Levels of Analysis in the Behavioral Sciences Prospect for a • Psychological Social Neuroscience – Mental structures and processes • Sociocultural – Social, cultural structures and processes Berkeley Social Ontology Group • Biophysical Spring 2014 – Biological, physical structures and processes

1 2

Levels of Analysis On Terminology in the Behavioral Sciences • Physiological Psychology (1870s) Sociocultural – Animal Research Social Psychology • Neuropsychology (1955, 1963) Social Cognition – Behavioral Analysis – Insult, Injury, or Disease Psychological • Neuroscience (1963) – Interdisciplinary • Molecular/Cellular Cognitive Neuroscience Social Neuroscience •Systems • Behavioral Biophysical 3 4

Towards a Social Neuropsychology The Evolution of Klein & Kihlstrom (1998) Social Neuroscience

Neurology NEUROSCIENCE • Beginnings with Phineas Gage (1848)

Neuroanatomy Molecular – Phrenology, , and Personality Integrative and • Neuropsychological Methods, Concepts Neurophysiology Cellular Cognitive – Neurological Cases – Brain-Imaging Methods Systems Affective • But Doesn’t Solve Our Problems Behavioral Conative(?) – Requires Psychological Theory

Social – Adequate Task Analysis at Behavioral Level 5 6

1 The Rhetoric of Constraint “Rethinking Social Intelligence” Goleman (2006), p. 324 “Knowledge of the body and brain can The new neuroscientific findings on social life have usefully constrain and inspire concepts the potential to reinvigorate the social and behavioral sciences. The basic assumptions of and theories of psychological function....” economics, for example, have been challenged Cacioppo & Berntson (1992), p. 1025 by the emerging “neuro-economics”, which “Cognitive psychology underwent [a] studies the brain during decision-making. Its transformation as data about the brain findings have shaken standard thinking in began to be used to constrain theories economics…. about the cognitive processes underlying A rethinking of social intelligence should more fully memory, attention, and vision, among reflect the operation of the social brain, so adding often-ignored capacities that nonetheless other topics.” 7 matter immensely for our relationships. 8 Ochsner & Lieberman (2001), p. 726

Psychology and Neuroscience Explaining Hippocampal Amnesia Kihlstrom (2010)

• “Learning” • “Psychology without neuroscience is still the • Short-Term vs. Long-Term science of mental life. • Encoding vs. Retrieval • “Neuroscience without psychology is just the • Shallow vs. Deep Processing science of neurons.” • Procedural vs. Declarative Memory • Episodic vs. Semantic Memory • Explicit vs. Implicit Memory • Relational vs. Non-Relational Memory 9 10

Two Views of Brain Function Functional Organization of the Cortex Morgan & King (1966), Fig. 20.1

• Brain as General-Purpose Information- Processor – Learning – Associationism • Doctrine of Functional Specialization – Localization of Function – Brain Systems “The extreme frontal area of the cortex, sometimes called the prefrontal cortex, Is a region about which much has been claimed, but little has been proved.” 11 12

2 The Doctrine of Modularity Fodor (1983) Examples of Modularity • Domain-Specific Transducers • Mandatory • • Limited Central Access • Visual Perception Modules •Fast • Informationally Encapsulated • Motor Behavior Central System(s) • Shallow Outputs – Including • Characteristic Breakdown • Social Cognition? (Outputs) • Characteristic Development – And other aspects of social interaction • Fixed Neural Architecture

13 14

The Phrenological Faculties Spurzheim (1834) A Classic Phrenological Head

New York Times 15 16

Social Faculties in Phrenology Gross (1998) Milestones in Functional Specialization 1. Destructiveness after Spurzheim (1834) 2. Amativeness 3. Philoprogenitiveness • Language Function 4. Adhesiveness 5. Inhabitiveness – Broca (1860) 6. Combativeness 7. Secretiveness • Motor (Expressive) 8. Acquisitiveness 10. Cautiousness – Wernicke (1874) 11. Approbativeness • Sensory (Receptive) Aphasia 12. Self-Esteem 13. Benevolence • Personality and Social Interaction 14. Veneration 16. Conscientiousness – Harlow (1848, 1850, 1868) 17. Hope 20. Mirthfulness • The Case of Phineas Gage 21. Imitativeness 22. Individuality 33. Language 35. Causality 17 18

3 The Case of Phineas Gage Harlow (1848, 1850, 1868; Macmillan (1986, 2000)

• Duttonville (Cavendish), Vermont – 4:30 PM, Wednesday, September 13, 1848 • Foreman on Railroad Construction Crew – Rutland & Burlington Railroad – Tamping Blasting Powder into Rock • 3’8” Long, 1-1/4” Diameter • Treated by John Martyn Harlow • Survived, Returned Home to Lebanon, N.H.

– 12 Weeks After Near-Total Frontal Lobotomy19 20

Harlow’s Final Assessment of Gage Phineas Gage Harlow (1868), in Macmillan (2000) Macmillan (2000)

The equilibrium or balance, so to speak, between his intellectual faculties and animal propensities, seems to have been destroyed. He is fitful, irreverent, indulging at times in the grossest profanity (which was not previously his custom), manifesting but little deference for his fellows, impatient of restraint or advice when it conflicts with his desires, at times pertinaciously obstinate, yet capricious and vacillating, devising many plans of future operation, which are no sooner arranged than they are abandoned in turn for others appearing more feasible. A child in his intellectual capacity and manifestations, he has the animal passions of a strong man. Previous to his injury, though untrained in the schools, he possessed a well-balanced mind, and was looked upon by those who knew him as a shrewd, smart business man, very energetic and persistent in executing all his plans of operation. In this regard he mind was radically changed, so decidedly that his friends 21 and acquaintances said he was “no longer Gage.” 22 Illustrations from Macmillan (2000)

Gage Was “No longer Gage” Harlow (1868)

Premorbid Personality Postmorbid Personality • Efficient, Capable • Fitful • Shrewd, Smart • Capricious • Energetic • Impatient of Advice • Persistent • Obstinate • Lacking in Deference

23 24

4 Immediate Aftermath Gage’s Injury Harlow (1868), Macmillan (1986, 2000) 1. Destructiveness 2. Amativeness 3. Philoprogenitiveness • Attempted to return to work, 1849 4. Adhesiveness 5. Inhabitiveness – First Epileptic Seizure 6. Combativeness 7. Secretiveness • Traveled Around New England 1849-1851 8. Acquisitiveness 10. Cautiousness – Barnum’s Museum (?) 11. Approbativeness 12. Self-Esteem • Livery Stable, Stagecoaching 13. Benevolence 14. Veneration – New England, 1851-1852 16. Conscientiousness 17. Hope – Chile, 1852-1859 20. Mirthfulness 21. Imitativeness • San Francisco (1859) 22. Individuality 33. Language – Farm Laborer 35. Causality 25 – Seizures Persisted 26

Later History of Phineas Gage Malcolm Macmillan (2000) Harlow (1868), Macmillan (1986, 2000) • Died May 21, 1860 (Not 1861) – Buried at Lone Mountain Cemetery, Laurel Hill • Exhumed 1867 – Skull taken to Harvard Medical School, 1868 • David Dustin Shattuck, brother-in-law – Member of S.F. Board of Supervisors – Brain Not Preserved • Remains Removed to Colma • Cypress Abbey – Laurel Hill Mound, Pioneer Monument 27 28

Theory of Multiple Intelligences Methods for Identifying Gardner (1983) Multiple Intelligences Gardner (1983) • Linguistic • Logical-Mathematical • Identifiable Core Operations • Spatial – Impression-Formation, Causal Attribution • Musical • Bodily-Kinesthetic • Psychometrics • Intrapersonal – Vineland Test of Social Maturity – Ability to Gain Access to One’s Own • Experimental Tasks Internal, Emotional Life – Detection of Deception • Interpersonal • Exceptional Cases – Ability to Notice and Make Distinctions • Isolation by Brain Damage Among Other Individuals 29 30

5 A Faculty of Social Cognition? Isolation by Brain Damage Jackendoff (1992, 1994) • Impair Cognitive, Spare Social – Alzheimer’s Disease • Possible Central Modules – Down Syndrome – Conceptual Structure – The Case of Zazetsky (Luria, 1972) – Spatial Cognition • Impair Social, Spare Cognitive – Body Representation – The Case of Phineas Gage (Harlow, 1868) –Music? – Pick’s Disease – Social Cognition – Fronto-Temporal Dementia • Who is it? • What is this person’s relation to me and others?

31 32

Arguments for a Arguments for a Faculty of Social Cognition Faculty of Social Cognition • Domain Specificity • Universality of Cultural Parameters – Social Organization unrelated to Perception – Kinship • Specialized Input Capacities – Ingroup-Outgroup Distinctions – Face and Voice Recognition – Social Dominance – Affect Detection – Ownership, Property Rights – Intentionality – Social Roles • Developmental Priority – Group Rituals – Proper Names •Evolution • Animate vs. Inanimate Objects – Mammalian Social Structure 33 34 •Primates

Modules for Social Cognition The Face as a Social Stimulus Jackendoff (1992, 1994, 2007)

Specialized Input Universal Cultural • Universal Social Stimulus Capacities Parameters – Obvious Evolutionary Significance Face Recognition Kinship • Contact Between Infant, Caregiver Voice Recognition Ingroup vs. Outgroup Affect Detection Social Dominance – Beginnings of Attachment Intentionality Detection Ownership, Property • Face in Social Interaction Rights – Physical Attraction Social Roles Developmental Priority – Communicate Emotion Animate vs. Inanimate Group Rituals – Cues to Deception Proper Names 35 36

6 Aspects of Face Perception Bruce & Young (1986). Visual Object

• Structural Description • Can Describe an Object – Viewpoint-Centered • But Cannot… – Expression-Independent – Name Object • Expression Analysis – Recognize Object as Familiar • Facial Speech Analysis – Demonstrate How Object is Used • Face Recognition • Name Generation “Normal Percept Stripped of Meaning” Dissociations Among Neurological Patients 37 38 Analogous to Dyslexias

Prosopagnosia The Fusiform Face Area? Bodamer (1947) In Extra-Striate Cortex Sergent et al. (1992); Kanwisher et al. (1997) • Specific Deficit in Recognizing Faces – Not in Perceiving, Describing Faces – Inability to Put Name to Face •“Pure” – Specific to Face

• Bilateral Damage, Visual Association Cortex – Occipital, Temporal Lobes • Brodmann’s Areas 18, 19, 37 The Face Area? – The “Face Area”? 39 40

Strong Modularity in Face Perception Levels of Categorization Kanwisher (2000) Gauthier (1998); Gauthier & Tarr (2000); Tarr & Gauthier (2000) “a cognitive function with its own private piece of real estate in the brain” • Basic Object Level • “What is this?”

• Subordinate Level • “Who is this?”

41 42

7 Levels of Categorization The Entry-Level Shift Gauthier (1998); Gauthier & Tarr (2000); Tarr & Gauthier (2000) Bukach et al. (2006) after Rosch ((1976)

• Subordinate Object Level • “What is this?”

• Subordinate Level • “Who is this?”

43 44

Is it a bird? Is it a Pelican? Gauthier et al. (1997) Categorization and Expertise Bukach, Gauthier, & Tarr (2006)

• Expertise –Cars –Birds • Expert Training – Greebles – Snowflakes – Fingerprints

45 46

Expertise and Categorization Level Gauthier et al. (2000)

“Greeble” Stimulus Figures Gauthier, Behrmann, & Tarr (1999), Exps. 3-4; Scott Yu

47 48

8 The FFA in Greeble Identification Gauthier et al. (1999)

Face and Snowflake Stimuli Gauthier, Behrmann, & Tarr (1999), Exps. 7, 9

49 50

Fusiform Face Area or Alternative Interpretations of the FFA Flexible Fusiform Area? Tarr & Gautier (2000) • Fusiform Face Area • Localization of Content – Dedicated to Face Identification – Recognition of Faces vs. Nonfaces • Flexible Fusiform Area • Localization of Function – Dedicated to Subordinate-Level Classification – Recognition at Subordinate Levels of • Faces a Universal Example Categorization • Also Underlies Other Areas of Expertise • Specific Faces, Nonfaces • Fusiform Face Area Redux – Programmed for Face Identification – Can Be Recruited for Other Areas of Expertise 51 52

The Problem of Spatial Blurring Stimulus Materials for HR-fMRI McGugin et al. (2012) McGugin et al. (2012)

• Limited Resolution of Standard FMRI – Used in Expertise Studies • True FFA Revealed by High-Resolution fMRI – Have Not Measured Expertise • Nonface-Selective Regions Border True FFA – Need High-Resolution fMRI to Separate Them

53 54

9 The FFA in a Car-Expert McGugin et al. (2012)

55 56

57 58

The Bottom Line (So Far) on the FFA McGugin et al. (2012) Prospect for a Social Neuroscience • When You Don’t Consider Expertise – HR-fMRI Reveals Face-Selective Regions • The Social Psychology May Be Right or • When You Do Consider Expertise Wrong. – Object Sensitivity Present in “FFA” • The Neuroscience May Be Right or • Expertise Overlaps with Face-Selectivity Wrong. – Tight Spatial Contiguity • But If the Social Psychology is Wrong, – Especially When Expertise Involves Holistic the Social Neuroscience Can’t Be Right. Processing • Face-Selectivity Still Possible – At Level of Individual Neurons 59 60

10