hence, our results demonstrate that the valence of social actions influences attentional capture, and this influence is shown as a negative bias for valence-associated stimuli. In addition, this association is established on all agents involved in the social action, instead of the actor alone, and the actor’s features in the negative social interaction are prioritized to be attended than the recipient. These findings highlight how attention is related to social actions, suggesting an adapted function of negative social actions.

Keywords attentional capture      social behavior      valence      helping      hindering     
PACS:  B842  
Corresponding Authors: Jun YIN     E-mail:
Issue Date: 26 March 2020
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
Articles by authors
Cite this article:   
ZHENG Xutao,GUO Wenjiao,CHEN Man,JIN Jia,YIN Jun. Influence of the valence of social actions on attentional capture: Focus on helping and hindering actions[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica,2020, 52(5): 584-596.
URL:     OR
[1] Achterberg M., van Duijvenvoorde A. C. K., Bakermans- Kranenburg M. J., & Crone E. A . (2016). Control your anger! The neural basis of aggression regulation in response to negative social feedback. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11(5), 712-720.
[2] Anderson B. A . (2013). A value-driven mechanism of attentional selection. Journal of Vision, 13(3), 7.
[3] Anderson B. A . (2015). Value-driven attentional priority is context specific. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(3), 750-756.
[4] Anderson B. A . (2016a). The attention habit: How reward learning shapes attentional selection. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1369(1), 24-39.
[5] Anderson B. A . (2016b). Social reward shapes attentional biases. Cognitive Neuroscience, 7(1-4), 30-36.
[6] Anderson B. A . (2017). Counterintuitive effects of negative social feedback on attention. Cognition and Emotion, 31(3), 590-597.
[7] Anderson B. A., Laurent P. A., & Yantis S . (2011). Value-driven attentional capture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(25), 10367-10371.
[8] Anderson B. A., Laurent P. A., & Yantis S . (2012). Generalization of value-based attentional priority. Visual Cognition, 20(6), 647-658.
[9] Baumeister R. F., Bratslavsky E., Finkenauer C., & Vohs K. D . (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323-370.
[10] Beston P. J., Barbet C., Heerey E. A., & Thierry G . (2018). Social feedback interferes with implicit rule learning: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 18(6), 1248-1258.
[11] Buon M., Jacob P., Loissel E., & Dupoux E . (2013). A non- mentalistic cause-based heuristic in human social evaluations. Cognition, 126(2), 149-155.
[12] Camilleri J. A., Kuhlmeier V. A., & Chu J. Y. Y . (2010). Remembering helpers and hinderers depends on behavioral intentions of the agent and psychopathic characteristics of the observer. Evolutionary Psychology, 8(2), 303-316.
[13] Cohen J . (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[14] Connor C. E., Egeth H. E., & Yantis S . (2004). Visual attention: Bottom-up versus top-down. Current Biology, 14(19), 850-852.
[15] Cushman F . (2008). Crime and punishment: Distinguishing the roles of causal and intentional analyses in moral judgment. Cognition, 108(2), 353-380.
[16] Desimone R., & Duncan J . (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18(1), 193-222.
[17] Ding X., Gao Z., & Shen M . (2017). Two equals one: Two human actions during social interaction are grouped as one unit in working memory. Psychological Science, 28(9), 1311-1320.
[18] Earley R. L . (2010). Social eavesdropping and the evolution of conditional cooperation and cheating strategies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 365(1553), 2675-2686.
[19] Egeth H. E., & Yantis S . (1997). Visual attention: Control, representation, and time course. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 269-297.
[20] Fehr E., & Fischbacher U . (2004). Third-party punishment and social norms. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(2), 63-87.
[21] Folk C. L., Remington R. W., & Johnston J. C . (1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(4), 1030-1044.
[22] Frith C. D., & Frith U . (2012). Mechanisms of social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 287-313.
[23] Guglielmo S., Monroe A. E., & Malle B. F . (2009). At the heart of morality lies folk psychology. Inquiry, 52(5), 449-466.
[24] Hamlin J. K . (2015). The case for social evaluation in preverbal infants: gazing toward one's goal drives infants' preferences for helpers over hinderers in the hill paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 563
[25] Hamlin J. K., Wynn K., & Bloom P . (2007). Social evaluation by preverbal infants. Nature, 450(7169), 557-559.
[26] Lavie N . (2005). Distracted and confused? Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(2), 75-82.
[27] Leber A. B . (2010). Neural predictors of within-subject fluctuations in attentional control. Journal of Neuroscience, 30(34), 11458-11465.
[28] Liu Y., Li L., Zheng L., & Guo X . (2017). Punish the perpetrator or compensate the victim? Gain vs. Loss context modulate third-party altruistic behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 75-84.
[29] Kobayashi K., & Hsu M . (2019). Common neural code for reward and information value. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(26), 13061-13066.
[30] Kurzban R., DeScioli P., & O'Brien E . (2007). Audience effects on moralistic punishment. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(2), 75-84.
[31] Milinski M . (2016). Reputation, a universal currency for human social interactions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 371(1687).
[32] Milinski M., Semmann D., Bakker T. C. M., & Krambeck H. J . (2001). Cooperation through indirect reciprocity: Image scoring or standing strategy? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 268(1484), 2495-2501.
[33] Mineka S., & Ohman A . (2002). Phobias and preparedness: The selective, automatic, and encapsulated nature of fear. Biological Psychiatry, 52(10), 927-937.
[34] Olsson A., Nearing K. I., & Phelps E. A . (2007). Learning fears by observing others: the neural systems of social fear transmission. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2(1), 3-11.
[35] Posner M. I . (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32(1), 3-25.Premack, D., & Premack, A. J. (1997). Infants attribute value± to the goal-directed actions of self-propelled objects. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9(6), 848-856.
[36] Rendell L., Boyd R., Cownden D., Enquist M., Eriksson K., Feldman M. W., … Laland K. N . (2010). Why copy others? Insights from the social learning strategies tournament. Science, 328(5975), 208-213.
[37] Reynolds J. H., Chelazzi L., & Desimone R . (1999). Competitive mechanisms subserve attention in macaque areas V2 and V4. Journal of Neuroscience, 19(5), 1736-1753.
[38] Rozin P., & Royzman E. B . (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296-320.
[39] Sali A. W., Anderson B. A., & Yantis S . (2014). The role of reward prediction in the control of attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(4), 1654-1664.
[40] Semmann D., Krambeck H. J., & Milinski M . (2005). Reputation is valuable within and outside one’s own social group. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 57(6), 611-616.
[41] Theeuwes J . (1994). Stimulus-driven capture and attentional set: Selective search for color and visual abrupt onsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(4), 799-806.
[42] Theeuwes J . (2010). Top-down and bottom-up control of visual selection. Acta Psychologica, 135(2), 77-99.
[43] Wedekind C., & Milinski M . (2000). Cooperation through image scoring in humans. Science, 288(5467), 850-852.
[44] Wentura D., Muller P., & Rothermund K . (2014). Attentional capture by evaluative stimuli: Gain- and loss-connoting colors boost the additional-singleton effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(3), 701-707.
[45] Yantis S., & Jonides J . (1984). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Evidence from visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(5), 601-621.
[46] Yin J., Xu H., Duan J., & Shen M . (2018). Object-based attention on social units: Visual selection of hands performing a social interaction. Psychological Science, 29(7), 1040-1048.
[47] Young L., Cushman F., Hauser M., & Saxe R . (2007). The neural basis of the interaction between theory of mind and moral judgment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(20), 8235-8240.
[1] Xiaolei SONG,Xiaoqian JIA,Yuan ZHAO,Jingjing GUO. The underlying mechanism of emotions on co-representation in joint actions[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2020, 52(3): 269-282.
[2] Wenchao WANG,Xinchun WU. Mediating roles of gratitude, social support and posttraumatic growth in the relation between empathy and prosocial behavior among adolescents after the Ya’an earthquake[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2020, 52(3): 307-316.
[3] WANG Jianfeng, DAI Bing. The pursuit of fame at the expense of profit: The influence of power motive and social presence on prosocial behavior[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2020, 52(1): 55-65.
[4] Xiujuan WANG,Na WANG,Shangfeng HAN,Shen LIU,Lin ZHANG. The influence of facial trustworthiness on helping behavior: The role of attachment type[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(11): 1292-1302.
[5] Hui-Yuan WANG,Jie SUI,Ming ZHANG. Attentional capture is contingent on attentional control setting for semantic meaning: Evidence from modified spatial cueing paradigm[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(10): 1071-1082.
[6] MAO Jianghua, LIAO Jianqiao, HAN Yi, LIU Wenxing.  The mechanism and effect of leader humility: An interpersonal relationship perspective[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(9): 1219-1233.
[7] SONG Xiaolei, ZHANG Junting, SHI Jie, YOU Xuqun.  Influence of emotional valence on the spatial simon effect under the vocal response mode[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(8): 1031-1040.
[8] KE Chunchun, NIE Aiqing, ZHANG Ruiqing.  The modulation of recall task on collaborative inhibition and error pruning: The influence of emotional valence and level of processing[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(6): 733-744.
[9] WANG Yanhui; LI Dongping; SUN Wenqiang; ZHAO Liyan; LAI Xuefen; ZHOU Yueyue. Parent-child attachment and prosocial behavior among junior high school students: Moderated mediation effect[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(5): 663-679.
[10] WU Peng, FAN Jing, LIU Huashan.  The influence of moral emotions on online helping behavior: The mediating role of moral reasoning[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(12): 1559-1569.
[11] LIU Li; BAI Xuejun. The effects of attentional control setting and types of cues on attentional capture[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(9): 1093-1104.
[12] DING Ruyi; ZHOU Hui; ZHANG Bao; CHEN Xiao. Narcissism and adolescents’ prosocial behaviors: The role of public and private situations[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(8): 981-988.
[13] WANG Huiyuan; SUI Jie; ZHANG Ming. The effect of cue-target relevance and search strategies on attentional capture: Evidence from meaning cues[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(7): 783-793.
[14] LI Xin; CHEN Yiwen. Effects of different eWOM supplementary forms on purchase intention: The moderating role of eWOM valence[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(6): 722-732.
[15] LIAO Sunqun; ZHENG Xifu. Inhibition of cognitive reappraisal on the negative valence facilitates extinction in conditioned fear[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(4): 352-361.
Full text



Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech