Eyes keep watch over you! Competition enhances joint attention in females
Introduction
Orienting attention in the same direction where other individuals are looking at, known as joint attention, is a foundational ability guiding social interactions and communication (Langton, Watt, & Bruce, 2000). The gaze-mediated orienting of attention allows the observer to infer other people's mental states (i.e., the focus of their attention; e.g. Baron-Cohen, 1995), and to understand and predict their future actions (e.g., Innocenti et al., 2012, Pierno et al., 2006).
Even though there are several indications of the automatic and reflexive nature of the mechanisms underlying the gaze-mediated orienting of attention (e.g., Galfano et al., 2012, Hayward and Ristic, 2013; but see Frischen, Bayliss, & Tipper, 2007 for a review), recent studies suggested that joint attention orienting may not be purely bottom-up driven, but it is rather influenced by top-down processes that interpret the averted gaze based on its relevance for the task (e.g., Ricciardelli, Carcagno, Vallar, & Bricolo, 2013), and in comparison to other stimuli in the environment (e.g., Greene et al., 2009, Ristic and Kingstone, 2005).
Furthermore, there are recent reports that joint attention is influenced by implicit and explicit social information associated to the seen person, such as age (Ciardo, Marino, Actis-Grosso, Rossetti, & Ricciardelli, 2014), facial emotional expression (e.g., Bonifacci, Ricciardelli, Lugli, & Pellicano, 2008), gender (Ohlsen, van Zoest, & van Vugt, 2013), race (Pavan, Dalmaso, Galfano, & Castelli, 2011), social status (e.g., Dalmaso, Pavan, Castelli, & Galfano, 2012) and political affiliation (Liuzza et al., 2011). For instance, Liuzza et al. (2011), using an oculomotor task, reported that political affiliation enhanced joint attention for in-group voters while it inhibited it for out-group voters. Similar results have been reported by Pavan et al. (2011) who investigated the impact of racial group membership on covert orienting of joint attention and reported that White participants selectively shifted their attention in response to the averted gaze of own-race individuals only. Therefore, person categorization seems to regulate joint attention.
The way we perceive and categorize others may depend on the type of relationship we have with them. Group membership acts as a strong categorization cue. There are indications that the need to cooperate or to compete leads to in-group/out-group differentiations, with individuals perceiving themselves as part of the same social group when they need to cooperate with each other. On the contrary, when the others represent an obstacle toward the attainment of a goal, they are more likely perceived as out-group members (e.g., Rabbie & Horwitz, 1969). In general, competitive interactions have been shown to increase perceived intergroup and interpersonal differences (e.g., Toma, Yzerbyt, & Corneille, 2010) and to disrupt the emergence of shared task representations in joint action (e.g., Iani, Anelli, Nicoletti, Arcuri, & Rubichi, 2011). Interestingly, the effects of competition may be long lasting and transfer from one task to a subsequent one (e.g., Iani et al., 2014, Sassenberg et al., 2007).
To note, competitors are a special kind of out-group members as the achievement of their goals often coincides with the impossibility to reach ours. For these reasons, in competitive situations it appears fundamental for the observer to monitor their progress toward their goals (Poortvliet & Darnon, 2010). Evidence indicates that social interactions characterized by cooperation differently affect individual cognitive processes, such as attention, face recognition and memory, with faces of non-cooperative individuals attracting more automatic attention (e.g., Vanneste, Verplaetse, Van Hiel, & Braeckman, 2007) and being memorized more accurately (e.g., Chiappe et al., 2004, Mealy et al., 1996, Oda, 1997, Yamagishi et al., 2003) than those of cooperative individuals.
Given the above considerations, the present study aimed to better clarify how social information, in particular person categorization, influences joint attention. Since previous studies indicated that females show stronger gaze cuing effects (Bayliss, Di Pellegrino, & Tipper, 2005) and higher sensibility to social cues (e.g., Deaner, Shepherd, & Platt, 2007; see Geary, 2010 for a review) than males, to avoid additional sources of variability in the data, only female participants were included in the present study (see Bayliss, Schuch, & Tipper, 2010). Specifically, we run two experiments to investigate whether the gaze-cuing effect is modulated by the cooperative and competitive behavior associated to a cuing face during a prior interaction. In Experiment 1, we included only individuals classified as average in competition, as measured through the Competitiveness Index Questionnaire developed by Smither and Houston (1992). In Experiment 2, participants rated as high and low in competitiveness were included.
In both experiments, we employed a standard gaze-cuing paradigm (Driver et al., 1999) and manipulated the relationship between the participant and the cuing faces via a preliminary learning phase in which participants associated faces of simulated opponents with a cooperative or competitive behavior. In this phase, participants were required to play a series of single-shot games of a modified version of the two-choice Prisoner's Dilemma against eight simulated contenders. After participants had indicated their response at the social dilemma game, they were shown a fictive feedback indicating if the opponents chose to cooperate or compete with them. Opponents' faces were then used as stimuli in the subsequent standard gaze-cuing task.
Section snippets
Experiment 1
The present experiment aimed at investigating whether the gaze-cuing effect (i.e., the tendency for observers to respond faster to targets in locations that were cued by others' gaze direction than to not-cued targets) is modulated by the type of relationship (i.e., cooperative or competitive) established during a previous interaction with a cuing face. Since individuals' competitiveness levels may affect how situations and others are perceived (e.g., Houston, Kinnie, Lupo, Terry, & Ho, 2000),
Experiment 2
The results of Experiment 1 indicate that females characterized by an average level of competition are more likely to orient their attention in the same gaze direction of faces that during a prior interaction were associated with a competitive behavior. Since only average competitive females were tested, it is not possible to assess whether this result represents a consistent behavior within the female population or rather is influenced by the competitiveness level displayed by participants, as
General discussion
The results of the present study demonstrate that the type of relationship (i.e., cooperative or competitive) established during a previous interaction with a cuing face can modulate the gaze-cuing effect in female participants characterized by low and average levels of competition, who oriented their attention in the same gaze direction of faces that during the social dilemma were associated with a competitive behavior, irrespective of their gender. Differently, females characterized by a high
Funding
PR was supported by a grant from Università di Milano — Bicocca (Fondo di Ateneo 2012).
References (50)
The eyes have it: The neuroethology, function and evolution of social gaze
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
(2000)- et al.
Do the eyes have it? Cues to the direction of social attention
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
(2000) Biased face recognition in the prisoner's dilemma game
Evolution and Human Behavior
(1997)- et al.
Taking control of reflexive social attention
Cognition
(2005) - et al.
The carry-over effect of competition: The impact of competition on prejudice towards uninvolved outgroups
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
(2007) - et al.
Social status gates social attention in monkeys
Current Biology
(2006) - et al.
Anticipated cooperation vs. competition moderates interpersonal projection
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
(2010) - et al.
Attention bias toward noncooperative people. A dot probe classification study in cheating detection
Evolution and Human Behavior
(2007) Effects of cooperative and competitive outcome dependency on attention and impression preferences
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
(1998)- et al.
You can judge a book by its cover: Evidence that cheaters may look different from cooperators
Evolution and Human Behavior
(2003)
Moving beyond the mean in studies of mental chronometry: The power of response time distributional analyses
Current Directions in Psychological Science
Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind
Sex differences in eye gaze and symbolic cueing of attention
The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
Gaze cuing elicited by emotional faces is influenced by affective context
Visual Cognition
Predictive gaze cues and personality judgments should eye trust you?
Psychological Science
Emotional attention: Effects of emotion and gaze direction on overt orienting of visual attention
Cognitive Processing
Interaction goals and social information processing: Underestimating one's partners but overestimating one's opponents
Social Cognition
Cheaters are looked at longer and remembered better than cooperators in social exchange situations
Evolutionary Psychology
Face age modulates gaze following in young adults
Scientific Reports
Social status gates social attention in humans
Biology Letters
Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus–response correspondence
Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance
Familiarity accentuates gaze cuing in women but not men
Biology Letters
Gaze perception triggers reflexive visuospatial orienting
Visual Cognition
Gaze cueing of attention: Visual attention, social cognition, and individual differences
Psychological Bulletin
Eye gaze cannot be ignored (but neither can arrows)
The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
Cited by (27)
If it looks like a human and speaks like a human. Communication and cooperation in strategic Human–Robot interactions
2023, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental EconomicsJoint action with artificial agents: Human-likeness in behaviour and morphology affects sensorimotor signaling and social inclusion
2022, Computers in Human BehaviorCitation Excerpt :Previous evidence showed that the perceived similarity between self and partner is crucial in affecting social cognition mechanisms (Ciardo et al., 2021). Ciardo and colleagues showed that joint attention is influenced by both implicit and explicit cues of similarity elicited by age (Ciardo et al., 2014; 2021) or the attitude of the partner during the interaction (Ciardo et al., 2015). Similarly in our study, participants might have perceived the human-like behaviour as a more cooperative attitude.
Social categorization and joint attention: Interacting effects of age, sex, and social status
2021, Acta PsychologicaCitation Excerpt :During social interactions, another way to access person-related information about people, other than through direct visual analysis of facial features, is through learning or recalling of personal information associated with the face. There is increasing evidence that JA can be modulated by information derived from long-term memories or associative links between the representation of a seen face, its identity and person-related information such as political affiliation (Liuzza et al., 2011, 2013), social status (Dalmaso et al., 2012; Dalmaso et al., 2014), and personal attitude (e.g., competitive attitude Ciardo et al., 2015). The modulatory effect of social status on JA has recently been demonstrated by Dalmaso et al. (2012 but see also Ciardo et al., 2013), who showed that the gaze-cueing effect for faces that were associated with fictional curriculum vitae before the testing phase, was greater for faces associated with information typically related to people of high social status than for faces typically related to people with low social status.
Effect of race on Gaze Cueing in adults with high and low autistic traits
2023, BMC PsychologyCultural differences in joint attention and engagement in mutual gaze with a robot face
2023, Scientific ReportsGuilt-inducing interaction with others modulates subsequent attentional orienting via their gaze
2023, Scientific Reports