Visualizing threat and trustworthiness prior beliefs in face perception in high versus low paranoia
Abstract
Predictive processing accounts of psychosis conceptualize delusions as overly strong learned expectations (prior beliefs) that shape cognition and perception. Paranoia, the most prevalent form of delusions, involves threat prior beliefs that are inherently social. Here, we investigated whether paranoia is related to overly strong threat prior beliefs in face perception. Participants with subclinical levels of high (n = 109) versus low (n = 111) paranoia viewed face stimuli paired with written descriptions of threatening versus trustworthy behaviors, thereby activating their threat versus trustworthiness prior beliefs. Subsequently, they completed an established social-psychological reverse correlation image classification (RCIC) paradigm. This paradigm used participants’ responses to randomly varying face stimuli to generate individual classification images (ICIs) that intend to visualize either facial prior belief (threat vs. trust). An independent sample (n = 76) rated these ICIs as more threatening in the threat compared to the trust condition, validating the causal effect of prior beliefs on face perception. Contrary to expectations derived from predictive processing accounts, there was no evidence for a main effect of paranoia. This finding suggests that paranoia was not related to stronger threat prior beliefs that directly affected face perception, challenging the assumption that paranoid beliefs operate on a perceptual level.
Study specs
- Institution
- Universität Hamburg
- Discipline
- Psychology,Cognitive Science,Behavioral Science
- Year
- 2024
- Human Data Platform
- Prolific
- Source
- View Source Google Scholar
Peer Review & Critical Discussion
Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort
The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.
Non-naive Participants Issue
I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.
RLHF Applicability to This Study Design
The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.
Verify your expertise to join discussion
Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.