Distinguishing Social From Private Intentions Through the Passive Observation of Gaze Cues.
Bayesian multilevel models
communicative intention
eye contact
gaze cueing
ostension
social gaze
Journal
Frontiers in human neuroscience
ISSN: 1662-5161
Titre abrégé: Front Hum Neurosci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101477954
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
03
07
2019
accepted:
02
12
2019
entrez:
11
1
2020
pubmed:
11
1
2020
medline:
11
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Observing others' gaze is most informative during social encounters between humans: We can learn about potentially salient objects in the shared environment, infer others' mental states and detect their communicative intentions. We almost automatically follow the gaze of others in order to check the relevance of the target of the other's attention. This phenomenon called gaze cueing can be conceptualized as a triadic interaction involving a gaze initiator, a gaze follower and a gaze target, i.e., an object or person of interest in the environment. Gaze cueing can occur as "gaze pointing" with a communicative or "social" intention by the initiator, telling the observer that she/he is meant to follow, or as an incidental event, in which the observer follows spontaneously without any intention of the observed person. Here, we investigate which gaze cues let an observer ascribe a social intention to the observed person's gaze and whether and to which degree previous eye contact in combination with an object fixation contributes to this ascription. We varied the orientation of the starting position of gaze toward the observer and the orientation of the end position of a lateral gaze shift. In two experiments participants had to infer from the gaze behavior either mere approach ("the person looked at me") vs. a social ("the person wanted to show me something") or a social vs. a private motivation ("the person was interested in something"). Participants differentially attributed either approach behavior, a social, or a private intention to the agent solely based on the passive observation of the two specific gaze cues of start and end position. While for the attribution of privately motivated behavior, participants relied solely on the end position of the gaze shift, the social interpretation of the observed behavior depended additionally upon initial eye contact. Implications of these results for future social gaze and social cognition research in general are discussed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31920600
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2019.00442
pmc: PMC6928136
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
442Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Jording, Engemann, Eckert, Bente and Vogeley.
Références
Cogn Sci. 2018 May;42 Suppl 1:161-185
pubmed: 29094383
Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2007 Oct 1;16(5):269-274
pubmed: 19343102
Trends Cogn Sci. 2009 Apr;13(4):148-53
pubmed: 19285912
Cognition. 2015 Mar;136:359-64
pubmed: 25540833
Neuroimage. 2014 Nov 1;101:124-37
pubmed: 24996121
Child Dev. 2018 Nov;89(6):2091-2098
pubmed: 29315501
Curr Biol. 2008 May 6;18(9):668-71
pubmed: 18439827
Sociometry. 1965 Sep;28:289-304
pubmed: 14341239
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2011 Apr 12;366(1567):1149-57
pubmed: 21357237
Trends Cogn Sci. 2009 Mar;13(3):127-34
pubmed: 19217822
Psychol Sci. 2006 Jun;17(6):506-13
pubmed: 16771801
Front Psychol. 2018 Feb 26;9:226
pubmed: 29535666
Curr Biol. 2013 Apr 22;23(8):717-21
pubmed: 23562265
J Exp Child Psychol. 2003 Jul;85(3):199-212
pubmed: 12810035
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2011 Feb;73(2):291-6
pubmed: 21264723
Proc Biol Sci. 2017 Mar 15;284(1850):null
pubmed: 28250186
Front Integr Neurosci. 2010 Mar 19;4:5
pubmed: 20428494
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016 Jan 19;371(1686):20150080
pubmed: 26644598
Front Psychol. 2019 Aug 21;10:1913
pubmed: 31496976
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2007 Mar;2(1):52-61
pubmed: 18985119
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2011 Sep;6(4):486-94
pubmed: 20650942
J Ophthalmol. 2014;2014:503645
pubmed: 25431659
Perception. 1995;24(11):1297-313
pubmed: 8643334
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2000 Aug;24(6):581-604
pubmed: 10940436
Exp Psychol. 2006;53(2):117-22
pubmed: 16909936
Sci Rep. 2014 Jun 16;4:5304
pubmed: 24931735
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2017 Aug;70(8):1713-1721
pubmed: 27327894
Psychol Bull. 1986 Jul;100(1):78-100
pubmed: 3526377
Cognition. 2008 Aug;108(2):303-19
pubmed: 18371943
Neural Netw. 2010 Oct-Nov;23(8-9):1077-90
pubmed: 20620019
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2013 Dec;37(10 Pt 2):2516-28
pubmed: 23928088
J Autism Dev Disord. 2001 Feb;31(1):5-17
pubmed: 11439754
Psychon Bull Rev. 2006 Dec;13(6):1061-6
pubmed: 17484436
Am J Psychol. 1963 Sep;76:386-94
pubmed: 13947729
Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Oct 15;8:807
pubmed: 25360098
J Cogn Neurosci. 2004 Dec;16(10):1854-63
pubmed: 15701234
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2009 Jun;33(6):843-63
pubmed: 19428496
Trends Cogn Sci. 2008 Jul;12(7):254-8
pubmed: 18555735
Psychol Bull. 2007 Jul;133(4):694-724
pubmed: 17592962