Faces in the face of death: Effects of exposure to life-threatening events and mortality salience on facial expression recognition in combat and noncombat military veterans

Soldiers in war zones often experience life-threatening events that put their lives at stake. The present study examined how these exposures shape soldiers' social behavior, manifested by recognition of facial expressions. In addition, we investigated how explicit awareness of one's eventual death affects sensitivity to facial expressions. Veterans of elite military combat units were exposed to conditions of mortality or pain salience and later requested to label the emotions depicted in threatening and nonthreatening faces. Combat veterans were more accurate than noncombat veterans in identifying threatening expressions, both in mortality or pain salience induction (Experiment 1) or under no induction at all (Experiment 2). In addition, noncombat veterans primed with mortality salience identified fear expressions more accurately than those primed with pain salience. Finally, mortality salience improved accuracy for nonthreatening expressions for all veterans. The present results demonstrate that fear of death, resulting from exposure to concrete life-endangering perils or from thoughts on human's inevitable death, influences perception of facial expressions, which is critical for successful interpersonal communication. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).     

“The voice is the voice of Jacob, but the hands are the hands of Esau”: Isaac Abravanel between Judah Halevi and Moses Maimonides

The authors of this essay originally hypothesized that Abravanel was attracted to Halevi with his heart, as it were, but in the end was forced back into the Maimonidean fold by his intellect. However it became clear that Abravanel was much closer to Halevi than we originally thought. Both Abravanel and Halevi distinguish between the realm in which philosophic naturalism, science, and intellect reign and the realm in which prophecy reigns. Philosophy, science, and intellect have much to contribute to the first realm (and thus it is unfair to characterize either of them as anti-rationalist) but—and here Abravanel and Halevi differ crucially from Maimonides—they have nothing to contribute to the second realm. Maimonides had earned an immovable place in the heart of Judaism. His radical interpreters, who according to Abravanel were not always wrong, presented a figure who was dangerous to the beliefs of the average Jews. His response was complex: where he could, he rescued a conservative Maimonides from the clutches of his radical expositors; where he could not, he often ignored Maimonides’ dangerous views while presenting a more traditional picture of Judaism, a picture very close to that presented by Halevi. Nevertheless, he cited Halevi only rarely for two reasons: First, Abravanel accepted much of what Halevi taught as simply the correct interpretation of Judaism. Second, too much reliance on Halevi might draw attention to the fact that Maimonides often disagreed with him, and, by implication, with the teachings of Torah as properly understood. Abravanel’s great intellectual honesty forced him to admit this on various occasions.