Limits...
Reduced gaze following and attention to heads when viewing a "live" social scene.

Gregory NJ, Lόpez B, Graham G, Marshman P, Bate S, Kargas N - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: Results demonstrated that the social context in which the stimulus was viewed significantly influenced viewing behaviour.Specifically, participants in the social conditions allocated less visual attention towards the heads of the actors in the scene and followed their gaze less than those in the free-viewing group.These findings suggest that by underestimating the impact of social context in social attention, researchers risk coming to inaccurate conclusions about how we attend to others in the real world.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Psychology Research Centre, Faculty of Science and Technology, Bournemouth University, Poole, Dorset, United Kingdom; Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, Hampshire, United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT
Social stimuli are known to both attract and direct our attention, but most research on social attention has been conducted in highly controlled laboratory settings lacking in social context. This study examined the role of social context on viewing behaviour of participants whilst they watched a dynamic social scene, under three different conditions. In two social groups, participants believed they were watching a live webcam of other participants. The socially-engaged group believed they would later complete a group task with the people in the video, whilst the non-engaged group believed they would not meet the people in the scene. In a third condition, participants simply free-viewed the same video with the knowledge that it was pre-recorded, with no suggestion of a later interaction. Results demonstrated that the social context in which the stimulus was viewed significantly influenced viewing behaviour. Specifically, participants in the social conditions allocated less visual attention towards the heads of the actors in the scene and followed their gaze less than those in the free-viewing group. These findings suggest that by underestimating the impact of social context in social attention, researchers risk coming to inaccurate conclusions about how we attend to others in the real world.

No MeSH data available.


Mean proportion of dwell time to the heads, bodies and background of the scene across the three groups.Error bars represent standard error of the mean. Brackets indicate a significant difference at the p = .05 level.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4390321&req=5

pone.0121792.g003: Mean proportion of dwell time to the heads, bodies and background of the scene across the three groups.Error bars represent standard error of the mean. Brackets indicate a significant difference at the p = .05 level.

Mentions: An initial 2 way mixed- measures ANOVA was conducted on the proportion dwell time to the people in the scene and all other non-social objects across the three groups (free-viewing, engaged, non-engaged) during the full trial period from when both actors were present. The results confirmed findings of previous research showing that participants prefer to look at people in a scene than at non-social objects, regardless of group F(1, 68) = 1557.93, p <. 001, η2p = .958. There were no differences in this pattern across the groups, F < 1.00, p = .783. It was of importance for the current study to examine the relative dwell time allocated to the different social interest areas (heads and bodies of the actors). Therefore a second mixed-measures ANOVA was conducted with Group (free-viewing, non-engaged, engaged) as the between-participants factor and Interest Area (IA; heads, bodies, background) as the within-participants factor. Note that the IA “background” contained all of the video area except the people, including the target interest areas. A main effect of IA was found, F(1.32, 89.84) = 56.29, p <. 001, η2p = .453 (H-F criterion). Planned comparisons showed that participants spent significantly less time looking at the heads of the actors than at their bodies (p = .002) and significantly less time looking at the non-social elements of the scene than at heads (p <. 001) However, there were no differences in proportion of dwell time overall across the three groups, p = .305. There was a significant interaction between Group and IA, F(4, 136) = 11.22, p <. 001, η2p = .248. Planned comparisons across the groups showed that the free-viewing group spent significantly longer looking at the heads of the actors than the non-engaged group, p = .001, and the engaged group, p <. 001. There was no difference in the time spent looking at heads between the non-engaged and the engaged group, p = .217. Further comparisons between proportion of dwell time to bodies of the actors showed that the free-viewing group spent significantly less time looking at bodies than the non-engaged group, p <. 001, and the engaged group, p = .001. Again, there was no difference between the non-engaged group and the engaged group, p = .132. Further planned comparisons showed that there were no differences between the groups in time spent looking at the non-social elements of the scene, ps >. 400. The proportion of dwell time to the three IAs across the groups can be seen in Fig. 3.


Reduced gaze following and attention to heads when viewing a "live" social scene.

Gregory NJ, Lόpez B, Graham G, Marshman P, Bate S, Kargas N - PLoS ONE (2015)

Mean proportion of dwell time to the heads, bodies and background of the scene across the three groups.Error bars represent standard error of the mean. Brackets indicate a significant difference at the p = .05 level.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4390321&req=5

pone.0121792.g003: Mean proportion of dwell time to the heads, bodies and background of the scene across the three groups.Error bars represent standard error of the mean. Brackets indicate a significant difference at the p = .05 level.
Mentions: An initial 2 way mixed- measures ANOVA was conducted on the proportion dwell time to the people in the scene and all other non-social objects across the three groups (free-viewing, engaged, non-engaged) during the full trial period from when both actors were present. The results confirmed findings of previous research showing that participants prefer to look at people in a scene than at non-social objects, regardless of group F(1, 68) = 1557.93, p <. 001, η2p = .958. There were no differences in this pattern across the groups, F < 1.00, p = .783. It was of importance for the current study to examine the relative dwell time allocated to the different social interest areas (heads and bodies of the actors). Therefore a second mixed-measures ANOVA was conducted with Group (free-viewing, non-engaged, engaged) as the between-participants factor and Interest Area (IA; heads, bodies, background) as the within-participants factor. Note that the IA “background” contained all of the video area except the people, including the target interest areas. A main effect of IA was found, F(1.32, 89.84) = 56.29, p <. 001, η2p = .453 (H-F criterion). Planned comparisons showed that participants spent significantly less time looking at the heads of the actors than at their bodies (p = .002) and significantly less time looking at the non-social elements of the scene than at heads (p <. 001) However, there were no differences in proportion of dwell time overall across the three groups, p = .305. There was a significant interaction between Group and IA, F(4, 136) = 11.22, p <. 001, η2p = .248. Planned comparisons across the groups showed that the free-viewing group spent significantly longer looking at the heads of the actors than the non-engaged group, p = .001, and the engaged group, p <. 001. There was no difference in the time spent looking at heads between the non-engaged and the engaged group, p = .217. Further comparisons between proportion of dwell time to bodies of the actors showed that the free-viewing group spent significantly less time looking at bodies than the non-engaged group, p <. 001, and the engaged group, p = .001. Again, there was no difference between the non-engaged group and the engaged group, p = .132. Further planned comparisons showed that there were no differences between the groups in time spent looking at the non-social elements of the scene, ps >. 400. The proportion of dwell time to the three IAs across the groups can be seen in Fig. 3.

Bottom Line: Results demonstrated that the social context in which the stimulus was viewed significantly influenced viewing behaviour.Specifically, participants in the social conditions allocated less visual attention towards the heads of the actors in the scene and followed their gaze less than those in the free-viewing group.These findings suggest that by underestimating the impact of social context in social attention, researchers risk coming to inaccurate conclusions about how we attend to others in the real world.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Psychology Research Centre, Faculty of Science and Technology, Bournemouth University, Poole, Dorset, United Kingdom; Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, Hampshire, United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT
Social stimuli are known to both attract and direct our attention, but most research on social attention has been conducted in highly controlled laboratory settings lacking in social context. This study examined the role of social context on viewing behaviour of participants whilst they watched a dynamic social scene, under three different conditions. In two social groups, participants believed they were watching a live webcam of other participants. The socially-engaged group believed they would later complete a group task with the people in the video, whilst the non-engaged group believed they would not meet the people in the scene. In a third condition, participants simply free-viewed the same video with the knowledge that it was pre-recorded, with no suggestion of a later interaction. Results demonstrated that the social context in which the stimulus was viewed significantly influenced viewing behaviour. Specifically, participants in the social conditions allocated less visual attention towards the heads of the actors in the scene and followed their gaze less than those in the free-viewing group. These findings suggest that by underestimating the impact of social context in social attention, researchers risk coming to inaccurate conclusions about how we attend to others in the real world.

No MeSH data available.