Week 4 Flashcards
Is it natural behaviour when we know we are being tracked?
In a study, participants were asked to do a task on a computer and next to them was a swimwear model in a calender next to the computer. They found that when people wernt being eyetracked they looked at the calander alot, but when they were being eyetracked they did not look (they were making prosocial avoident eyemovments)
This was problomatic, because it means that we are not measuring natural behaviour when we us eye tracking devices
However, another study (FIND study) established that if you give people a decent enough aclimatisation period of wearing the eyetracker then they will revert back to the same behaviours
They will look at the calander
This is important finding, because we want to know that people act as natural as possible when completing these tasks (to increase ecological validity)
Boz et al
dual eye-tracking study recording gaze of human conversational pairs
the goal was to gain insight into what characteristics of the conversation partners influence behavior
Participants were instructed that they were allowed to discuss any topic they wanted
Results: • These results suggest that mutual gaze behavior during an interaction depends on the characteristics of both participants.
• The amount of gaze by the high gaze participant in an interaction was correlated with more gaze away from one another and less mutual gaze. ○ The authors hypothesize that high amounts of gaze may cause a partner to avoid returning gaze.
Conclusion - Mutual gaze is an outcome of interaction
Ho, Foulsham and Kingstone (2015)
Were interested in turn taking and signalling during interactions (through eye gaze)
Method: participants chose whether to play the game “Heads Up” or “20 Questions” while wearing eye tracking devices
Results: When someone is the speaker they tend to spend less time gazing because they have the floor (they might do some check ins to see if you are listening)
When you are the listener, you are looking at the speaker more the get more visual attention
This role swaps throughout the conversation
We only know this through eye tracking
Rogers, Speelman, Guidetti & Longmuir (2018)
Participants were not instructed to have a natural getting to know you chat for around 4 mins
Results: Mutual FACE gaze occurred around 60% of the time in these 4 min conversations
Mutual EYE gaze occurred anywhere between 0-45% of the conversations – however participants estimated that this was occurring at 70%!!
CONCLUSION:
perhaps we use mutual FACE gaze more then EYE gaze
&
everyone has their own preference as to where they look
Richardson and colleagues
the study looked at gaze coordination during live dialogue
Participants were partnered and tasked with engaging in a live, spontaneous dialogue (about Friends or The Simpsons) whilst looking at pictures of the cast
The findings again demonstrated that participants’ eye movements were coupled, with conversers most likely to be looking at the same thing at the same time
○ That makes sense
○ If I’m talking about Monica and chandler, you are also going to look at them
THIS IS LIKELY DUE TO COMMON GROUND
What is common ground
Could be ‘common ground’ (Clark, 1996) – the knowledge, beliefs and assumptions shared between people.
What is social referencing and describe a study which explains it?
Social referencing is where a person seeks out the response of a potentially victimised group member to help them assess the situation (Crosby, 2006)
– To look at a person who is being discussed to see ACCESS THE SITUATION
STUDY
one participant said an offensive remark about a black individual, and in there was a black individual in the study
In an introductory passage of the video it was established that either all participants could hear each other (four person condition), or that the bottom two participants (which included the minority individual) had their headphones turned off (two person condition).
Prediction
social reference hypothesis predicts this only in the four person condition, when he can hear the potentially offensive remark and make a potentially informative reaction.
Results
in the four person condition (when all could hear), the black individual was looked at significantly more then when participants thought that he could not hear the remarks
THUS, GAZE IS USED IN THE SITUATION BECAUSE WE WANT TO INTERPRET WHAT THEY ARE THINKING
What are the 3 types of challenges that come with real-world studies?
Theoretical
Conceptual
Methodological
What are the Theoretical challenges
What does the study tell us? What is the theoretical importance of the findings? so what?
We should only be doing reseach if its going to help us understand, advance, or propose a theory, because the whole point is that we have evidence to be able to meet, support, further these arguments
There must be theory behind what we are doing, what we are doing must advance, support, or refute the theory
What are the Conceptual challenges?
Not all researchers define what they mean with the terms or concepts they measure
For example, if we were doing a review of eyetracking studies everyone may have different definitions of attention
What are the Methodological challenges?
(1) Control (or lack of!)
(2) Volume of data
(3) Manual coding
(4) Calibration techniques
(5) Sensitivity to movement/conditions
(6) Is it natural behaviour when we know we are being tracked?
