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

Given capacity limits, only a subset of stimuli 1 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 three 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 three 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.

War and culture studies in 2016. Putting 'translation' into the transnational?

The first issue of the 'Journal of War and Culture Studies' in 2008 mapped out the academic space which the discipline sought to occupy. Nearly a decade later, the location of war, traditionally within the nation-state, is being challenged in ways which arguably affect the analytical spaces of War and Culture Studies. The article argues for an overt engagement with a reconceptualization of the location of war as broader in both spatial and temporal terms than the nation-state. Within this framing, it identifies local 'contact zones' which are multi-vocal translational spaces, and calls for an incorporation of 'translation' into our analyses of war: translating identities, including associations of the material as well as of subjective identities, and espousing a conscious interdisciplinarity which might lead us to focus more on the performative than the representational. Putting 'translation' into the 'transnational' marks the spaces of War and culture studies as multilingual, making accessible the cultural products and cultural analyses of a much broader range of sources and reflections. The article calls for the discipline of Translation Studies to become a leading contributor to War and Culture Studies in the years to come.