For a long time, psychologists have attempted to investigate the cognitive aspects of human beings. This investigation stems mainly from the belief that human beings have inherent traits and features that influence their perception towards certain scenes in their environment. Specifically, some researchers such as Altman et al. (2016) argue that visual perception of humans is a consequence of neural functions, which often make human beings to be bias towards certain stimuli. Most researchers were interested in finding out how people in the past lived and interacted with their environment (Altman et al., 2016). It is important to note that people lived in primitive structures and encountered various threats. Secondly, the ancient society depended on hunting and gathering for food. The two elements, food and threat, as prominent researchers point out, might have influenced people’s visual perceptions. For instance, when humans spotted an animal that threatened them, they had to develop a mechanism of defending themselves; hiding, running away, or attacking the animal. Similarly, when humans came across predators, they had to take appropriate action, most probably, killing it for food. Perhaps even to enhance their survival further, they had to develop better and faster recognition of such animals in their environment. Nevertheless, there were other elements in their environment such as plants, rocks, and other inanimate objects. This working paper discusses that visual bias; otherwise referred to as the animate monitoring hypothesis.
Overview
Before delving into the specifics of the animate monitoring hypothesis, it is important to understand its general overview. According to Hagen & Laeng (2016), the animate monitoring hypothesis presupposes that modern human beings have an inherent mechanism that biases attention to animate objects. Hagen & Laeng (2016) further suggest that such a mechanism is highly possible when analyzed from an evolutionary perspective where human beings had to flee from threats as well as obtain food. Therefore, the general argument of the animate monitoring hypothesis is that human beings possess the ability to identify other humans and non-human animals faster than they do inanimate objects. Additionally, there is also the argument that such an ability is inherent as opposed to acquisition. The main objective of this working paper is to investigate various researchers’ points of view regarding the subject to establish the validity of the hypothesis.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Important Terms
However, it is also essential to highlight and explain some of the terms that will be used in this article. Such terms include change detection, attentional blink, and inattentional blindness. Change detection implies the process by which humans notice changes in their environment (Liu et al., 2017). Using an example of changes in traffic; when people, for instance, are in a traffic jam, vehicles usually change their position. That means that when a vehicle in front moves, the driver in the next car ought to notice the change and take the necessary action. In everyday life, people come across changes in their environment, which they ought to respond to especially if they affect the survival of humans. Regarding attentional blink, when visual presentations are availed in a series, subjects usually have a reduced ability to report the second of two targets (Dux & Marois, 2009). For instance, if two target objects are labelled T 1 and T 2 and they appear within 200-500 ms, one of the targets will be reported more prominently than the other. Various factors may affect how target objects are reported such as, the goal of the subject or how interesting they are to the observer. Lastly, inattentional blindness refers to a psychological lack of attention that is not caused by visual defects or deficits. Objects may be present in the plain sight of individuals but they may fail to recognize them. It is from such scenarios that several researchers in the field of psychology are interested to conduct investigations.
Change Detection
Quick detection of stimuli in the environment was and is still the first step towards effective response. Especially, when humans live in an environment with dangerous stimuli, they ought to develop a mechanism of detecting such danger so that they avoid harm. Hagen & Laeng (2016) attempt to investigate whether there is a change detection advantage for animals when subjects are presented with photographs of both animals and inanimate objects. The main advantage of using photographs in the experiment is that they can be manipulated to fit the conditions that the researchers want. However, even with the photographs human beings try to capture only those things that are of interest to them. Secondly, the images can vary in their distance and position from the photographer as well as their proximity and relative physical size to surrounding objects. Being aware of the factors stated, the researchers manipulated the background of the images to be the same in all the images.
Specifically, the researchers obtained a collection of 138 color studio images of artifacts (86) and animals (52) from the internet. In order to have a neutral background across all the images, the background was a flat green grass plane with blue sky. Secondly, to correct the distance and size of the items captured in the photographs, the images were resized. During the experiment, the images were manipulated in such a way that the various photographs had a combination of both animate and inanimate items. Additionally, the researchers did not tell the subjects about the target objects. Instead, they would be shown a photograph, followed by a blank photograph, then a different photograph. They were supposed to report whether they noticed any change in the environment of the animals and artifacts on the photographs.
The main objective for Hagen & Laeng (2016) for conducting the experiment was to find out whether the change detection paradigm is an effective method of testing the animate monitoring hypothesis. More specifically, the researchers wanted to test whether change detection advantage for animals is an ancestral priority or something that can be influenced by the nature of the experiment. In the first experiment, the participants responded whether they noticed a change in the displacement of the animals as well as the inanimate objects. Interestingly, there were no significant differences in change detection between animals and inanimate objects. The researchers decided to conduct a second experiment by placing the inanimate target objects in exactly the same positions as the animate target objects in an attempt to eliminate any bias. However, there was no considerable difference in change detection between the animals and inanimate objects. That means that there was no change detection advantage for the animals.
In a third experiment, Hang & Laeng (2016) decided to invert the images or blur them using computer software. Surprisingly, in this experiment, there was a change detection advantage for animals among the subjects. That implies that the participants noticed animal changes on the images more than they did inanimate objects. Perhaps from the experiment, an important question can be brought forth, is change detection an effective paradigm for testing the animate monitoring hypothesis? From the perspective of the experiments conducted by Hang & Laeng, it does not seem to be the best method of testing the hypothesis. However, some arguments can be made about these experiments. First, the images portrayed on the photographs are only artificial and do not represent the actual environment. In the actual environment, there is a likelihood for animals to be detected faster than inanimate objects. Secondly, the experiments might not be the most effective methods of measuring change detection. Thirdly, the images use a combination of both animals and inanimate objects, something that may influence the change detection of inanimate objects. Since the animate monitoring hypothesis posits that humans have a preferential visual perception of animate objects, perhaps combining all the photographs with animate and inanimate targets influences the visual perception.
When Hang & Laeng (2016) decide to invert the images as well as the environment, humans have the ability to recognize an elimination, replacement or alteration of animate targets more than they do with inanimate objects. Maybe this is a better experiment compared to the two experiments because visual perceptions are made more challenging. Seemingly, human beings have inherent traits that have mastered the physical appearance of animals in their environment. Even when images of animals are inverted, humans have the ability to recognize their physical features such as legs, horns, ears, and so on. One major limitation of the experiments conducted by Hang & Laeng (2016) is that they did not include humans. Perhaps they reasoned that humans have interacted with the colleagues for a long time, something that could affect the results of the experiment significantly. In case the researchers had such a perception, then it is accurate to point out that they recognized that humans (animate targets) can be detected faster than inanimate objects. Therefore, such a perception in itself would validate the argument that there is a change detection advantage of animals among subjects. However, the researchers acknowledge that the change detection paradigm is open to further studies because there is no single experiment that has been developed to show how change detection can be used to test the animate monitoring hypothesis.
Attentional Blinking
As explained earlier, when two target objects are displayed in quick succession, there is a likelihood that one type of target will be noticed more prominently than the other. Since this essay is about comparison between animate and inanimate targets, there is a general view that when both animate and inanimate objects are displayed in a series, humans have the ability to report animate targets more than inanimate objects. Nevertheless, Hagen & Laeng (2017) in a different study argue that animals do not increase or reduce attentional blinking rather; they are reported more accurately in a quick serial visual presentation task. The two researchers mainly tested the memory of the subjects after a series of both animate and inanimate objects were shown to them. In the first experiment, the researchers tried to alternate the target animate and inanimate objects then testing the subjects whether they remembered them. As it was expected, the subjects remembered the animate targets more than the inanimate targets. Secondly, the researchers tried to complicate the animal targets by showing the participants images of other animals while maintaining the display of inanimate objects. Surprisingly, the subjects remembered the animate targets more than the inanimate targets.
However, there was no difference in attentional blinking when the display and composition of the images were varied. That means that in the first experiment when the display was simple and in the second experiment when the researchers complicated the display, the time taken to notice either the animate or inanimate objects was relatively the same. Hagen & Laeng (2017) present another interesting experiment that if the same objects are maintained but their position is altered, there is no difference in the attentional blinking. Secondly, that if animals and inanimate objects are displayed concurrently, there is no significant visual perception towards inanimate objects. Nevertheless, perhaps there could have been a difference in attentional blinking if both the animate and inanimate targets were displayed separately. That means that the researchers could have tested the participants how well they remembered the animal targets then compared with how well the participants remembered the inanimate objects. Afterward, the researchers perhaps could have displayed the animate and inanimate objects concurrently and compared with the results of the separate results. However, it is important to note that researchers established that the subjects remembered animate subjects more than inanimate objects hence validating the animate monitoring hypothesis.
Effect of Animacy on Second Target Reporting
Guerrero & Calvillo (2016) in their article dubbed “ Animacy increases second target reporting in a rapid serial visual presentation task” validate the animate monitoring hypothesis further by saying that if animate images are included in a second target of inanimate objects, the second target can become more prominent hence can be identified more easily. In Guerrero & Calvillo (2016) study, the experiment that was done included both those animals that are perceived to be threatening as well as the non-threatening. The first target objects were inanimate in nature. That means that the researchers required the subjects to direct more attention to the inanimate targets. Conventionally, if both the first and second targets were inanimate in nature, the subjects would have directed a lot of visual perception towards the first target and perhaps ignored the second targets. It is at this juncture that inattentional blindness comes in. In the exeperiment, Guerrero & Calvillo (2016) found out that when animate objects were made second targets, the subjects’ visual perceptions did not ignore the second targets as it would have been the case if the inanimate objects were made second targets.
To describe inattentional blindness in this case, people usually develop some visual bias towards some elements in their environment. It is because their visual perceptions focus too much on interesting aspects and leave out subjects that are not of interest to the eye. Although people may be seen looking at various elements in their environment, their neural mechanism may select only those elements that are given prominence. Back to the Guerrero & Calvillo (2016) experiment, it would have been automatic for the visual perceptions of the subjects to only select the first targets and ignore the second targets regardless of whether they are animate or inanimate. Interestingly, the second targets are also reported just like the first targets. The results validate the animate monitoring hypothesis since making the second targets to be animals influences the visual perceptions of people.
Regarding the impact of threatening and non-threatening animals on the experiment, the researchers point out that the two attributes do not influence the experiment. However, people with phobias such as phobia for snakes and spiders recognized the specific animate images faster than those who do not have any phobia. Perhaps this observation opposes Hagen & Laeng’s (2016) study that there is no change detection advantage for animals if animate and inanimate images are interchanged in a fixed environment. Maybe Hagen & Laeng (2016) were too general in their study and ought to have provided some exceptions. However, a counter argument to this assertion would suggest that Hagen & Laeng were only interested in detecting change and not how people responded to different stimuli in their environment. Since Guerrero & Calvillo also suggest that the attributes of threatening and non-threatening are insignificant in their study then perhaps they are minor factors. Nevertheless, there is the need to conduct more studies in regard to how people respond to various stimuli in their environment. The animate monitoring hypothesis generally stipulates that human beings have preferential visual perceptions towards animate elements in their environment because of the significance of the animals in their lives; the animals were either threats or sources of food to them. It would be better if more studies were conducted to investigate and compare the reaction of humans towards animals that are a source of food and those that are not a source of food but are a threat to them.
Preferential Visual Perception; Reflection of Ancestral Priority or Expertise?
It may be argued that human beings acquire other visual perceptions while growing up that may contest the animate monitoring hypothesis. For instance, it could be argued that humans could develop selective change detection towards inanimate objects such as vehicles or guns that may threaten their security. For example, when one wants to cross a road, he or she must ensure that the road does not have any vehicle approaching. Nevertheless, the most important question to ask is, do modern inanimate objects such as vehicles that have motion affect the animate monitoring hypothesis? New et al. (2007) set out to investigate how humans notice and report on the presence of humans and non-human animals in photographs as well as inanimate objects such as buildings and vehicles. The researchers established that humans and non-human animals were reported more frequently than the inanimate objects. The results demonstrated that although humans come into contact with modern stimuli in their environment, they may only be aware of them in the absence of animate stimuli. It is also important to note that the researchers used photographs of the stimuli just like in the other experiments.
New et al. (2007) concluded that humans have intrinsic traits that are inherited from one generation to another that influences their visual perception to develop a preference for animate elements. If the argument that visual perceptions are acquired and that there are no biases in visual perceptions, then in the New et al. (2007) study there should not have been preferential reporting in favor for the human and non-human animals. In fact, since people are used to animals and fellow humans, then their visual perception ought to have been in favor of the modern inanimate objects. Perhaps it could be argued that the experiment used artificial representations and not ideal situations. Such argument forms another area of study that is necessary for investigation in the future. However, the findings of the study suggest that humans have inherent traits which cannot be influenced even by seemingly powerful modern stimuli.
In a study that seemingly contrasts the one conducted by Hagen & Laeng (2016) researchers Altman et al. (2016) suggested that animate stimuli can be detected faster than inanimate stimuli. New et al. (2016) sought to address the inadequacies of Hagen & Laeng (2016) study by camouflaging the animals with the surroundings depicted in the photographs. In the experiment, the researchers did not change the environment rather; they changed the target animate and inanimate objects. It is important to mention that the unchanging scene (environment) composed of animals that camouflaged with the environment. That means that animate and inanimate targets would be placed on the unchanging scene separately and the subjects required to report whether they noticed any changes.
New et al. (2016) found out that the participants in the study noticed animate stimuli rapidly and frequently in comparison to the inanimate stimuli. The researchers also suggested that the presence of animals that had camouflaged with the environment depicted in the photographs conflicted with the visual perception of the inanimate stimuli. This seems to be a better experiment than that of Hagen & Lang (2016). This study seemingly sums up all the other studies by different researchers mentioned in this working paper that there is a preferential visual perception towards animate stimuli than inanimate stimuli
Conclusion
Evidently, there is empirical evidence that the animate monitoring hypothesis holds in respect to the various studies that have been mentioned in this working paper. As already mentioned humans in the past were hunters and gatherers hence it was necessary for them to develop traits that would make them recognize the presence of animals that were a threat or a source of food to them. As the several researchers suggest in the studies analyzed in the working paper, humans might have probably passed these traits from one generation to the next. Even though people in the contemporary world have invented equipment that is dangerous to humans, animate stimuli still receive preferential visual perception than the modern inanimate objects. Seemingly, the traits will not become extinct in the future because they are inherent.
Perhaps the prominent limitations of the studies is that all of them rely on artificial objects for the experiments. Specifically, the studies rely on photographs which are captured depending on the interest of the photographers. That means that the photographer may capture the images at different distances. Even if the researchers attempt to resize the images, some of them may become pixelated, an aspect that might affect the experiments and consequently, the results. Although the studies that have been highlighted in this working paper support the animate monitoring hypothesis, there is need to investigate the responses of subjects towards various stimuli; both animate and inanimate stimuli.
References
Altman, M. N., Khislavsky, A. L., Coverdale, M. E., & Gilger, J. W. (2016). Adaptive attention: How preference for animacy impacts change detection. Evolution and Human Behavior , 37 (4), 303-314.
Dux, P. E., & Marois, R. (2009). The attentional blink: A review of data and theory. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics , 71 (8), 1683-1700.
Guerrero, G., & Calvillo, D. P. (2016). Animacy increases second target reporting in a rapid serial visual presentation task. Psychonomic bulletin & review , 23 (6), 1832-1838.
Hagen, T., & Laeng, B. (2016). The change detection advantage for animals: An effect of ancestral priorities or progeny of experimental design? I-Perception , 7 (3), 2041669516651366.
Hagen, T., & Laeng, B. (2017). Animals Do Not Induce or Reduce Attentional Blinking, But They Are Reported More Accurately in a Rapid Serial Visual Presentation Task. I-Perception , 8 (5), 2041669517735542.
Liu, W., Yang, J., Zhao, J., & Yang, L. (2017). A Novel Method of Unsupervised Change Detection Using Multi-Temporal PolSAR Images. Remote Sensing , 9 (11), 1135.
New, J., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2007). Category-specific attention for animals reflects ancestral priorities, not expertise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 104 (42), 16598-16603.
