Eye Gaze and Dominance, Cues for Online Communication with Strangers

Abstract

Many digital communication platforms of the new economy are built up on mechanisms to initially communicate and/or develop an acquaintance with “strangers” over displayed profile pictures. This study aims to reveal the impact of the direction of eye gaze and perceived dominance from those pictures during the process of pairing online with a stranger, for spending time in a closed environment. Preference between pairs of 66 participants through their profile pictures having a direct or averted gaze and some manipulated by facial width height ratio (fWHR) aiming to increase perceived dominance, were measured by the eye- tracking device. The findings show that when observing the profile pictures of strangers (i) gaze attracts attention to the face of gazing person, (ii) in case of perceived dominance, the gaze of a stranger induces gaze avoidance for participants. The study further predicted when the user is to prefer between pairs of people that one is perceived to be dominant, the probability of choosing the perceived non-dominant is higher. The participants’ preference of the former holdout sample was predicted consecutively by hit ratios of 81.5, 91.4 and 94.9 for three different cases. Analysis of the data revealed no systematic differences between males and females.

Keywords

• Online Communication
• Attention
• Human Face
• Perception
• Decision Making
• Avoidance
• Dominance
• Online İletişim
• Dikkat
• İnsan Yüzü
• Algı
• Karar Alma
• Kaçınma
• Dominantlık

Bakış ve Baskınlık, Yabancılar ile Online İletişime Dair İpuçları

Abstract

Yeni ekonomide, birçok dijital platform kendileri üzerinden gerçekleşecek, “yabancılar” ile kurulacak ilk iletişimde ve tanışma sürecinde profil fotoğraflarının kullanıldığı mekanizmaları kullanmaktadır. Bu çalışmada bu platformlardaki profil fotoğraflarındaki kişilerin baktığı yönün ve fotoğraftan algılanan baskınlığın, bireyin tercihleri ve davranışları üstündeki etkisinin ortaya çıkartılması amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmada 66 katılımcıya bir yabancı ile kapalı bir ortamda birlikte vakit geçirmeleri gerektiği söylenmiş, 8 ayrı fotoğraf çifti gösterilmiş ve her bir çiftten bir kişiyi tercih etmeleri istenmiştir. Bu süreçte katılımcının tercihlerinin yanında ekranda baktığı noktalar da göz takip cihazı ile kayıt altına alınmıştır. Çalışmada direkt bakan, farklı yöne bakan ve baskınlığı arttırmak için en-boy oranı manipüle edilmiş profil fotoğrafları kullanılmıştır. Çalışmadan elde edilen bulgularda, (i) direkt bakan profil resimlerinin daha fazla dikkat çektiği ve katılımcının bu resimlere daha fazla odaklandığı, (ii) en-boy oranı manipüle edilerek baskınlığı artırılmış resimlerde ise katılımcıların bu resimlere bakmaktan kaçındığı gözlenmiştir. Çalışma ayrıca, katılımcıların baskın görünümlü profile sahip kişileri daha az tercih ettiğini göstermiştir. Katılımcıların tercihleri iki kümeye ayrılmış ve birinci kümedeki katılımcı tercihleri sırası ile 81.5, 91.4 ve 94.9 isabet oranları ile üç ayrı fotoğraf çifti için tahmin edilebilmiştir. Toplanan verilerin analizi, erkek ve kadın katılımcılar arasında sistematik bir farklılık olmadığını ortaya koymuştur.

Keywords

• Online İletişim
• Dikkat
• İnsan Yüzü
• Algı
• Karar Alma
• Kaçınma
• Dominantlık

References

1. Adams, R. B., & Kleck, R. E. (2005). Effects of direct and averted gaze on the perception of facially communicated emotion. Emotion, 5(1), 3–11.
2. Brooks, R., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2002). The importance of eyes: How infants interpret adult looking behavior. Developmental Psychology, 38(6), 958–966.
3. Burgoon, J. K., & Dunbar, N. E. (2000). An interactionist perspective on dominance‐submission: Interpersonal dominance as a dynamic, situationally contingent social skill. Communication Monographs, 67(1), 96– 121.
4. Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A., & Henrich, J. (2013). Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(1), 103–125.
5. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77–83.
6. Foulsham, T., Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Henrich, J., & Kingstone, A. (2010). Gaze allocation in a dynamic situation: Effects of social status and speaking. Cognition, 117(3), 319–331.
7. George, N., & Conty, L. (2008). Facing the gaze of others. Neurophysiologie Clinique, 38(3), 197–207.
8. Gobel, M. S., Kim, H. S., & Richardson, D. C. (2015). The dual function of social gaze. Cognition, 136, 359–364. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall Inc.

9. Henderson, J. M., Nuthmann, A., & Luke, S. G. (2013). Eye movement control during scene viewing: Immediate effects of scene luminance on fixation durations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(2), 318–322.
10. Hietanen, J. K. (1999). Does your gaze direction and head orientation shift my visual attention? NeuroReport, 10(16), 3443–3447.
11. Hietanen, J.K. (2018). Affective eye contact: An integrative review. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 (1587), 1-15.
12. Holland, E., Wolf, E. B., Looser, C., & Cuddy, A. (2017). Visual attention to powerful postures: People avert their gaze from nonverbal dominance displays. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 68, 60–67. iMotions. (2017). iMotions Biometric Research Platform 7.2, iMotions A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark (7.2).
13. Judd, C. M., James-Hawkins, L., Yzerbyt, V., & Kashima, Y. (2005). Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: Understanding the relations between judgments of competence and warmth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 899–913.
14. Keating, C. F. (1985). Gender and the physiognomy of dominance and attractiveness. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48(1), 61–70.
15. Kleinke, C. L. (1986). Gaze and eye contact: A research review. Psychological Bulletin, 100(1), 78.
16. Koç, F., & Özkoçak, V. (2019). Göreli Yüz Genişliği ile Saldırganlık Arasındaki İlişkiler. Paper presented at 4th International Symposium on Innovative Approaches in Social, Human and Administrative Sciences, Samsun, Türkiye, 22-24 November 2019, 327–331.
17. Kramer, R. S. S. (2016). Within-person variability in men’s facial width-to-height ratio. PeerJ, 4, e1801, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1801
18. Kuzmanovic, B., Georgescu, A. L., Eickhoff, S. B., Shah, N. J., Bente, G., Fink, G. R., & Vogeley, K. (2009). Duration matters: Dissociating neural correlates of detection and evaluation of social gaze. NeuroImage, 46(4), 1154–1163.
19. Langner, O., Dotsch, R., Bijlstra, G., Wigboldus, D. H. J., Hawk, S. T., & van Knippenberg, A. (2010). Presentation and validation of the radboud faces database. Cognition & Emotion, 24(8), 1377–1388.
20. Merlhiot, G., Mondillon, L., Méot, A., Dutheil, F., & Mermillod, M. (2021). Facial width-to-height ratio underlies perceived dominance on facial emotional expressions. Personality and Individual Differences, 172, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110583
21. Merriam-Webster. (2019). Merriam-Webster online dictionary. Retrieved November 24, 2019 from https://www. merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ Mileva, V. R., Cowan, M. L., Cobey, K. D., Knowles, K. K., & Little, A. C. (2014). In the face of dominance: Self- perceived and other-perceived dominance are positively associated with facial-width-to-height ratio in men. Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 115–118.
22. Nuthmann, A., Smith, T. J., Engbert, R., & Henderson, J. M. (2010). CRISP: A computational model of fixation durations in scene viewing. Psychological Review, 117(2), 382–405.
23. Özener, B. (2012). Facial width-to-height ratio in a Turkish population is not sexually dimorphic and is unrelated to aggressive behavior. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(3), 169–173.
24. Sarıbay, S. A. (2018). Yüz en-boy oranının psikolojik özellikler,sosyal davranış ve sosyal algıyla ilişkisi. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 21(41), 78–95.
25. Senju, A., & Hasegawa, T. (2005). Direct gaze captures visuospatial attention. Visual Cognition, 12(1), 127–144.
26. Todorov, A. (2008). Evaluating faces on trustworthiness: An extension of systems for recognition of emotions signaling approach/avoidance behaviors. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1124, 208–224.
27. Todorov, A., Said, C. P., Engell, A. D., & Oosterhof, N. N. (2008). Understanding evaluation of faces on social dimensions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(12), 455–460.
28. Wang H., Tong S., Shang J., & Chen W. (2019) The role of gender in the preconscious processing of facial trustworthiness and dominance. Frontiers in Psychology, 10 (2565), 1-12.
29. Weston, E. M., Friday, A. E., & Liò, P. (2007). Biometric evidence that sexual selection has shaped the hominin face. PLoS ONE, 2(8), e710, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000710
30. Wieser, M. J., Pauli, P., Grosseibl, M., Molzow, I., & Mühlberger, A. (2010). Virtual social interactions in social anxiety—the impact of sex, gaze, and interpersonal distance. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(5), 547–554.
31. Wojciszke, B., Bazinska, R., & Jaworski, M. (1998). On the dominance of moral categories in impression formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(12), 1251–1263.
32. Wyer, N. A., & Calvini, G. (2011). Don’t sit so close to me: Unconsciously elicited affect automatically provokes social avoidance. Emotion, 11(5), 1230–1234.
33. Yee, N., Bailenson, J. N., Urbanek, M., Chang, F., & Merget, D. (2007). The unbearable likeness of being digital: The persistence of nonverbal social norms in online virtual environments. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(1), 115–121.
34. Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35(2), 151– 175.
35. Zajonc, R. B. (1984). On the primacy of affect. American Psychologist, 39(2), 117–123.