Advertisement

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 850–855 | Cite as

One is not enough: Group size modulates social gaze-induced object desirability effects

  • Francesca Capozzi
  • Andrew P. Bayliss
  • Marco R. Elena
  • Cristina Becchio
Brief Report

Abstract

Affective evaluations of objects are influenced by the preferences expressed by other people via their gaze direction, so that objects looked at are liked more than objects looked away from. But when can others’ preferences be trusted? Here, we show that group size influences the extent to which individuals tend to conform to others’ gaze preferences. We adopted the conventional gaze-cuing paradigm and modified the design in such a way that some objects were consistently cued by only one face (single-face condition), whereas other objects were consistently cued by several different faces (multiple-faces condition). While response time measures revealed equal gaze-cuing effects for both conditions, a boost in affective evaluation was observed only for objects looked at by several different faces. Objects looked at by a single face were not rated differently than objects looked away from. These findings suggest that observers make use of group size to evaluate the generalizability of the epistemic information conveyed by others’ gaze: Objects looked at are liked more than objects looked away from, but only when they are looked at by multiple faces.

Keywords

Gaze cuing Liking Object evaluation Group size Conformity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013)/ERC grant agreement no. 312919 to CB.

References

  1. Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193(5), 31–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron-Cohen, S., Campbell, R., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Grant, J., & Walker, J. (1995). Are children with autism blind to the mentalistic significance of the eyes? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13(4), 379–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bayliss, A. P., Frischen, A., Fenske, M. J., & Tipper, S. P. (2007). Affective evaluations of objects are influenced by observed gaze direction and emotional expression. Cognition, 104, 644–653.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bayliss, A. P., Paul, M. A., Cannon, P. R., & Tipper, S. P. (2006). Gaze cueing and affective judgments of objects: I like what you look at. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(6), 1061–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bry, C., Treinen, E., Corneille, O., & Yzerbyt, V. (2011). Eye’m lovin’ it! The role of gazing awareness in mimetic desires. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 987–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell-Meiklejohn, D. K., Bach, D. R., Roepstorff, A., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2010). How the opinion of others affects our valuation of objects. Current Biology, 20, 1165–1170.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informative social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 51(3), 629–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ellis, S., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1992). Self as an epistemic authority: Effects on experiential and instructional learning. Social Cognition, 10(4), 357–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frischen, A., Bayliss, A. P., & Tipper, S. P. (2007). Gaze cueing of attention: Visual attention, social cognition, and individual differences. Psychological Bulletin, 133(4), 694–724.Google Scholar
  10. Frischen, A., & Tipper, S. P. (2004). Orienting attention via observed gaze shift evokes longer term inhibitory effects: Implications for social interactions, attention, and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(4), 516–533.Google Scholar
  11. Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (2007). Social cognition in humans. Current Biology, 17, R724–R732.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hodges, B. H., & Geyer, A. L. (2006). A nonconformist account of the Asch experiments: Values, pragmatics, and moral dilemmas. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(2), 2–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hofmann, W., De Houwer, J., Perugini, M., Baeyens, F., & Crombez, G. (2010). Evaluative conditioning in humans: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 390–421.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 192–238). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  15. King, D., Rowe, A., & Leonards, U. (2011). I trust you; hence I like the things you look at: Gaze cueing and sender trustworthiness influence object evaluation. Social Cognition, 29(4), 476–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., & De Grada, E. (2006). Groups as epistemic providers: Need for Closure and the unfolding of group-centrism. Psychological Review, 113(1), 84–100.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kruglanski, A. W., Raviv, A., Bar-Tal, D., Raviv, A., Sharvit, K., Bar, R., Pierro, A., Mannetti, L. (2005). Says who? Epistemic authority effects in social judgment. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 345–390). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
  18. Manera, V., Elena, M. R., Bayliss, A. P., & Becchio, C. (2014). When seeing is more than looking: Intentional gaze modulates object desirability. Emotion, 14(14), 824–832. doi: 10.1037/a0036258.
  19. Shimojo, S., Simion, C., Shimojo, E., & Schieir, C. (2003). Gaze bias reflects and influences preference. Nature Neuroscience, 9, 1–6.Google Scholar
  20. Treinen, E., Corneille, O., & Luypaert, G. (2012). L-eye to me: The combined role of Need for Cognition and facial trustworthiness in mimetic desires. Cognition, 122, 247–251.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. van der Weiden, A., Veling, H., & Aarts, H. (2010). When observing gaze shifts of others enhances object desirability. Emotion, 10(6), 939–943.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francesca Capozzi
    • 1
  • Andrew P. Bayliss
    • 2
  • Marco R. Elena
    • 1
  • Cristina Becchio
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Center for Cognitive Science, Dipartimento di PsicologiaUniversità di TorinoTurinItaly
  2. 2.School of PsychologyUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK
  3. 3.Department of Robotics, Brain, and Cognitive SciencesIstituto Italiano di TecnologiaGenovaItaly

Personalised recommendations