Cited by 115Face Recognition and PerceptionVisual perception and processing mechanismsVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

Are visual threats prioritized without awareness? A critical review and meta-analysis involving 3 behavioral paradigms and 2696 observers

Hedger, Nicholas, Gray, Katie L. H., Garner, Matthew, Adams, Wendy J.·2016·Psychological Bulletin

Abstract

Given capacity limits, only a subset of stimuli give rise to a conscious percept. Neurocognitive models suggest that humans have evolved mechanisms that operate without awareness and prioritize threatening stimuli over neutral stimuli in subsequent perception. In this meta-analysis, we review evidence for this 'standard hypothesis' emanating from 3 widely used, but rather different experimental paradigms that have been used to manipulate awareness. We found a small pooled threat-bias effect in the masked visual probe paradigm, a medium effect in the binocular rivalry paradigm and highly inconsistent effects in the breaking continuous flash suppression paradigm. Substantial heterogeneity was explained by the stimulus type: the only threat stimuli that were robustly prioritized across all 3 paradigms were fearful faces. Meta regression revealed that anxiety may modulate threat-biases, but only under specific presentation conditions. We also found that insufficiently rigorous awareness measures, inadequate control of response biases and low level confounds may undermine claims of genuine unconscious threat processing. Considering the data together, we suggest that uncritical acceptance of the standard hypothesis is premature: current behavioral evidence for threat-sensitive visual processing that operates without awareness is weak. (PsycINFO Database Record

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/bul0000054

Cites

236 of 236 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • ABs in attention-orienting may reflect both salience-driven and goal-directed processes, including reflexive orienting and strategic maintenance, suppression, or avoidance of threat.

    “ABs in attention-orienting (e.g., on a visual probe task) may also reflect both salience-driven and goal-directed processes.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 237 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hedger, N., Gray, K. L. H., Garner, M., & Adams, W. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • University of Reading (GB)
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Published
2016
Volume
142
Issue
9
Pages
934-968
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
OpenAlex
W2279597820
Cited by
115
References
237
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 3
FWCI
6.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CentAUR (University of Reading) (acceptedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
Keywords
threat bias, unconscious processes, visual awareness, binocular rivalry, continuous flash suppression, fearful faces, anxiety, response bias, meta-regression
MeSH terms
Facial Recognition, Anxiety, Awareness, Facial Expression, Fear, Humans, Unconscious, Psychology, Visual Perception, Bias

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review