Advertisement

Gaze following in multiagent contexts: Evidence for a quorum-like principle

  • Francesca Capozzi
  • Andrew P. Bayliss
  • Jelena Ristic
Brief Report

Abstract

Research shows that humans spontaneously follow another individual’s gaze. However, little remains known on how they respond when multiple gaze cues diverge across members of a social group. To address this question, we presented participants with displays depicting three (Experiment 1) or five (Experiment 2) agents showing diverging social cues. In a three-person group, one individual looking at the target (33% of the group) was sufficient to elicit gaze-facilitated target responses. With a five-person group, however, three individuals looking at the target (60% of the group) were necessary to produce the same effect. Gaze following in small groups therefore appears to be based on a quorum-like principle, whereby the critical level of social information needed for gaze following is determined by a proportion of consistent social cues scaled as a function of group size. As group size grows, greater agreement is needed to evoke joint attention.

Keywords

Gaze cuing Joint attention Small groups Social influence Socially acquired information 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Supported by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC; F.C. and J.R.), Fonds de Recherche du Québec—Société et culture (FRQSC; FC), Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada (NSERC; J.R.), William Dawson Chairs Fund (J.R.), Leverhulme Trust Project Grant RPG-2016-173 (A.P.B.). Many thanks to K. Stadel for support in data collection.

References

  1. Bayliss, A. P., Bartlett, J., Naughtin, C. K., & Kritikos, A. (2011). A direct link between gaze perception and social attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(3), 634–644.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020559 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Capozzi, F., & Ristic, J. (2018). How attention gates social interactions. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, advance online publication, 1-20.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13854
  3. Capozzi, F., Bayliss, A. P., Elena, M. R., & Becchio, C. (2015). One is not enough: Group size modulates social gaze-induced object desirability effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(3), 850–855.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0717-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Capozzi, F., Becchio, C., Willemse, C., & Bayliss, A. P. (2016). Followers are not followed: Observed group interactions modulate subsequent social attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(5), 531–535.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000167 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Capozzi, F., Cavallo, A., Furlanetto, T., & Becchio, C. (2014). Altercentric intrusions from multiple perspectives: Beyond dyads. PLOS ONE, 9(12), e114210.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114210
  6. David-Barrett, T., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2013). Processing power limits social group size: Computational evidence for the cognitive costs of sociality. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280(1765), 20131151–20131151.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.1151 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Driver, J., Davis, G., Ricciardelli, P., Kidd, P., Maxwell, E., & Baron-Cohen, S. (1999). Gaze perception triggers reflexive visuospatial orienting. Visual Cognition, 6(5), 509–540.  https://doi.org/10.1080/135062899394920 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dunbar, R. I. M., Duncan, N. D. C., & Nettle, D. (1995). Size and structure of freely forming conversational groups. Human Nature, 6(1), 67–78.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02734136 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Dyer, J. R. G., Johansson, A., Helbing, D., Couzin, I. D., & Krause, J. (2009). Leadership, consensus decision making and collective behaviour in humans. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 364(1518), 781–789.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0233 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Emery, N. J. (2000). The eyes have it: The neuroethology, function and evolution of social gaze. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 24(6), 581–604.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7634(00)00025-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Franconeri, S. L., Jonathan, S. V., & Scimeca, J. M. (2010). Tracking multiple objects is limited only by object space not by speed, time, or capacity. Psychological Science, 21(7), 920–925.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Friesen, C. K., & Kingstone, A. (1998). The eyes have it! Reflexive orienting is triggered by nonpredictive gaze. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(3), 490–495.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208827 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frischen, A., Bayliss, A. P., & Tipper, S. P. (2007). Gaze cueing of attention: Visual attention, social cognition, and individual differences. Psychological Bulletin, 133(4), 694–724.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.694 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Gallup, A. C., Hale, J. J., Sumpter, D. J. T., Garnier, S., Kacelnik, A., Krebs, J. R., & Couzin, I. D. (2012). Visual attention and the acquisition of information in human crowds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(19), 7245–7250.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1116141109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Giraldeau, L.-A., Valone, T. J., & Templeton, J. J. (2002). Potential disadvantages of using socially acquired information. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 357(1427), 1559–1566.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2002.1065 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hayward, D. A., & Ristic, J. (2015). Exposing the cuing task: The case of gaze and arrow cues. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77(4), 1088–1104.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-015-0877-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hayward, D. A., & Ristic, J. (2017). Feature and motion-based gaze cuing is linked with reduced social competence. Scientific Reports, 7, 44221.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep44221 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Insko, C. A., Smith, R. H., Alicke, M. D., Wade, J., & Taylor, S. (1985). Conformity and group size: The concern with being right and the concern with being liked. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11(1), 41–50.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167285111004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Latané, B., & Wolf, S. (1981). The social impact of majorities and minorities. Psychological Review, 88(5), 438–453.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.5.438 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  22. Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 1(4), 476–490.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210951 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. MacCoun, R. J. (2012). The burden of social proof: Shared thresholds and social influence. Psychological Review, 119(2), 345–372.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027121 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Mason, M. F., Dyer, R. L., & Norton, M. I. (2009). Neural mechanisms of social influence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110(2), 152–159.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Merkle, J. A., Sigaud, M., & Fortin, D. (2015). To follow or not? How animals in fusion-fission societies handle conflicting information during group decision-making. Ecology Letters, 18(8), 799–806.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12457 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Sumpter, D. J. T., Krause, J., James, R., Couzin, I. D., & Ward, A. J. W. (2008). Consensus decision making by fish. Current Biology, 18(22), 1773–1777.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.09.064 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Sun, Z., Yu, W., Zhou, J., & Shen, M. (2017). Perceiving crowd attention: Gaze following in human crowds with conflicting cues. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79(4), 1039–1049.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1303-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sweeny, T. D., & Whitney, D. (2014). Perceiving crowd attention: Ensemble perception of a crowd’s gaze. Psychological Science, 25(10), 1903–1913.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614544510 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Tanford, S., & Penrod, S. (1984). Social influence model: A formal integration of research on majority and minority influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 95(2), 189–225.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.2.189 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. van Vugt, M. (2014). On faces, gazes, votes, and followers: Evolutionary psychological and social neuroscience approaches to leadership. In J. Decety & Y. Christen (Eds.), New frontiers in social neuroscience (pp. 93–110). Heidelberg: Srpinger.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ward, A. J. W., & Webster, M. (2016). Sociality : The behaviour of group-living animals. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28585-6
  32. Zuberbühler, K. (2008). Gaze following. Current Biology, 18(11), R453–R455.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.03.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. World Medical Association, Inc. (WMA) (2013). WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects; 64th WMA General Assembly, Fortaleza, Brazil, October 2013. Retrieved from https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.School of PsychologyUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations