gaze bias both reflects and influences preference s. shimojo, c. simion, e. shimojo, and scheier...
TRANSCRIPT
Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference
S. Shimojo, C. Simion, E. Shimojo, and Scheier
발표 : 생물심리 전공 설선혜
Introduction
Emotions and attitudes have the function of preparing people to act (i.e. approach or aversion) in such a way that the individual need not have much insight into what causes his or her behavior. (Darwin,1872)
The subjective experience of emotions is following facial expression rather than preceding it. (Zanjonc, 1985)
Implicit somatosensory inputs influence emotional and cognitive processes. (Zajonc/ Neumann and Strack, 1999)
Introduction
Orienting behavior is intrinsically linked to emotionally involved processes.
(Maner et al., 2002)
Introduction
In this study…Orienting behavior gaze directionEmotionally involved processes preference decisions
The hypothesis is…Gazing has and active role in preference formation and decision
makings.
Two experiments1. Two-alternative forced choice task2. Gaze manipulation
Experiment1: Methods
Two-alternative forced-choice task Face attractiveness rating (score 1-7) Eye movement data collection: Video-based eye tracker(30Hz) All trials were aligned at the moment of response, 1.67s before
decision. The likelihood curve was fitted with a sigmoid function
Main tasks
1) Face-attractive easy (>3.25)
2) Face-attractive difficult (<0.25)
Control tasks1) Face-roundness task
2) Face-dislike task
Experiment 1: Results
Figure 1A progressive bias in observers’ gaze toward chosen stimulus
Face attractiveness -difficult
Face-dislike
Face-roundnessFace attractiveness -easy
Fourier-descriptor-attractiveness
Experiment 1: Results
1. significant difference between the heights of likelihood curves in the main tasks and the control tasks
2. Curves did not reach a saturation level in the main tasks gaze cascade effect
Face attractiveness -difficult
Face-dislike
MainFace attractiveness -easy
Face-roundnessControl
Experiment 1: Results
Gaze cascade effect - The gaze bias is continually reinforced when attractiveness
comparisons are to be made.
Dual-contribution model
Experiment 1: Results
A larger cascade effect in the difficult task
When the cognitive biases are weak, gaze would contribute more to the decision making.
Face attractiveness -difficult
Face attractiveness -easy
Experiment 1: Results
Is it evolved from social interaction or basic orienting behavior?
Abstract shape attractiveness task
Basic orienting behavior!
Orienting is essential, particularly when the cognitive systems cannot be discriminative in making preference decisions over a rage of stimuli.
Experiment 1: Results
Is the effect relying on memory?
Two-session face attractiveness task (one-day inter delay)
1st session 2nd session Decision changed (22.3%)
No!
The cascade effect reflects the process of decision making itself.
Experiment 2: Methods
Gaze manipulation
900ms
300ms
900ms
300ms
Control (central)
Experiment 2: Results
Gaze manipulation, preference
1) Horizontal (2, 6, 12 repetitions)
2) Vertical
- to ascertain that saccade size and direction is not important
Gaze Manipulation2 repetition
Gaze Manipulation6 repetitions
Gaze Manipulation16 repetitions
Gaze Manipulationvertical
No, Central
No,Peripheral
Gaze Manipulationroundness
Percent preference for longer shown face
51.2 59.0 59.2 60.2 45.8 51.8 49.8
P-valueT-test
0.31 <0.001* <0.005* <0.0001* 0.99 0.30 0.56
Experiment 2: Results
Control
1) No gaze shift, central (retinotopically identical)
2) No gaze shift, peripheral
- to distinguish mere exposure effect from gaze bias
Gaze Manipulation2 repetition
Gaze Manipulation6 repetitions
Gaze Manipulation16 repetitions
Gaze Manipulationvertical
No, Central
No,Peripheral
Gaze Manipulationroundness
Percent preference for longer shown face
51.2 59.0 59.2 60.2 45.8 51.8 49.8
P-valueT-test
0.31 <0.001* <0.005* <0.0001* 0.99 0.30 0.56
Results: Experiment 2
Control
3) Gaze manipulation, roundness
- to find out whether specific to preference tasks.
Gaze Manipulation2 repetition
Gaze Manipulation6 repetitions
Gaze Manipulation16 repetitions
Gaze Manipulationvertical
No, Central
No,Peripheral
Gaze Manipulationroundness
Percent preference for longer shown face
51.2 59.0 59.2 60.2 45.8 51.8 49.8
P-valueT-test
0.31 <0.001* <0.005* <0.0001* 0.99 0.30 0.56
Results: Experiment 2
Gaze Manipulation2 repetition
Gaze Manipulation6 repetitions
Gaze Manipulation16 repetitions
Gaze Manipulationvertical
No, Central
No,Peripheral
Gaze Manipulationroundness
Percent preference for longer shown face
51.2 59.0 59.2 60.2 45.8 51.8 49.8
P-valueT-test
0.31 <0.001* <0.005* <0.0001* 0.99 0.30 0.56
Gaze directly influences preference formation
Table 1 Results of Experiment 2 (gaze manipulation)
Conclusion
Dual-contribution model of preference formation