Abstract

The study of socio-cognitive abilities emerged from intelligence research, and their specificity remains controversial until today. In recent years, the psychometric structure of face cognition (FC)—a basic facet of socio-cognitive abilities—was extensively studied. In this review, we summarize and discuss the divergent psychometric structures of FC in easy and difficult tasks. While accuracy in difficult tasks was consistently shown to be face-specific, the evidence for easy tasks was inconsistent. The structure of response speed in easy tasks was mostly—but not always—unitary across object categories, including faces. Here, we compare studies to identify characteristics leading to face specificity in easy tasks. The following pattern emerges: in easy tasks, face specificity is found when modeling speed in a single task; however, when modeling speed across multiple, different easy tasks, only a unitary factor structure is reported. In difficult tasks, however, face specificity occurs in both single task approaches and task batteries. This suggests different cognitive mechanisms behind face specificity in easy and difficult tasks. In easy tasks, face specificity relies on isolated cognitive sub-processes such as face identity recognition. In difficult tasks, face-specific and task-independent cognitive processes are employed. We propose a descriptive model and argue for FC to be integrated into common taxonomies of intelligence.

Highlights

  • Is there face specificity in performance measures in difficult and easy tasks, and, if so, which rules determine whether face specificity arises? Secondly, once we understand the psychometric structure of face cognition (FC) in easy and difficult tasks, how should we integrate these abilities into the nomological net of cognitive abilities, such as the CHC

  • We addressed two questions: Firstly, is there face specificity in easy task performance? Secondly, how can face-specific abilities, derived from easy and difficult performance measures, be integrated into the nomological net of socio-cognitive abilities and intelligence?

  • To answer the first question, we compared studies on the psychometric structure of speed of FC and concluded that speed in easy tasks is face-specific, but face-specific operations challenged by easy tasks are task-specific, masking specificity in studies where multiple easy speed tasks were jointly modeled

Read more

Summary

Socio-Cognitive Abilities

The study of socio-cognitive abilities emerged within intelligence research more than a century ago when Thorndike coined the term social intelligence and defined it as the “ability to understand and manage men and women, boys and girls—to act wisely in human relations” (Thorndike 1920, p. 228). The study of FC specificity from an individual differences perspective helps understanding the mechanisms underlying domainspecific cognitive abilities, but is imperative due to the crucial role of facial information in everyday life. In this focused review, we aim to summarize and integrate recent discoveries pertaining to the specificity of processing invariant aspects of human faces, such as identity, the spatial organization of facial features, or gender. We (6) suggest a neurocognitive model of face specificity considering both accuracy and speed tasks and (7) provide recommendations for future studies These different sections of the review serve the purpose of addressing two overarching questions. Is there face specificity in performance measures in difficult and easy tasks, and, if so, which rules determine whether face specificity arises? Secondly, once we understand the psychometric structure of FC in easy and difficult tasks, how should we integrate these abilities into the nomological net of cognitive abilities, such as the CHC model (McGrew 2009)?

How Special Are Faces?
On Accuracy- and Speed-Related Face Cognition Abilities
Conditions of Face Specificity
No Specificity in Speed
Specificity in Speed
What Differentiates the Studies?
Proposal for an Explanatory Model of Face Cognition Specificity
Neurocognitive Mechanisms Underlying Specificity in Accuracy and Speed
Future Directions
Findings
Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call