Mask wearing plays a vital role in the fight against the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). Despite its ubiquity in everyday social life, it is still unknown how masked faces are mentally represented. Drawing on construal-level theory, we test the hypothesis that masked faces and unmasked faces are implicitly associated with psychological distance and proximity in memory, respectively. Four preregistered, high-powered experiments (N = 354 adults) using the Implicit Association Test lend convergent support to this hypothesis across all four dimensions of psychological distance: social distance, spatial distance, temporal distance, and hypothetical distance. A mini meta-analysis validates the reliability of the findings (Hedge’s g = 0.46). The present work contributes to the growing literature on construal-level effects on implicit social cognition and enriches the current discussion on mask wearing in the pandemic and beyond.
AmitE.AlgomD.TropeY. (2009). Distance-dependent processing of pictures and words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3), 400–415. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015835
2.
AmitE.MehoudarE.TropeY.YovelG. (2012). Do object-category selective regions in the ventral visual stream represent perceived distance information?Brain and Cognition, 80(2), 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2012.06.006
3.
AviezerH.TropeY.TodorovA. (2012a). Body cues, not facial expressions, discriminate between intense positive and negative emotions. Science, 338(6111), 1225–1229.
4.
AviezerH.TropeY.TodorovA. (2012b). Holistic person processing: Faces with bodies tell the whole story. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(1), 20–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027411
5.
BanseR.SeiseJ.ZerbesN. (2001). Implicit attitudes towards homosexuality: Reliability, validity, and controllability of the IAT. Zeitschrift für experimentelle Psychologie, 48(2), 145–160.
6.
Bar-AnanY.LibermanN.TropeY. (2006). The association between psychological distance and construal level: Evidence from an implicit association test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(4), 609.
7.
BetschC.KornL.SprengholzP.FelgendreffL.EitzeS.SchmidP.BöhmR. (2020). Social and behavioral consequences of mask policies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(36), 21851–21853.
8.
CarbonC. C. (2020). Wearing face masks strongly confuses counterparts in reading emotions. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2526.
9.
ChuD. K.AklE. A.DudaS.SoloK.YaacoubS.SchünemannH. J.El-harakehA.BognanniA.LotfiT.LoebM. (2020). Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-coV-2 and COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet, 395(10242), 1973–1987.
10.
EbnerN. C.RiedigerM.LindenbergerU. (2010). FACES—eine datenbank von gesichtsausdrücken bei jungen, mittelalten und älteren frauen und männern: Entwicklung und validierung [FACES—A database of facial expressions in young, middle-aged, and older women and men: Development and validation]. Behavior Research Methods, 42(1), 351–362. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.1.351
11.
FatfoutaR.OganianY. (2020). Bargaining under social distancing requirements: Effects of face masks on socio-economic decision-making in the COVID-19 pandemic. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/cn7by
12.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
13.
FiedlerK.JungJ.WänkeM.AlexopoulosT. (2012). On the relations between distinct aspects of psychological distance: An ecological basis of construal-level theory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(5), 1014–1021.
14.
FiedlerK.JungJ.WänkeM.AlexopoulosT.de MolièreL. (2015). Toward a deeper understanding of the ecological origins of distance construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 57, 78–86.
15.
FikenzerS.UheT.LavallD.RudolphU.FalzR.BusseM.HeppP.LaufsU. (2020). Effects of surgical and FFP2/N95 face masks on cardiopulmonary exercise capacity. Clinical Research in Cardiology, 109(12), 1522–1530.
16.
FreudE.StajduharA.RosenbaumR. S.AvidanG.GanelT. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic masks the way people perceive faces. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 1–8.
17.
GawronskiB. (2019). Six lessons for a cogent science of implicit bias and its criticism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(4), 574–595.
18.
GawronskiB.PayneB. K. (2011). Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications. Guilford Press.
19.
GohJ. X.HallJ. A.RosenthalR. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(10), 535–549.
20.
GreenhalghT.SchmidM. B.CzypionkaT.BasslerD.GruerL. (2020). Face masks for the public during the COVID-19 crisis. BMJ (Clinical Research ed.), 369, m1435. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1435
21.
GreenwaldA. G.BanajiM. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.4
22.
GreenwaldA. G.McGheeD. E.SchwartzJ. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480.
23.
GreenwaldA. G.NosekB. A.BanajiM. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 197–216.
24.
GreenwaldA. G.NosekB. A.BanajiM. R.KlauerK. C. (2005). Validity of the salience asymmetry interpretation of the implicit association test: Comment on Rothermund and Wentura (2004). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134(3), 420–425.
25.
HassinR.TropeY. (2000). Facing faces: Studies on the cognitive aspects of physiognomy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 837–852. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.837
HollandsG. J.MarteauT. M.FletcherP. C. (2016). Non-conscious processes in changing health-related behaviour: A conceptual analysis and framework. Health Psychology Review, 10(4), 381–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2015.1138093
29.
JHU. (2021). COVID-19 dashboard by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU). https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html
30.
KroschA. R.AmodioD. M. (2019). Scarcity disrupts the neural encoding of black faces: A socioperceptual pathway to discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(5), 859.
31.
LeBonG. (2002). The crowd: A study of the popular mind. Dover Publications. (Original work published 1895)
32.
LibermanN.TropeY. (2008). The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science, 322(5905), 1201–1205.
33.
MaglioS. J.TropeY.LibermanN. (2013). The common currency of psychological distance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(4), 278–282.
34.
MarchioriM. (2020). COVID-19 and the social distancing paradox: Dangers and solutions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.12446
35.
NosekB. A.HawkinsC. B.FrazierR. S. (2011). Implicit social cognition: From measures to mechanisms. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(4), 152–159.
36.
RatnerK. G.AmodioD. M. (2013). Seeing us vs. them: Minimal group effects on the neural encoding of faces. Journal of experimental social psychology, 49(2), 298–301.
37.
ReimersS.StewartN. (2015). Presentation and response timing accuracy in Adobe Flash and HTML5/Javascript web experiments. Behavior Research Methods, 47(2), 309–327.
38.
RimS.MinK. E.LiuP. J.ChartrandT. L.TropeY. (2019). The gift of psychological closeness: How feasible versus desirable gifts reduce psychological distance to the giver. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(3), 360–371.
39.
RothermundK.WenturaD. (2004). Underlying processes in the implicit association test: Dissociating salience from associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2), 139–165.
40.
SchmukleS. C.EgloffB. (2006). Assessing anxiety with extrinsic Simon tasks. Experimental Psychology, 53(2), 149–160.
41.
Schröder-AbéM.FatfoutaR. (2018). Implicit measures. In the SAGE handbook of personality and individual differences: The science of personality and individual differences. (pp. 287–304). SAGE Reference. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526451163.n13
42.
ScudellariM. (2020). How the pandemic might play out in 2021 and beyond. Nature, 584(7819), 22–25.
43.
SeresG.BalleyerA. H.CeruttiN.DanilovA.FriedrichsenJ.LiuY.SüerM. (2020). Face masks increase compliance with physical distancing recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Argument, 20, 44.
44.
SeresG.BalleyerA. H.CeruttiN.FriedrichsenJ. (2020). Face mask use and physical distancing before and after mandatory masking: Evidence from public waiting lines. SSRN 3641367.https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3641367
45.
SheeranP.GollwitzerP. M.BarghJ. A. (2013). Nonconscious processes and health. Health Psychology, 32(5), 460.
SnefjellaB.KupermanV. (2015). Concreteness and psychological distance in natural language use. Psychological Science, 26(9), 1449–1460.
48.
SoderbergC. K.CallahanS. P.KochersbergerA. O.AmitE.LedgerwoodA. (2015). The effects of psychological distance on abstraction: Two meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 141(3), 525.
49.
StephanE.LibermanN.TropeY. (2010). Politeness and psychological distance: A construal level perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 268–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016960
50.
StolierR. M.HehmanE.FreemanJ. B. (2020). Trait knowledge forms a common structure across social cognition. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(4), 361–371. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0800-6
51.
TavaresR. M.MendelsohnA.GrossmanY.WilliamsC. H.ShapiroM.TropeY.SchillerD. (2015). A map for social navigation in the human brain. Neuron, 87(1), 231–243.
52.
TeseëlonE. (2001). Reflections on mask and carnival. In TseëlonE. (Ed.), Masquerade and identities: Essays on gender, sexuality and marginality. (pp. 18–37). Routledge.
53.
TodorovA. (2017). Face value: The irresistible influence of first impressions. Princeton University Press.
ZimbardoP. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation, impulse, and chaos. Nebraska symposium on motivation. University of Nebraska.
