Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27050834›Full record

ReviewTrends in cognitive sciences2016

More Than Meets the Eye: Split-Second Social Perception.

Jonathan B Freeman, Kerri L Johnson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in cognitive sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

59 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A reverse hierarchy theory of social perception.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. A Multidimensional Neural Representation of Face Impressions.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jonathan B FreemanDepartment of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY 10003, USA. Electronic address: jon.freeman@nyu.edu.
Kerri L JohnsonDepartment of Communication Studies and Psychology, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.

Funding

Social Attention in InfancyR01HD082844 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI JOHNSON, KERRI L., JOHNSON, SCOTT P · 2015 to 2019
$1.6M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD082844
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent research suggests that visual perception of social categories is shaped not only by facial features but also by higher-order social cognitive processes (e.g., stereotypes, attitudes, goals). Building on neural computational models of social perception, we outline a perspective of how multiple bottom-up visual cues are flexibly integrated with a range of top-down processes to form perceptions, and we identify a set of key brain regions involved. During this integration, 'hidden' social category activations are often triggered which temporarily impact perception without manifesting in explicit perceptual judgments. Importantly, these hidden impacts and other aspects of the perceptual process predict downstream social consequences - from politicians' electoral success to several evaluative biases - independently of the outcomes of that process.

Indexed as

Concept FormationFaceSocial PerceptionBrainBrain MappingComputational BiologyFacial ExpressionHumansJudgmentSocial BehaviorStereotypingVisual Perceptioncomputational modelsface processingneuroimagingperson perceptionstereotypestop-down effects

Identifiers

PMID27050834
PMCPMC5538856

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.